HL Deb 24 July 1934 vol 93 cc1034-49

Consequential and Minor Amendments.

Enactment to be amended.—Amendment.

The principal Act.

Section fifty-seven— In subsection (2), after the words "foot passengers" there shall be inserted the words "and the erection, maintenance, alteration, and removal of traffic signs". In subsection (3), after the word "erection" there shall be inserted the words "provision, maintenance, or operation. In subsection (5), for the words "and (4)", there shall be substituted the words "(4) and (4a)".

Section one hundred and twenty-one— In subsection (2), after the words "while being driven as aforesaid", there shall be inserted the words "or in relation to motor vehicles used for salvage purposes pursuant to Part IX of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894"; and the reference to the provisions of the First Schedule to the principal Act shall be construed as if it included a reference to the provisions of subsection (1) of Section one of this Act.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

My Lords the first Amendment standing in my name is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 6, leave out from the beginning of the line to the end of line 10.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, in the references to Section 57 of the principal Act, after "subsection (2)", to insert "after the words 'removal of' there shall be inserted the words 'footpaths or grass verges by the side of the road and' and." The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I am afraid this Amendment seems a little complicated, but if your Lordships have before you the Road Traffic Act of 1930 you will find it is comparatively simple. I think I can explain it without going too much into technicalities if I read the subsection of the Act of 1930 which I propose to amend. Subsection (2) of Section 57 of the Act of 1930 reads as follows: The expression 'improvement of roads' in the said Part II shall include the following works, that is to say, the erection, lighting, maintenance, alteration and removal of places of refuge in roads, and the construction, lighting, maintenance, alteration, and removal of subways under roads for the use of foot passengers, and advances may he made out of the Road Fund towards the costs incurred by the council of an urban district in connection with the execution of any such works in a county road. It may be that in my Amendment I have not gone far enough, but my object is to enable the Ministry to subscribe to the cost of footpaths and grass verges.

I desire to alter the form of the Amendment as it appears on the Paper by including the words "or grass verges." At present the Ministry have power to subscribe out of the Road Fund to a great many things, but as far as I can make out they have no power to subscribe to the cost of footpaths or grass verges. That seems to me to be quite wrong. This Amendment deals with part of the footpath grievance, and it really is a serious grievance, as I think the noble Earl will probably agree, in many parts of the country. A local authority goes to great expense in improving a road. In a particular case which came under my personal observation they spent thousands of pounds upon the road. The result often is to extend the carriage-way to the very edge of what used to be the whole width of the road and there is no space left for the use of pedestrians or horses. That is really a very serious grievance. In the particular case to which I refer I wrote to the local authority and asked them to change their plans, but they said the cost would be too much, or something of that kind.

Of course, the cost of leaving some kind of footpath either adjoining the road or on the other side of the hedge would be quite inconsiderable compared with the total cost of the work. I think that that ought to be insisted upon. I do not want to say anything offensive about the officials of local authorities, who are admirable people, but they see the traffic question entirely from the point of view of motor drivers. They go about in motor cars—they must do so, or they could not do their work—and they do not see the point of view of foot passengers. In this particular case to which I refer the main road goes from a little hamlet two miles to the larger village where the schools are situated. Therefore the schoolchildren have to go along this road twice a day. I think that is a terrible danger and it must cause great anxiety to the parents and guardians of the children. If a child suffers the slightest absence of mind or at any moment steps a little to the right, that child may be in very serious danger. I beg my noble friend to consider this very carefully. It may be that I have not got the Amendment drafted quite right, but I do urge that power should be given to subscribe from the Road Fund for the construction of footpaths.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 12, after ("(2)") insert ("after the words 'removal of' there shall be inserted the words 'footpaths or grass verges by the side of the road and' and").—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)

EARL HOWE

My Lords, I have very great sympathy with the object of the Amendment but I am afraid I am not very sanguine with regard to the object he has in mind. I have seen adequate and proper footpaths provided and I have seen them absolutely ignored by pedestrians. If footpaths are provided I think the Minister ought to do something to ensure that they are used by pedestrians. There is another point which was not touched on by the noble Viscount, and that is the question of the surfacing of footpaths. In many places where there are footpaths the surface leaves a great deal to be desired, and you really cannot blame the pedestrian if he fails to use the paths under those conditions. Either they have large puddles in them when it is wet or they are very rough and generally unsuitable for foot passenger traffic. If this Amendment is accepted and it leads to an extension of the construction of footpaths, I hope that the Ministry will be able to bring pressure to bear upon local authorities with regard to the kind of footpath provided.

May I put another point? I have very great sympathy with the Amendment which was moved earlier by the noble Earl, Lord Powis, in the interests of horse traffic. I quite agree with what he said. I do not think that half enough attention has been paid by highway authorities to the extraordinarily slippery surfaces of our highways. They affect all forms of traffic. The cyclist, the horse user and the motor car user are all affected. I feel that very much might be done, could be done, and should be done by local authorities to improve the surfaces which they put down on our roads. I have said that I consider that the surfaces are often little better than buttered slides, and it is perfectly true. I am perfectly certain that in many cases accidents occur because of these road surfaces; and we are all interested in the saving of life. While we are on the subject of what might be done with the edges of the roads, what about special tracks for cyclists? You find them in other countries. In fact I do not know how the traffic would go on without them in some countries like Holland, where half the population, or the entire population, seems to live on bicycles. I really do feel that this Amendment is one which should receive our support in the interests of public safety, and that is the reason why I desire to support the noble Viscount.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

My Lords, I am advised that this Amendment is absolutely unnecessary, and that the Minister already has the powers which the noble Viscount desires him to possess. Section 57 (2) of the 1930 Act, which the noble Viscount quoted, has as its object to resolve any doubts that may exist as to whether some types of work come under the general term "improvement of roads." I am advised that no one has ever cast any doubt upon the idea that the provision of footpaths comes within "improvement of roads," and for that reason it is perfectly clear that the Minister now has powers to make grants for the improvement of roads which, amongst other things, includes the provision of footpaths and grass verges as well.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

May I ask my noble friend if he can tell me whether, apart from some big works to a road, the Ministry have ever been asked by a local authority to subscribe from the Road Fund in order to assist in the construction of a footpath by an existing road? That is the real point. It was thought necessary to set out in Section 57 of the 1930 Act a whole lot of works as to which special words had to be inserted in order to give the Minister power to subscribe to them—things like subways; a whole list of them is set out. What struck me in reading the section was: Why was it necessary to do that, and not necessary to insert special words to enable the Minister to subscribe to footpaths? I do not know whether my noble friend could help me about that; but I think that something ought to be done.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

My Lords, I am afraid I am not in a position to give my noble friend an answer specifically to the question he has asked, whether application has been made for a grant from the Road Fund for the making of a footpath alone irrespective of the improvement of a road generally, but as I am advised, it is perfectly within the powers of the Minister to make grants for footpaths just as for those other purposes enumerated in Section 57 (2) of the main Act.

LORD MERRIVALE

My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will consider this a little further. As a matter of construction I should myself have very great doubt whether "improvement of roads necessarily included the provision of footpaths, and my noble and learned friend Lord Cecil will share that doubt. I cannot help thinking that anybody with any practical experience of the administration of the law would agree that such a doubt exists. Now what the noble Earl has told the House is that the intention of the Legislature is that the provision of footpaths shall be included. If that is so, all that will be done by accepting the noble Viscount's Amendment is to add words which upon some view as to the construction of the existing law would be redundant. It is a risk that is very well worth running to my mind, and I hope that the noble Viscount will press his Amendment.

