§ 2.13 p.m.
§ Further considered on Report (according to Order).
§ Clause 45 [Amendments as to pedestrian crossings]:
§
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after subsection (4) to insert:
() The powers of the Minister to make regulations under the said section eighteen shall include a power to make regulations requiring the provision at pedestrian crossings controlled by traffic light signals of light signals to indicate when pedestrians shall not use such pedestrian crossings.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of my Amendment is to attempt to get into the Bill something more specific than is contained in it at present with regard to the direction of pedestrians at crossings which carry heavy traffic. During the early stages of the passage of this Bill through your Lordships' House I have ventured to make some observations upon the necessity in this country for attempting to control the behaviour of pedestrians. In my view, one of the marked advances that America shows over this country in traffic control is the fact that pedestrians have been disciplined by various forces, particularly the "pay as you err" principle, under which they can be stopped in a number of States and cities of America for crossing the road other than at a regulated intersection where there are all-red phases of traffic lights to stop the traffic, followed by a large flashing sign which says either "Walk", when pedestrians cross in perfect safety, or "Don't walk", when they stop. If they do not stop, retribution can come to them in two ways—either by the traffic that is crossing or by the street "cop" who says, "A dollar".
§ I do not seek to go as far as that, but I think local authorities in this country have been very remiss in not giving pedestrians more encouragement, and 1287 more instruction on how to cross some of our crowded streets. The Government of the day—not only this Government but other Governments—have always set their faces against pedestrians honouring traffic lights. Therefore, what do we find? We find the green light for traffic with pedestrians going across the road, as the noble Earl Lord Howe said on Tuesday, to the great danger to themselves and everybody else. What I want to do is to encourage the Government, either by regulation or by some insistence, to call upon local authorities, at busy intersections and pedestrian crossings, to put all-red phases of traffic lights coupled with directions to pedestrians, saying either "Cross now or "Don't cross", or "Walk" or "Don't Walk"—I do not mind what the words are, so long as the lights are there.
§ I should also like to impress upon the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who I understand is going to reply on behalf of the Government, that this would make a marked impact upon the police. At present, we see the police in a great many of our cities and towns having to conduct the traffic operations where pedestrian crossings are situated, simply because the crossings are so packed with pedestrians that if the pedestrians were not prevented at intervals from crossing, the traffic would never flow at all. On every one of those pedestrian crossings where there is a thick mass of pedestrian traffic a policeman has to be stationed, at great expense, whereas it could be done by traffic control lights. I do not think I need say any more to make the purpose of my Amendment clear. I hope the Government will do something, because this is important. May I make one final point? American practice has proved beyond any argument that all-red phases and the proper control of pedestrians across these intersections by the use of lights speeds up, rather than slows down, traffic. Nothing slows down traffic more than people rushing across the road at odd times and in odd places. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 31, at end insert the said subsection,—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
§ EARL HOWEMy Lords, I should be the last person to wish to place unnecessary control upon the individual, were it 1288 not for the question of road safety, to which practically every Member of this House has paid lip service from time to time. The question raised in this Amendment has a very great bearing on road safety. I should like to give your Lordships illustrations of what I mean. Subject to the policeman holding up the traffic for them, pedestrians can go across at Hyde Park Corner. I believe I am right in saying that Hyde Park Corner has the greatest concentration of traffic in the twenty-four hours in this or in any other country in the world. But pedestrians go across, as they have a perfect right to do so; and one would hesitate to interfere with any individual. But at the same time there has to be considered the point of view of public safety. On the south-east side of Hyde Park Corner, close to the Constitution Hill Arch, there are about eight different lines of traffic, some of them going into the roundabout system and proceeding to Knightsbridge, others going down in the direction of Piccadilly. They are dependent upon the policeman; the policeman has momentarily to hold up the traffic for them. It would not be making an extravagant demand on the average pedestrian who goes across to say, "Could you not walk round to the left, if you are going from Constitution Hill, and cross over to the other side of Grosvenor Gardens, and so get across that way to Hyde Park?" That is one aspect of the matter.
