| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 263:
- After Clause 37, insert the following new clause—
The noble Earl said: I declare an interest. I am president of the Heavy Transport Association and close to other associations, and I operate my own abnormal load vehicle.
I am a little surprised that we did not debate Clause 37, and I was worried that the Committee might not accept it. Later, I shall move amendments on the escorting of abnormal loads, a task currently undertaken by the police.
Sometimes during the movement of an abnormal load, it is necessary for the operator to request what are termed "special facilities". They entail the police, and only the police, facilitating and authorising the driver to go right at a "keep left" sign, the wrong way up a one-way street, the wrong way around a roundabout, or to drive for a distance on the wrong side of the road. It could well be that, on a 30-mile movement, special facilities are required at only one location, which is often at the start or the end of a journey. Unfortunately, however, a police escort is required for the whole journey. That is clearly not an effective or good use of police resources.
Can the Minister say whether Clause 37 as drafted provides the necessary powers to authorise special facilities, or is an additional clause—such as the one I propose in Amendment No. 263—required? It would be desirable for traffic wardens to have these powers regardless of whether my later amendments find favour with the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, thought that Clause 37 might disappear. However, we have broad sympathy with the intended aim of Amendment No. 263. I understand that he has discussed the matter with my right honourable friend John Denham, who is the Minister of State responsible for the Bill. Like the noble Earl and ACPO, we should like to see a reduction in police involvement in such work. We are actively considering how to ensure that we have the best arrangements for escorting abnormal loads.
I understand that, today, my right honourable friend met ACPO representatives. In the circumstances, therefore, I do not think that the
I did not address the Question that Clause 37 stand part of the Bill. However, I refer to traffic wardens and the power to authorise drivers of abnormal loads to break traffic rules such as driving round roundabouts the wrong way. In my years of driving I have once or twice observed instances when it was fairly obvious that a heavy load was not going to negotiate a roundabout by going round it the right way. Yet it was fairly obvious that if those loads had taken the wrong way round the roundabout they would have negotiated it easily. However, I was not in a position to summon the police to sort out those situations. Traffic wardens could direct those situations as part of their general power to direct traffic. The powers to direct traffic are contained in Section 35 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 which states that a driver must comply with directions given by a constable. Section 37 of that Act states that pedestrians must comply with directions given by a constable. Those powers are applied to traffic wardens by virtue of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, as amended.
However, I come to the rub. If traffic wardens were to authorise drivers of abnormal loads to break traffic rules on a regular basis, there would be significant implications for additional training requirements and so on. I hope that there is some scope on the matter as regards the discussions that are taking place between the Minister and ACPO. We have general sympathy with the points that the noble Earl has made. I hope that we can arrive at a satisfactory solution to the clear problem which he has identified.
Lord Bradshaw: Before the noble Earl replies, will the Minister tell us in plain English what extra powers traffic wardens get under Section 37? I thought that they had a lot of extra powers to give directions to cyclists and others.
Lord Rooker: I have a note which is about 50 words long. However, the point is that the powers to direct traffic are contained in the Road Traffic Act. Under Section 35 a driver must comply with directions given by a constable. That power was given to traffic wardens under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Therefore, traffic wardens have the power to give a driver an order with which he must comply. Indeed, they also have the power to give pedestrians an order with which they must comply. To that extent their powers are exactly the same as those of a constable. Traffic wardens can tell a driver to stop, go right, go left or start. I imagine that that power would get most people out of a mess.
Lord Bradshaw: I wish to be clear that the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and the Road Traffic Act 1988 are extended in Clause 37. I simply inquired
Lord Rooker: I shall try to give a little more detail. The powers I have mentioned were given to traffic wardens but in some cases they can be exercised only in certain circumstances. Section 96(3) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 provides that traffic wardens can exercise general police power to stop vehicles under Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 only in a limited range of circumstances. That restricts the functions they can carry out. It means that generally police officers must be employed in undertakings where it may be necessary to stop vehicles, even though their powers may not be required.
Clause 37, which we passed, removes that restriction by deleting the reference to Section 163 as one of the enactments under which powers can only be used in certain circumstances. That means that traffic wardens will have the same power to stop vehicles as that currently held by police officers. That removal of an unnecessary bar to the type of powers traffic wardens can undertake will enable their use in a wider range of circumstances as deemed appropriate locally and will thereby reduce demands on the police where the only additional power required is the power to stop. That will free up police officers who currently have to supervise such things as vehicle emission checks. My briefing then states:
Earl Attlee: The Minister is not the only one!
I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. The amendment specifically examined the powers of traffic wardens in order to facilitate private escorting. I shall move Amendment No. 333 at a later stage, which will give the Minister an opportunity to give a more informed response as a result of our discussion on this amendment. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 [Power to amend Chapter 1]:
[Amendment No. 264 not moved.]
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 265:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 38 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Dixon-Smith: The clause is one of those glorious Henry VIII clauses that we see with monotonous regularity in legislation emanating from the Government. It will give the Secretary of State by order the power to, "modify the provisions of"—in this case—
That is a glorious mélange of facility to amend primary legislation by regulation. We see that periodically. One could just about record the fact that this is a necessary statutory inclusion and that my objection is a necessary statutory objection.
I accept that when one finally gets to the end of the clause, it states:
"ADDITIONAL POWERS OF TRAFFIC WARDENS: ABNORMAL LOADS
In section 96 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (additional powers of traffic wardens), after subsection (2)(d), there shall be inserted—
"(e) any order made under section 1 or 6 of this Act relating to the movement of an abnormal load where "abnormal load" means a load, including the carrying vehicle, whose weights or dimensions—
(i) exceed those within regulations made under section 41 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52), or
(ii) are such that regulations made under section 41 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 require movement of the load to be notified to the chief officer of police.""
"I beg to move that Clause 37 stand part of the Bill".
I think that the noble Earl has got the message from that. I hope that it is a good explanation of his in some ways legitimate desire. I wish that I had spoken to Clause 37 after all.
Page 36, line 4, after "(2)" insert "or (2A)"
"Schedule 4 by . . . amending or repealing any provision of that Schedule",
or by,
"adding powers or duties to the powers and duties specified in that Schedule as applicable by a designation . . . The Secretary of State may by order modify the provisions of Schedule 5 so as to authorise the conferring or imposition, on an accredited person, of powers and duties in addition to those contained in Schedule 5 . . . An order under this section may make provision for such modifications of any enactment (whenever passed) as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate for the purpose of facilitating the exercise or performance of any power or duty which becomes capable of being conferred or imposed by virtue of an order under this section".
"The Secretary of State shall not make an order containing . . . any provision authorised by this section unless a draft of that order has been laid before Parliament and approved".
That is frightfully kind of the Government! We give the Secretary of State powers—I stress that it is Parliament that authorises that, not the Government—to amend primary legislation with a slip of paper that we more or less whip through on the nod. This may be deemed to be a reasonable procedure—it has been used many times previously. Each time that I have come across it, I have objected to it and will continue to do so. It may be for the administrative and legislative convenience of the Government but I still do not think that it is justified. If there is primary legislation, it should take primary legislation to amend it. That fairly simple point is our objection to the clause.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page