§ 2.46 p.m.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether persons alleged to have exceeded the speed limit or to have been guilty of reckless, dangerous, careless or inconsiderate driving of a motor vehicle in Richmond Park will in future be prosecuted for offences under the Road Traffic Act, 1960, and not for a contravention of the Richmond Park Regulations for which the maximum penalty is a fine of £5.]
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)My Lords, the only speed limit applicable to the roads in Richmond Park is prescribed by the Richmond Park Regulations, and a person who exceeds that limit cannot be charged with an offence against the Road Traffic Act. In these circumstances it is not possible for the Director of Public Prosecutions to alter his practice relating to the institution of criminal proceedings for offences against the speed limit in Richmond Park. On the other hand, the Regulations make no provision with regard to reckless and dangerous, or careless and inconsiderate, driving and a person who drives in such 391 a manner in the Park is guilty of an offence against the Road Traffic Act and can be prosecuted accordingly.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords. I thank my noble and learned friend for his Answer. Does he recall that recently my right honourable friend the Minister of Works, answering a Question in another place, said that it was certainly not his desire that the offence of breaking the speed limit should be liable to a lesser penalty inside the Park than outside? But has not my noble and learned friend been slightly misinformed about the Regulations, because the Regulation, which my right honourable friend amended so as to increase the speed limit (it is Regulation 7 of the Special Regulations), is in the following terms:
No cycle or motor vehicle shall proceed at a greater speed than 20 miles an hour"—now increased to 30 miles an hour—Cycling or driving furiously, recklessly or on the wrong side of the road or so as to endanger or be likely to endanger the safety or to interfere with the comfort or convenience of any person using the Park is prohibited. Motor vehicles or vehicles drawn by horses or animals shall not proceed two or more abreast, nor cycles three or more abreast.My noble and learned friend will see that that deals with many matters that are offences under the Road Traffic Act.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, on the first point of my noble friend's supplementary, the question the Minister was considering was whether by virtue of Section 4 (3) of the Act the penalties imposed by Section 4 (1) applied to speeding offences in the Park. He was not considering whether prosecutions for speeding offences in the Park could be brought under Section 4 (1), which is a provision specifying penalties and not a provision creating an offence. With regard to the second point, I will have the matter considered again. I think that the view which has been taken is that the wording of the Regulation was sufficiently different not to displace the effect of the provision of the Road Traffic Act; but I will certainly have the matter considered again and communicate with my noble friend.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. May I ask him one other matter 392 in regard to speeding? Should a person speed at 60 miles an hour inside the Park, as has been alleged in one or two recent cases, would it not be a rather ridiculous result that the maximum penalty should be £5? Would not a possible remedy be to create a speed limit for Richmond Park under the Road Traffic Act?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, the difficulty, as my noble friend has probably appreciated, is in the wording of Section 4 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, and Section 4 (3), which provides that the penalties imposed by subsection (1) are to have effect
in substitution for any provision made by or under any enactment relating to a speed limit contained in any Act passed beforeJuly 31, 1934; and the provision for dealing with speeding in the Park is laid down by the regulation, but, of course, legislation could change it. And I will again bring that to the attention of my right honourable friend.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, I am very much obliged.
LORD SALTOUNMy Lords, would the noble and learned Viscount not agree that the recent relaxation in speed limit regulations, coupled with what I may call the exemplary courtesy of the traffic police in Richmond Park for some time past, has procured an extraordinary improvement in the conduct of the drivers through that region; and is there not a lesson to be learnt from that fact?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I ant sure there is a lesson to be learnt from that fact, and I am also most grateful to my noble friend Lord Saltoun for paying the first compliment to motor drivers that I have heard in this House for some six years.