Take another instance which your Lordships must know as well as I do—Western Avenue. There are a number of pedestrian bridges over Western Avenue. I happen to live out of London in that direction and I frequently have to go in and out of London that way. I have yet to see a pedestrian make use of one of those bridges. I assure your Lordships I am not exaggerating; I have yet to see a pedestrian go across any of those bridges. On the way out of Western Avenue there are pedestrian-con- trolled lights. There are pedestrian-controlled lights also at New Cross, and very good they are; I think they are a very good way of dealing with pedestrian traffic. They are far better, probably, than the bridges, which the pedestrians simply will not use. The pedestrian must accept a certain amount of regulation. All other traffic units have to do it. I remember before the war walking about 1289 in Berlin and coming to some traffic lights, and I inadvertently crossed against the lights. The policeman came up and took a mark off me. He was quite right. I deserved to forfeit that mark, because I had been idiotic and crossed against the lights. I did not know it was a regulation.
This question of pedestrian crossings is very important. I am one of the people who think the zebra crossing is one of the finest things we have had in years in traffic regulation in this country, and on the whole it works. Is it not really pathetic? In Piccadilly there are a number of zebra crossings, and yet one sees pedestrians launching out into the middle of the traffic, when within a few yards there is a zebra crossing and they are making no use of it. They have a perfect right to do it: nobody can say them nay. On the other hand, all other traffic units, if they disregard the regulations for the use of zebra crossings, are likely to be "had up". I well know the view of the Pedestrians' Association on this matter. It really should be put to the Pedestrians' Association, whether it would not be better, in their own interests, for pedestrians to accept a certain amount of regulation rather than run the appalling risks which many of them do.
In your Lordships' House the other day I mentioned Piccadilly Circus. It is crazy—it really is—for the pedestrian to launch out into the middle of that concentration of traffic and make no use of probably one of the finest subway systems—and one of the very few; I wish we had more—which exist in this country. But there it is. Again, take Charing Cross at the rush hour: if your Lordships want to see hairbreadth escapes by the dozen and more, go and stand outside Charing Cross Station at rush hour. It seems to me quite idiotic to allow that state of affairs to go on. Therefore I most strongly support the noble Lord in the Amendment he has moved.
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, I think we all have considerable sympathy for the point of view which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has put forward. Jay-walkers and those who plunge out without taking proper notice either into the road or against the signals are an appalling nuisance and undoubtedly a major cause of traffic mishap.
1290 On the other hand, I can go some way towards putting the noble Lord's mind at rest in this matter, in which we are completely at one with him. The Minister already has powers which go a long way towards meeting the point in the noble Lord's Amendment. He has power under Section 48 to prescribe the kind of light signals referred to in the noble Lord's Amendment, although I admit it is not obligator:, on pedestrians to obey them. Furthermore, provision is made in this Bill to give the Minister power to issue directions requiring the placing of a traffic sign in a particular place. Her Majesty's Government do not consider that powers to require the general provision of light signals of this kind are needed. Pedestrian volume may not always justify the additional expense and delay to traffic; the layout of road junctions and the position of the signals and crossings also have to be taken into account in determining whether pedestrian light signals are desirable.
Traffic light installations are subject to scrutiny in the Ministry of Transport before they are approved, and it is normal practice to consider pedestrian need at that stage. There is no difficulty in obtaining agreement of highway authorities to the inclusion of pedestrian signals where these are found to be necessary. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, knows, experiments with two kinds of pedestrian light signals are being carried out in Slough. In the light of the results at Slough, my right honourable friend the Minister intends to re-examine the scale and uses of pedestrian light signals in this country, but he feels that further powers are not needed.
We now come to the difficult question of compulsion. The noble Lord mentioned America, and Lord Howe has told us how he was fined a mark in Germany. We are not going quite so far as giving the police here power to fine us on the spot. We are now up against a practical problem. We have all I think—I certainlyhave—a guilty conscience in this matter; I cannot pretend that I have not occasionally "popped across" against the signals. How are we to enforce it? The trouble is you must have police there or very near, or rely on everybody standing absolutely still when the road is empty, keeping his conscience in the right place and not going against the lights even if the road is empty. That is the difficulty 1291 I am putting to the noble Lord and I am sure he appreciates it.
I am not closing the Government's mind to the noble Lord's suggestion; we will consider carefully in these experiments how we can further improve the arrangements to meet what is, as the noble Lord describes it, a serious menace to road safety. I cannot go so far as to say that I should like to see the American and German systems introduced here. The American system, with geometrical crossings and evenly spaced lights, is much easier than ours can be in the uneven streets of England. But we will carefully consider the matter. I can also assure the noble Lord that if any further step is needed along the lines he has suggested, my right honourable friend the Minister is quite content that he already has under this Bill and the existing law the powers to do what is necessary.
§ LORD MANCROFTPedestrian bridges do not really arise under this Amendment on the subject of lights. I will take careful note of what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has said, and I will certainly bring his point to my right honourable friend's attention.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI am grateful to the noble Lord. I knew when I put the Amendment down that the Minister has these powers. What I wanted to do was to try to reinforce the Minister and encourage him to use them a little more forcefully than he is doing at the present time. I know, also, that general application, as the noble Lord rightly says, will be out of the question. But there are places where it could be applied. On the Second Reading I drew attention in the House to one place in the middle of Oxford, Carfax, where there has been an all-red phase of traffic lights for two years. But nobody knows of it, and if you said to the ordinary pedestrian in Oxford, "Do you know that there is an all-red phase in the middle of Oxford?" he would think the university had gone Bolshevik or Communist. The people there have not the faintest idea of it.
§ LORD MANCROFTI crossed it last night and did not know it.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHThere you are; an intelligent Minister of the Crown, who answers for the Ministry of Transport, does not know it is there. It has been there for two years, and yet people scuttle backwards and forwards like frightened chickens in and out of the traffic. If there were a "Walk" or "Do not walk" or a "Cross now" sign, I do not think the noble Lord need have any fear about enforcement. The British public are really a law-abiding lot of citizens, and if you give them directions they will follow them. But if you do not give them directions you cannot expect them to find out for themselves. The dear old lady with a shopping basket does not know what an "all-red phase" is. But if she sees a sign "Don't cross" she stops. I hope that the noble Lord will bring this home very forcibly to his right honourable friend. Let us have some action in the future instead of expressions of pious hope. With the assurance which the noble Lord has given that he will do this, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF W1LLINGDONMy Lords, before this Amendment is withdrawn, may I ask the Minister a question? Some of us on the Back Benches do not understand what an "all-red phase" is. Could he tell us?
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, perhaps I might answer that question. An "all-red phase" is a period during which the four traffic lights at a road intersection are all red at the same time. They can be all red for, let us say, fifteen seconds or half a minute, according to how they are adjusted. While the red lights are on, all traffic at the crossroads stands still to give pedestrians the opportunity of crossing. As matters are now, the pedestrians are apt to stand still, instead of crossing, because they do not know what it all means. If they had this sign telling pedestrians to cross while vehicular traffic was stationary, the risk of accidents would be reduced to negligible proportions.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1293§ Clause 46 [Appeals relating to road service licences]:
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (THE EARL OF SELKIRK)My Lords, this Amendment is a matter of Scottish application. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 8, after ("district") insert ("in England or Wales, or any county or town council in Scotland").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 2.33 p.m.
