B1506 – Emergency Services Protections and Exemptions Bill 2019 Watch

This discussion is closed.
Saracen's Fez
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1

What is this thread about?
This is a bill in the Model House of Commons (MHoC). It's a piece of proposed legislation that is currently being debated, and there's a good chance that the House will later vote on whether to pass it into TSR law. All are welcome and encouraged to ask questions about the bill's content and join in the debate – you don't have to be in a party or be an MP to do so.

What is the MHoC?
It's a political role-playing game where we pretend to be the House of Commons, and it's been going since 2005. We have formed parties, we have elections twice a year, and we debate bills and motions just like the real-life parliament. If you want to know more about how the MHoC works, your first port of call is the user manual. If you'd like to get involved and possibly join a party, you want the welcome thread.


B1506 – Emergency Services Protections and Exemptions Bill 2019, TSR Conservative & Unionist Party
A
BILL
TO

fortify or otherwise introduce certain protections and exemptions for members of the emergency services, and the institutional collective as a whole.

BE IT ENACTED by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:—

1(X)Definitions
For the purposes of this Bill,
(1) ‘emergency response driver’ shall refer to an individual, in operation of a motor vehicle registered to a fire and rescue authority, emergency medical authority or police force as recognised by the Fire Services Act 2004, the National Health Service Act 1946 and the Police Act 1996 respectively, exercising his or her duty under the aforementioned acts, and section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (exemption of fire brigade, ambulance and police vehicles from speed limits).

2(X)Protection from civil liability
(1) An emergency response driver (“D”) is not personally subject to any and all civil liability for damages D caused, if:-
(X) (a) D was, at the time the damage was caused, driving in the course of D’s work to respond to an emergency; and
(X) (b) D reasonably believed that the emergency was such that there existed a definite risk of preventable:-
(X) (X) (i) the loss of life;
(X) (X) (ii) substantial damage to property; or
(X) (X) (iii) severe criminal conduct.
(2) The Secretary of State retains the right to, by regulations, make provisions clarifying, amending, or defining the procedure under which subsection (1) applies.

3(X)Reduced sentencing in criminal prosecution for offences relating to dangerous driving
(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 2A of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (meaning of dangerous driving), insert:-
(X) 2AA Reduced sentencing for certain offences under sections 1, 1A and 2
(X) (1) It shall be a ground for reduced sentencing in criminal prosecution for the offences detailed in sections 1, 1A and 2 if:-
(X)(X) (a) the person driving the vehicle in which the offence was conducted is an emergency response driver (“D”) as defined by section 1 of the Emergency Services Protections and Exemptions Bill 2019;
(X)(X) (b) D was, at the time of the offence, exercising his or her duty as a emergency response driver, and responding to an active emergency;
(X)(X) (c) D reasonably believed, or was otherwise led to believe, that the emergency was such that there existed a definite risk of preventable:-
(X)(X) (X) (i) the loss of life;
(X)(X) (X) (ii) substantial damage to property; or
(X)(X) (X) (iii) severe criminal conduct.
(X)(X) (d) D has, prior to the offence, completed a course of training in the driving of vehicles at high speed provided in accordance with regulations under section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (exemption of fire brigade, ambulance and police vehicles from speed limits).
(X)(X) (e) D reasonably conducted himself in such a manner as to mitigate and minimize the contravention of any offence under sections 1, 1A and 2; and
(X)(X) (f) D reasonably believed that were it not for his conduct the exercise of his duties would otherwise be impeded in such a manner as to enable:-
(X)(X) (X) (i) the loss of life;
(X)(X) (X) (ii) substantial damage to property; or
(X)(X) (X) (iii) severe criminal conduct.
(2) This section shall apply to all cases and offences in progress at or after the time of this Bill comes into force.

4(X)Protection from criminal prosecution for offences relating to careless, and inconsiderate, driving
(1) The Road Traffic Act 1988 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 3ZA of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (meaning of careless, and inconsiderate, driving), insert:-
(X) (1) It shall be a defence to offences in section 2B and 3 if:-
(X)(X) (a) the person driving the vehicle in which the offence was conducted is an emergency response driver (“D”) as defined by section 1 of the Emergency Services Protections and Exemptions Bill 2019;
(X)(X) (b) D was, at the time of the offence, exercising his or her duty as a emergency response driver, and responding to an active emergency;
(X)(X) (c) D reasonably believed, or was otherwise led to believe, that the emergency was such that there existed a definite risk of preventable:-
(X)(X) (X) (i) the loss of life;
(X)(X) (X) (ii) substantial damage to property; or
(X)(X) (X) (iii) severe criminal conduct.
(X)(X) (d) D has, prior to the offence, completed a course of training in the driving of vehicles at high speed provided in accordance with regulations under section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (exemption of fire brigade, ambulance and police vehicles from speed limits).
(X)(X) (e) D reasonably conducted himself in such a manner as to mitigate and minimize the contravention of any offence under sections 1, 1A and 2; and
(X)(X) (f) D reasonably believed that were it not for his conduct the exercise of his duties would otherwise be impeded in such a manner as to enable:-
(X)(X) (X) (i) the loss of life;
(X)(X) (X) (ii) substantial damage to property; or
(X)(X) (X) (iii) severe criminal conduct.
(2) This section shall apply to all cases and offences in progress at or after the time of this Bill comes into force.

