---

Ambulances: Speeding Tickets

3.20 p.m.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market asked Her Majesty's Government:

What action they propose to take to deal with the number of speeding tickets issued to ambulance drivers.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, we are aware that some ambulance trusts are incurring unnecessary administrative costs processing speeding tickets that are automatically issued via safety cameras by police forces. We are working closely with the Home Office, the Department for Transport and the Association of Chief Police Officers to resolve the problems involving emergency vehicles detected by safety cameras. We hope to achieve a workable solution that reduces bureaucracy shortly.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether ambulance drivers will be subject to the provisions announced yesterday whereby a levy will be added to speeding fines in order to augment the compensation scheme for victims? Does he not agree that the idea that ambulance drivers, even notionally, might be paying a price towards serious criminal activity carried out by others will be abhorrent to the general public and runs the risk of undermining the public support that we need in order to gain support for speed management measures?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Baroness may not have been listening carefully enough to my Answer. We were trying to get across the message that it was inappropriate that ambulance trusts should be paying those particular fines. So I do not think that they are a ready source of revenue for the Home Secretary or any other member of the Government if they are looking in

13 Jan 2004 : Column 468

that particular direction. As I understand it, the Home Secretary has issued a consultation paper on which he will note responses and act accordingly.

On the particular question raised by the noble Baroness, clearly, we are talking to other people about the proper application of the ACPO guidance, which is being administered by many police forces quite sensibly and is leading to ambulance trusts not paying fines.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, is it not the case that ambulance drivers, like other drivers of blue- light vehicles, have an exemption from observing speed limits if they are travelling on a genuine emergency? Is not the main problem the fact that the word "emergency" is not properly defined and that, therefore, there is a dispute about what constitutes an emergency? Is not the answer to the problem that ambulance drivers, and other drivers of blue-light vehicles, should know exactly when they may speed and when they may not?

Lord Warner: My Lords, there is in operation at the moment guidance issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers that invites police forces to apply the criteria that they apply for police vehicles to kindred emergency service vehicles. A large number of police forces are applying that guidance. There is a difference of practice, which is why we are engaged in discussions with the Home Office and ACPO to try to resolve the problems identified in the noble Baroness's Question.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that a number of ambulances have been damaged by speed bumps?

Lord Warner: My Lords, I am aware of that, but, as I understand it, so have private cars.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if ambulances have been damaged by speed bumps, what has happened to the individuals inside the ambulances?

Lord Warner: My Lords, on a number of occasions the House will have heard me say that we are shifting the balance of power to the local level, so that information is not held in Richmond House.

Earl Howe: My Lords, pursuing that point, does the Minister accept that there is a clear link between response times on the part of ambulances and the survival of patients? Does he also agree that speed humps have a damaging effect on the ability of ambulance drivers to respond as quickly as possible in life-threatening situations? In the light of that, does he agree that the emergency services should be consulted on traffic-calming schemes in order to ensure, if possible, that alternative equidistant routes are available to most areas in the event of an ambulance being called out?

Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Lord is right: response times to life-threatening calls are very important. I draw his attention to the fact that these

13 Jan 2004 : Column 469

response times have improved dramatically since 1997. At that point, virtually no ambulance trusts were reaching more than 65 per cent of those calls within eight minutes. Now, almost all are reaching that target, saving hundreds of extra lives. That is despite speed bumps. What is more, it has been achieved against a background of a huge increase of more than 40 per cent in the number of emergency calls during the past five years.

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill [HL]

3.25 p.m.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That it be an instruction to the Grand Committee to which the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 16, Schedule 1, Clause 17, Schedule 2, Clauses 18 to 22, Schedule 3, Clauses 23 to 26, Schedules 4 and 5, Clauses 27 to 31.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, it is unusual for me to intervene at this stage to ask questions, but the Minister is aware that I wish to do so. These are rather unusual times for the Bill. Yesterday, the Government published a consultation document on compensation and support for victims of crime. On page 5 of the document, and in a Written Statement in another place, but not in this place, the Home Secretary states that any legislation that is necessary to implement these proposals that are at a consultation stage will be inserted into this Bill, which is the subject of the noble Lord's Motion today.

Noble Lords will be aware that we start Grand Committee on this Bill next Monday. The consultation period is to be 11 weeks. My questions therefore bear in mind the extensive discussion set out on page 55 of the paper. Can the Minister explain why the Government did not see fit to inform this House in both the opening and closing speeches at Second Reading on 15 December that significant additions to the Bill could be brought forward by amendment? Can the Minister give an assurance to the House that the Bill will not leave Grand Committee until those amendments have been tabled and noble Lords have

13 Jan 2004 : Column 470

been able to give full consideration to them? If he is unable to do that, can he give the House an assurance that the new clauses will be considered by way of recommitment when the matter returns to this House after consideration by the Commons? Noble Lords, of course, take scrutiny of legislation very seriously.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in her comments, in particular on the issue of scrutiny. I shall not go any further into detail because she gave much of the important detail. The consultation process is not planned until 29 March. Good Friday is on 9 April. It therefore seems very unlikely that any amendment will be drafted and available to Parliament until after the Easter Recess. By that time, the Bill, under its current timetabling, will have reached the House of Commons. We would be able to consider the new amendments in this House only as Commons amendments to the Bill as sent to the House of Lords, which would be a most difficult time at which to give the amendments the scrutiny that they require. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a satisfactory answer to the questions posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I note that the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms is not in his place, but the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and his colleagues will have heard what the two Front Benches have said. I hope that on the issue of possible recommitment they will pass the remarks made by the two Front Benches to the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for giving me advance notice of her questions. I am most grateful to her for that. I appreciate the points that have been made in your Lordships' House today on these matters. My noble friend Lady Scotland, at Second Reading, made plain that there would be consultation on these issues. She made that very clear in her comments at Second Reading. I cannot give commitments from the Dispatch Box today about recommitment and such issues. However, I can tell your Lordships that there will be ample time for consultation. Obviously, the Bill will proceed following that consultation and, no doubt, a view will be taken as to how best to proceed.

I cannot comment on timetabling in detail. That would be quite wrong. That is a matter quite properly for the usual channels. I will, of course, reinforce the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and ensure that the Chief Whip is fully apprised of the issues raised this afternoon in your Lordships' House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

---