§
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after Clause 49 to insert the following new clause:
. The Minister may make regulations prescribing conditions for the manufacture of helmets to be worn by the drivers of motor vehicles and it shall be an offence to manufacture or sell a helmet not complying with the specifications required by such regulations.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have put down this Amendment to make yet another attempt to stem, even in some small way, the terrible toll of motor cycle accidents. Statistics show that 50,000 motor-cyclists are killed or injured on the roads of this country in the course of a year. That is the highest percentage in connection with any type of vehicular traffic. The appalling thing is that when a motor cyclists is involved in an accident, it usually has very serious consequences, because he has no stability to prevent himself from being flung to the ground; and when he is flung to the ground, all too often the most vulnerable part of his anatomy, his head, comes into violent contact with it. Attempts have been made to make the use of crash helmets by motor cyclists compulsory. I myself have been swayed in that direction. I am swayed away from it owing to the difficulties, but I am fast being swayed back again. What has swayed me back again is the feeling I have that we must do something. It is all very well to adopt the attitude which was adopted by a noble Lord when we were discussing pedestrians. He said that pedestrians should have the right to cross roads whenever they liked.
§ I do not believe that we can afford this terrible toll among motor cyclists, who include some of the best of the youth that we have in this country. We cannot stand by and see them killed in this way. I thought that I might persuade the Government to go one step in the way of 1294 compulsion, and the step I want them to take is to ensure that the efforts which everyone—including the Government—is making to persuade motor cyclists to wear crash helmets shall not be nullified by allowing them to wear some of the wretched things which are put on the market to-clay.
§
I was staggered when I read in the Daily Telegraph (I rely on the Daily Telegraph for my information in this connection) of an incident at the annual meeting of the British Medical Association at Brighton on July 6. A well-known Harley Street surgeon walked on to the platform wearing one of these helmets, and pointed out that one little "bash" on that helmet and the whole thing could tear in two. And it did. It was made of cardboard. I was also affrighted to see that this helmet (the report in the Daily Telegraph goes on to say this)
was sold as Governmert surplus stock
§
It was also stated that these helmets had been worn by paratroopers, tank men, despatch riders, et cetera. The laboratory to which the British Medical Association sent these surplus, or allegedly surplus, Government helmets said that they were absolutely useless. Really, if you are going to persuade young people to wear crash helmets you must expect them to be a little more vent uresorne than if you do not. What is the good of making them venturesome and then giving them something that is no protection whatsoever? There was another point in this report from which I am quoting. This well-known Harley Street surgeon said that 1,800 hospital beds were occupied all the time by motor cycle casualties at a cost of £10 million a year. That is a staggering figure. The report goes on to say that this surgeon said—
it would be cheaper to give a good helmet with every motor cycle than to charge tax.
§ I entirely agree. The noble Lord might persuade his right honoarable friend the Chancellor of the Exchever to do something about that, but that is not the purpose of my Amendment.
§ I cannot think of anyone other than the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation who could come into this matter, because they are the Ministry who have responsibility in this connection. I want to ensure that they will see that no helmet is sold on the market unless it comes up to a certain standard—whether it is the 1295 standard of the British Standards Institution (which I think would be very appropriate) or the Road Research Laboratory I leave to the Government. If everyone who wanted to buy a helmet for use when riding a motor cycle was well aware that unless it had an accepted standards mark upon it it would not be a proper helmet to buy, I think that might go some way in the direction we all desire to go. The wording of my Amendment may be faulty, but I do not think the noble Lord opposite will quarrel with my intention—indeed. I hope that he will be sympathetic. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 49, insert the said new clause. — (Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
LORD TEYNHAMMy Lords, I think there is a great deal to be said in favour of this Amendment. These helmets certainly assist in the protection of motor cyclists from serious injury, but they must be of efficient construction. I might add that the helmets used by the A.A. patrols are the result of very long experiment, not only by the A.A. but also in conjunction with the Road Research Laboratory. I suggest that the specification for these helmets should be rigid and rigorously applied: that is absolutely essential.
§ LORD AMULREEMy Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of this Amendment, because I was most shocked at the report I read—not in the Daily Telegraph but in The Times, which carried a very good report—of the passage at the meeting of the British Medical Association to which Lord Lucas of Chilworth has referred. It seems to me that if the Government could apply to the British Standards Institution for a standard for a crash helmet which they could enforce, such a step would have excellent results. There is a good precedent for the enforcement of such a standard. When a Bill which I had the honour to introduce in your Lordships' House on Second Reading, dealing with electric fire guards, was under discussion it was agreed that no electric fire ought to be sold without one of the standard fire guards approved by the British Standards Institution. I should like to see a similar provision applied to the manufacture of crash helmets. Some manufacturers I know do put a good crash helmet on the market, but some of them are not 1296 so good. They are made of shoddy material, and are little more than death traps for any young man or woman motor cyclist who may wear one.
§ EARL HOWEMy Lords, here is a real opportunity for noble Lords who are interested in road safety to get something done. The invasion of the "Vespa". and other motor cycles of that type, has led to a vast increase in the motor cycling population on the roads. We have more motor cycles on the roads in this country than they have in America—so here is a question on which we shall not have to go to America to get the answer. It is not the slightest use having a crash hat unless it is a crash hat and will do what it is supposed to do. In motor racing it has been laid down by the international authority that all drivers must wear crash hats. That order was hotly contested and was not at all popular, but it was made: and the crash hats used in motor racing to-day are, on the whole, extremely good and doing their work. If the authority in this matter, whether it be the Road Research Board, the British Standards Institution or any other body, want any other information about these crash hats they only have to ask for it. It is vital that when a crash hat is placed on the market, it should be of an approved pattern and should be marked so that the individual purchasing it may know that he is really buying something useful and not a bit of cardboard.
The motoring organisations have done their part in helping this matter along. Both the R.A.C. and the A.A. have all their patrols wearing crash hats, and I think that the sort of crash hats they wear would be a great deal better than the average hat sold in the shops, though it may not be the last word. If it is not, no doubt the motoring organisations will improve it; but for the moment it is a good one and will give the Government a good idea of what is a reasonably good crash hat so far as knowledge goes at the moment. I hope that everybody will understand that what is worn must be a proper crash hat: it is no use selling bits of cardboard to people. I strongly support the noble Lord's Amendment.
§ LORD HADEN-GUESTMy Lords, I should like to say a word, as a doctor with long experience. I think that this is a good opportunity for taking action. The vivid demonstration given at the 1297 British Medical Association was reported in the Press all over the country and has impressed itself on the public. I think we shall find that a large proportion, if not all, of the medical profession would back up any action on the lines suggested in my noble friend's Amendment.
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, this is a most important matter. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and those noble Lords who have supported him. I need only quote to your Lordships the examples of the Army, who made the wearing of crash helmets compulsory a long time ago, and the police, who followed suit very soon afterwards, to convince your Lordships that the Government wholeheartedly support the idea behind this Amendment. It would be ideal to have a guaranteed helmet. How this faulty one, which came under criticism from the B.M.A., got into circulation is not clear at the moment; we are investigating the point with some energy.
I doubt whether it would do if we tried to make some arrangement whereby the British Standards Institution helmet should be the only one available; there are obvious difficulties there. My noble friend Lord Selkirk and I have been carrying out a few shopping inquiries, and we found that the reputable shops we have been into stock only the B.S.I. helmet, which has a kite trade mark on it, and that they would not dream of selling anything else. That does not cover the whole field, so I propose to accept the principle of the noble Lord's Amendment, though not the actual words, because there is a technical difficulty about "motor vehicles." I think we want to confine it to motor bicycles. Again I am sorry to tell the noble Lord that I cannot accept his drafting, but I do not blame him, knowing how difficult it is to draft such an Amendment. We will try to draft an Amendment which will give him exactly what he wants.
I think it is right that we should go this long way to show how much the Government want people to appreciate that they should wear guaranteed, or guaranteeable, crash helmets. I think all noble Lords will agree that many more young people are wearing crash helmets, but this Amendment will go a good deal further. One remark which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, made frightened me 1298 a little. He talked about "venturesome young men". I hope that young men will not think, once they are wearing a guaranteed B.S.I. crash helmet, that it will be safe for them to go charging into a brick wall at fifty miles an hour. I hope we are not going to put such ideas into people's heads, but that they will be encouraged to take more care on their motor bicycles, even though they are wearing crash helmets. I assure the noble Lord that when we come to present the Amendment that we are drafting, he will find that it will go the whole way to meet the sensible and valid point he has made.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. As regards drafting, I use the words "motor vehicles" because in the traffic acts motor cycles are included in vehicles. One illuminating thing the noble Lord said was that the B.S.I. have a crash helmet. I did not know that, and I think that the average person who goes along the street does not know that it is possible to buy one I am also glad that the noble Lord has said that the alleged faulty helmet, which is only a fair sample of Government surplus stock, is being inquired into, because this must cause great distress and disturbance of mind to the hundreds of thousands of parents with sons in the Army in one capacity or another, who are wondering whether their boys are wearing cardboard crash helmets when they have to do parachute training. So I hope that the noble Lord will insist that this matter is investigated very thoroughly and that a public statement is made by the responsible Government Department as soon as possible. I do not know whether he wants to say anything more on that.
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I would like to amplify what I said on that point. The helmet which caused the trouble, so far as I can ascertain, although our inquiries are not complete, was never intended for use as a crash helmet at all. Some misunderstanding has clearly occurred.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, I take it that the noble Lord agrees that the public interest demands that an authoritative statement is made as early as possible. I am grateful to 1299 the noble Lord for accepting the Amendment. I should not be surprised to find, when he produces his Amendment, that it goes even further than mine. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 51 [Financial Provisions]:
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, this Amendment provides for Scottish application. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 45, line 34, after ("Minister") insert ("or of the Secretary of State").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 53 [Interpretation]:
§ LORD MANCROFTMy Lords, this is a purely technical Amendment, designed to facilitate the ultimate consolidation of the Bill. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 30, at end insert ("'chief officer of police ' has the same meaning as in the Act of 1930").—(Lord Mancroft.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
LORD GIFFORD moved, in the definition of "public service vehicle" to leave out "has the meaning assigned to it" and insert:
stage carriage and express carriage have respectively the meanings assigned to them".
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment arises out of the Amendment to Clause 32 which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, was good enough to accept. I should like to take this opportunity of asking him whether he is now in a position to answer the question which I put when moving the earlier Amendment; that is to say, whether the term "loading and unloading" can ever be used in connection with the picking up or dropping of passengers by a public service vehicle. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 37, leave out ("has the meaning assigned to it") and insert the said new words. —(Lord Gifford.)
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that this Amendment is consequential on the earlier Amendment that I accepted, and I would recommend it to the House. The noble Lord asks what is the meaning of the phrase "loading and unloading." In 1300 the ordinary sense and also, so far as I am able to confirm it, in the legal sense, it refers to goods and not to the discharge of passengers or their effects from a passenger service vehicle. I hope that the noble Lord is content that these words in this Bill have no reference to ordinary passenger service vehicles.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, this Amendment has Scottish application. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 12, after ("by") insert ("or under").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ First Schedule [Deferred tests of condition of vehicle]:
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 32, leave out from ("Where") to ("the") and insert ("the last foregoing subparagraph does not apply").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Second Schedule [Travelling &c. allowances for attendance at Road Safety Conferences]:
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, this Amendment is another that has Scottish application. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 37, after ("Minister") insert ("or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 48, after ("Minister") insert ("or, as the case may be, the Secretary of State").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Third Schedule [Procedure for orders designating parking places]:
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRKMy Lords, this Amendment paves the way for the next Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 51, line 12, after ("(7)") insert ("or (8)").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after the Third Schedule to insert the following new Schedule—