Proceeding contribution from Greg Knight (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Monday, 6 November 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Road Safety Bill (HL).
Road Safety Bill [Lords]
I would like to probe that point a little further. The Minister said that he did not want clause 16, or the two Lords amendments to it, in the Bill. His words were that he preferred to rely on the existing legal mechanisms. Is he saying that if we agree to remove clause 16 from the Bill and do not include Lords amendments Nos. 5A and 5B, and, at a point in the future, the European Union determines that reflective markings should be affixed to vehicles, he will not have to come back to the House to seek permission to implement that? If that is not what the Minister is saying, why does he not accept that clause 16 should remain in the Bill and resist merely Lords amendments Nos. 5A and 5B, which would impose a time limit?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 451 c653
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Accidents Cameras EU law Fines Labelling Large goods vehicles Income International law Motor vehicles Roads Safety Safety measures Speed limits
- Legislation
- Road Safety Bill (HL) 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2026-05-13 12:11:02 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_358331
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_358331
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_358331