UK Parliament / Open data

Road Safety Bill [HL]

My Amendment No. 137 is not part of this group, but it should be because it is on exactly the same subject. As in the case of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Attlee, it has been superseded by the government amendment. For that reason, I shall not move it when we reach that point. I welcome the government amendment because my amendment was intended to ensure some way of displaying proof that people were insured. It has weak points. As pointed out by my noble friend, people could cancel their insurance but they would still have something to show that it had been paid for. I believe that such weaknesses have been overcome in the government amendment. I particularly like the Minister’s point that the penalty could be up to £1,000. Until the penalty is significantly more than the cost of insurance, unreliable, dishonest people will not bother to insure. They will say that it is a bit of a gamble as the fine will be so small that it is not worth paying the insurance. That is the major driving force behind people failing to insure their vehicles. I welcome the fact that a solid amount is being proposed for persistent offenders. I hope that they will stop persisting and that everyone will have insurance. It is so unfair to other drivers as it pushes up all drivers’ insurance costs. We all have to meet the costs through various insurance associations for accidents when no one is insured.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

674 c628 

Session

2005-06

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords chamber
Back to top