---

Lord Davies of Oldham: One of the joys of being a Minister is that if one sits at the Dispatch Box minding one's own business, you can get answers to the most difficult questions from other informed Members. I have been the beneficiary of that this afternoon.

My noble friend Lord Berkeley, in his last contribution, hit the nail exactly on the head. I agree with him entirely that we have to avoid detail. I understand the principle behind the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, moved so ably, but there is a real problem with putting into the Bill issues of great detail. The problem with what you include is that you throw into high relief that which you leave out. The clause is constructed to maintain a degree of necessary flexibility. That is why my main argument is the one that my noble friend Lord Berkeley put—that we should avoid too much prescriptive detail in these circumstances, because none of us can envisage every conceivable circumstance when a problem might arise, nor can we anticipate every single defence that could be erected. Most magistrates, in my experience, are baffled by the fact that even after 30 years on the Bench they still hear something new every day, because of the extraordinary ingenuity of people when they are confronted with the problem of being arraigned for having broken the law.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, identified another issue. It is one of the great advantages of this House that there is always someone with real interest in a subject, or with talent or position, who is able to answer such questions. I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is going to take up the issue with regard to the Thames Valley police and that therefore I can disregard that particular representation.

As for the rest of the burden of the noble Baroness's remarks about whether the signage is effectively communicated, I certainly agree with the principle that everything should be done to aid compliance. That is obviously so. At times I believe that we over-egg that pudding as well. Quite a number of people who are concerned with our national heritage are greatly disturbed about the number of warning signs, particularly on our urban streets. We may produce such clutter that the message does not get through anyway.

The noble Baroness will forgive me if I do not answer too many of her points. For one thing, she has the willing co-operation of the noble Lord,
 
27 Jun 2005 : Column 47
 
Lord Bradshaw. A word in his ear on this occasion was the loudest stage whisper that I have heard for a long time—and he will have taken that on board. In any case, the noble Baroness will have a second bite of the cherry because, as she said, she has tabled a Question for later this week, when we shall return to this particular point.

I shall concentrate on the main burden of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. The problem is that the moment one starts to get into detail, one is trapped by whether one can effectively produce such a comprehensive list in the Bill, or whether it would create a clause that would make the Bill many times larger than it is now. Even if one did produce such a list, one might not be successful in being wholly comprehensive. In addition, my noble friend Lord Berkeley referred to some aspect of subjectivity. There is a real problem when one identifies issues such as meteorological conditions and the presence of a certain number of vulnerable road users. In making such a judgment, how would we translate it into effective legislation? Regardless, in a specific case a magistrate or judge can take all the circumstances into account; that is what they pride themselves on doing. But how can we anticipate all of those factors in legislation? Would we not be guilty of producing such a grandiose generalisation that it would be meaningless and not aid the cause?

I think that the noble Lord is absolutely right. It is important to recognise that additional factors can have a bearing on the severity of an offence. It is right that we dispense justice on the basis of the decisions in each case. These amendments are a good shot at a very difficult task. I am merely saying that we do think we have the capacity to meet that task with the rigour and accuracy that would make good legislation. I am not discounting the validity of his points on judgments about speeding. I am merely saying that we cannot do it according to amendments to the Bill that try to take into account all the circumstances.

On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that we have had a constructive debate and feel able to withdraw his amendment.

5.30 pm

Lord Hanningfield: I thank the noble Lord for his answer. As I said at the beginning, these are probing amendments. We very much support the idea of flexibility in the system. Everyone would agree that one commits an offence by breaking the speed limit. However, as in other offences, there are various degrees of offence. We therefore support the Government in trying to introduce variation to the points system.

As I admitted on Second Reading, I myself have points. However, I gained them by not knowing that I was in a 40 mile per hour limit. I thought that I was on a major road—the A13. Mind you that it did not happen in Essex, where speed limits are clearly sign-posted, but in London. If it had been in Essex there would not have been a problem. I thought that I was in a 40 mile per hour
 
27 Jun 2005 : Column 48
 
limit, and I was doing 38. That is why I have points. As my noble friend Lady Gardner said, it is incumbent on authorities to have the right signage and the signs need to be clear and understandable by the motorist.

In tabling the amendments I was trying to get the Government's feeling on the issue. I note what the Minister said. I agree that the matter should not be prescribed in such detail. We shall see look in Hansard to see what he said. It is a difficult issue and we do not want to be over-prescriptive. However, we want to ensure that the Bill contains the right words. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 11 to 14 not moved.]

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3 [Graduated fixed penalty points]:

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff): Before calling Amendment No. 15, I should inform the Committee that, were it to be carried, I should not be able to call Amendments Nos. 16 to 20.

Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 15:

Page 2, line 28, leave out from "as" to end of line 41 and insert "set out in Schedule (Graduated penalties)"

The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with the same topic and we undoubtedly will have a similar debate. It seeks to shine further light on how the system might work.

Amendment No. 15 introduces a new schedule that would specify in the Bill the graduated penalties that would apply to speeding. I stress at the outset that I have tabled the amendments not necessarily because I believe in these figures, as I said, but to take forward our previous debate. Neither would I say that the penalties specified are correct. However, the amendments will allow us to debate further the issue of where we should set the penalties.

As it stands, we will learn later, in secondary legislation, how the graduated penalty system will apply. As everyone knows, I am not a fan of such legislation—which is why I believe we should debate the issue today. I agree that the subject is entirely controversial. As we have heard, there are many different and sincerely held views on it. However, we have a chance with this primary legislation to discuss the issue and what the Bill should provide—what we as parliamentarians collectively think are the right answers about graduated penalties.

My view, subject to any arguments put forward by the Committee, is that the Government have started on the right lines. However, by tabling this schedule and these amendments I wanted to start a debate on graduated penalties and seek the Committee's agreement, after proper discussion, that it is desirable to include such penalties in the Bill rather than deferring the matter to some point in the future when we have the secondary legislation.
 
27 Jun 2005 : Column 49
 

I think that flexibility is the key to a successful system. There is an admission of the need for flexibility, as we have discussed. Regardless of whether that is achieved by order or through this amendment as well as graded penalty points, I should welcome an approach that indicated that there will be a clear difference between an offence that attracts six penalty points and one that attracts two points. That is what I am trying to get out of this debate. I should like to establish what should attract six penalty points and what should attract two.

I should welcome any further information that the Minister can give us about where each limit will be set and what fine it will attract. The amendment deals with an interesting and important issue. I hope that the Minister can inform us of the Government's current thinking on it. I beg to move.

---