| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Attlee: The Minister has been extremely helpful in accepting the road safety argument, but he has not actually come up with cast-iron reasons for his argument that all sorts of problems will be caused. He has not adduced any other reason why we should not go down this route. There must be contrary arguments but he has not adduced any.
Lord Tanlaw: I thank the Minister for his response and, indeed, acceptance of the fact that the amendment is connected to road safety. I admit that I was somewhat surprised when he said that the Department of Trade and Industry is responsible, but I have taken note and I shall approach the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, again to ask him to re-examine the issue.
I have been on this subject for many years—I have been in this House for 34 years. From time to time I have raised the issue in Bills, Questions and so on, but I have yet to discover any wider interests, except those of party managers. I do not know what those wider interests are. I am a Scottish hill farmer. I was brought up in Ayrshire but my clan comes from further north. I am well aware of the Scottish problem but it is not a problem now. We have electricity and modern farming methods. We are no different from anywhere else, whether it is Stavanger or Reykjavik. We are not in the Middle Ages for heaven's sake.
I am amazed at what the Minister said. I am disappointed and I may wish to come back to the matter when I discover those wider interests. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 163 and 164 not moved.]
Clause 43 [Minor corrections]:
[Amendments Nos. 165 and 166 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 167 and 168 not moved.]
Viscount Simon moved Amendment No. 168A:
"PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES
In section 64A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (c. 60) (photographing of suspects etc) after paragraph (a) of subsection (1B), insert—
"(aa) a person reported for summons for a motoring offence,"."
The noble Viscount said: I should love not to have to move this amendment. However, it is another amendment introduced by the police to another piece of legislation that will have a profound impact on roads policing. I have previously referred to this in a speech.
26 Oct 2005 : Column 1294
The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act amended the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to permit certain offenders to be photographed at the scene of the crime. Indeed, as I have previously suggested, a driver who commits the offence of not wearing a seatbelt may have his or her photograph taken when issued with a fixed-penalty ticket. That facility is denied in circumstances when a driver is prosecuted for anti-social driving by means of a summons—a process that inevitably takes a long time to conclude and creates a weakness in the system.
On cross-examination, officers have had to admit that with the passage of time and the number of people with whom they have come into contact, their recollection of the particular offender is compromised—a weakness which many defence lawyers seek to exploit. With this amendment, I propose to close this loophole. I beg to move.
Baroness Crawley: My noble friend Lord Simon may be aware that the Government introduced the ability to photograph suspects elsewhere than at a police station under Section 116 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Those provisions are likely to be commenced in January 2006 and highlight the benefits of photographic evidence of the individual being available to a constable and others with enforcement powers.
I recognise that the noble Viscount's amendment is very much in the same vein and support its aim. It is a part of a wider issue of enabling photographs to be taken elsewhere than in a police station for all those reported for summons irrespective of the nature of the offence. I understand that the Home Office will consider whether such provision should be made and is looking at including this issue in a public consultation document on police powers to be published later this summer. That should provide an evidence-based approach for consideration in a future legislative programme. I hope that in view of that explanation the noble Viscount will withdraw his amendment.
Viscount Simon: I am not certain whether I heard my noble friend say that that will allow photographs to be taken in all circumstances. Am I right?
Baroness Crawley: I believe that my noble friend is right.
Viscount Simon: I thank my noble friend for her reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 169:
"PROOF NECESSARY TO DRIVE HGV ON RESTRICTED ROAD
After section 19 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) (prohibition of parking of HGVs on verges, central reservations and footways) insert—
"19A PROOF NECESSARY TO DRIVE HGV ON RESTRICTED ROAD
26 Oct 2005 : Column 1295
A person shall not drive a heavy commercial vehicle (as defined in section 20 of this Act) on a restricted road (as defined in section 82 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) unless he has documentary proof of his need to drive on that road.""
The noble Lord said: I will briefly describe why I am moving this amendment. I do not expect a reply now; I shall expect it in discussions with the Minister. The amendment seeks to prevent the police having to follow a vehicle driving on a road on which that vehicle is banned. At present, the police have to follow a vehicle right the way through the area over which the restriction applies. Under the amendment, if the driver is making a delivery or a collection anywhere along the route which is restricted, the policeman would be able to ask the driver to produce documentary evidence of his necessity to deliver to premises, or collect from premises, along the route. It would greatly ease the burden on the police and it would make prosecution of those people who use short cuts through rural areas very much easier. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he moved the amendment. I should be only too glad to discuss the matter with him. The Government accept, of course, that large goods vehicles should not use unsuitable roads. Local authorities already have powers to impose restrictions in that regard. There are some difficulties with regard to the amendment, but I shall discuss those with the noble Lord and we may be able to make progress. As I say, I am grateful to him for the way in which he moved the amendment.
Lord Bradshaw: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 169A to 169F not moved.]
[Amendment No. 170 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 171 not moved.]
Schedule 5 [Repeals and revocations]:
[Amendments Nos. 171A to 171C had been retabled as Amendments Nos. 172A, 174A and 178A.]
Baroness Crawley moved Amendment No. 172:
| "In section 66(8), the word "and" after the definition of "hiring agreement"." |
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendments in this group correct minor drafting errors and omissions in Schedule 5 to the Bill, which contains repeals and revocations, including repeals of some spent enactments. These amendments ensure that the correct repeals and revocations are made with respect to the giving of fixed penalty notices by vehicle examiners. The new system of endorsement is introduced by Clauses 7, 8 and 9—together with Schedule 2 and 3 to the Bill, on driver training and driver instruction. I urge noble Lords to support these technical amendments.
26 Oct 2005 : Column 1296
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Crawley moved Amendments Nos. 172A to 178:
| "In section 30—(a) in subsection (1)(b), the words "the counterpart of his licence or", and(b) in subsection (2)(b), the words "on the counterpart of his licence or"." |
| "( ) paragraph 35(a)," |
| "Section 43(3)." |
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |