| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Higgins: My Lords, if I am correct, the noble Lord is proposing to have bus stop areas that will not necessarily be in bus lanes. That would be highly dangerous. You would be travelling on a non-bus lane and then have to pull out, then back in again. You would proceed by a series of zigzags. You could take approximately an hour every morning to drive seven miles. It would be extremely dangerous.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, road safety would certainly be at the forefront of any proposals to adjust the roads. I do not fully understand the nature of the difficulty described by the noble Lord. You
3 Feb 2005 : Column 433
cannot stop in a clearway. You may drive through it—it is not a bus lane—but you are not allowed to stop. It is the stopping of vehicles that create obstructions that we seek to encourage local authorities to tackle more effectively. We are not encouraging them to create additional bus lanes, which may or may not be advantageous in other circumstances. We are talking about clearways to prevent cars stopping and creating an obstruction, preventing a bus taking on or unloading passengers.
The Disability Rights Commission has recognised, as the noble Lord said, that the other duties that this Bill would introduce in respect of public functions would affect this issue. It is recognised outside this place that the broader issues in the Bill will affect public authorities, of which local authorities are an important element.
On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, will recognise that we have responded to his concern with care. We have anticipated these issues through our consultations. We have sought to tackle the issue of obstruction at bus stops. But a balance must be struck. I assure him that local authorities will have these new obligations and a greater facility to insist on clearways and other measures. We will improve enforcement of the freedom for buses to access bus stops without parked cars obstructing them.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses who have spoken in my support and I thank the Minister for his characteristic and courteous reply. I am afraid that I am not impressed. My feelings are similar to those I expressed in Grand Committee. We debated the DRC response, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in Grand Committee. I said then and I repeat now that the DRC pointed out that the powers are there, but Clauses 2 and 3 do not seem to produce an effective deterrent. We still come back to the point, which the Minister has not really answered, that although technically the powers are there for local authorities to enforce it, unless one accepts an amendment like mine creating a specific offence with much more serious penalties, local authorities, in practice, will not be effective. So, effective deterrence—effective enforcement—requires my amendment.
I turn to the other two points. As regards the numbers of passengers in the vehicles, I feel that whatever I do I run into a brick wall. I changed my original amendment in Committee to take account of exactly this point. I have the proceedings in Grand Committee here. It is too bad if the Government now turn round and say, "No, we were wrong after all; it should be eight". I am just trying to respond to the detail of the answer the Government gave in Committee. If they are now changing their mind, I am afraid that it is not a satisfactory situation.
As for the point about bus stops—I do not think we are talking about bus lanes—and whether it is allowed to park in a bus stop, I thought that the Minister used a bit of a diversionary tactic by talking about clear ways and so on. You can have something that clearly
3 Feb 2005 : Column 434
states when you are allowed to park at a bus stop and when you are not, just as you can state anything else. That seems quite clear. It is allowed for in our amendment. There will be times, say, in the middle of the night when this would not be effective. We have dealt with these points. I am not persuaded by the Minister's arguments. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
4.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 27) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 100.
Addington, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.
Barker, B.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Craigavon, V.
Dholakia, L.
Dykes, L.
Falkner of Margravine, B.
Garden, L.
Goodhart, L.
Greaves, L.
Hamwee, B.
Harris of Richmond, B. [Teller]
Maclennan of Rogart, L.
Maddock, B.
Miller of Hendon, B.
Molyneaux of Killead, L.
Naseby, L.
Neuberger, B.
Northover, B.
Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L. [Teller]
Phillips of Sudbury, L.
Redesdale, L.
Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Roper, L.
Russell-Johnston, L.
Scott of Needham Market, B.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Steel of Aikwood, L.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Vallance of Tummel, L.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Walmsley, B.
Acton, L.
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B.
Bach, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Bhattacharyya, L.
Blood, B.
Borrie, L.
Brennan, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Burlison, L.
Carter, L.
Carter of Coles, L.
Chandos, V.
Chorley, L.
Christopher, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Crawley, B.
David, B.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]
Donoughue, L.
Drayson, L.
Dubs, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Filkin, L.
Gale, B.
Gavron, L.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Giddens, L.
Gilbert, L.
Goldsmith, L.
Grocott, L. [Teller]
Harris of Haringey, L.
Harrison, L.
Hart of Chilton, L.
Haworth, L.
Henig, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Hoyle, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Chesterton, L.
Hylton, L.
Kirkhill, L.
Lamont of Lerwick, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Leitch, L.
Lipsey, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
McKenzie of Luton, L.
Marsh, L.
Maxton, L.
Merlyn-Rees, L.
Mitchell, L.
Morgan of Drefelin, B.
Morris of Aberavon, L.
Morris of Manchester, L.
Murphy, B.
Pendry, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Prosser, B.
Puttnam, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Rea, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Rooker, L.
Rowlands, L.
Royall of Blaisdon, B.
Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Sewel, L.
Sheldon, L.
Simon, V.
Sutherland of Houndwood, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Temple-Morris, L.
Tomlinson, L.
Triesman, L.
Truscott, L.
Tunnicliffe, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Vinson, L.
Warner, L.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Wedderburn of Charlton, L.
Whitaker, B.
Whitty, L.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Young of Norwood Green, L.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3 Feb 2005 : Column 435
4.20 p.m.
Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 28:
"VOLUNTEERS: CODE OF PRACTICE
In the 1995 Act, after section 14D (practical work experience: duty to make adjustments) there is inserted—
"14E VOLUNTARY POSITIONS: VOLUNTARY CODE OF PRACTICE
(1) The Disability Rights Commission shall, when asked to do so by the Secretary of State, prepare a voluntary code of practice dealing with the matters specified in the request.
(2) In preparing a voluntary code of practice, the Commission shall carry out such consultations as it considers appropriate.
(3) The Secretary of State shall review after two years of the voluntary code coming into effect whether there is widespread observance of the voluntary code and shall if he thinks necessary, on the basis of the review, consult as he considers appropriate on including volunteers within Part II of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (c. 50).""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we return to the question of volunteers and whether they should be covered under the Act. Volunteering is a good way into the field of work. I return to the subject because of what the Government have been saying of late about, for example, incapacity benefit.
To volunteer enables you to get back to the workplace and into the work habit with the regulation of your own life. It helps to make a person much more employable and able to have a fuller life. That is why we believe the matter should be covered under the Bill. It is integral to the approach which the Government have brought forward over time. That is why I return to the subject. I shall be interested to hear if the Government have had any further thoughts on the subject especially in the light of the many other developments that have taken place outside this Bill. I beg to move.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |