Road Safety Bill [HL]

One of the joys of being a Minister is that if one sits at the Dispatch Box minding one’s own business, you can get answers to the most difficult questions from other informed Members. I have been the beneficiary of that this afternoon. My noble friend Lord Berkeley, in his last contribution, hit the nail exactly on the head. I agree with him entirely that we have to avoid detail. I understand the principle behind the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, moved so ably, but there is a real problem with putting into the Bill issues of great detail. The problem with what you include is that you throw into high relief that which you leave out. The clause is constructed to maintain a degree of necessary flexibility. That is why my main argument is the one that   my noble friend Lord Berkeley put—that we should avoid too much prescriptive detail in these circumstances, because none of us can envisage every conceivable circumstance when a problem might arise, nor can we anticipate every single defence that could be erected. Most magistrates, in my experience, are baffled by the fact that even after 30 years on the Bench they still   hear something new every day, because of the extraordinary ingenuity of people when they are confronted with the problem of being arraigned for having broken the law. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, identified another issue. It is one of the great advantages of this House that there is always someone with real interest in a subject, or with talent or position, who is able to answer such questions. I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is going to take up the issue with regard to the Thames Valley police and that therefore I can disregard that particular representation. As for the rest of the burden of the noble Baroness’s remarks about whether the signage is effectively communicated, I certainly agree with the principle that everything should be done to aid compliance. That is obviously so. At times I believe that we over-egg that pudding as well. Quite a number of people who are concerned with our national heritage are greatly disturbed about the number of warning signs, particularly on our urban streets. We may produce such clutter that the message does not get through anyway. The noble Baroness will forgive me if I do not answer too many of her points. For one thing, she has   the willing co-operation of the noble Lord, Lord   Bradshaw. A word in his ear on this occasion was the loudest stage whisper that I have heard for a long time—and he will have taken that on board. In any case, the noble Baroness will have a second bite of the cherry because, as she said, she has tabled a Question for later this week, when we shall return to this particular point. I shall concentrate on the main burden of the   amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord   Hanningfield. The problem is that the moment one starts to get into detail, one is trapped by whether one can effectively produce such a comprehensive list in the Bill, or whether it would create a clause that would make the Bill many times larger than it is now. Even if one did produce such a list, one might not be   successful in being wholly comprehensive. In addition, my noble friend Lord Berkeley referred to some aspect of subjectivity. There is a real problem when one identifies issues such as meteorological conditions and the presence of a certain number of vulnerable road users. In making such a judgment, how would we translate it into effective legislation? Regardless, in a specific case a magistrate or judge can take all the circumstances into account; that is what they pride themselves on doing. But how can we anticipate all of those factors in legislation? Would we not be guilty of producing such a grandiose generalisation that it would be meaningless and not aid the cause? I think that the noble Lord is absolutely right. It is important to recognise that additional factors can have a bearing on the severity of an offence. It is right that we dispense justice on the basis of the decisions in each case. These amendments are a good shot at a very difficult task. I am merely saying that we do think we have the capacity to meet that task with the rigour and accuracy that would make good legislation. I am not discounting the validity of his points on judgments about speeding. I am merely saying that we cannot do it according to amendments to the Bill that try to take into account all the circumstances. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will recognise that we have had a constructive debate and feel able to withdraw his amendment.