Proceeding contribution from Earl Attlee (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 1 November 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Road Safety Bill [HL].
Road Safety Bill [HL]
My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as president of the Heavy Transport Association; I am also close to other trade associations. I believe that transport Ministers of all Governments, including this one, have made the right decisions over the years and that is why we enjoy one of the best road safety records in Europe. But the Government have gone wrong on this one. The Minister talked about support from interest groups, but he will recognise that, because nearly all the key personnel in these interest groups have suffered personally from road traffic accidents, they are not exactly neutral. The whole of Clause 20 is highly undesirable; it will have unintended consequences, which I described in detail when the Bill passed through your Lordships’ House and we considered this government amendment. But we need to remember that the provision was not in the Bill when it started in the House of Commons before the general election; it was not even included when it came to your Lordships’ House after the election, despite the manifesto commitment and the fact that it was relatively easy to draft. The Commons amendment provides for prison sentences, even at the magistrates’ court; this would be on top of automatic disqualification. The problem is that, because some of the penalties—a fine, disqualification and prison—are mandatory rather than optional, so that the court would have to disqualify the driver, for example, the defendant would be encouraged to plead not guilty and opt for trial at the Crown Court. Worse still, if the driving error was very minor, the jury might well acquit, if only because they know that disqualification is automatic but inappropriate because the error was so minor. Finally, when a motorist who is normally very careful, competent and a perfectly decent member of society loses his licence for a momentary lapse—no matter how tragic the consequences—confidence in the system of motoring justice will crumble and we will run the risk of seeing lower levels of compliance in general. The Government have failed to explore other means of meeting the needs of the bereaved and perhaps of making it easier to secure conviction for dangerous driving. Realistically, the Minister has Clause 20 in his pocket because it is already in the Bill—we cannot stop that. He may eventually succeed with his amendment, but I believe that in the long term he will regret insisting on the Commons amendment. I hope that my noble friend takes it to a Division; I will support him in the Division Lobby.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 686 c339
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Appeals Death Accidents Bridges Dangerous driving Cameras Finance Immobilisation of vehicles Enforcement Level crossings Large goods vehicles Income Local government Railways Roads Safety Road traffic offences Taxis Sentencing Safety measures Road traffic control Testing Speed limits Driving licences
- Legislation
- Road Safety Bill (HL) 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2026-04-01 10:55:19 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_357504
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_357504
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_357504