Road Safety Bill [HL]

As I indicated, I was a little less happy with this amendment on what I hope will be recognised by the noble Earl as quite significant grounds. The amendment would, in the main, duplicate provisions in the Police Reform Act 2002 that already provide for accredited persons to be designated with the powers of a police constable to control traffic for the purpose of escorting loads of exceptional dimensions. There is a certain superfluity about the amendment, but my first real objection is that it would move operational decisions on the suitability of persons to be conferred with police powers from where, I think the House will agree, they are best made; namely, at chief constable level. They would be transferred to the Secretary of State, which is not a wise course of action. The second problem with the amendment is that it would go far beyond its apparent purposes. I hear what the noble Earl says: members of the public are used on occasions to having defence police direct traffic when a particularly heavy load is being conveyed by Ministry of Defence personnel, which happens rarely. However, I am not sure that the citizens of this country would take too kindly to fixed penalty notices being issued by a Ministry of Defence officer or that alcohol or tobacco should be confiscated by him or her. The noble Earl’s amendment would confer those powers on such officers. I know that that is not the noble Earl’s intent or, let us say, his interpretation of that intent, which is wholly benign, but it would have that effect, and the Committee will recognise that that is a cause for severe   reservation about the amendment. The noble Earl made considerable progress with his earlier amendments, and we want to work on those ideas. However, this is a bad idea, and I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.