5(X)Exception from vehicle surcharges
(1) Vehicles used by emergency response drivers in the immediate exercise of their duties shall be exempt from any regional surcharge arising from the usage of said vehicles including but not limited to regional emissions zones.
(2) Subsection (1) shall not apply if the Secretary of State, by regulations, has authorised the imposition of a specific regional surcharge on emergency response vehicles.
(3) Vehicles used by emergency response drivers in the immediate exercise of their duties shall also be exempt from any surcharge, charge or penalty notice in relation to parking offences.
(4) It shall be an offence to impose, or attempt to impose, a surcharge, charge, or penalty notice on emergency response vehicles unless authorised by the Secretary of State.
(5) A person guilty under this section shall remain liable to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale, payable by the employing institution or organisation.

6(X)Citation and Commencement:
(1) This act extends to the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, applying to all regions, devolved or otherwise.
(2) This act will come into force upon Royal Assent.
(3) This act may be cited as the Emergency Services Protections and Exemptions Bill 2019

Notes
This Bill works to bring forward certain protections and exemptions.

Section 2, 3 and 4 bring forward the provisions of a prospective bill “Emergency Response Drivers (Protections) Bill” which remains in its first reading section IRL and have remained there for over a year. We believe it is imperative that these clauses are enacted as soon as possible to prevent what would otherwise be disproportionate cases, and thus have included amended versions of this bill - notably, an expansion of the criteria for protection and the implementation of ex post facto provisions.

Section 5 brings in provisions to prevent the charging of surcharges, or other charges on emergency response vehicles; this is ultimately in response to the ULEZ in London where emergency vehicles are not exempt. At the same time, this Bill works to prevent the charging of penalty notices in relation to parking.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/2A
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga...52/section/3ZA

Links to the legislation set to be changed by section 4 of this bill, since the notes failed to provide it.
Last edited by 04MR17; 1 month ago
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
The immediate thought is: how rare is it that such a bill would legitimately be used and what is the risk of harm from the potential laxness on dangerous driving this could result in. Have there been any cases where such a threat of prosecution for dangerous driving has legitimately caused any of the things listed?
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 month ago
#4
Regarding section 5 I think investing in updating service vehicles via the Home Office and Department for Health would be better than exempting them from ULEZ.

Regarding the other sections could the bill proposers please explain what change this creates to the law?
From what I can gather this allows drivers employed in emergency services to use their job as a defence if they were in court should they have committed a road safety crime, is this correct? And is this not the status quo now?
0
shadowdweller
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 month ago
#5
I am not fully clear on what this bill is actually proposing, I'm afraid.
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
(Original post by 04MR17)
Regarding section 5 I think investing in updating service vehicles via the Home Office and Department for Health would be better than exempting them from ULEZ.

Regarding the other sections could the bill proposers please explain what change this creates to the law?
From what I can gather this allows drivers employed in emergency services to use their job as a defence if they were in court should they have committed a road safety crime, is this correct? And is this not the status quo now?
Looking at the introduction of the bill that the first few sections are literally a copy and paste job of it isn't even defence in court, it is to stop it getting to the courts in the first place given Sir Henry Bellingham talks of a number of cases where there are either ongoing cases (the point being to emphasise how long members of the emergency services are off duty for these investigations, even though that problem is not unique to driving; also in both cases the individual being pursued by the police crashed their vehicle and died) or where the officer has been acquitted.
Last edited by Jammy Duel; 1 month ago
0
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
(Original post by shadowdweller)
I am not fully clear on what this bill is actually proposing, I'm afraid.
Exempt emergency services from ULEZ and other than that it's a copy and paste job of a RL bill introduced in December 2017 that has not been given any time and actually even the RL proposer doesn't seem to have a clue
1
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 month ago
#8
Full support.
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 month ago
#9
Emergency services vehicles should be some of the newer vehicles on the road and therefore meet the standards of the ULEZ. As for parking charges and penalty notices, what should be changed is who they apply to, as there are probably already exemptions.

