| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
I then tabled a Question in your Lordships' House but the reply was, “Sorry, we cannot tell you; only the local people will be able to tell you”. If the first group is hiding behind the protection of an exemption from the Freedom of Information Act and the Government are saying that they have no information, what will be the position when, next March, we change over to the system being suggested? Are we to have no idea how much money is being raised, where it is going or how it is being spent? I strongly support my noble friend's amendment because of the transparency it will bring.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment, defective though it is, as I have explained. Although we have a difference of perspective, on one thing we are agreed: cameras are about improving road safety and they have that effect. All motorists feel at times that they have been caught somewhat unawares by a camera—that is often the complaint but not often justified by the evidence—and will express a concern that they have been prosecuted or fined. Nevertheless, they recognise that they are likely to be more careful in future. Road behaviour changes in those circumstances.
In case it is thought that while representing the Government at the Dispatch Box I might be guilty of undue bias with regard to the efficacy of cameras and other constraints, let me say that the country where the greatest transformation has taken place in the past few years has been France. Anyone who motored in France in the not-too-distant past will be aware that for the French speed limits existed as some form of entertainment to see by how much they could be exceeded. But that is no longer the case. Now there is the most rigorous observation by the French of motoring restrictions in villages—and a consequent improvement in their accident rate—because it is known that prosecution is pursued with great vigour.
I am sure the noble Lord agrees with me that cameras play an important part in road safety. The question is: would people be even more satisfied with the activity of cameras if they could see where the resources went? That is also the burden of the noble Baroness’s view: she would like to know where the resources go. We do not normally extend to any other infringement of our law the general proposition, “Well, you’ll be a lot happier with the fine imposed on you if you know where the money is going”. We think that the fine and the punishment are related to the offence, rather than to any desirable development afterwards to which the resources are put. The noble Lord is introducing into legislation an interesting concept, but I cannot subscribe to it.
I have enjoyed contributions which, let me say, I heard at Third Reading, on Report and in Committee—some of them I heard at Second Reading. We are now dealing with Commons amendments, when the debate is still as protracted and the amendment still as wrong and as defective.
Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I, too, thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and I thank the Minister for replying. I was hopeful that we would not be debating this issue again a year later because
1 Nov 2006 : Column 325
I cannot accept the Minister’s reply. I had hoped that the Government would think again and I hope that even after today we can agree that this money can be seen to be spent locally rather than going into the Consolidated Fund when people have to bid for it. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
7.24 pm
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 129; Not-Contents, 101.
Addington, L.
Anelay of St Johns, B.
Ashcroft, L.
Attlee, E.
Barker, B.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.
Blaker, L.
Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, B.
Bradshaw, L.
Bridgeman, V.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Bruce-Lockhart, L.
Burnett, L.
Buscombe, B.
Byford, B.
Chalker of Wallasey, B.
Chidgey, L.
Colwyn, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L.
Cotter, L.
Courtown, E.
Craig of Radley, L.
Craigavon, V.
Crathorne, L.
Cumberlege, B.
Dahrendorf, L.
De Mauley, L.
Dean of Harptree, L.
Denham, L.
Dholakia, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Dykes, L.
Eames, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Elton, L.
Ferrers, E.
Finlay of Llandaff, B.
Fookes, B.
Gardner of Parkes, B.
Glenarthur, L.
Goodhart, L.
Greaves, L.
Greenway, L.
Hamwee, B.
Hanham, B.
Hanningfield, L.
Harris of Richmond, B.
Hayhoe, L.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.
Holme of Cheltenham, L.
Howard of Rising, L.
Howe, E.
Howe of Aberavon, L.
Howell of Guildford, L.
Hunt of Wirral, L.
Inglewood, L.
James of Blackheath, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L.
Jones of Cheltenham, L.
Jopling, L.
Kimball, L.
Kingsland, L.
Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L.
Knight of Collingtree, B.
Laing of Dunphail, L.
Laird, L.
Lee of Trafford, L.
Luke, L. [Teller]
Lyell of Markyate, L.
1 Nov 2006 : Column 326
MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.
McNally, L.
Maddock, B.
Maginnis of Drumglass, L.
Mar and Kellie, E. [Teller]
Marland, L.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Monson, L.
Montrose, D.
Morris of Bolton, B.
Morrow, L.
Naseby, L.
Neuberger, B.
Newton of Braintree, L.
Noakes, B.
Northbrook, L.
Northover, B.
Norton of Louth, L.
O'Cathain, B.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Perry of Southwark, B.
Pilkington of Oxenford, L.
Razzall, L.
Reay, L.
Redesdale, L.
Rennard, L.
Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Rogan, L.
Roper, L.
Russell-Johnston, L.
Saatchi, L.
Sandwich, E.
Scott of Needham Market, B.
Seccombe, B.
Selborne, E.
