I am grateful to the Minister for his robust reply. He said that a decision would be made on who was responsible for the vehicle, but that is not what the Bill says. I refers to"““using vehicle in dangerous condition””."
It seems to me there is a possibility that the Minister is saying that if the owner is to be prosecuted, he must have permitted a vehicle which is in a dangerous condition to be used, whereas if the driver is to be prosecuted, he might be charged with using a vehicle which is in a dangerous condition.
I recognise that my amendment is not correct as it stands but neither do I think that the legislation is correct as it stands as regards penalties being apportioned as between the owner and the driver. On that basis we may need to return to the matter again to obtain clarity on it. Once you move the penalty from being that of a discretionary disqualification—which leaves the matter of whether the user or the permitter is at fault in the hands of the court—you take the matter out of the hands of the court and make it an absolute offence for which there must be absolutely a disqualification. Once you do that and thereby put people’s livelihoods in jeopardy, you must be clear what the new section is saying.
Road Safety Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Hanham
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 4 July 2005.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Road Safety Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
673 c527 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:55:19 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_261030
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_261030
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_261030