LORD RANKEILLOUR

My Lords, I would ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill what he will lose by accepting this Amendment. If he is right in his construction it will do no harm; if he is wrong a deficiency in the law will be supplied. From the merely Parliamentary point of view, this Bill has to go to another place, so far as Amendments inserted in your Lordships' House are concerned. So far as a legal question is involved, the noble Earl can turn up the matter between now and the consideration of our Amendments in another place. In the circumstances, rather than leave the House and the public in the doubt which has been expressed, surely he can make the position clear, and if he finds on further consideration and legal advice that this is unnecessary the matter can be put right at the last stage of the Bill.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL HOWE moved, in the reference to subsection (3) of Section 57 of the principal Act, to leave out "maintenance or operation" and insert "or maintenance." The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment and the one following it, to insert a proviso as to the cost of operating weighbridges, are moved in the interests of commercial motor and road haulage concerns. The Act of 1930 authorised a grant for the erection of weighbridges, but by this Bill it is proposed to go further. It is proposed that Road Fund money shall be devoted to the maintenance and operation of weighbridges. The interests affected consider that it is absolutely unnecessary. It is, I believe, usual to charge a fee of about a shilling for the use of a weighbridge, and most of the weighbridges, at any rate the ones which are in the more extensively used areas, pay for their own maintenance and upkeep. It is considered to be quite unnecessary that Road Fund money should be expended for this purpose. It is thought, at any rate, by those for whom I speak, that if extra money is required it should be provided, as suggested in my Amendment, by the local authorities. In most cases these weighbridges are self- supporting, and therefore those for whom I speak have taken the view they have.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 19, leave out ("maintenance or operation") and insert ("or maintenance").—(Earl Howe.)

LORD BAYFORD

My Lords, I think this proposal will meet with the most strenuous opposition from the local authorities. It is not true to say that in every case the weighbridge pays its own way.

EARL HOWE

I said in most cases.

LORD BAYFORD

It does not always, and to throw the expense upon the local authorities would be very much resented by those authorities.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

My Lords, perhaps I might explain the matter a little further. Section 57 of the principal Act, as amended by the Third Schedule, will read: Advances may be made out of the Road Fund towards the expenses incurred by any highway authority in the erection, provision, maintenance or operation of weighbridges or other machines for weighing vehicles …. The noble Earl proposes to omit the word "operation", and in his second Amendment proposes that "as far as practicable" the cost of operating the weighbridges shall be met out of charges made for their use. It is important to remember that the section of the principal Act is an enabling provision only. It empowers, but does not require, the Minister to make grants for weighbridges. Weighbridges to-day are of two kinds—fixed and portable. With regard to fixed weighbridges, the Minister has, in the past, under the powers granted by the principal Act, made grants out of the Road Fund towards the initial provision of fixed weighbridges. Local authorities have been responsible for their upkeep, towards which they presumably have applied the sums paid by persons wishing to have their goods weighed. These public weighbridges have been largely used for purposes not connected in any way with the detection of offences.

The portable weighbridge is a modern development and is capable of being carried in a light car or indeed in the sidecar of a motor cycle. It is used primarily for the purpose of securing enforcement of regulations, and fines imposed on con- viction inure ultimately to the Road Fund. The highway authorities appear, therefore, to be justified in asking for some contribution from the Road Fund towards the maintenance and operation of these weighbridges. I hope the noble Earl will not press his Amendment.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, in the references to Section 57 of the principal Act, to insert: after subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsections: '(6) No grant shall be made from the Road Fund in respect of the construction, repair or alteration of any road, or any part thereof, unless provision is made by the authority responsible therefor for a footpath by the side of or near such road, or by the side of or near such part thereof for the use of foot passengers unless the Minister gives a certificate that he is satisfied that in the interests of the safety of the public such a footpath is unnecessary. (7) All such certificates shall be laid before Parliament.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, your Lordships have been good enough to accept the suggestion that the Road Fund shall be able to subscribe to the cost of footpaths and verges. I suggest to your Lordships that we ought to go one step further, and that we ought to say that before assisting any repairs to roads from the Road Fund there should be an inquiry by the Ministry as to whether it is desirable that there should be a footpath provided as part of this improvement. I raised this point four years ago, and the representative of the Government then, the late Earl Russell, certainly gave me to understand—but I must have misunderstood him, because I cannot find anything in the OFFICIAL REPORT to justify my understanding—that in practice the Ministry were in the habit of insisting on footpaths wherever they subscribed to any considerable change in the roads.

That certainly does not appear to be the case in the particular instance to which I have already referred. They certainly did not do it in that case, and if they do it at all they do it very spasmodically. It is true that within five miles from that particular road there is another road, on which there is much less traffic, where considerable alterations have been made, and a footpath, four feet wide, provided on each side of the road for about a quarter of a mile, leading from nowhere to nowhere. Beyond that there is no footpath at either end. Of course that by itself is perfectly useless, but I am suggesting that with the powers which I am proposing it would have been possible for the Ministry to have made a bargain and said: "We will assist you in those costly changes"—as they must have been—"but you must provide, not a footpath on either side, but a good serviceable footpath which shall go right through to the next footpath, which would make a very valuable addition and be of service to the public."

I suggest that before making any grant from the Road Fund the Ministry shall enquire as a matter of routine whether it is necessary to have a footpath, and unless they are satisfied it is not necessary, in the interest of public safety, that a footpath should be made, then they shall say that they cannot provide financial assistance until this point is met. This idea is approved even by the representatives of the Ministry of Transport, because I think I cited on the Second Reading a speech made by an engineer of the Ministry, in which he said in so many words that nothing was more necessary than the provision of footpaths, and that it was the greatest nonsense to say that footpaths were not used. On the contrary, when footpaths are provided experience in urban and semi-urban districts shows that the public soon begin to use them. I am satisfied from observation that many of the public do use the footpaths, and particularly children who have been instructed by their parents to use them. I hope my noble friend will accept this and the next Amendment, which would make an important and valuable change in the law as it is at the present moment.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 34, at end, insert the said new subsections (6) and (7).—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)

LORD BAYFORD

My Lords, surely this is carrying a good idea a great deal too far. The words are: No grant shall be made from the Road Fund in respect of the construction, repair, or alteration of any road or any part thereof, unless provision is made … for a footpath, and the Minister is to make an inquiry in every case. Where is he going to find the staff to make the tens of thousands of inquiries he would have to make all over the country? There are not a quarter of the roads in my part of the country which have footpaths, and every one of those roads, except the very minor roads, are eligible for grants. The county council has to repair all those roads every year. Before it puts its estimate through for the repair of each one of these roads, is a separate inquiry to be held by the Ministry of Transport in order to say whether it is necessary to have a footpath there or not? Surely the idea is absurd. I do not even want to argue the case whether more footpaths are desirable or necessary or not. From personal observation I know that there is great difficulty in getting people to use the footpaths when they are there. That may not be so in the highly sophisticated district in which my noble friend lives, but in our more remote portions of the West Country he must take my word that it is true. And, really, to give all this trouble and expense to the Ministry to hold these thousands of inquiries that would be necessary seems to me to be an absolutely impracticable proposition.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)

My Lords, I feel a good deal of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Cecil in his desire to increase the number of footpaths because, like others of your Lordships, my experience is that when a footpath is there it is used. I was living down in Devonshire during the winter, and there was a road past my house, with a footpath along it. I do not think I ever saw people walking off the footpath. They always used the footpath, and very wisely so, because the place was infested with motor cars. May I ask my noble friend Lord Cecil whether his proposal is not this? The road authority goes to the Minister and asks for assistance from the Road Fund. The Minister then says: "Are you sure you do not want a footpath? Ought you not to have a footpath?" The road authority says, "No." The Minister says, "I will come and look at it," and afterwards he says he thinks there ought to be a footpath in order to safeguard the public. The local authority says: "No, we will not construct a footpath." Then the Minister says: "Very well then, you must pay for the road yourself." I think that is all there is in my noble friend's proposal, and I think it is a very reasonable proposal. I do not see why there should be so many inquiries. It seems to me that the Minister who knows his roads will say that a footpath ought to be there, and it is not probable that the local authority would say he does not know his business.