What is missing from this Bill to protect the emergency services is an obligation on the part of motorists to get out of the way of emergency services when acting under 'blue light' responses, and proper penalties for offenders (loss of licence the main one).
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 month ago
#10
Aye - our emergency services should not be bogged down in regulation, an excellent bill from my party.

Shocked to see Jammy support the eco-fascistic ULEZ.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 month ago
#11
(Original post by Connor27)
Aye - our emergency services should not be bogged down in regulation, an excellent bill from my party.

Shocked to see Jammy support the eco-fascistic ULEZ.
What regulation exactly are the emergency services being "bogged down" in here?
0
Connor27
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 month ago
#12
(Original post by 04MR17)
What regulation exactly are the emergency services being "bogged down" in here?
Firstly, dangerous driving laws which drastically reduce emergency services response times and can lead to unnecessary civilian deaths.

Secondly, the ULEZ, which forces the already cash strapped emergency services to fork out on arbitrary eco friendly vehicles which will in the grand scheme make no difference to climate change anyway because regardless of what we do, Russia and China are gonna keep polluting.
0
04MR17
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 month ago
#13
(Original post by Connor27)
Firstly, dangerous driving laws which drastically reduce emergency services response times and can lead to unnecessary civilian deaths.
Evidence?
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 month ago
#14
Why are Tories contain really really really really clunky sentences. I've read this about ten times but it's still more cloggy than my mouth after a Snickers bar.

Take the thesaurus out of your arse (Tory Party, mostly NS) please.
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 month ago
#15
(Original post by Connor27)
Firstly, dangerous driving laws which drastically reduce emergency services response times and can lead to unnecessary civilian deaths.

Secondly, the ULEZ, which forces the already cash strapped emergency services to fork out on arbitrary eco friendly vehicles which will in the grand scheme make no difference to climate change anyway because regardless of what we do, Russia and China are gonna keep polluting.
Look at the details of the ULEZ and how old some vehicles can be and still comply. The ULEZ is about pollutants which harm people at a very local level.
0
SoggyCabbages
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 month ago
#16
You should at least expand this to include all emergency reponse drivers. Such as armed services and VIP protection (if not so already).

One would also assume blood/organ transfer services could benefit from this.
Last edited by SoggyCabbages; 1 month ago
1
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 month ago
#17
(Original post by Connor27)
Aye - our emergency services should not be bogged down in regulation, an excellent bill from my party.

Shocked to see Jammy support the eco-fascistic ULEZ.
That's the one bit I do agree with, it's just the lazy copy and paste job that needs justifying, something that neither the notes have achieved nor are you attempting, or is the copy and paste job something only "cultural marxists" would oppose?
0
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 month ago
#18
I expect the emergency services are compliant with the ULEZ as it is already in place. No one other than the former London Mayor with the water cannons is going to buy second hand vehicles for emergency services.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 weeks ago
#19
(Original post by 04MR17)
Regarding section 5 I think investing in updating ssrvice vehicles via the Home Office and Department for Health would be better than exempting them from ULEZ.

Regarding the other sections could the bill proposers please explain what change this creates to the law?
From what I can gather this allows drivers employed in emergency services to use their job as a defence if they were in court should they have committed a road safety crime, is this correct? And is this not the status quo now?
Section 5 is not simply limited to ULEZ, although that is a major part - the principle justification for section 5 arises from parking charges, which we believe cannot be applied to emergency vehicles, given their line of work.

The other sections are based heavily on a proposed IRL bill which has otherwise stalled; in essence, it provides stronger immunity for emergency service vehicle drivers - ensuring that the first and foremost mission of the emergency services, to protect life, takes immediate precedent over material aspects, or the material threat of civil action.

In terms of legality, this Bill brings forward a defense for emergency vehicle drivers so that where the conditions are met (i.e. on duty, responding to a call with a geninue threat to life that would be executed where it not for his or her presence, proper training, didn't act abnormally or without some modicum of care etc.). The ultimate verdict would be up to the courts to decide whether such thresholds have been met.
0
ns_2
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by shadowdweller)
I am not fully clear on what this bill is actually proposing, I'm afraid.
At its core, greater protections for emergency service drivers (i.e. ambulance, fire and police) and automatic exemption from parking charges etc.

In terms of greater protections, this Bill protects drivers from action in select circumstances - responding to a call, a threat to life or property, certain damage to life or property if the driver was not present, a bit of common sense, and completed training.
0
X
new posts

All the exam results help you need

1,829

people online now

225,530

students helped last year
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling about GCSE Results Day?

Hopeful (221)
12.46%
Excited (166)
9.36%
Worried (309)
17.43%
Terrified (390)
22%
Meh (186)
10.49%
Confused (39)
2.2%
Putting on a brave face (244)
13.76%
Impatient (218)
12.3%

Watched Threads

View All