| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, is right to say that we have been around this course several times. But it is worth going over some of this ground. Responsible authorities are required to deal with crime and disorder problems and, under Clause 68 of the Bill, misuse of drugs, which affect their area. These should be a reflection of both local and national priorities as these are often the same. Clause 69 allows the Secretary of State to require partnerships to take account in their local strategy of
areas of crime and disorder that reflect national priorities. To take account; that is, to reflect upon, think about, develop and work at.A recent review of the crime and disorder reduction strategies published in 1999 showed that in some partnership areas the strategies did not contain crime reduction targets which reflected either local or even national priorities. That is why we seek to take things that stage further, so that they do reflect those matters.
There needs to be development of partnerships. There needs to be active co-operation. There needs to be a working between the centre and the locality to ensure that those priorities match up. That is what this clause seeks to establish.
It is essential that we focus on the main areas of crime and disorder that affect our local communities. I do not think that it is an arguable case that issues such as strategies to combat the misuse of drugs fail to be a local priority fairly much everywhere. If one talks to a police officer, in the main he will say that much of the burglary committed in his locality is fuelled by drugs and drug addiction and the need to feed a habit. That is a universal case. It must be right to give some extra leverage to ensure that there is proper focus on something which is a national issue and also patently a local issue.
If we remove the clause, as the noble Lord suggests, that strategy, that ability to develop that partnership locally and nationally is damaged. This is about identifying national priorities in achieving and sustaining reductions in crime and for the setting and achieving of targets to be determined locally. That is what we seek to achieve.
We have been over this argument many times. I think that we have the balance about right. I think that the noble Lord is not necessarily persuaded that this is the heavy hand of the centre impacting upon the important level of local independence. We are trying to develop that joint strategy, which means that national and local priorities are well matched. I invite the noble Lord to examine the 1999 report, because it reflects on the need to make those elements work together, rather than out of kilter and contrary to people's priorities in tackling those aspects of crime.
Lord Dixon-Smith: The Minister has given me the words that I wanted. He said that the purpose of the clauses is to ensure that those who prepare the local plans take account of the national priorities. The Bill does not say "take account"; it says "require"—there is a huge difference of emphasis between those two phrases.
I should be delighted to withdraw Amendment No. 332. I shall table an amendment on Report, quoting the Minister's words, and we shall see what happens. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 333:
- After Clause 72, insert the following new clause—
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 333 stands in my name. I remind the Committee that I am president of the Heavy Transport Association, and that I operate an abnormal-load vehicle.
Although Amendment No. 334 also deals with abnormal loads, it is important to understand that the two issues are separate. Amendment No. 334 deals with the question of who will escort abnormal loads, while Amendment No. 333 seeks to specify when the police may charge for providing an escort. I suspect that the Minister will have more difficulty with this amendment, but we shall see.
It is important that the Committee understands that there is no legislation on the provision of police escorts for abnormal loads. In the past, the police have done so on a non-statutory basis, for perfectly sensible and obvious reasons. However, a police escort is not viewed as a core activity, and some police forces, such as Norfolk, have started to charge for providing one. In some cases, police forces resort to questionable tactics to enforce payment.
Some forces have relied upon Section 25 of the Police Act 1996, which includes the words,
That is fine when applied to the organiser of a football match, but it is not effective if a person moving an abnormal load is told by a chief constable that he must have an escort, because that person has not requested it. It needs to be remembered that the escort is provided largely for the convenience of other road users. It is not only my interpretation that creates this uncertainty. Some counsels for police authorities advise that charges can be made, while others advise that they cannot. Can the Minister say who is right?
My amendment is designed to allow the police to make a charge in either of two circumstances. The first is if the load is abnormal to the extent that its gross weight is over 150 tonnes or its dimensions are in excess of around 27 metres long and 6 metres wide, with the result that the specific authority of the Secretary of State, in the form of a "special order", is required. Secondly, a charge can be made if it is desired to move the load at a time when a police escort would not normally be available. An example might be the movement of a piece of engineering equipment during the night. A further qualification to the second circumstance applies if, in the opinion of the chief officer or the operator, a police escort is necessary because the load or the route is particularly awkward. That is, I admit, a subjective test. However, if the amendment were agreed to, the situation would still be much better.
Furthermore, the new Section 1B provides for fixed charges to be agreed in advance. The more difficult loads tend to be moved by specialist contractors. They do not mind paying for special facilities if the cost can be built into their quotation and if all other operators bidding for the job have the same costs.
A final observation is that if the principles behind Amendment No. 334 find favour, charging for police escorts will become less problematic because the activity will be less of a drain on police resources. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker: The noble Earl made copious references to Amendment No. 334 when moving Amendment No. 333. My response to Amendment No. 333 is exactly the same as my response to Amendment No. 334.
As I indicated last Thursday, we are in broad sympathy with the intention behind the various amendments tabled by the noble Earl, and he has discussed the matter with my right honourable friend the Minister of State. Like him, and with ACPO, we should like to see a reduction in police involvement in such work.
We are actively considering how to bring that about and how to ensure that the best arrangements are organised for escorting abnormal loads. John Denham pursued this matter further in a meeting with ACPO representatives on 7th March. It would be counterproductive and unhelpful if I were to go any further. Some concerns arise, and the noble Earl
Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the response of the Minister. I intend to speak to Amendment No. 334 because other Members of the Committee may also want to speak to it. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
"PROVISION OF SPECIAL SERVICES
In section 25 of the 1996 Act (provision of special services), after subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
"(1A) Such services may include provision of an escort service for the movement of abnormal loads in any locality in the police area for which the force is maintained, subject to subsections (1A) and (1B) below if—
(a) the load cannot be moved under a general order made under section 44 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) by reason of its gross weight or overall dimensions, or
(b) it is necessary to move the load at a time when suitable police resources would not normally be available and, in the opinion of the chief officer or the operator, it is essential that the load is escorted by the police because—
(i) the load is particularly awkward, or
(ii) the agreed route is particularly hazardous in view of the nature of the load.
(1B) Provision of services in accordance with subsection (2) is subject to the payment to the police authority of such charges as may be determined by the authority, provided that—
(a) on request of an operator, a fixed charge for the escort of the load is quoted in advance and the same quotation is offered to any other operator who appears to be planning the movement of the same or a similar load, and
(b) when a fixed charge for the escort of the load is quoted in advance, the charge is reasonable but may have an allowance for contingencies.
(1C) In this section—
"operator" means the person operating the vehicle carrying or drawing the abnormal load,
"abnormal load" means a load, including the carrying vehicle, whose weights or dimensions—
(a) exceed those within regulations made under section 41 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, or
(b) 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.""
"on request of any person".
9.15 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page