Selsdon, L.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Sharples, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Sheikh, L.
Shephard of Northwold, B.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, L.
Stewartby, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Taylor of Holbeach, L.
Teverson, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Thomas of Winchester, B.
Tope, L.
Tyler, L.
Ullswater, V.
Verma, B.
Waddington, L.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Walmsley, B.
Williams of Crosby, B.
Williamson of Horton, L.
Acton, L.
Adonis, L.
Ahmed, L.
Amos, B. [Lord President.]
Anderson of Swansea, L.
Andrews, B.
Ashton of Upholland, B.
Bach, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Berkeley, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L.
Bilston, L.
Blackstone, B.
Boyd of Duncansby, L.
Bradley, L.
Brennan, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Chandos, V.
Clark of Windermere, L.
Cohen of Pimlico, B.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Crawley, B. [Teller]
David, B.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L.
Desai, L.
Drayson, L.
Dubs, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Evans of Watford, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Ford, B.
Foster of Bishop Auckland, L.
Foulkes of Cumnock, L.
Gale, B.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Goldsmith, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Goudie, B.
Gould of Brookwood, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Grocott, L. [Teller]
Harris of Haringey, L.
Hart of Chilton, L.
Haskel, L.
Haworth, L.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.
Hoyle, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Jay of Paddington, B.
Jones, L.
Jones of Whitchurch, B.
Judd, L.
King of West Bromwich, L.
Kirkhill, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Leitch, L.
Lockwood, B.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
McDonagh, B.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
McKenzie of Luton, L.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Maxton, L.
Morgan, L.
Morgan of Drefelin, B.
Parekh, L.
Patel of Blackburn, L.
Pendry, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Quin, B.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Rooker, L.
Rosser, L.
1 Nov 2006 : Column 327
Royall of Blaisdon, B.
Sawyer, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Simon, V.
Smith of Finsbury, L.
Snape, L.
Soley, L.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Taylor of Bolton, B.
Triesman, L.
Truscott, L.
Tunnicliffe, L.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Whitty, L.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Young of Norwood Green, L.
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
7.34 pm
“(8) Schedule (Prohibition on driving: immobilisation, removal and disposal of vehicles) to the Road Safety Act 2006 makes provision about the immobilisation of vehicles the driving of which has been prohibited under this section and about their removal and disposal.”
“(3) Schedule (Prohibition on driving: immobilisation, removal and disposal of vehicles) makes provision about the immobilisation of vehicles the driving of which has been prohibited and about their removal and disposal.”
(1) In section 99A of the Transport Act 1968 (c. 73) (powers to prohibit driving of vehicles in connection with contravention of provisions about drivers’ hours), after subsection (5) insert—
(2) In section 3 of the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Act 1972 (c. 27) (prohibition on driving of foreign vehicles: enforcement provisions), after subsection (7) insert—
(3) In section 73 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (prohibition on driving of unfit or overloaded vehicles: supplementary provisions), after subsection (4) insert—
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4. I shall deal with those amendments first, together with Amendment No. 27.
The purpose of the deposit scheme, inserted into the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 by Clause 11 of the Bill, is to put on an equal footing with enforcement against others enforcement against those who are currently able, in practice, to avoid the penalty for failing to comply with British road traffic law. At present, when summonses are issued to non-UK resident drivers for road traffic offences, offenders seldom return to face the court and they
1 Nov 2006 : Column 328
New Section 90D of the Road Traffic Offenders Act provides for the possibility that a driver on whom a financial penalty deposit is imposed may be unable or unwilling to pay the deposit. In such circumstances, the enforcement officer may prohibit the driving of the relevant vehicle on the road. These amendments would strengthen that sanction of prohibition, not only under Section 90D but also under existing powers of prohibition, by giving enforcement agencies the powers physically to immobilise the vehicle. Immobilisation would enforce the requirements of the prohibition notice by preventing the driver from driving off, despite the prohibition notice, until payment of the deposit had been received, the fine had been paid or the prohibition had otherwise come to an end.
Amendment No. 25 is a standard provision relating to extent. It deals with the geographical extent of the provisions concerning immobilisation in Clause 11 and the associated schedule and validation of level crossing orders made by the HSE.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 2 to 4.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister one question. He will know that I have asked several questions about the penalties imposed on drivers from the Irish Republic who grossly exceed drivers’ hours. I refer to repeat offenders—the same drivers from the same firms. I hope that the amendment will enable enforcement officers to impound the vehicles of those haulage firms.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. As he said, he has raised this issue both through Questions and in debates on many occasions in the past. The amendments certainly increase the powers—that is the whole point of them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5. In speaking to this amendment, I shall also indicate why I think the House should reject the noble Lord’s Amendments Nos. 5A, 5B and 5C.
