Clause 4 - Powers to direct traffic officers
Traffic Management Bill
3:30 pm
Mr Greg Knight (East Yorkshire, Conservative)
I am intrigued to know how the Minister views clause 4 in relation to clause 3 because there is a conflict between them. For example, suppose that a traffic officer, with limited jurisdiction, is carrying out his duties and is approached by a chief constable who says, ''Stop what you are doing over here and go to the other lane of the motorway'', and then gives him directions. Is the Minister saying that clause 4, which gives a police constable powers to direct a traffic officer, overrides that traffic officer's limited authority, or does clause 3 override clause 4 so that no matter what a traffic officer is directed to do by a constable, the traffic officer will act unlawfully if that direction is outwith his authority? I should be interested to know how the Minister envisages the two clauses working together. The common-sense view on how the two clauses ought to operate, which most of us would accept, is that if an experienced police constable feels that the traffic officer should be doing something slightly different, even if his authority does not extend to it, the police officer should be able to direct the traffic officer to do whatever he thinks is right in the circumstances. I hope
that the Minister can assure us that clause 4 will widen the authority under clause 3.
Does the Minister intend the clause to be as wide as it appears to be? We are all aware of the scenario in which we expect it to operate; that is, a uniformed officer assigned to traffic duties arrives on the scene of an accident or an area of congested traffic and instructs the traffic officer what to do. As worded, the clause refers only to the ''direction of a constable'': it does not have to be a constable in uniform. It could be a detective constable off duty on his way home. Does the Minister intend the clause to apply to any constable, even a constable not in uniform?