---

Road Safety Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate, particularly since it has generated more controversy than I would be able to introduce from this side. For that we thank the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who is quite right to mention his Question for Written Answer which highlighted the example of lorries coming in from Ireland and using the A55 in North Wales. I am afraid that a very high percentage of them were not fit for the road. That is an important consideration. As the noble Baroness mentioned, we have discussed the issue previously and I understand the intention behind the amendment. I note the proper concern for the position of an employee who has the misfortune of working for an unscrupulous employer, but this Bill is about road safety and we have a duty to the public. Therefore there are obligations on those who take charge of a vehicle, to say nothing of the fact that one aspect of road safety is the hope that the driver will be safe. It is in his interest that we should reinforce the obligation to make checks on the vehicle. Our obligation to ensure the safety of the general public is quite clear and the reason we have the offence in the first place. Moreover, if we are considering the commercial transport industry, it is all the more important that we have these safety provisions in place. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has highlighted the problem with the amendment. It would open a very wide loophole associated with circumstances in which someone might try to claim that they did not own the vehicle and were merely driving it on behalf of their employer. The concerns expressed are adequately covered by the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, which states:"““Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 40A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (using a vehicle in a dangerous condition etc) the court must not . . . order him to be disqualified, or . . . order any particulars or penalty points to be endorsed on the counterpart of any licence held by him, if he proves that he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that the use of the vehicle involved a danger of injury to any person””." So we are covered by existing legislation. The safeguard for the public is that we provide protection to the employee while requiring him to apply a reasonable amount of diligence when he is taking a vehicle onto the public highway. If a driver knowingly took out an unsafe vehicle only because he worked for an unscrupulous employer, he would deserve the punishment; he would be as guilty as the neglectful employer. If he can prove that he did not know, and had no reasonable cause to suspect, that the use of the vehicle involved a danger of injury to any person, he would be likely to escape disqualification on endorsement when the court examined the case. So we are covered by existing legislation. I would be very wary of any loophole that would be created which might help to explain some of the issues to which the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, referred when he mentioned the incidence of lorries—admittedly those coming from an external source—that do not match up to the proper specification. I hope that is a reasonable answer for the noble Baroness.