---

Column 690

Jack, Michael

Janman, Tim

Jessel, Toby

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Jones, Robert B (Herts W)

Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

Kilfedder, James

King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Kirkhope, Timothy

Kirkwood, Archy

Knapman, Roger

Knight, Greg (Derby North)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Knowles, Michael

Knox, David

Latham, Michael

Lee, John (Pendle)

Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)

Lightbown, David

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)

McLoughlin, Patrick

McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael

Mans, Keith

Maples, John

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

Mills, Iain

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Morrison, Sir Charles

Moss, Malcolm

Nicholls, Patrick

Norris, Steve

Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley

Page, Richard

Paice, James

Patnick, Irvine

Patten, Rt Hon John

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Porter, David (Waveney)

Powell, William (Corby)

Price, Sir David

Raffan, Keith

Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Rathbone, Tim

Redwood, John

Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

Rowe, Andrew

Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

Sackville, Hon Tom

Shaw, David (Dover)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Shelton, Sir William

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Shersby, Michael

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Speed, Keith

Stern, Michael

Stevens, Lewis

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

Thorne, Neil

Thornton, Malcolm

Thurnham, Peter

Twinn, Dr Ian

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Viggers, Peter

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Walden, George

Walker, Bill (T'side North)

Waller, Gary

Wells, Bowen

Wheeler, Sir John

Widdecombe, Ann

Wilshire, David

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Winterton, Nicholas

Wood, Timothy

Yeo, Tim

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Tellers for the Noes :

Mr. Nicholas Baker and

Mr. Tim Boswell.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Sheerman : I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 23, after first the', insert reckless'.

The First Deputy Chairman : With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments : Nos. 4, in page 1, line 26, after the', insert reckless'.

No. 6, in page 1, line 29, after was', insert intentionally or recklessly'.

No. 8, in page 2, line 28, leave out paragraph (a) and insert-- (a) it is driven in such a manner as to create an obvious and serious risk of causing physical harm to another person ; and'. Mr. Sheerman : This class of amendments makes the intention of recklessness a necessary ingredient for the aggravated offence. The thrust of the amendments is common sense. They make an offence an "aggravated offence" when that was the intention.

Clarifying the legislation is an important priority for us. As currently drafted, the offence of unauthorised taking would become aggravated if dangerous driving occurred. That is fair enough, and we would agree with the Government on that. However, under sub-section 2(b) and (c), the offence would be aggravated also if, owing to the

---

Column 691

driving of the vehicle, an accident occurred that caused injury to a person or damage to property. The driving would not have to be dangerous or reckless in itself.

In other words, if a car is taken and the driver is driving carefully but another car is recklessly driven into it, an aggravated offence will have taken place. I know that I am going over some of the ground that we rehearsed on Second Reading, but I shall be brief. If the car is stationary at traffic lights and another car hits it, the aggravated offence will still have occurred. Similarly, if a person runs in front of the car when it is being driven carefully and even if the driver cannot avoid hitting that person, the aggravated offence will have taken place. I asked the Minister about this important point on Second Reading, but he did not mention it in his reply.

Subsection 2(d) also raises an anomaly. The aggravated offence is committed when damage is caused to the stolen vehicle, but there is no requirement that that damage should have been caused intentionally or recklessly. The defendant will be guilty if someone else damages the car after he has left it but when he is still in the immediate vicinity or if he cannot prove that he had left the vicinity. The amendments seek to ensure that the car must have been driven recklessly, that there must have been some fault on the part of the defendant and that the defendant should not be guilty of a serious criminal offence if the events that make that offence aggravated and serious lie outside his or her control. Similarly, damage to the stolen car must have been intentional or reckless. Without those safeguards, the Bill will be unjust and will be seen by many members of the public as unjust.

The public are worried about young people taking cars and driving them in a reckless fashion down the streets, causing mayhem. We had some graphic descriptions of that on Second Reading. That is altogether different from some of the examples that I have described which will be caught by the clause.

We believe that it is wrong for young people to be held responsible for a serious criminal offence when they were not at fault beyond the original offence of taking a car, for which they will be punished and will be liable under the ordinary legislation. What is at issue here is whether the offence is aggravated. That is what we seek to clarify in the amendment.

The amendments arise from the real anxiety in the legal community that the Bill will create great difficulties. I hope that the Government will consider the amendments without prejudice. 9.15 pm

---