| Traffic Management Bill
|
|
Mr. Wilshire: I see the argument that the Minister is developing; common sense would suggest that in a Selby-type situation—God forbid that it should happen, but if it were to do so—there could well be Column Number: 059 reasons for the traffic officer to help. However, I question whether a traffic officer needs to have powers in what amounts to a full-blown crisis. Police officers will have attended long since and both ambulance crew and fire officers, without any of those powers, will have done sensible things to minimise the risk of a further accident and to help to protect the public. Just because traffic officers do not have official powers to order people about, it does not mean that they cannot help. Why do they need all this statutory paraphernalia in order to do what anybody would do if they were there to lend the police a hand?Mr. Jamieson: The simple answer is that we can imagine a circumstance in which it might be appropriate for traffic officers, working with the emergency services, to bring in a heavy vehicle to remove vehicles that are near to the highway but not actually on it. We felt that it would be inappropriate to take that out of the Bill; rather, it should be left in in order to avoid any future challenge that traffic officers were operating beyond the scope of their responsibility. Amendments Nos. 9 and 20 relate to references to a traffic officer's having to be in uniform to exercise certain powers. The uniform will not require a hat. It will normally be an identifiable protective yellow jacket and leggings with an appropriate jumper. The amendments propose that that be amended to ''full'' uniform. While I understand the intent of the amendments, they are unnecessary and undesirable. The drafting is consistent with the wording used in similar legislation—for example, section 95(7) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in relation to traffic wardens and sections 37 and 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 in relation to constables. In those examples, the expression, ''uniform'', not ''full uniform'' is used. To use alternative wording would be unnecessary and inconsistent with that approach.
4.15 pmMr. Wilshire: I follow the Minister's explanation. The fact that he has put on the record exactly what it means is probably sufficient, but he has not addressed the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire, perhaps slightly tongue in cheek, about the need to be in uniform on a road but not off it. The Minister resisted an amendment that would leave in the expression ''near a road'', and we have had examples of why traffic officers with heavy lifting gear might need to operate off a road but near it. If he persists with that argument, surely he needs to address the question of wearing a uniform near the road? It is not just a debating point, because he has argued for the need to wear a uniform on a road and given reasons why traffic officers should have powers. The clause does say that they exercise powers and must be in uniform, but there are situations in which they need to be off the road but need not be in uniform, and the Government should consider those between now and Report. Mr. Jamieson: When the traffic officers are carrying out their duties, they will be duty bound and contractually bound to comply with a dress code for Column Number: 060 working on the network. They will generally be working on the highway and wearing their uniform. They will also wear their uniform on the probably rare occasion when they are called in to work near the road.Amendment No. 92 seems to be intended to avoid repetition of the wording that the powers referred to in clauses 6(1)(a) and (b) already include. Sections 35 and 37 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 use the same expression. Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 relate to clause 6, which the Government tabled new clause 10 to replace. However, the principle of amendment No. 10 also applies to new clause 10, so it needs some comment. Amendment No. 10 proposes that the word ''cycle'' be included in clause 6(1)(a). Similarly, amendment No. 11 proposes that ''cycle'' be included in clause 6(2). Both amendments aim to ensure that the power of traffic officers to direct vehicles applies to cyclists, but they are probably unnecessary because clauses 6(1)(a) and 6(2) were drafted to give traffic officers the same power as constables in respect of sections 35(1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The word ''vehicle'' used in section 35 includes a cycle. That is the recognised interpretation of the word, and we do not want to depart from that approach in the case of traffic officers. To do so would be inconsistent with the interpretation of section 35 as it applies to constables, or to traffic wardens where legislation that relates to them also applies to section 35. Members may be puzzled by our reason for using ''cycles'' in clause 6(3). That clause refers to section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, which uses the expression ''mechanically propelled vehicles'' rather than ''vehicles''. That expression does not include cycles, although section 163 also expressly refers to cycles. I hope that that clarifies the apparent inconsistency in the use of the word ''cycles''. I see that that explanation has excited a comment from the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham. Mr. Marsden: Could I have an answer to my original question, which was why the original wording referred to sections 35(1) and (2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988, while new clause 10 refers to section 35(3). Mr. Jamieson: We were minded to table an amendment to clause 6. However, when the lawyers examined the clause, it became more convoluted as we began to amend it further to take out the power of arrest that we had inadvertently given traffic officers. Therefore, the draftsman tore up the clause and started from scratch, resulting in new clause 10. As we are getting into legal niceties, perhaps I could drop the hon. Gentleman a line to clarify the situation for the lawyers' minds. Amendment No. 32 would give traffic officers a power of arrest because section 163(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 confers such a power on constables. To give traffic officers the powers conferred on constables by the whole of section 163, rather than subsections (1) and (2), would give them the power of arrest. Column Number: 061 We have had a useful debate, and we have covered several interesting points. I hope that we can now consider the rest of the clause. Mr. Knight: I thank the Minister for his full explanation of many of the points raised during the wide-ranging debate. The Opposition were concerned that the powers were drawn too widely. However, what the Minister said about the need to react to situations as they unfold carried weight, particularly given the example of the Selby rail disaster, a terrible tragedy that occurred close to my constituency in which one of my constituents was killed. There is a delicate balance between allowing the responsible person on the scene flexibility to react in an unusual situation and powers being too wide or unchecked. In the light of what the Minister said, we will not force a Division on amendment No. 6. May I refer the Minister to a point that he did not answer? It is not the subject of an amendment today, but it may be on Report unless we get an answer from him. The Minister has not convinced me why we need the words ''on a road'' in clause 5(6). Without those words, the subsection conveys the Minister's wish that a traffic officer should wear his uniform at work. As we have already accepted that a traffic officer may be near rather than on a road during his work, why do we need those words? Their deletion would improve the Bill. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that and give an answer before Report, or we may be minded to table an amendment. The Minister's reply on clause 8 did not commend itself to me, and I hope that it did not do so to my hon. Friends. His reason for accepting clause 8 was that it would allow the speeding up of new powers that are deemed necessary. Dictators never have a problem acting with speed or obtaining new powers that they deem necessary. Democracy is a slowcoach, but that is surely preferable to allowing changes without proper scrutiny or wide consultation. The protection of liberty and allowing elected Members to have their say should override the Minister's desire for speed. The Bill will be far better without clause 8, and when we get to the clause 8 stand part debate, I shall urge the Committee to vote against it. Mr. Jamieson: I shall not comment on clause 8 until we reach it, but the hon. Gentleman makes a point about clause 5(6), which refers to a traffic officer not exercising his powers on the road unless he is in uniform. Some traffic officers will operate in places other than the road, including in the control centre. When officers are specifically on the road and interfacing with the public, it is important that they should be in uniform, whereas in the control centre, they will be operating the signs on the road and enforcing speed limits the signs, but the public will not see them. It would not therefore be imperative for them to wear uniform there. I hope that that is helpful and will deter the hon. Gentleman from tabling another amendment on Report. Mr. Knight: I am grateful to the Minister and will reflect on what he has just said. Amendment agreed to. Column Number: 062 Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 disagreed to. Mr. Wilshire: Point of order, Mr. Beard. Can I make it absolutely clear, so that we can get it in to Hansard, that the Government have just voted against part of their own Bill? The Chairman: Yes, that is so. Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 27 January 2004 |
