Road Safety Bill [HL]

This has been a fascinating debate, which has led us through some technical areas, but some clear principles have been adumbrated. Although the amendments come from different perspectives, the objectives of the noble Earl, Lord   Attlee, are somewhat different from those relating to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I wish to identify the principles that underpin the legislation and why, therefore, I cannot accept the amendments, even though they have different perspectives. First, the effect of the noble Earl’s Amendments Nos. 62, 63 and 65 to remove ““detection”” from the definition of speed assessment equipment detection devices and insert the word ““jamming”” would be to limit the range of the devices that the Bill would allow to be prohibited. It would reduce us to dealing with jamming devices. We do want to see such devices removed, because they directly interfere with the process of detection, and with the action of the police in seeking to identify someone potentially breaking the law. We are all agreed on that, and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has taken us some way with him in that respect. As currently worded, however, the provisions within the Bill mean that it would be possible to prohibit a vehicle being fitted with speed assessment equipment detection devices that detect or interfere with the operation of equipment used to assess the speed of motor vehicles, or to prohibit a person from using a vehicle carrying such a device. Jamming devices clearly interfere with the operation of speed enforcement equipment. That is in the Bill, and we do not need it reinforced any more. The amendments do not add significantly to that. Some people use jamming devices, although, mercifully, a relatively small number. The majority of speed assessment equipment detection devices in use, however, detect the presence of a speed camera or other police speed enforcement, and alert the driver—the device referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, which gives him a helpful beep when it detects a speed camera. That device is not as benign as it may appear. This is where I will speak against the amendment of my noble friend Lord Berkeley. We are not against people being aware of where safety cameras are placed. That is why, even at the end of a delightfully scenic lane, like the one in which my noble friend Lord Howie lives, we put a garish yellow device that is clearly marked, and everyone knows what it is. It is preceded by a warning a little further away, which says that safety cameras are in operation in this area, and that they will detect people who break the speed limit. We are not opposed to people knowing where these cameras are. Quite the opposite: we want people to know, because the cameras are telling them that they are moving from one level of road activity—where it is relatively safe, and higher speed limits are likely to pertain—to an area where it is necessary to have speed cameras to enforce a limit with some certainty and to condition drivers’ activity. We have no objection to a positioning system working via satellite that informs a driver that they are   moving into areas where safety cameras are placed. Why should we? I see that my noble friend Lord Berkeley is going to tell me why we should.