|
Mr. Wilshire: I am grateful to the Minister. I find most of that explanation helpful; it is on the record, and we know why what is being done is being done. The one issue that the Minister did not pick up, on which I shall not press him now, though I would be grateful if he would indicate that he will give further thought to it between now and Report, is that assault is more serious than obstruction. That matter requires more reflection than we can give it at half-past 5 in the afternoon.
Mr. Jamieson: The maximum sentence set out in the Bill is in accordance with other Acts. That matter needs to be rehearsed elsewhere. The type and length of sentence is entirely up to the courts, which will, of course, reflect the seriousness of the offence.
Mr. Wilshire: I hear what the Minister says. I simply repeat that I hope he will reflect to see whether there is any way we can do something. I do not wish to press the matter to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment No. 62.
Amendment No. 82, in
page 5, line 33, at end insert—
'(5A) If at the time a person obstructs, resists or disobeys a traffic officer that officer does not have authority for his actions, then the subsequent granting to him of such authority will not thereby create or make the said persons obstruction, resisting or disobeying amount to an offence.'.
Amendment No. 22, in
page 5, line 34, leave out subsection (6).
Mr. Wilshire: Amendment No. 21 has some substance. Clause 10(5) specifies what happens when traffic officers have reason to believe that someone was
Column Number: 081
driving a vehicle, and it gives them too much power; the traffic officer needs to be clear that the person was driving before he can demand information. The Minister may wish to answer the point now, but my feeling is that we shall need to return to the issue on Report when we can do it some justice, because it is more than a minor matter, but that is what is going through my mind.
Mr. Jamieson: The term ''reasonably believes'' is consistent with precedents—in the Road Traffic Act 1988, for example. The purpose of amendment No. 62 is to add to the circumstances in which a traffic officer is empowered to require a driver to give their name and address. Currently, clause 10(4) makes it an offence for a person not to give their name and address to a traffic officer where a driver fails to comply with a traffic officer's direction. Amendment No. 62 makes it also an offence where a driver fails to comply with traffic signs placed by a traffic officer.
Mr. Wilshire: I hear what the Minister says. I have no comment on the Government amendment. I feel strongly about amendment No. 21; I see where the safeguards are. On the other hand, it would not be a good use of the Committee's time to divide on the amendment, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: No. 62, in
page 5, line 32, leave out from 'with' to end of line 33 and insert '—
(a) a direction given in relation to that vehicle under a power conferred by section (Powers to stop or direct traffic), or
(b) the indication given by a traffic sign placed under a power conferred by section 7.'.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Uniform
Mr. Wilshire: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in
page 5, line 41, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.
I could speak at some length about the amendment, and had looked forward to doing so, because the implication of the clause is there could be a free-for-all when the Minister becomes converted to the idea of privatisation. A number of authorities will contract out the service, and I should hate to think that we were giving them an opportunity to compete with each other for the most garish uniform. They might even decide to sell advertisements on the backs or fronts of the jackets if we had no control.
David Wright (Telford) (Lab): That is the market.
Mr. Wilshire: Some things about the market are more acceptable than others. I shall be happy to have a lengthy debate if the hon. Gentleman would like one.
One principle of contracting out and privatisation is that one writes the contracts that one wants. It does not necessarily affect the market if I—the person contracting with somebody else for that person to provide, in that name, the service that I want—say that I want that person to look smart and tidy, not garish. That does not undermine anything to do with the free
Column Number: 082
market. If the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) would like a little lesson in free market economics, I shall be in the Strangers Bar later, and I shall be happy to oblige him or any member of the Labour party who needs help in the course of the evening; some of them might.
The Minister should give some thought to saying that the national authority ''must'' specify the uniform, or else we could have a proliferation of uniforms, and confusion among the public.
Mr. Jamieson: We do want consistency of uniforms. There was a feeling that some flexibility in certain circumstances might be appropriate. However, I have news for the hon. Gentleman. We are prepared to consider the matter, as there is some merit in his argument.
Mr. Wilshire: It would be unfair of me not to say to the Minister that I am not just grateful to him for being so persuaded, but gobsmacked. It just goes to show that if one writes enough amendments, one or two of them will be sensible.
Mr. Jamieson: We are a listening Government; we always listen to good ideas, wherever they come from.
Mr. Wilshire: With great enthusiasm, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Power to charge for traffic officer services provided on request
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Knight: We have misgivings about the clause, as the Minister knows from a private chat that I had with him and his officials some time ago. There seems to be an unfairness about it. It states that
''The appropriate national authority may, at the request of any person, agree to arrange for the services of a traffic officer to be provided . . . subject to the payment of a charge.''
I think that the clause envisages dealing with the organisers of special events, such as the recent Robbie Williams concert at Knebworth, after which those who had been to hear the singer perform found themselves stuck in traffic for five or six hours while seeking to leave the area. Clearly, chaos resulted from that pop concert.
However, if, under the clause, a responsible organiser, realising that the tickets are selling like hot cakes and that many people are likely to arrive in vehicles, alerts the local police, what does he get for his pains? He gets a bill for the services of the traffic officers who come along to manage the traffic.
5.45 pm
Conversely, the fly-by-night concert promoter who plans a one-off event in an area decides not to bother because he knows that a bill may follow if he requests the assistance of traffic officers. He goes ahead with his concert without any assistance, and his profits are bigger because he does not have to pay the fee, even
Column Number: 083
though the chaos and disruption to members of the public and those attending the event is far greater.
There is injustice in that, and the clause may also break a principle in asking a private person to pay for the services provided by a police officer or someone acting in that role—a traffic officer, for example—on the highway.
The wording of the clause is strange:
''The appropriate national authority may, at the request of any person, agree to arrange for the services of a traffic officer to be provided to that person''.
Those, and not ''to be provided on the highway'' are the words, so what does the Minister envisage? If a promoter is having an event that requires traffic management on the highway and in the margins of the car park on private land, will traffic officers manage the traffic on both the highway and the land hired by the promoter? It could be inferred from the clause that the traffic officer could discharge his duties on private land as well as the highway, so will the Minister clarify the situation? If that is not the intention, why does the clause not refer merely to the traffic officer being provided to manage traffic on the public highway?
Mr. Jamieson: The simple answer is that the services supplied to the person for a special event such as a concert would be provided to them as the event organiser. Traffic officers would operate as the police do now—the police may also charge for a special event—and would be involved only on the highway
Column Number: 084
and in matters relating to the throughput of traffic on the highway.
The clause should be welcomed as it benefits the organisers of large events, who have no commercial interest in chaos outside their events because people will either turn away or not come back the next time. It is in their commercial interest to ensure that roads are clear and that traffic flows properly. The clause provides for negotiation and for traffic officers to make a charge for the services that they provide on the motorway or trunk road network.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 4.
Division No. 10]
AYES
Borrow, Mr. David
Jamieson, Mr. David
Mann, John
Merron, Gillian
Miller, Mr. Andrew
White, Brian
Wright, David
NOES
Chope, Mr. Christopher
Knight, Mr. Greg
Thurso, John
Wilshire, Mr. David
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 13 to 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Gillian Merron.]
Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Six o'clock till Thursday 29 January at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock.
The following Members attended the Committee:
Beard, Mr. Nigel (Chairman)
Borrow, Mr.
Chope, Mr.
Jamieson, Mr.
Knight, Mr. Greg
Mann, John
Marsden, Mr. Paul
Merron, Gillian
Miller, Mr.
Redwood, Mr.
Thurso, John
White, Brian
Wilshire, Mr.
Wright, David
| 
