HL Deb 25 July 1988 vol 500 c10

3.3 p.m.

The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

Lord Elwyn-Jones

My Lords, I wonder whether it is necessary to have three road traffic Bills and whether it would not be possible to combine them all into just one Bill?

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, the fact that three Bills were prepared is due to the need to have Bills that are efficient and comprehensible. The view was taken that the Road Traffic Bill should deal with those matters which were not concerned with offences, and that traffic offences should be consolidated separately. It was decided to have a third Bill which would deal with consequential provisions which would gradually disappear from importance. We would then be left with two Bills which would continue to have importance and have distinct subject matters..

As regards the necessity of having three Motions on the Order Paper, I should be most happy to dispense with that procedure, but the Standing Orders of the House require that we deal with each of them separately.

On Question, Bill read a third time.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.