|
Mr. Jamieson: I was asked, quite properly, which other bodies could be funded. Often a number of other bodies co-operate with local authorities in providing road safety measures. A good example is that we, and successive Governments over the years, have provided money to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. That organisation has helped to pilot many projects and has given its hugely valuable expertise over a long time. I think that the Treasury is content that we should provide money to ROSPA, which is a structured organisation with a line of command; we know how the money will be spent and we know that the funds that it has received in the past have been spent to good effect.
Mr. Knight: The Minister's words reassure me somewhat. Will he give an undertaking that, when the Bill becomes law, he will make a written statement to Parliament listing the other bodies or authorities that have received a grant under the clause?
Mr. Jamieson: We do not want to restrict bodies in future that may be as good as ROSPA, but we could give more examples of where funding is being provided. In relation to the funding that my Department hands out, which mostly goes to local authorities, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we take great care about where those valuable resources go. We have a limited amount of money. That is why we are extremely careful about to whom we give it and where it goes. As I said to one of my hon. Friends earlier, we also make sure that it is spent on the things that we want it spent on and not, attractive as it may sound, for some party-political end. That would not be in order.
Column Number: 27
Interestingly, we have had a debate on many other matters relating to road safety. I am glad that we managed to have a short debate on the value of the clause, which I commend to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Graduated fixed penalties
Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in clause 2, page 2, line 3, at end insert—
'(bb) the time of day it was committed.'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 7, in clause 2, page 2, line 3, at end insert—
'(bb) the number of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users in the vicinity at the time,'.
No. 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 3, at end insert—
'(bb) the prevailing weather conditions,'.
No. 9, in clause 2, page 2, line 3, at end insert—
'(bb) the conditions of visibility,'.
No. 10, in clause 2, page 2, line 4, at end insert—
'(cc) whether the contravention resulted in a collision,'.
No. 11, in clause 2, page 2, line 7, at end insert—
'(dd) any mitigating circumstances put forward by the offender,'.
No. 16, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert—
'(bb) the time of day it was committed,'.
No. 17, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert—
'(bb) the number of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users in the vicinity at the time,'.
No. 18, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert—
'(bb) the prevailing weather conditions,'.
No. 19, in clause 3, page 2, line 37, at end insert—
'(bb) the conditions of visibility,'.
No. 20, in clause 3, page 2, line 38, at end insert—
'(cc) whether the contravention resulted in a collision,'.
No. 21, in clause 3, page 2, line 41, at end insert—
'(dd) any mitigating circumstances put forward by the offender.'.
Mr. Chope: The helpful briefing that the Minister and his officials provided to some of us yesterday explains that the clause relates particularly to the new power in clause 4 that enables vehicle examiners to give fixed penalty notices. However, the wording of the clause is not restricted, which gives us the chance to question the Government on their thinking behind the choice of criteria in paragraphs (a) to (d).
The amendments that I have tabled give some alternative and additional criteria. Amendment No. 6 would add the time of day when an offence is committed, which can often be a highly relevant factor. Amendment No. 7 would add
''the number of pedestrians and other vulnerable road users in the vicinity at the time'',
which again is a highly relevant factor. Much of the correspondence that we have received from road safety campaigners in the run-up to the debate on the Bill in Committee has emphasised their concern about
Column Number: 28
vulnerable road users, and pedestrians and speeding vehicles. If we accept that concern, which I share, and that priority, the other side of the coin is that when no pedestrians or other vulnerable road users are in the vicinity at the time, the offence might be regarded as less serious.
11 am
Mr. Paul Stinchcombe (Wellingborough) (Lab): I have listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman. He makes some interesting and valid points and has just mentioned the factors that might make an offence more or less serious. He will see from subsection (2)(b) that one factor of which account must be taken is how serious the offence is. Are the issues raised by his amendment not already in the clause?
