Road Safety Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 155:"After Clause 42, insert the following new clause—"    ““REMOVAL OF VEHICLES BY POLICE CONTRACTED RECOVERY SCHEMES    In section 99 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (removal of vehicles etc.), after subsection (2)(c) insert— ““(d)   may, subject to paragraphs (e) and (f), provide for Police Contracted Recovery Schemes; (e)   any regulations for a scheme under subsection (2)(d) shall provide that— (i)   all appointed recovery operators are accredited to an International Standards Organisation standard; (ii)   a person whose vehicle falls within subsection (1) is, subject to sub-paragraph (iii) or (iv), given the opportunity to arrange removal himself; (iii)   sub-paragraph (ii) shall not apply if a constable believes safety or other road users would be compromised and the customer is unlikely to be able to arrange for the vehicle’s removal before the appointed recovery operator; (iv)   sub-paragraph (ii) shall not apply if the road on which the vehicle is permitted to rest is a special road and the customer is unlikely to be able to arrange for the vehicle’s removal within a time specified in the regulations or one hour, whichever is the greater; (v)   if a person whose vehicle falls within subsection (1) arranges removal of the vehicle himself and his choice of recovery operator arrives before the appointed recovery operator, he shall be under no obligation to the appointed recovery operator or the authority; (vi)   neither the authority, the chief police officer or the police authority may benefit from a preferential scale of charges or free services from an appointed recovery operator; (vii)   when a vehicle has been abandoned by the owner or registered keeper the authority shall pay the appointed recovery operator the charges prescribed under section 102 of this Act; (viii)   an appointed recovery operator shall not be required to give any financial or other consideration for being appointed; (ix)   the police authority may make a financial charge, as prescribed, against the person whose vehilce falls within subsection (1), for despatching the appointed recovery operator, and such a charge may be collected by the appointed recovery operator; (x)   any scheme must allow for competition, new operators joining the scheme, and aim to have operators no further than a prescribed distance from each other; (xi)   no person shall be appointed under a police contracted recovery scheme if he is not of good repute as defined in sub-paragraph (xii); (xii)   a person is of good repute if he meets similar requirements to paragraphs 1 to 6 of Schedule 3 to the Goods Vehicle (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995; (xiii)   appointed recovery operators shall not charge more than the amount prescribed under section 102 for removing a vehicle weighing no more than 3,500 kilograms unless approved by the chief officer of police on each occasion; (xiv)   appointed recovery operators shall not charge more than the amount prescribed under section 102 for removing a vehicle weighing more than 3,500 kilograms unless there are unusual difficulties requiring extra facilities, but rates shall not exceed those published under sub-paragraph (xv); and (xv)   appointed recovery operators shall publish their scale of charges in such form as may be prescribed in one or more local papers; (f)   before making any regulations under subsection (2)(d) the Secretary of State shall consult such organisations as he considers necessary and in particular the authorities empowered by regulations under section 99(1).”””” The noble Earl said: The hour is late and I will not weary the Committee with the detail of why the amendment is so vital. Suffice it to say that the amendment concerns provision of vehicle recovery services, particularly those organised by the police. There are several problems on which I could elaborate. One is the congestion caused due to breakdown, but there is another serious problem about police-organised recovery schemes. Recovery operators pay a substantial fee to be on the list. It is not a bribe because it is open, but I doubt whether the average motorist is aware of it. Of course, the motorist pays in the end. Even worse, the police frequently organise their scheme so that their own vehicle recoveries are undertaken for free—and guess who pays for that. It will not have escaped the Minister’s notice that I moved exactly the same amendment during the passage of the then Police Reform Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, gave a helpful reply by saying, ““Yes, there is a problem and we’re working on it””, or words to that effect. Will the Minister give us an update and tell us what has been done since his noble friend gave such a helpful reply? I beg to move.