Road Safety Bill [HL]

If my noble friend Lord Simon were not seeking to be too mischievous, it seems to me that he was the sole contributor to this debate who was not. We all accept the principle and all contributions recognise the ability to create the chance for drivers to take a break at frequent intervals is a real necessity. The Committee will know that we have run a substantial campaign, even to the extent of having permanent notices on some of our motorways where drivers are likely to drive themselves too hard for too long recommending that they take a break if they feel tired. We know it is an important road safety issue. We are all agreed on the principle. A number of nagging details of practice have been identified. I do not believe that it is possible for us to work out a strategy whereby we would deny some drivers access to a picnic area. Once a vehicle has set its course for a picnic area, the late discovery that it might not be entitled to stop there could cause a most fearsome problem. On Amendment No. 138, we are not sure that we could make such discrimination among traffic work safely and we hope that that point will not be pressed too far. Security with regard to picnic sites is an important consideration. If we thought that the Secretary of State did not have sufficient powers to guarantee a proper level of security, we would welcome amendments that would give him such additional powers, but in existing legislation we already have sufficient powers. For example, if we needed closed-circuit television installed as a security measure, that would be possible and would be carried out. Amendment No. 145 requires the Secretary of State to publish a strategy for the provision of service areas. I understand that that is directed particularly towards the problem of lorry drivers and their periods of duty. I have some sympathy with that, but it will be recognised that under current government policy, operators of motorway service areas are required to provide parking and washroom facilities for the drivers of all classes of vehicles, including commercial vehicles. While no similar requirement is placed on the operators of trunk road services, the House will recognise that facilities exist on those networks, often specifically for the drivers of commercial vehicles. Those facilities have been developed by the private sector through the planning process and may also be provided by highway authorities under their statutory powers. I emphasise that the crucial determinant in all this is the highway authorities. They will bear the initial costs. They will need to be involved in obtaining planning permission in consultation with the planning authorities, but the Highways Agency will take responsibility for the development of the picnic areas. The Bill applies to England and Wales in that respect; I am advised that Scotland will deal with that aspect separately. I see the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, looking at me with his quizzical devolutionary gaze. I wither under the onslaught. Let him not press me further this evening. If I have misled him in any way, I shall take steps to correct the matter. I am no expert on devolution in this particular respect, but I am advised that that is the case. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Gibson for her contribution to the debate. The concept behind picnic areas is to ensure that drivers combat driver fatigue and act responsibly. One problem, at the moment, in this regard is that there are limited opportunities to take breaks. That is the purpose behind the clause. I believe it has been welcomed on all sides. I bear in mind the points that have been made, but I hope that noble Lords will recognise that there are reasons why I am unable to accept these amendments as tabled. However, I am grateful that they have been put forward in a constructive manner.