Clause 3 - Jurisdiction of traffic officers
Traffic Management Bill
3:00 pm
Mr David Wilshire (Spelthorne, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 5, in
page 2, line 30, leave out from 'has' to 'jurisdiction' in line 36.
Normally, Whips are delighted when all their troops appear. However, as the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham is attached to the amendment and I might once again have to plead guilty, perhaps it would have been better if he had arrived after I moved it. We do not want a rerun of the little difficulty that I ran into this morning, but I thought that I would get the apology in before it was necessary, just in case.
This morning, under amendment No. 1 to clause 1, we debated whether we should leave out subsection (2)(b). I am tempted to say that this is another ''To be or not to be'' debate, because it involves the same sort of principle. Amendment No. 5 addresses clause 3. Subsection (1) states:
''A traffic officer has jurisdiction''
and specifies where the traffic officer has jurisdiction. However, the bottom of the subsection states
''unless his designation provides that this subsection does not apply to him.''
Subsection (2) states:
''If subsection (1) does not apply . . . he has jurisdiction only over such relevant roads, or relevant roads of such descriptions, as may be specified in his designation.''
The Minister argued earlier for clarity, lack of bureaucracy, brevity and all the other things for which Ministers of all political persuasions argue. He now has an opportunity to show whether he means it. The clause contains two provisions, one of which is
necessary; the other, by definition, is not. The traffic officer has jurisdiction over what is referred to in either subsection 3(1) or 3(2), but not both. If the Minister wants the traffic officer to have general powers, why does he not say that? I am offering him an opportunity to clarify the situation. Does he mean that traffic officers have jurisdiction
''only over such relevant roads . . . as may be specified'',
or general jurisdiction?
The Minister is looking puzzled, and although I do not like to repeat myself, I will try again. Subsection (1) provides that the traffic officer has jurisdiction over only any relevant road, while subsection (2) refers to any road ''as may be specified''. I do not see the need for both provisions, as one or the other will do. I took potluck and proposed to delete subsection (1), but I am not wedded to that. If the Minister agreed to delete subsection (2), I would be happy, but I do not see why we need both.