| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Powers of Entry etc. Bill [HL]
3.07 pm
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to regulate powers of entry and powers in relation to documents; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Selsdon.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
10 Jan 2006 : Column 61
Road Safety Bill [HL]
3.08 pm
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Road Safety Bill, have consented to place their Prerogative and Interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 21, line 29, leave out from "substitute" to end of line 30 and insert ""3-6 or appropriate penalty points if committed in respect of a speed limit on a restricted road (as defined in section 82 of the RTRA); 2-6 (fixed penalty) in other cases"."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before speaking to the amendment I am sure that all Members of the House will join me in expressing our sympathy to the people of Wales following the tragic cycling accident which took place in north Wales at the weekend. I believe it was not caused by any lapse in road safety, but it should draw our attention to the fact that the matters which we are dealing with in the Bill are of considerable moment.
The amendment deals with a matter we have dealt with at some length, that is, the number of penalty points which shall be awarded to somebody caught speeding. The Bill proposes that the number of penalty points shall be reduced from three to a bracketed amount of two to six.
While we reluctantly accept that that is a reasonable measure on roads that are unrestricted, we feel that restricted roads—that is, roads with speed limits—are especially important and that persons who are going too fast on those roads should still receive a minimum penalty of three points. Any resiling by the Government from the present three-point penalty will send out entirely the wrong signal to people. At this late stage of the Bill, we appeal to the Government to reconsider and at least maintain the present arrangements of three points for people caught speeding on a restricted road. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I also support this short amendment. We discussed this at some length both in Committee and on Report. Like other noble Lords, I welcome the general tenor of the Government's proposals for the number of points for various offences contained in the Bill. The problem is simple: it is sending the wrong message to some people that, whereas they might have got three points if they were caught speeding in certain circumstances, they will now get only two. That sends completely the wrong message to drivers who may get caught and will negate many of the other really positive provisions on speeding. I therefore sincerely urge my noble friend even at this late stage to agree to take the provision
10 Jan 2006 : Column 62
away and reconsider it to see whether we cannot keep the three to six penalty points, rather than the two to six in the Bill.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, I also added my name to the amendment. Currently, if someone on nine points exceeds the speed limit and receives an additional three points, he will be banned from driving for a period. If he knows that by exceeding the speed limit by only a certain amount, he will receive only two points, he will say, "I can do it". That is wrong.
The Earl of Dundee: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 1 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. As has already been outlined, the amendment would keep the status quo for breaches of the 30 mph speed limit. The principle of variable penalties would remain in place, but the minimum penalty would be three points and a fine of £60, as at present.
Research indicates that it is the prospect of the imposition of penalty points that best dissuades drivers from breaking the speed limit. It is in 30 mph areas where children and other pedestrians are most at risk. The chances of death double when impact speeds exceed 30 mph. Current government advertising shows the additional stopping distances required when speeds rise above 30 mph. The proposal that penalties might be lowered for speeding in 30 mph areas therefore runs counter to the message from those government adverts. No doubt the Government may be reluctant to curb variable penalties at all, even if such restriction applied to 30 mph areas alone. However, in the latter case, sticking to three penalty points for speeding offences is surely in the interest of all road users. After all we are all pedestrians, not least when we have parked the car.
3.15 pm
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. On behalf of the Government, I endorse from this Dispatch Box the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, about sending our condolences to those who suffered in the tragedy at Abergele in Wales at the weekend. As he has indicated, that issue is not germane directly to this debate, but it is the first occasion on which we can record our sorrow at that terrible occurrence.
All noble Lords who have participated in the debate have again, with their customary force and eloquence, reiterated the arguments that we have had at previous stages. In resisting those arguments I do not want to say that the Government are categorically opposed to the thinking behind the views put forward—far from it. We recognise that they are put forward on the basis of seeking to enhance road safety as noble Lords see the position. But I want to emphasise a point that I have made previously. We are still in the consultation stage with regard to these issues. This does not have to be resolved by primary legislation. The scheme which will introduce any new framework of penalty points will be secondary legislation. We are still in the process of consultation.
10 Jan 2006 : Column 63
Today, noble Lords have put forward with great force one very significant viewpoint on those matters, but they will know that contrary viewpoints are being expressed. In fact, the issue of penalty points is being brought into some disregard because drivers may feel that for the most minor infringement they get exactly the same "hit" as drivers who have exceeded the speed limit by a considerable margin and have shown themselves to be much more careless about the safety of other road users than some. We are looking at whether the issue would be tackled better by an element of greater flexibility.
Our mind is not made up on that point, which is why the representations made again today are important. All that I insist in rejecting the amendment, and I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it, is for recognition that this is part of an ongoing debate which awaits resolution. There will be an opportunity for a final decision on the new penalty points' structure. We merely seek to preserve the openness of that debate and for the decision to be taken at the appropriate time. If the amendment were to be carried, the debate would be cut short and pre-empted by legislation which this Bill represents.
So I emphasise to the noble Lord that I do not seek to contradict his arguments. I am arguing for the necessary flexibility on procedure that enables us to address this issue at the appropriate time and for the debate to continue, because there are many contrasting views on the matter. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment. But before asking him to do so, I will of course give way to my noble friend.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that all that this amendment seeks to do is to change the flexibility for the Government from between two and six penalty points to between three and six penalty points, which still leaves quite a lot of flexibility?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it leaves quite a degree of flexibility, but not as much—about 33 1/3 less is my quick calculation—and it is that which I seek to defend.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says and I hear that we will have the opportunity to come back to the issue. However, I would remind him that that flexibility can be influenced by a decision by the police to prosecute because the courts will have the option to impose a harsher penalty, rather than when someone has driven just over the limit. For example, if someone drives through a 30 mph limit at 45 mph, it may be decided that three penalty points is not enough and that the person should be prosecuted instead whereupon the courts may impose a stricter penalty. So there is flexibility in the current system. It just depends at what level the police decide that a penalty notice should become a prosecution. I ask the Minister to bear that in mind. In the mean time, having listened to what he said and in the knowledge that we shall return to this at some point, I withdraw the amendment.
10 Jan 2006 : Column 64
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |