Clause 5.—(ROAD-SAFETY INFORMATION AND ROAD TRAINING.) (Hansard, 30 July 1956)

§ The Lord Advocate (Mr. W. R. Milligan)
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is one of a number of Amendments which the House will find at later stages in the Bill. In the immediate foreground there are the Amendments in line 32, and in Clause 6, page 6, line 19. The Amendments are designed to secure that references throughout the Bill to the Minister should include, where Scottish interests are concerned, references either to the Secretary of State for Scotland or to both the Minister and the Secretary of State.
I might shortly explain why it is that the Amendments only now appear on the Order Paper. The Bill was introduced in June, 1955, and since that date the Transfer of Functions Order, 1955, has been made. That Order, as the House knows, transfers certain functions in regard to roads, bridges and ferries from the Minister to the Secretary of State for Scotland. It would have been possible, of course, at various stages to have inserted the relevant Scottish applications piecemeal, but I think that it is for the convenience of the House and in accordance with standard practice that Amendments of this kind should be taken en bloc towards the end of the day in case further Amendments should be brought in.

§ Captain Duncan
I am grateful to the Lord Advocate for rising and explaining the reasons for the Amendment which he is asking us to agree with the Lords about. There is one point on subsection (3) about which I am not clear in taking all these three Amendments together. I can understand the first two subsections, but subsection (3) does not appear to be the appropriate one. I wonder why? Are 1016 there special arrangements in England between the Ministry of Transport and the English local authorities which do not apply to the Scottish local authorities? As the hon. Gentleman the Member for Enfield. East (Mr. Ernest Davies) said earlier, we have not had much chance to look at these voluminous Amendments, and coming to the matter in this way we are rather groping to find the truth rather than to criticise it. Therefore, I shall be grateful if the Lord Advocate will answer my question.

§ The Lord Advocate
Had I been able to do so, I should like very much to answer my hon. and gallant Friend in detail. However, I can assure him that whereas he possibly has not had as much opportunity as he would have liked to study these Amendments in detail, they have been under a Scottish microscope. I can assure him that we are satisfied that there is no reason why any further Amendment should be made.

§ Mr. Molson
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
It was as a result of representations made from the other side of the House that we included a provision that in cases where a minor local authority was organising satisfactory road safety arrangements, it should be excluded from the obligation to contribute towards the cost in the case of the county council. On Report the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), and one or two other hon. Members, urged that an exception should be made in the case of the London County Council. I then undertook to look at the matter again.
We have gone into it, and the attitude of the Metropolitan Boroughs has changed. Their original view was that an exception should not be made in the case of the London County Council, but they are now agreeable to that being 1017 done. Therefore, it appeared to us that, on balance, it was better to exclude the L.C.C. from the operation of a principle which elsewhere we believe to be equitable and fair. It is to give effect to that change in our intentions that this Amendment has been included in another place.