Mr. Chope: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I do not believe that the words ''how serious it is'' in paragraph (b) are sufficiently precise. Who will judge that? How will the judgment be made? What criteria will apply? I believe that something specific about, say, the number of vulnerable road users and pedestrians in the vicinity at the time would be relevant to assessing the gravity of the offence, but that is not spelt out in the clause. Why should we as Parliament not take this opportunity to spell it out?
Mr. Stinchcombe: The difficulty about spelling things out is that what is not spelt out is then necessarily excluded, whereas putting a word such as ''serious'' into the Bill gives the decision-maker discretion to consider all the facts and any given circumstance and come to his own judgment.
Mr. Chope: I do not ask that my amendments should be at the expense of leaving ''how serious it is'' out of paragraph (b). I ask that additional factors should be taken into account. It is the essence of a mature democracy that discretion should be exercised, instead of there being absolutism. The fixed penalty regime has proved convenient for administrators and enforcers and, on occasion, for the perpetrators of offences; not least, as the Minister will know, because it normally means that they can perpetrate the offence without any risk of publicity. Before such offences were dealt with under the fixed penalty system, a Member of Parliament—dare one think of such a possibility?—who offended against a speed limit in his constituency shortly after having campaigned on road safety issues would risk publicity. If he or she were to offend against a speed limit now, there is a chance that they might be able to avoid publicity. It is rather like ticking the box on the old pools coupon; people can avoid publicity by going for a fixed penalty. I am not suggesting that a fixed penalty scheme is wholly one-sided, but it has resulted in hard cases. I would welcome more flexibility.
To take a hypothetical example, if a person taking a sick child in their car to hospital in an emergency goes too fast past a speed camera and is detected, at present there is no scope for being able to reduce the fixed penalty notice imposed. That is not something that we should tolerate in a mature democracy, where we have the ability to exercise our discretion. I give that as an
Column Number: 29
example of the sort of circumstance that might occur. The other relevant criteria are the conditions of visibility and whether the contravention resulted in a collision. It is difficult to legislate for a penalty system based on the outcome of behaviour, but there is increasing demand among the public to link penalties to the consequences of people's actions.
Mr. Stinchcombe indicated assent.
Mr. Chope: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees.
Amendment No. 11 refers to
''any mitigating circumstances put forward by the offender''.
That is not in the existing criteria in the Bill.
Intriguingly, paragraph (d) refers to whether
''the offender appears to have committed any offence or offences of a description specified in the order during a period so specified.''
I am not sure how that will be ascertained when the offence is committed. I would have thought that a defence of mitigating circumstances should be available.
I had some constituency correspondence recently about a gentleman who went past a speed camera in Bournemouth three or four times in an area where the speed limit had recently changed. He was caught by surprise and only on the third occasion did he realise that he had been caught on camera because the offences took place within 24 or 36 hours. The form that was sent to him stated that if he had mitigating circumstances, he could have a hearing in court. He thought that he had mitigating circumstances and went to court, but was told that it was a complete waste of time because the court had no discretion and had to impose the three points on his licence.
I then wrote to the Court Service saying that there must be something wrong with the standard form because it specifically invites offenders to go to court if they have mitigating circumstances. When they get there, they find that it meant that they could go to court if there were exacerbating circumstances for a penalty higher than the minimum, but that the court has no discretion to award a penalty lower than the minimum. He was fortunate that the court was understanding and did not penalise him further with an order for costs.
I hope that the Minister will consider that issue because, at the moment, the standard form refers to mitigating circumstances. But if someone takes that at face value and goes to court, they find that the court has no scope to exercise the discretion that it should have in a civilised society.
It will not have escaped the notice of the Committee that amendments Nos. 16 to 21 refer to the equivalent provisions in clause 3. It is obviously convenient to deal with that in one debate because, essentially, the same issues arise. As with so many amendments, they provide an opportunity for the Minister to explain exactly what he has in mind; whether the criteria in clause 2 were designed to deal with the sort of offences referred to in clauses 4 and 5, or whether they were intended to be more wide ranging, and why those examples of mitigating circumstances were chosen rather than the ones I set out in the amendments.
Column Number: 30
| 
