Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Rob Marris (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 9 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Road Safety Bill (HL).


Road Safety Bill [Lords]

The Minister kindly apologised to the House for tabling new clause 28 at rather short notice because a problem has recently been revealed. I hope he will reconsider the wording of the new clause, particularly subsection (2). Although the Bill originated in the other place, it will go back there because of amendments made in this place. The wording of subsection (2) is somewhat opaque. I do not see why there is effectively a double negative in line 4—"““not to be taken to have prevented””—" rather than ““to be taken to have allowed”” or some such wording. Such problems arise when measures are drafted at the last minute and come before the House with little notice. I understand the Minister’s position, but if the clause is agreed tonight, I urge him and his colleagues in the other place to re-examine the wording, which is not felicitous. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) said, retrospective legislation is rare. If we are to have it—and I understand the reasons for it—we should be clear that the wording is right, and that it is not rushed and likely to create further problems.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
450 c61-2 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Contracts Appeals Death Bridges Breathalysers Buses Licensing Fixed penalties Disqualification EU law Drugs Exemptions Injuries Insurance Level crossings Driving under influence Large goods vehicles Foreign nationals Driving instruction Misuse Motorcycles Taxis Registration Safety Safety measures Roads Testing Speed limits Road traffic offences Traffic lights Level crossing orders
Legislation
Road Safety Bill (HL) 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk