§ 3.8 p.m.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy 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 when the traffic-light-controlled pedestrian crossings in Piccadilly, promised in Government statements on June 17, 1963, and again on December 3, 1963, are likely to be operating.]
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I much regret that I cannot yet say just when the crossings will be in operation. I understand that the equipment for the Sackville Street crossing is to be delivered to the Westminster City Council, who are the highway authority, by the end of this month, and the Council have assured us that it will be installed and put into operation as quickly as possible. There has, I am afraid, been a misunderstanding with the City Council about the crossing for Air Street. The Council have not yet in fact agreed that a crossing here is necessary. They are to consider this again at their next meeting. I will write to the noble Lord as soon as I know the outcome.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, in asking a supplementary question, may I first of all express my sincere sympathy with the noble Lord? He will remember that a Government promise was given on June 17 of last year, almost a year ago, that these crossings had been agreed in principle and that work would be started in all haste; that he explained again on December 3, nearly five months ago, that the equipment was on its way and that, when the traffic-control lights of Piccadilly Circus were completed, the crossings would be started? Does he not think that the action of the Westminster City Council is almost contemptuous of the authority of the Ministry of Transport in this direction, and will he take steps to see that the work is proceeded with in all haste? I feel sorry for the Minister about this: but surely the Minister is the supreme 850 authority, and should he not see that his wishes are carried out?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's sympathy, but I do not think I should go so far as to agree with him that the Westminster City Council were contemptuous. I have no hesitation in saying that there has been a misunderstanding in this matter, which, so far as I can ascertain—and I have done my best to find out—is a genuine one. I agree that it should not have happened. As a result, I suppose that in a sense it might be said that I misled the noble Lord in my reply to the Question he asked in December. If I did so, it was certainly done entirely inadvertently and innocently, because, in fact, it was not until afterwards that I found that there had been this misunderstanding about the order for equipment about which we had been inquiring. The Council had been considering a large number of modifications to the Piccadilly one-way system and had ordered a considerable amount of equipment, all on the same sheet, so to speak, but in different batches. I think that that is possibly where the misunderstanding arose.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, may I assure the noble Lord that it never entered my mind that he either misled me or intentionally misled the House. May I ask him now to do his best to repair what is quite obviously dilatoriness by the highway authority in carrying out the work that was promised so long ago?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, perhaps it would help if I were to say what is the present position. I have talked about the Sackville Street crossing, which is in hand, with equipment due early. So far as the Air Street crossing is concerned, the Council wish to consider it at the next meeting. They have asked us for further views, which we have supplied to them, strongly in support of it, and I hope that they will go ahead.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, may we take it from the noble Lord's answer to the previous question that it is not yet established that it is lèse majesté for a local authority to disagree with a Minister—even the Minister of Transport? Are we so totali- 851 tarian? I hope the noble Lord takes the view that we are not.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, the question of totalitarianism is something that keeps arising only in the noble Lord's mind. I thought I had entirely disposed of the question of—lèse majesté is perhaps going too far—there being any disagreement.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, I am surprised that the noble Lord has taken my intervention in a hostile spirit. I was supporting him, and resisting the noble Lord who wants to lay it down that no local authority dare disagree with the Minister of Transport.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, if it is a matter of principle to which I am asked to agree, I welcome the noble Lord's support. I must remember in future to speak with a bigger grin on my face, in order to avoid appearing hostile. So far as this particular question is concerned, no disagreement has arisen.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, the noble Lord will remember that the statement he made to the House twelve months ago was that the Westminster City Council were in complete agreement, as were the police, on the necessity to have these traffic lights.
§ LORD CHESHAMYes, my Lords; I remember the statement. But if the noble Lord cares to look it up (I have it here) it was on a later question that I gave him the assurance that he wanted; but my earlier observation referred to the principle.