I hope that I can be more helpful to the noble Earl than he suggested I was on the previous amendment. We do not think the amendment necessary. After all, police have been removing vehicles under the Act for more than 20 years and have not felt the lack of regulations relating to their contractual arrangements. We would not wish to introduce a new regulatory burden without a proven need, and do not see that need. That is not to say that the present arrangements are perfect; the noble Earl will identify areas where they fall down. However, we recognise that we must take into account a wide range of interested parties, including drivers whose vehicles might be removed, their insurers and the operators who might remove the vehicles.
I assure the noble Earl that a working party of the Home Office, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the insurance industry, the operators and the Highways Agency is engaged in conversation and consultation, with regular meetings and recently a most successful workshop on the issue. I am happy to take the opportunity to update the report that my noble friend Lord Rooker gave on the matter. Active work is going on and the issue is being addressed.
Road Safety Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Davies of Oldham
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 26 October 2005.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Road Safety Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
674 c1279 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 21:00:43 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_270569
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_270569
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_270569