LORD MARLEY

My Lords, I hope the Ministry will accept this Amendment. The idea of having countless inquiries is clearly absurd, because in no cases are grants made without an inquiry to-day by the Minister. Therefore there is no question of any expense in the inquiry. We hear of little lengths of footpaths, 200 or 300 yards long, ending in nothing and beginning in nothing. How can people in the country be taught to use the footpaths when either the footpaths are not there to use, or they only proceed for a few hundred yards and then stop, so that people have to go into the road again? Of course, they are not learning to use the footpaths. The object of the Amendment is to secure that there shall be footpaths in all these country roads, and I hope the Minister will accept it.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

My Lords, the Lord Chairman was not quite right in his description of what occurs. It is perfectly true that, when a highway authority wants a grant from the Road Fund for improvements, the divisional road engineer must decide as the result of his experience whether it is an improvement which can be recognised as grant-earning or not. It is perfectly true he would go to the place and might say that it was a place where they ought to have a footpath, and the local authority might say: "No, we do not think so." Then the Minister would say: "Very well, we will give you nothing from the Road Fund." But that is not all that the noble Viscount's Amendment does. It goes somewhat further than that. It says that on every occasion when a grant is made, without a footpath being included in the improvement, a certificate would have to be given by the Minister to the effect that this was not an instance where it was necessary or desirable to have a footpath, and that all these certificates should be laid upon the Tables of the two Houses of Parliament. This is a matter which is entirely within the discretion of the Minister at the present moment. He can now refuse to make a grant out of the Road Fund in any instance where a highway authority refuses to make a footpath and he thinks it ought to be made; and he does do that. The only effect of this Amendment is to require these certificates to be laid on the Tables of the two Houses.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

No.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

I think that is so, and I cannot conceive that that is really necessary.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

My Lords, I very much hope the Government will reconsider their attitude. I really think my Amendment is more reasonable than they suggest. The point is this. Hero is this tremendous slaughter on the roads. Unquestionably if you could get the pedestrian to use footpaths in the country districts you would diminish that slaughter very greatly. There is not any doubt, I believe, in the mind of any member of the House as to this. The question is what can we do as a branch of the Legislature to forward that idea. One thing we can do is to call the attention of the Ministry of Transport to this matter and to ask them to consider carefully, not any question of expense or anything of that kind, but solely this question: Is a footpath necessary for the safety of the public? That is the one question they ought to consider under my Amendment. Everything else would be left to their discretion, as it is now, but they must be satisfied that a footpath is not necessary in the public interest and for public safety before they make their grant. I really do not think that is a very unreasonable request to make. The noble

Lord, Lord Bayford, who on these subjects speaks with great authority, says there will be endless difficulties: you would have to have elaborate inquiries in every part of the country. I really think that is not so. As the noble Earl, Lord Plymouth, has pointed out the divisional engineer has to report, and one of his standing instructions would be to see whether it was not necessary in the interest of public safety to have a footpath. It would not add very greatly to the complication of the present proceedings. I feel that I must press my Amendment.

LORD MERRIVALE

My Lords, I do not like the drafting of my noble friend Lord Cecil; on the other hand, as far as the object of the Amendment is concerned I cannot help thinking that many people in many parts of the country know that what is proposed is very much in the interest of the most helpless people in the country, and it is very desirable that there should be footpaths. Footpaths have been wiped out to a great extent in the course of the last forty or fifty years. It is astonishing to go round the countryside which one knew years ago and to see how footpaths have been obliterated. What the noble Viscount says in his Amendment is: "Let the responsible person consider, if you are going to spend money upon road-making, whether a footpath is necessary as part of that work you are going to do." So far as the drafting is concerned, it can be dealt with in another place, but the principle, I feel sure, is a most wholesome principle.

On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 24.

