Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Hanham (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 26 October 2005. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Road Safety Bill [HL].


Road Safety Bill [HL]

I have no objections to the amendments that have been moved. But I am unable to find anywhere else to intervene and ask the Minister to explain Clause 32(3)(e). With the leave of the Committee, I shall do that now. Clause 32 is entitled, Tests: approved assistants. Subsection (3) states:"““The regulations may make provision in relation to the approval of test assistants and may, in particular, include provision””." Paragraph (e) will include a provision,"““for an appeal to lie to the Transport Tribunal against a refusal of an application””." There may be a very hidden meaning here, but the phrasing seems to be extremely infelicitous if people are to be able to appeal to tell lies to the tribunal. That is how it reads. If that is not correct, at some stage we may want to amend the text. It seems a very strange way of putting things into legislation.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
674 c1183 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Crime prevention Advertising Bus lanes Buses Cameras Cycling Fraud Fees and charges Immobilisation of vehicles Fixed penalties Level crossings Exhaust emissions Large goods vehicles Driving instruction Helmets Medical examinations Motor vehicles Pollution control Motorcycles Motorway service areas Registration Young people Working hours Safety Roads Road traffic control Testing Road signs and markings Speed limits Road traffic offences Vehicle number plates Driving licences
Legislation
Road Safety Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk