| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 122B:
"(3) The regulations shall make special provision for the police, fire, ambulance and defence organisations."
The noble Earl said: Schedule 4 inserts new Sections 123 and 124, among others, into the Road Traffic Act 1988. New Section 123 means that driving instruction businesses as well as instructors will have to be registered. I am not convinced about the desirability of further regulations—so I have just shot myself in the foot regarding the previous debate—but I will trust the Minister's judgment. However, new Section 124 allows for regulations to be made to exempt prescribed types of driving instruction from the newly drafted Section 123.
My amendment seeks to clarify that Section 123 would not apply to police, fire, ambulance and defence organisations. Those organisations have excellent driver/training schools and to require them to register would be a waste of resources. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, says that the police have excellent driving schools. All I can say is that their results are pretty dismal. Police cars manage to kill several hundred people every year.
26 Oct 2005 : Column 1181
There was an article in the Times yesterday about Chief Superintendent Les Owen, who led the anti-speeding campaigns in London. He was given a written warning for allowing his police driver to do 86 mph in a 50-mph zone. The irony is that the poor old driver was given a £250 fine and six penalty points, which was reduced to three on appeal, and the chief superintendent received a written warning. If the police want to have any credibility when driving, they must set an example. This kind of attitude—and I can quote several incidents in Oxfordshire that I have witnessed in the past year or two—is about the worst possible example that they can give to the general public.
I think that there is an argument for tabling an amendment on Report that states that police drivers must obey all traffic regulations except, possibly, when responding to emergency calls. I do not think that this applies to ambulances or fire brigades because they seem to behave responsibly, but I cannot say. There are obviously some very good police drivers but there are enough bad drivers around to give the force a very bad name. So I am not sure whether the answer is that the new Police Complaints Authority should have a role in ensuring proper driving standards among the police or whether it is a management issue, but this is a serious matter of concern that is not doing the police any good.
Lord Davies of Oldham: It is my misfortune to have to navigate between the Scylla of the position of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the Charybdis of my noble friend's one—one in favour of reducing regulation and the other introducing I am not sure what. My noble friend did not specify what improvement he wanted to see in police officers' driving. We are all mindful of those cases which, from time to time, hit the headlines, when mishaps occur during emergency driving. It goes without saying that authorities responding to emergencies need to take special care when driving and need to have high-level skills. That is why there is high-level training for such drivers. I bear in mind my noble friend's anxiety.
I assure the noble Earl, Lord Atlee, that we do not seek to place an unnecessary burden on those persons providing driver training to members of the emergency services or defence organisations. New Section 124 allows the Secretary of State to prescribe by regulations the circumstances in which the registration requirements set out in new Section 123 will not apply. That provision will enable exemptions to be made, where appropriate, from a general requirement to be registered, for example, in order to enable persons to acquire experience in giving driving instruction as provided for in subsection (2) of the new Section 124.
It is clear that the Bill can already adequately meet the specific needs of the police, fire, ambulance and defence organisations. We recognise that they are special categories. My noble friend may say that he is not satisfied with present standards although I believe that he reserves his criticisms for police driving. He has the right to comment on circumstances as he sees them.
26 Oct 2005 : Column 1182
However, he will recognise that we have specific exemptions for such drivers and their instruction because they are in a special category.
I am aware of noble Lords' concerns about driving standards in certain sectors. My noble friend gave a sharp illustration. The Bill will enable the Secretary of State to regulate any area of driving instruction to meet the needs of different sectors and, by raising driving standards, improve road safety.
Amendment No. 122B is unnecessary. It places an obligation on the Secretary of State to provide exemptions from registration even when they are not required or justified on the ground of road safety. I assure the noble Earl and the Committee that we have a Bill which provides such exemptions. I hope that I have allayed his anxieties. Also, although my noble friend Lord Berkeley can continue to raise the points that he made, we are catering for several generic categories and he has illustrated his point with only one category. On that basis, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Attlee: I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made his contribution. My amendment referred to schools rather than skills. There is not much that a school can do if a police officer subsequently behaves appallingly. However, he raises an important point. We have debated a suitable amendment at an earlier stage of the Bill. I am grateful for the Minister's response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Having called Amendment No. 128, I apologise for my slip and now call Amendment No. 123.
Baroness Crawley moved Amendment No. 123:
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 123, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 124 to 126. Paragraphs (b), (c) and (f) of subsection (5) of new Section 133ZA, on training, set out in Schedule 4, provide for the approval of persons providing training, their supervision and so forth, and the making available of information about them. Doubts have recently emerged about whether the existing wording clearly indicates that the provisions cover both training course providers and individual instructors. Amendments Nos. 123, 124 and 125 provide clarity in that they amend paragraphs (b), (c) and (f) of subsection (5) of new Section 133ZA to make it clear that the provisions apply to those giving instruction as part of training as well as training providers.
Paragraph (e) of subsection (5) of new Section 133ZA provides that regulations made under that section may include provision for the evidencing of the successful completion of training. There is a consequential need to include that evidence within the ambit of Sections 173(2) and 174(1). Amendment No.
26 Oct 2005 : Column 1183
126 ensures that the scope of Sections 173(2) and 174(1) are extended accordingly. In addition, Amendment No. 126 also inserts under Section 173(2) new paragraphs (ga) and (gb) concerning certificates issued under Section 133A to disabled drivers who successfully complete an emergency control assessment and the certificates or other items issued to a person by virtue of regulations made under Section 135(1)(a) as evidence of his registration in respect of a description of driving instruction. I ask Members of the Committee to agree to these amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: I have no objections to the amendments that have been moved. But I am unable to find anywhere else to intervene and ask the Minister to explain Clause 32(3)(e). With the leave of the Committee, I shall do that now. Clause 32 is entitled, Tests: approved assistants. Subsection (3) states:
"The regulations may make provision in relation to the approval of test assistants and may, in particular, include provision".
Paragraph (e) will include a provision,
There may be a very hidden meaning here, but the phrasing seems to be extremely infelicitous if people are to be able to appeal to tell lies to the tribunal. That is how it reads. If that is not correct, at some stage we may want to amend the text. It seems a very strange way of putting things into legislation.
3.45 pm
Baroness Crawley: I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, on her forensic look at this matter. On the face of it, it sounds a little strange. I shall have a good look at this and return to the noble Baroness if further clarification is needed.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |