ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [Lords] (Hansard, 23 March 1972)

§ The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill consolidates with amendments proposed by the Law Commission a number of enactments referring to road traffic. It is the same as the Bill introduced in the last Session in another place at the end of July but which then made no further progress. It has in the present Session been through all its stages in the other place. It represents the second stage in the consolidation process. The first stage was involved in the Road Traffic Regulation Act, 1967.
Both that Act and this Bill are based on the previous even larger consolidating Act—the Road Traffic Act, 1960. The size and comprehensiveness of the Bill are both an indication of the invaluable contribution made to statute law reform by Members of both Houses who serve on the Joint Consolidation Committee working in conjunction with the Law Commission.
The Bill, apart from the purely consolidating aspect of it, gives effect to 14 recommendations of the English and Scottish Law Commissions. They all consist of minor amendments and corrections of anomalies that have been examined and approved at two sittings of the Joint Committee on 15th December and 26th January last. The Committee itself made some improvements in the form of the Bill, expressed its satisfaction with its contents and concluded that there was no point to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn.

§ Mr. Frederick Mulley (Sheffield, Park)
I realise that the scope of debate on a consolidation Bill is very narrow. One possibility would be to raise questions about the recommendations of the Law Commissions. I do not wish to do that but I would join the Solicitor-General in paying tribute to the members of the Joint Committee and also to the members of the Law Commissions.
The other point which I think it is in order to raise is whether, instead of proceeding with a consolidation Bill, it 1817 would be better to leave the law as it is at present in various Statutes. I join the Solicitor-General in saying what a tremendous task has been involved. As a matter of general principle I welcome consolidation Measures, because they must surely be a great convenience for those concerned with this branch of the law. But I raise this point, and I hope I can have some assurances from the Solicitor-General as we proceed with this Bill.
I hope so because of its connection with another Bill at present before the House which also came from another place, a Bill which has had its Second Reading and has not yet gone to Committee—namely the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Bill. In that Bill it is already assumed—and I find no precedents for this—that this Bill is not only passed but was passed in the last Session. It is referred to as the Road Traffic Bill, 1971, and I can find no such Bill. However, since the Clause references are similar, it is presumably this Bill.
On the other hand, the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Bill, to which the House must give further attention, also refers to some of the Statutes which are repealed by this consolidation Bill. Therefore, it is a rather difficult question whether it would be for the greater convenience of hon. Members in considering the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Bill to wait for consolidation until after that had been passed, or whether in fact we should try to amend that Bill and take away the references which are repealed by passing this consolidation measure, because some of the Sections—and I quote in particular Section 183 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960—are in the list of measures which Schedule 9 of this Bill repeals and revokes.
The Government have put us in a difficulty by proceeding in this way with that Bill. The subject matter is non-controversial. Indeed, the Bill was welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the Second Reading Committee. The fact that it was in a Second Reading Committee is a recognition of its non-controversial character. We do not want to hold it up. The Minister in charge of the Bill gave no inkling of the fact that the Government were proceeding in this way with a Bill that did not come until 1818 2nd March from the other place, whereas the Second Reading of the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Bill took place on 2nd February. The Government have caused some inconvenience and confusion to hon. Members.
Although as yet no Amendments have been tabled, I have no doubt that the Government will be proposing Amendments to deal with this difficulty. If the Solicitor-General can give us some assurance on that point, I would not seek to oppose the Bill tonight. Certainly it would be a rather unusual proceeding to divide the House on a consolidation Measure. I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be good enough to look into these matters and see that we have an opportunity during the Committee Stage of the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Bill to rectify what seems to be a very unusual proceeding.

§ The Solicitor-General
With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply very briefly, as far as I can, to the points raised by the right hon. Gentleman. One of the questions he posed he described as a very difficult one. I do not have an immediate and ready familiarity with the provisions of the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Bill, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the fact that this Bill is described as the Road Traffic Bill, 1971, presumably relates to the date on which it was introduced in the other place.

§ Mr. Mulley
I was complaining more about the fact that it is described in the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Bill as the Road Traffic Act—not "Bill" but "Act"—of 1971. I appreciate that it is usual in this context.

§ The Solicitor-General
I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point. As I understand it, the date changes automatically, according to the date a Bill is enacted; although it may start off with one date, it changes when it reaches the time for enactment.
I can see the possible confusing situation which arises with overlapping provisions of this kind, lapping and relapping each other. I shall certainly look at the right hon. Gentleman's points and draw them to the attention of my right hon. 1819 Friend. I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that the process of consolidation does not deserve to be impeded by the overlapping nature of these provisions.
I shall certainly see that the points he raises are looked at. I cannot give any personal assurance, on my own behalf, on matters extending into a wider area of transport policy but, speaking as some- 1820 one who is concerned with the quality of legislation, I shall certainly see that the matter is looked at.