Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Davies of Oldham (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 10 January 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Road Safety Bill [HL].


Road Safety Bill [HL]

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. 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.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
677 c62-3 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Death Accidents Cars Dangerous driving Cycling Fixed penalties Disqualification Driving under influence Large goods vehicles Driving instruction Helmets Electric vehicles Roads Safety Road traffic offences Speed limits
Legislation
Road Safety Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk