|
Mr. Chope: Is my hon. Friend aware that the argument that he has just been deploying about people not deliberately driving at 39 mph in order to get two penalty points instead of three is the same argument that was deployed by the Secretary of State on Second Reading to support the figures in the table?
Mr. Wilshire: Exactly so. We should not be inflexible if we are trying to introduce flexibility. I understand, Mr. Pike, that if you were to allow this debate to continue, and if we were willing to continue it, we could be picking over the figures at this time tomorrow, having made no progress whatsoever. To me, that is not the purpose of the debate.
The purpose is, first, to explore the approach of flexibility and graduated penalties—I think that we all agree with that—and, secondly, to explore whether we should be giving more power to the Secretary of State in those circumstances. I support the first principle. I do not support giving that power to the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has done the Committee a service by bringing forward his amendment. He is not claiming that it is perfect. I gather that Labour. Members do not consider it
Column Number: 55
anywhere near perfection, but that is not the point. I am fascinated to hear what the Minister says. We will see where we go from there.
Mr. Jamieson: We have concentrated on speeding in the debate. However, that is not what the clause is about. As I said when intervening on the hon. Member for Christchurch, the clause is about all offences to which penalties might apply. In amendment No. 12, the hon. Gentleman would, whether inadvertently or intentionally, I do not know which, effectively make the clause apply only to speeding and not to the variable offences for other types of offence. If we passed the amendment, we would be limiting the clause to speeding and would not cover other offences that attract points, such as right-hand turns at no right-hand turn places and yellow box offences. That is the first deficiency of the amendment. In concentrating on speed, the hon. Gentleman has ruled out many other offences which could apply. We are, of course, talking about the ability to increase the penalty as well as the ability to decrease it.
The hon. Gentleman talked about new schedule 1 as a starting point, but it is a finishing point. Once it is in primary legislation, there will be no coming back to it for further discussion or deliberation. The issue will be closed. He argued that the matter should be fixed in the Bill. I will return to the question of where the hon. Gentleman got the figures from. He then intervened on the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross to say that flexibility should be built in for the Secretary of State to change the figures if they are wrong. Is he talking about using a statutory instrument? Ah! Is that not what we have in mind? Once the hon. Member for Christchurch had contradicted himself, he was put right by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, who contradicted him by saying that the figure should be written into the Bill with no discretion. So, there seems to be some confusion about the matter.
I am with those who say that we must return to the issue. I am beginning to regret that we gave those exemplars. We put out not a consultation document but a document for discussion. There is a difference. We wanted to get views about variable penalties and penalty points. The hon. Member for Christchurch said that the document was controversial. Some of it was not controversial. The vast majority of those who made their views known said that they agreed that the law should include the ability to have variable points and penalties for offences. There was widespread agreement on that.
As is often the case, if we put something out for discussion, it instantly becomes a proposal that we are about to inflict on people tomorrow. That is, unfortunately, the way in which debate in this country goes. I do not know whether it is because of our newspapers. If anybody suggests something for debate, it becomes something that will happen immediately.
Mrs. Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op): Will the Minister tell us the difference between a document for discussion and one for consultation?
Column Number: 56
Mr. Jamieson: There is a specific format for a consultation document. There is a list of consultees, who we contact proactively. We operate a formal consultation system. Usually, forms go out for people to fill in and add other details. It is more formalised. In many instances, we get similar responses. In this case, because many of the people who responded were used to responding to consultation documents, many responded in a similar form. Nevertheless, it was a discussion.
In the discussion paper, we gave an example of how the system might work in the context of speeding. That is where the amendment came from. However, that was not a proposal. It was just an example of how the system could work. I am beginning to regret that we included it, but we felt that it was helpful. We were being challenged by people who were asking what would actually happen and saying that we could not have a change in the law without concrete proposals. So, we gave an exemplar of how the system could work if that was what we agreed.
Mr. Wilshire: I accept what the Minister says, but as I listened to him I began to feel a bit hard done by. Does he accept that, although I do not have a huge number of civil servants to come up with a beautifully honed argument, I was saying before, when I was being questioned, ''What, exactly, is the Minister saying?'' Let us have a discussion. Here are some figures; let us talk about them. We are not necessarily wedded to them. I am grateful to the Minister for using better language than I could find.
Mr. Jamieson: I take it, then, that the hon. Gentleman is not in favour of new schedule 1. He must be opposing it. We will probably hear him speak or vote against it later.
Mr. Wilshire: Whatever makes the Minister think that?
Mr. Jamieson: What the hon. Gentleman said a moment ago. I will not presume it any further.
The hon. Gentleman made an interesting point. He talked about the right to drive a car. I defend that right. There are many people, certainly in my constituency—in which not everybody is affluent—who are driving a car that they were not driving five, six or seven years ago, when the economy was not doing so well and employment was not as high as it is today. However, along with the right to drive a car comes the responsibility to drive carefully. The more vehicles that there are on the road, the more we must ensure that people are responsible and careful. The responsibility of Government is to ensure that people exercise their right to drive a car in a way that does not infringe the rights of others.
Mr. Wilshire: When the Minister reads Hansard, he will find that I did not say that people have the right to drive cars when, where, how and as irresponsibly as they like. I simply said that there is a right to drive. I agree with him, but he is putting words in my mouth.
Column Number: 57
Mr. Jamieson: No, I did not put words in the hon. Gentleman's mouth; I included some extra words in Hansard. I wanted to make it clear that I agree with him on the right to drive, but that my understanding of that is that people should also have responsibilities. I was outlining that the Government have a responsibility to ensure that people drive safely. Parliament also has a responsibility. That is why the measures in the Bill will be so helpful in ensuring that that happens.
Making the proposals apply only to speeding is unhelpful and I would oppose the amendment and new schedule on that basis. The hon. Gentleman said that he wanted further discussion. We want further discussion, but if we agreed to new schedule 1, it would inhibit further discussion. What I heard on Second Reading, at the beginning of today's debate and from people outside Parliament, and what I will hear a bit more in a moment, is that some of the things in the discussion paper—very few things—are controversial. I want the ability to have flexibility, but I also want a further period of reflection about thresholds and implementation. I want to listen carefully to what Parliament and those outside Parliament have to say when we come up with more concrete proposals following consultation.
John Thurso: I have listened carefully to what the Minister said. I would like him to confirm that I have understood correctly that the consultation document, or discussion document, and the schedule therein, are purely exemplars and that the Government are completely open to representations and evidence as to what are or are not the best figures.
3.45 pm
Mr. Jamieson: I should just like to correct the hon. Gentleman on one point. It was not a consultation document but a discussion document. A consultation would be more likely to include Government proposals, but these were not even proposals. They were exemplars of how a system might operate. Perhaps that might also make the distinction clear for my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside. They were not proposals, but examples of how a system could work if we chose to operate it in that way.
In the light of the debate we are having and further representations we receive, if the Bill receives Royal Assent in its present form we would want to introduce a proposal, which would be firmed up into a statutory instrument. That would then be put before the House under the positive resolution procedure.
Mr. Chope: So the proposition that will be introduced for consultation will not necessarily be what is contained in the exemplar table. If that is so, why was the Secretary of State so keen to defend the contents of the exemplar table on Second Reading, as though it were Government policy?
Column Number: 58
Mr. Jamieson: No, what the Secretary of State defended was the ability to give the variable penalties. He also said that the next stage of the process will be open to consultation. That is what was said then; it is still true, and it is the position I want.
The matter has created an interesting debate, which will probably flow into the discussion of the next group of amendments. However, I ask the Committee to oppose this particular amendment.
| 
