Lords amendment: No. 36.

I beg to move, That this House
agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

With this it will be convenient to deal with Lords amendments Nos. 37 to 40, 45, 47 and 80 to 86.

The amendments cover three matters. The first is protection of the activities of animal research organisations. Amendments Nos. 36 to 38 relate to the economic damage clauses that we inserted in the Bill on Report in this House.

Amendment No. 36 responds to comments made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The amendment narrows the scope of clause 142 by stating specifically that peaceful advocacy of economic actions against companies that are connected to animal research organisations will not trigger an offence. The amendment ensures that an offence can be triggered only by methods of persuasion that are themselves unlawful. That has always been our intention.

Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 extend the list of persons connected to animal research organisations contained in clause 143 to include funders of research. Funding bodies have been targeted for unlawful actions by animal rights extremists, just as have employees, suppliers and customers of animal research organisations. It is right that funders should have the same protection as other persons connected to animal research organisations.

I now come to the amendments concerned with road traffic offences. The new clauses inserted by amendments Nos. 39 and 40 are imports from the Road Safety Bill, which will sadly not now be enacted in this Session. The new clauses deal with two matters. The new clause inserted by amendment No. 39 enables the police to have access to insurance industry data relating to vehicles whose use is no longer insured. The second new clause permits police to carry out an evidential breath test not only at a police station but at a hospital or at or near a place such as the roadside where a preliminary breath test has been administered. I think that we can all agree that both measures will contribute to road safety. They were welcomed by all parts of the other place.

Finally, amendments Nos. 80 to 86 would allow Scottish Ministers to exercise certain delegated powers in the Private Security Industry Act 2001, following its extension to Scotland. In particular, Scottish Ministers will, after consultation with the Home Secretary, have the power to commence the provisions as they apply to Scotland. Additionally, Scottish Ministers will have the power to designate by order which specific sectors of the private security industry in Scotland are to be licensed and when.

As this is the last group of amendments, I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends and the Front-Bench Conservative spokesmen for their constructive working relationships with us on the Bill. It is an important piece of legislation. It has covered a huge area—serious organised crimes, community support officers, custody officers, money laundering and, importantly, tackling animal rights extremists, an area for which I have had personal responsibility in the Home Office.

As I said, I am disappointed that the measures on incitement to religious hatred are not going forward. I say to Mr. Oaten, who represents the Liberal Democrats, that it is a cop-out to say that we need another piece of legislation to deal with something that, as I said before, uses exactly the same wording and has the same intent as did the legislation on incitement to racial hatred. That said, I commend the amendments to the House and hope that the Bill will be enacted as soon as possible.

We have reached the final group of amendments, and I am grateful to the Minister for outlining what the amendments seek to do.

We agree that two key clauses have fallen away from the Road Safety Bill, which will not be enacted in this Parliament. The measures to allow the police to secure relevant information from insurance companies and, in particular, to conduct roadside breath tests are important, and they command support on both sides of the House. We are grateful for the assurances in the other place that the police will be properly trained and supported in administering the evidential burdens test.

The provisions on animal rights campaigners were tweaked in Committee, where the Government listened to my hon. Friend Mr. Djanogly, who has led for the Conservative party on that issue. Again, we are grateful that the sensible change outlined by the Minister has been made.

Finally, the Minister referred to the extension of the provisions of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 into Scottish legislation, which is an unexceptional measure. I thought that she and I had had our last outing together on the 2001 Act in Westminster Hall on Tuesday, when we debated bouncers and doorkeepers, but we have returned to it right at the end of this Bill.

I agree with the Minister that the provisions setting up SOCA are important. As I said earlier, although the Bill was a bit of a Christmas tree Bill, it has been improved significantly, and its central thrust certainly commands my party's support. SOCA will undoubtedly help to tackle the soaring levels of crime in Britain. However, we need far more than SOCA: we need 40,000 extra policemen and women to police our streets; we need less micro-management from the centre; and we need more local accountability. The Bill does not address those issues, but they will no doubt inform the debate over the next four weeks. I believe that those issues are a compelling argument to vote Conservative on 5 May.

I shall confine my remarks to amendments Nos. 39 and 40, and I am pleased that Viscount Simon took the opportunity to add two welcome measures to the Bill giving powers to the police.

Amendment No. 39 concerns the disclosure of information about the insurance status of vehicles and, by implication, whether a driver is insured to use a particular vehicle. It is a technical change to remove an inhibition, and it is welcome.

There is a problem with insurance companies that we must face and, again, an open discussion is required. The loadings on insurance premiums for young drivers are now so great that I suspect that a number of parents do not add their children to their insurance policies. Both the additional risk, as calculated by the underwriters, and the fact that it is a good idea for young drivers to be nominated to policies are important, but some insurance companies make it so difficult that some young people and some people who have had trouble with the law—I admit to having experienced such trouble—find themselves making the wrong choice of not being covered. People should be covered, but the level of cover is a matter for debate, and we should return to that issue.

Amendment No. 40 concerns the power to require specimens of breath at the roadside or in hospital. It is not vital to know whether this point is covered by this clause or some other provision, or whether the Government are minded to introduce a relevant provision. When I was a junior Minister in the Department for Transport, if a blood sample was taken in hospital from someone who had been injured in a crash for blood matching, and if there were grounds for suspecting that that person had been driving while above the legal limit for alcohol, it was not possible to analyse the blood without the patient's consent—I am not sure whether it was possible to analyse it with the patient's consent—to see whether there was prima facie evidence of an offence having been committed. I hope that the Home Office, the Department for Transport and the Department of Health will examine that issue. Failing to give consent in those circumstances should become an automatic offence, like failing to give a blood sample. Clearly, unconscious patients cannot be asked to give their consent.

Amendment No. 40 provides for less bureaucracy and less movement of people from the roadside to the police station. It contains sufficient protections to prevent the police from using the power to harass people. I am not saying that the police would often do that, but I know of one case in my constituency in which that happened. Amendment No. 40 will not make the situation worse, and it may make things better. It is good for drivers and good for suspects.

During my three-and-a-half years at the Department for Transport, no motorist ever complained about giving an alcohol or breath test. Some of those motorists were not drinking drivers, in which case the legislation was in their favour. Some were drinking drivers who were below the limit, in which case they had a lucky escape—it was not lucky for us that they were drink-driving. Others were above the limit, in which case there were caught bang to rights.

Amendment No. 40 is not controversial. The measure is welcome, and I am glad that the Government have accepted it.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 37 to 101 agreed to.