Clause 10 - Offences
Traffic Management Bill
5:30 pm
Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)
I had a hand in amendments Nos. 14 to 19. I shall be brief, because collectively they cover a small number of points. In no particular order, three of the amendments would delete the words ''or both'' after the provisions relating to a fine or imprisonment. I am interested to hear the Minister's explanation of why the words ''or both'' are justified. It seems to me that one penalty or the other would be adequate.
Two of the amendments would change the number of weeks from 51 to 26 or 52. I just think that the period should be six months or a year. Fifty-one weeks bothers me. Why not make it 52 weeks or a year? Then we would all know where we stood. I do not need to labour the point, but I should be interested to hear the Minister's explanation.
One issue is perhaps more substantial. Amendment No. 14 would change 51 weeks to 104. That is more than a tidying-up exercise. It is not a case of changing 51 weeks to 52 and calling it a year, but again I had a choice. Under clause 10(2), a person who ''resists or wilfully obstructs'' a traffic officer is liable to be sent to prison for 51 weeks, but if 51 weeks is suitable for someone who wilfully obstructs, a person who assaults a traffic officer under clause 10(1) should go to prison for longer. I am curious why the same sentence applies for both obstructing and assaulting. I think that the Minister will agree that a person who beats someone up deserves a great deal more than if one who just sits down in the road or is somewhat cussed.