| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, that I have none whatever this evening.
I am grateful to noble Lords. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and his team on spotting the error on page 23. I freely admit that I did not spot it myself but this is a draft instrument and that can be corrected.
A fair point is made about the 1996 convention. Only four countries have not already ratified it; namely, Italy, France, the Republic of Ireland and ourselves. All the other countries of the European Union have undertaken their Community responsibilities and it has passed through their respective parliaments by whichever processes they use.
I shall not be tempted by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, to go down the road of the European arrest warrant because I said specifically that it is not the subject of this provision. However, over the months and weeks ahead, we shall be preparing for that legislation. That will be in the form of primary legislation. I believe that we reached a settlement at the end of last week which everyone thinks is a good way forward overall. I am grateful for the response that we have had this evening to these regulations, which I commend to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Carriage by Air Acts (Implementation of the Montreal Convention 1999) Order 2001
8.50 p.m.
Lord Filkin rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th November be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to the second order in my name on the Order Paper as they are interconnected.
The two draft orders for debate are to implement in the United Kingdom the provisions of the 1999 Montreal Convention. The convention consolidates and updates the 1929 Warsaw Convention relating to the liability of air carriers in the international carriage by air of passengers, baggage and cargo.
The principal benefit of the Montreal Convention is that it removes any limitation of liability of air carriers in relation to the amount of compensation payable in the event of death or injury to passengers. It also introduces higher limits for the loss, damage or delay to baggage.
The Carriage by Air Acts (Implementation of the Montreal Convention 1999) Order 2001 amends the Carriage by Air Act 1961, introducing a new schedule setting out the convention for the purposes of international travel to which it applies and makes consequential amendment.
The Government have consulted widely with airlines and other interested parties, including the Ministry of Defence and Consignia. We have received broad support from all concerned. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th November be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we support the Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 2001
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th November be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Driving Licences (Disqualification until Test Passed) (Prescribed Offence) Order 2001
8.52 p.m.
Lord Filkin rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order, if approved, will mean that anyone convicted of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs will be required to pass a driving test before being allowed back on the road.
Under Section 36(3) of the 1988 Act, the Secretary of State may by order prescribe other offences involving obligatory endorsement, so that in such cases there would be obligatory disqualification until an extended driving test had been passed. The proposed order, if approved, would extend that requirement to the offence of causing death by careless driving when under the influence of drink or drugs—Section 3A of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Your Lordships should also be aware that there is an important consideration with regard to the timing of the order, should it be approved. Subsection (14) of Section 36 of the 1988 Act prevents the Secretary of State from making orders to prescribe further persons convicted of offences to which mandatory retesting should apply after 31st December 2001 if he has not previously made any such orders. I can confirm that this is the first such order. It keeps open the opportunity for the Secretary of State to make further such orders in the future.
In my view the provisions of this instrument are compatible with the convention rights as defined in Section 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998. I commend the order to the House and hope that noble Lords will feel able to give it their support. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the order. I have no problem with the order; in fact, I strongly support it. However, we know that a fleet driver training scheme—I refer to a commercial fleet—can reduce the accident rate by about 20 per cent.
I accept that it would be political suicide and also very expensive to introduce universal driver training schemes, for example a retraining scheme every five years for all drivers. However, we could make a start by introducing compulsory retraining for any motorist who has been convicted of careless driving or certain other motoring offences such as speeding. This issue was raised in the Government's road safety strategy paper but we do not appear to be making much progress on the matter. I should be interested to hear what action the Government propose to take.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Earl is aware, the North committee first introduced the concept of compulsory retesting, which implies also some compulsory retraining as part of that. The order makes compulsory retesting an obligation for two reasons: first, if one has been disqualified and off the road for some time, by definition one loses practical experience and therefore there is a case for requiring retesting and the retraining that goes with it; and, secondly, to prevent the likelihood of a further dangerous situation arising—in other words, to protect the general public from the consequences of what appears to be a dangerous or negligent driver.
The Government will want to consider whether there are other situations when such circumstances might apply. I agree with the noble Earl that it would be inappropriate to apply compulsory retesting and retraining to everyone. However, there may well be further circumstances in which it would be appropriate. I give the assurance that although primary legislation would be needed to achieve that, we shall consider that principle.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, we support the order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Transport Act 2000 (Consequential Amendments) Order 2001
8. 57 p.m.
Lord Filkin rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order deals with some consequential effects of the Transport Act 2000. Part I of the order simply amends the Aviation Security Act 1982 so that NATS—alongside the CAA or the manager of an aerodrome—becomes one of the authorities responsible for the security of an air navigation installation. In other words, they are responsible for the protection of their own equipment.
Parts II and III of the order amend enactments which refer to statutory and other undertakers and town and country planning legislation to bring them four square with the Transport Act. These powers are broadly commensurate with those of the CAA and are granted to NATS En Route Ltd, which is a subsidiary company of National Air Traffic Services Ltd.
The order does two other things not connected with NATS. Part IV amends certain provisions which place restrictions on the disclosure of information so as to give the CAA, in its role as economic regulator of air traffic services, access to the same sort of information as other regulators require.
I hope that your Lordships will support the broad thrust of the order and give your consent to it being made. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th November be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Filkin.)
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I wish to comment on the order as it transfers permitted developer rights to a private company. We all know, for example, that Railtrack acquired permitted development rights when it was privatised. Since then we have had misgivings as regards some of the uses of those permitted rights.
NATS has not had a good start in the private sector. I am concerned that the Government are again transferring these quite extensive rights to a private sector company and may live to regret that. It is possible that NATS could stray further from the public sector than it now is and become a different company and exercise those rights in a way which was not intended. That could cause trouble in the future. I hope that the Minister will comment on that.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page