I understand the noble Lord's wish to raise the profile of the retro-reflective tape issue and to see the fitting of reflective tape to all heavy vehicles at the earliest opportunity. However, I remind the House that use of the tape is already permitted and that many vehicles are already fitted with it. The tape is helpful in the hours of darkness and in conditions of poor visibility. But UK trucks are already equipped with various conspicuity aids, such as side marker lights and rear reflective number plates, so we are not convinced that the tape's road safety effects will be as
1 Nov 2006 : Column 329
I recognise the noble Lord’s sincerity in wishing to bring about sooner rather than later what appears to be a sound road safety measure. But, as I have tried to explain before, if we were to regulate to require fitting of the tape in advance of changes to international requirements, we would be at risk of infraction proceedings from Brussels.
In addition, I must point out that Clause 16 is deeply flawed in that, unlike the existing powers that it reflects, it does not have any teeth. In theory, therefore, the Secretary of State might make regulations requiring the fitting of retro-reflective tape to trucks and trailers but, if owners and operators failed to comply, they would face no penalties. It would be far better to rely on the powers that we already have. They are tried and tested, they include provision for enforcement and penalties, and we have undertaken to use them as soon as international law permits.
It might help if I clarified the position on this subject further. Powers to make regulations about retro-reflective tape already exist, and regulations allow its use. Tape E-marked to UNECE Regulation 104 specification is acceptable throughout the UNECE, of which the European Union is a member, and many vehicles are already fitted with it. A UNECE amendment to mandate fitting of the tape for trucks seeking Regulation 48 certification is in hand and is expected to come into effect in 2009 or 2010.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, finds that unacceptable and that the delay is there. The noble Lord will also recognise the advantages of having regulations which extend to vehicles which traverse the whole of Europe. There are great benefits in getting agreement on standard requirements for all trucks. Although I recognise the noble Lord’s impatience, he ought therefore to acknowledge the Government’s intention to move as quickly as we can. Nevertheless, we need this regulation.
In addition, the UK must accept vehicles approved to the European Commission directive on lighting installation. At this time, retro-reflective tape is optional under the directive. There are plans to amend it to refer directly to UNECE Regulation 48 which is due to be amended to mandate fitting of tape. Until that time, I am afraid that the UK would be open to infraction proceedings if we introduced national requirements that were more stringent than the current optional fitting.
Once Regulation 48 and the directive on lighting installation are amended to mandate retro-reflective tape, the UK will be able to mandate fitting on all new trucks, including UK vehicles not approved to Regulation 48. I remind the noble Lord that we have already committed to do this as soon as we can.
However, European whole-vehicle-type approval for trucks and trailers is currently being developed and is well under way. This is a massive and important undertaking. The noble Lords, Lord Hanningfield and Lord Bradshaw, have been vocal about the necessity for Europe-wide regulations. It will harmonise the
1 Nov 2006 : Column 330
Trucks will include, among many other requirements and vehicle types, mandatory compliance with the directive on lighting installation and therefore fitting of retro-reflective tape for new N2 and N3 vehicles and O3 and O4 trailers. It is expected to come into force on 1 January 2010. Even if we ignored possible infraction procedures and set out to make specific early regulations to mandate the tape, not only would the process take considerable time but it would, I suspect, wastefully duplicate existing ECWVTA work.
We are also required to notify the European Commission of new or altered technical regulations; failure to do so renders that regulation unenforceable. The notification process itself takes time, and I am convinced that such regulations—even if they were not thrown out as a result of the notification procedure—would be likely to come into effect so close to the expected coming into force of the international requirements I have just described that our regulations would have little impact. In any case, such regulations would apply only to UK-registered vehicles and would have no effect on the foreign vehicles on our roads, whereas a European directive would be all-embracing.
In 2005, Loughborough University carried out a study on retro-reflective tape. The final report noted that,
- “the effect of the addition of retro reflective tape markings may not result in similar [accident] reduction rates [in the UK] as those observed in America”,
in different circumstances. It also pointed out that calculating cost benefit ratios was difficult because limited data were available, and that the data used may, for various reasons, have resulted in an over-estimate of the reduction in the number of accidents which could be attributed to the tape.
Nevertheless, that is a marginal argument. I have sought to convey to the noble Lord that we are as one with him on the advisability of the tape and the benefits it will bring. Under our regulations, we cannot avoid possible infraction proceedings or act much in advance of the date that Europe is setting as a target for the delivery of the requirements we need, which will govern all vehicles on British roads. That is why I hope that the noble Lord will accept the Government’s case and, having moved his amendment, will consider withdrawing it after the usual useful debate.
Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
7.45 pm
Baroness Hanham moved, as an amendment to the Motion that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5, leave out from “House” to end and insert “do disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5, but do propose the following Amendments in lieu—”
1 Nov 2006 : Column 331
"(2) The Secretary of State must make regulations under this section no later than 31st December 2007.""
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |