|
Mr. Knight: My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate, but on this occasion he has not entirely convinced me of the necessity of the amendments, although it seemed to me when we discussed tabling them that the Committee should debate the issue. I think that the Committee is led back to the intervention of the hon. Member for Wellingborough. If one goes through the amendments—it is fair that we ask the Minister to respond to them on the record—and considers the case of someone falling foul of the law at 6 am on a sunny morning with no vehicle, pedestrian or possible collision in sight, one could conclude that the offence was not a serious one. That is contained in the Bill.
So I am with my hon. Friend as far as saying that we want the Minister to confirm that all the circumstances in the amendments are covered by his wording. Does he agree that that is the position?
Mr. Stinchcombe: How could the idea of mitigating circumstances possibly be subsumed in the existing clause? The clause is concerned with fixed penalties.
Mr. Knight: I am confining my remarks to amendments Nos. 6 to 10. I have not come on to amendment No. 11. My points are correct for amendments Nos. 6 to 10.
The danger in seeking to include a list in a Bill is that it may not be comprehensive. Someone may find an example that is not included in the list and say that it should not be taken into account. That was another point that the hon. Member for Wellingborough made. For example, what is the status of the road? Is it a motorway, which is clearly built to cater for vehicles travelling at about 70 mph, or is it a country B road with twists and turns, for which a much lower speed would be safe? There is a problem in trying to tag a list on to the Bill, but I would be reassured if the Minister confirmed that he envisaged that all of the circumstances contained in the amendments will be covered by the Bill.
Mr. Chope: My right hon. Friend said that one could conclude that the offence was not serious. It is certainly true that someone might conclude that it was not serious, but someone else might conclude that the circumstances that he described were serious. Many absolutists believe that any infringement of a speed limit is serious and should not be the subject of mitigation.
Mr. Knight: Based on what I have heard the hon. Member for Stafford say on previous occasions, he would take such a position. I think that anyone viewing an offence would take such matters into account, but I want the Minister to confirm that that is also his understanding.
On amendment No. 11, it is important that there is some recognition that there may be mitigating circumstances of which the police officer was not aware that should be taken into account when he is appraised of the circumstances. It is right and proper to put that in the Bill.
Column Number: 31
Mr. Wilshire: I apologise for missing the beginning of the debate and hope that I do not cover ground that was covered in my absence. There is a prison in my constituency that regularly causes me immediate grief, which is what happened a moment ago.
I received a phone call from the local accident and emergency department 23 years ago, telling me that my 12-year-old daughter had been admitted and was seriously ill. I did what any parent would do; leapt into my car and drove the 14 miles from home to Bath as fast as I could. Sadly, I got there too late, but that is a separate issue. Reflecting on the incident, I have little doubt that I did not drive well. Although I cannot remember, I am fairly certain that I broke assorted speed limits. In the circumstances, I could have broken the law, done something very stupid and killed somebody. I would not consider that I had any justification for behaving like that, despite the fact that I was distressed.
On the other hand, had I just happened to be doing 40 mph in a 30 mph area, with nobody about, when the visibility was good, I could reasonably have argued that perhaps in the circumstances most people would have behaved like that and I did no harm to anybody.
11.15 am
As I understand the law—listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch—I would have had no justification for saying, ''Look, hang on a minute. For other reasons, I have got x penalty points on my licence and this one will do for me. It will get me disqualified.'' There are individual cases where mitigating circumstances ought to be considered and will do no harm to the public, and where that will not set a precedent. God forbid that anyone has to use what I could have used as a mitigating circumstance on that occasion.
Even if the Minister says that there is no need for that or that it would be better done some other way, perhaps the Hansard report of this Committee would be a sufficient indication to magistrates, the police or whoever else has to deal with this matter. Progress could be made in that direction. I would be grateful to hear what the Minister has to say. I am not saying that amendment No. 11 will automatically do the trick, but I support its spirit for the reasons that I have given. I look forward to the Minister's comments.
On the other issues, I am not a lawyer and I often puzzle over the way lawyers talk about these things. I heard the hon. Member for Wellingborough say that because the provision mentions ''how serious it is'' there is no need for the list that we want to include. I can follow that argument until I look at paragraph (c), which states:
''the area, or sort of place''.
If the lawyer's argument is that ''how serious'' covers everything, why is there then a list? If the Government feel it necessary to specify in paragraph (c), which begins the list, where an offence takes place, what is wrong with saying when it takes place?
Column Number: 32
Mr. Stinchcombe: The hon. Gentleman is making a good point. However, there is some structure to the clause. It mentions the nature of the offence, its gravity, its location and the form of the offender.
Mr. Wilshire: Yes, but the time of day is one of the most relevant things. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. The location and type of offence are included. However, at the risk of opening myself to prosecution, I will admit that on motorways very late at night, in good weather, I have driven slightly in excess of 70 mph. I would argue that when the motorway is empty at 2 o'clock in the morning and I am minding my own business and breaking the speed limit, that is an entirely different offence from going down the fast lane—I appreciate that we are not supposed to call it that—in the rush hour at 85 or 90 mph. Doing 85 or 90 mph on a motorway can be more serious than doing 110 mph; I hasten to add that my car will not do 110.
Mr. Knight: How do you know?
Mr. Wilshire: It might just; going downhill, with the wind behind it. We will not go into that. I shall dig an even bigger trench for myself before I know where I am. I assume that previous endorsements are not relevant declarable interests as far as the Committee is concerned. Or perhaps we all ought to queue up and confess to you, Mr. Hughes.
I will not speak about the other things on the list. I understand the points that have been made. However, if we are going to list where an offence takes place, perhaps we ought also to say when it takes place.
Mr. Jamieson: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Christchurch, who tabled amendments Nos. 6 to 11. I shall ask the Committee to resist them because the conditions that they deal with are adequately covered in the clause.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough kindly did part of my job for me by pointing out that specifying factors in the Bill could exclude other factors unless the list was totally exhaustive. The danger in being too specific is that we may appear to rule out other circumstances, rather than having some clearly ruled in by those set out in paragraphs (a) to (d). Paragraph (b) deals with most of the issues that the hon. Member for Christchurch was talking about; the question of the seriousness of the offence. That covers a wide range of different activities that a person may have undertaken.
Mr. Knight: I am pretty much with the Minister when he says that it is better to have broad headings that narrow definitions, but will he explain why he suggests that the Committee should reject amendments Nos. 11 and 21?
Mr. Jamieson: I shall come to that. The right hon. Gentleman has helped me with a little bit of a mystery that I was considering in the past couple of days; the reason why some of the amendments had attached the names of three Opposition Members, while some had only one. It is clear that the right hon. Gentleman disagrees with the hon. Member for Christchurch on some of the amendments, which is why he spoke
Column Number: 33
against them. I thought that he was doing my job for me at one stage as well; I am looking for aid and assistance from all quarters during the proceedings.
Mr. Wilshire: I was interested in what the Minister said. He might like to reflect that, unless I am a bit slow on the uptake, on the only occasions when there are two signatories to our amendments, it is my name that is left out and not that of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire.
Mr. Jamieson: I thought, Mr. Hughes, that I heard you mutter under your breath, ''Put the spade down'' at one stage, and the hon. Gentleman seems to be digging himself a little further into the various trenches he described during his previous contribution.
Mr. Fisher: I accept the Minister's general point that to prescribe closely creates more problems than it solves, but does he accept the general thrust of what the hon. Member for Spelthorne said about timing? For instance, an offence committed outside a school at two o'clock in the morning is very different from one committed during school hours, particularly as schoolchildren are coming out. Is he confident that that will be accepted and understood when the Bill becomes law?
Column Number: 34
| 
