§ 2.41 p.m.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask His Majesty's Government under what Statute or regulation a summons can be issued for infringement in the Royal Parks of:
- (1) the speed limit of 20 miles per hour;
- (2) any provision of the Road Traffic Acts or any regulation made thereunder or any provision of any other Act or regulation for which the driver of a vehicle on the public highway would be liable.]
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER)My Lords, I will answer the noble Lord's question in two parts. First, a summons for infringement of the speed limit of 20 miles per hour in the Royal Parks can be issued under the Parks Regulation Acts of 1872 and 1926, by which the Minister of Works is empowered to make regulations for securing proper management of the parks. A regulation imposing a speed limit of 20 miles per hour on motor vehicles has been in force ever since 1930. As regards the second part of the noble Lord's question, I am advised that it raises a number of points of some difficulty, which need careful consideration, and upon which advice is now being taken. I regret that I am not yet in a 760 position to give a full reply, but I will inform the noble Lord as soon as I am able to do so.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, while it may be difficult to extend the courtesy of thanking the noble Earl, at least I can offer him my complete and utter sympathy. I knew when I put the Question down that the whole subject bristles with difficulties. I must say that I am sorry the Department for whom the noble Earl is now speaking did not give the long and careful consideration that they now find it necessary to give before they prepared the answer given to the Question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, some two or three weeks ago. I do not want to embarrass the noble Earl by pressing the subject now, but may I ask him whether, in the consideration which is going to be given and which it is necessary should be given to clarify this position, he will have reconsidered the whole question of pedestrian crossings in the Royal Parks, so that the King's subjects can have in the Royal Parks the same amount of protection which His Majesty's Government think it necessary for them to have on the highway and also, since the noble Earl who answered Lord Howe's Question said that one of the prime reasons for the Royal Parks was "for the rest of the populace," so that that rest will not be too permanent?
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERMy Lords, I think I can give the noble Lord the assurance that the question of pedestrian crossings in the Royal Parks will certainly have to be considered.
§ EARL HOWEMy Lords, the answer previously given to my Question regarding pedestrian crossings in the Royal Parks said that the matter would be referred to the noble Earl who has just replied. May I ask whether he will bear in mind that, in such a drive as the East Carriage Drive in Hyde Park, or the Mall, there is a distance of about thirty to forty feet between the kerb and the few refuges that exist, and that motor vehicles can and sometimes do, come along three or four abreast? It is a matter of the gravest possible difficulty for pedestrians using those crossings to know when they can cross them with reasonable safety to themselves and to the motor traffic as well. Will the noble Earl see that, if it is at all possible, we have some pedestrian crossings and also a few more refuges?
§ THE EARL OF MUNSTERMy Lords, I think I can give the noble Earl the same assurance that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that this matter will be considered afresh.