We need your support to keep TheyWorkForYou running and make sure people across the UK can continue to hold their elected representatives to account.Donate to our crowdfunder
In law, it is convenient in that it does not allow them to look for any address that relates to the particular person. The statutory code of practice will set out how it is to be applied in order to obtain the information.
Amendment 144, in my name, relates to section 58Z4. It sets out the circumstances under which the keeper of a vehicle may be contacted if a fine remains unpaid by the driver of a vehicle. As it is currently framed, the keeper may be contacted
“within the period of 28 days beginning within the day after that on which the notice to driver was given.”
That is not quite how the provision should operate. Instead, in line with the provisions that have been made in England and Wales, it should operate so that it is only once the driver has been given a period of 28 days within which to make payment but has not done so that the notice to the keeper may be issued. The purpose of amendment 144 is, therefore, to give effect to that intention.
Finally, keeper liability is not a new process in Scots law. It is presently used in Scots law in a number of areas, including in road traffic legislation. Therefore, it is important to recognise that the provisions help to address loopholes in the law that can be used by unscrupulous companies that seek to exploit individuals.
As each of Pauline McNeill’s amendments is significantly detrimental to the success of the operation of the keeper liability regime, I urge members to reject amendments 172 and 173, and to support amendment 144.