CONTENTS.
Onslow, E. Clwyd, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Powis, E. Dickinson, L. Rankeillour, L.
Gainford, L. Rhayader, L.
Cecil of Chelwood, V. [Teller.] Howard of Glossop, L. Sanderson, L.
Marley, L. Sandhurst, L.
Knutsford, V. Merrivale, L. [Teller.] Strabolgi, L.
Tredegar, V.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.) Howe, E. Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)
Lucan, E. [Teller.]
Albemarle, E. Mar and kellie, E. FitzAlan of Derwent, V.
De La Warr, E. Plymouth, E. Hailsham, V.
Feversham, E. Stanhope, E.
Bayford, L. Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.] Stonehaven, L.
Cobham, L. Jessel, L. Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.
de Clifford, L. Redesdale, L.
Fairfax of Cameron, L. Rockley, L. Templemore, L.
Wakehurst, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD moved, in the references to the principal Act, to insert "Section fifty-eight, leave out 'they shall deem it.'" The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which I quite conceive is of less importance than the one which we have just decided. The object of it is to leave out the words "they shall deem it" where they occur in Section 58 of the principal Act. At present the clause runs thus: It is hereby declared to be the duty of a highway authority to provide wherever they shall deem it necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation of foot passengers … And then again— … wherever they shall deem it necessary or desirable for the safety or accommodation of ridden horses and driven livestock … I venture to suggest that what we ought to have are the words "wherever it is necessary," not "wherever they shall deem it necessary." The effect would be that if they did not do it it would be possible to proceed to the courts and ask the courts, in any particular case where there was great dereliction of duty, to review the matter, as, of course, you can review it in many cases of local government where the local authorities fail to carry out their duties. That is the suggestion I have to make. It is not one that brooks any considerable argument. I do not know whether the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment, but I trust they will be able to do that little thing for us if they will not do more.

Amendment moved— Page 42, line 34, at end insert "section fifty-eight, leave out 'they shall deem it'").—(Viscount Cecil of Chelwood.)

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

My Lords, I hope the noble Viscount will not press this Amendment. I dealt with this particular question somewhat fully on the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Powys, and I pointed out that it is the local authority, the county council, which is the highway authority and which is in the end responsible in these cases.

As a matter of fact, in my view, the Minister has the powers already which my noble friend wishes him to have, and the effect of this Amendment would, I venture to say, be nil. At the same time you would be relieving the highway authorities of responsibilities which are properly theirs and placing those responsibilities on the shoulders of the Minister. That, in effect, is what the Amendment would do. Instead of leaving it to the highway authorities to decide whether it is necessary or not, it would place the onus of deciding on the shoulders of the Minister.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

Surely my noble friend is wrong, if he will allow me to say so. If you say, "You will have to do something if you think it is necessary," it is a complete answer for the local authority to say, "We do not think it is necessary." The Minister might be ever so clear that it is necessary and yet he would have no remedy.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

The remedy is not to make a grant from the Road Fund.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

That may be, but there may be the strongest possible feeling, as there is in the locality where I live, that they ought to have more power and they have no remedy. I do not say that in that particular case it would be possible to bring the matter to the courts, but the fact that it might be possible to proceed to the courts does make the official approach to these questions entirely different. They have to consider whether this is actually necessary, and they must consider, therefore, not only what their surveyor tells them, but whether the ordinary man in the street will think it is necessary. I hope my noble friend will accept the Amendment. If he is right and the effect will be nil, it will do no harm to accept. I am satisfied he is wrong, but that, naturally, he cannot believe. Therefore from his own point of view it will have no effect to accept the Amendment. From my point of view it will have great effect. I beg my noble friend to accept. It is not, as I say, a matter of the same importance as the Amendment which has just been rejected, but nevertheless it is a matter of considerable importance, and I do hope the noble Earl will see his way to accept it.

LORD BAYFORD

My Lords, I would like to remind my noble friend before he considers giving way to this, that the way it will be considered by local authorities is that it is taking the power of decision which now belongs to them out of their hands and putting it in the hands of the Ministry. To that they will most certainly object.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

My Lords, the next Amendment in my name is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 44, line 31, leave out ("subsection (1) of Section one of this Act)" and insert ("any enactment or of any statuory rule or order, imposing a speed limit on motor vehicles").—(The Earl of Plymouth.)