|
Mr. Wilshire: I listened carefully to the Minister and did not intend to intervene but for his point that it would be reasonable to check drivers' licences. In my experience, that simply is not done. Let us consider an election campaign. On 5 May, we will get rid of this Government. A vehicle will be provided for me during the campaign and it will be driven by various people. I do not think it unreasonable if somebody I have known for 20 years turns up in a car, parks it outside my campaign headquarters and gets into the vehicle and drives it. It would be a waste of time, and offensive, to say, ''Can I check that you're entitled to drive that vehicle?'' given that the person turned up in one and that I know for a fact he has been driving for 20 years. So the argument that one should make certain of what is going on is nonsense.
I can, however, confirm that common sense is applied. I know that because, for reasons with which I shall not bore the Committee, I have had the same number plate on my car for a long time. I changed my car for a virtually identical one—from a photograph, one would not have known that it was not the same car—and the new car was to be delivered with the number plate of my previous car. It looked like my car and had my number plate, so when it dutifully triggered a speed camera, I got the notice. On the basis that it was being delivered to me by somebody—I did not have a clue who that was—I was able to say, first, that it was not my car and, secondly, that I had not a clue who was driving it. It was a difficult issue because the number plate caused chaos. I am pleased to say that the Hampshire constabulary backed off, so discretion is used. The constabulary attempted to track down the person delivering the vehicle, but I am not sure how that went.
We should not suggest that all people in those categories have amnesia and are trying to wriggle out of getting points on their licence. I regularly share the driving on long journeys. If I did the same journey on a regular basis, I would not have a clue at which time of night I was driving and where I was even a few weeks previously. To suggest that somebody is trying to wriggle out of something when they genuinely do not know who was driving a vehicle is not helpful. I have every sympathy with what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire said.
10 am
Mr. Knight: I am grateful to the Minister for what he said about the possibility of a defence and I accept that. However, much else of what he said addressed an amendment that I have not moved. If my amendment said, ''delete 6 and insert 3'', or ''delete 6 and insert 2'', his arguments would have considerable merit. However, my amendment would give the courts the discretion to impose between three and six points, so in the case to which the Minister refers, where the
Column Number: 202
motorist grossly exceeds the speed limit and seeks to avoid getting six points or perhaps a ban by claiming that he does not know who was driving his vehicle, the courts would still be able to do what the Minister wants the clause to do; impose six points.
Where the courts feel that the person should have made more of an inquiry at the time or kept a log, but the offence is a minor transgression and there are mitigating circumstances, my amendment says that they should have the option of awarding fewer points than six. That is not unreasonable, and it does not side with the motorist who blatantly ignores the speed limit; it just gives the courts the power to be fair. Surely, that is what we ought to do.
Some two or three years ago, I came across a case of three acquaintances of mine who used to share transport to work. Work for them was not at a fixed place, and they travelled to different sites each month. They always used one particular vehicle, but they shared the driving. Some two weeks after finishing a job at one particular site, a ticket came through to the registered keeper of the vehicle, and he genuinely did not know whether he or one of his two friends had been driving. Rather than cause a row between three friends, and although he had a clean licence, he accepted that he was the driver, even though he was not certain. I fear that if the clause remains as it is, it could lead to the opposite situation, with innocent non-drivers admitting that they were driving even when they think that they were not in order to get three points, because they know that if they say that they did not know who was driving, they will be hammered with six. Surely the Minister does not want that, and I hope that between now and Report he will reflect on my amendment. It is fair, reasonable and seeks only to give the courts the power to do what is right in the circumstances.
John Thurso: If a vehicle is registered to a company as opposed to an individual, and therefore the company is the registered keeper, the company, as it does not possess a licence in that circumstance, can say that it genuinely does not know who the driver is and there will be a financial penalty but no penalty on the licence. Is it not the case therefore that more people are likely to register vehicles to companies and that there will be a divergence, with those who offend as corporate users having a different penalty from ordinary individual car owners?
Mr. Knight: That is an interesting point. Such registration would be a ruse available only to the wealthy, as they would be more likely to have associations with limited companies. That situation could occur if the clause stands part without amendment, which is why I must insist on my amendment.
Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) makes a good point, but the court would want to see that a record had been kept by the company about who was driving on a particular day. The company can face a considerable penalty, although obviously without penalty points on the licence.
Column Number: 203
May I correct one point I made? I referred in defence of the clause to section 172 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act, where in fact I meant the Road Traffic Act 1988. Notwithstanding that, I ask Members to resist the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 11.
Division No. 8]
AYES
Chope, Mr. Christopher
Knight, Mr. Greg
Rosindell, Mr. Andrew
Thurso, John
Wilshire, Mr. David
NOES
Atkins, Charlotte
Byrne, Mr. Liam
Ellman, Mrs. Louise
Fisher, Mr. Mark
Heyes, Mr. David
Jamieson, Mr. David
Kidney, Mr. David
Mahmood, Mr. Khalid
Merron, Gillian
Reed, Mr. Andy
Stinchcombe, Mr. Paul
Question accordingly negatived.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Chope: Again, it is a pity that the Government have not shown enough flexibility to accept my right hon. Friend's amendment. In making his argument, the Minister referred rather disparagingly to the ''remarkable act of amnesia'' in the Hamilton defence. It is important that we should not by implication make defamatory remarks against people, irrespective of whether they were formerly Members of this House.
It was accepted by the court that the circumstances of that case involved two people who frequently drove long distances and shared the driving. Neither of them could remember who was driving at the particular time. For the Minister to suggest that that was a remarkable act of amnesia is to belittle what happened, to try to second-guess the court and to smear a former distinguished parliamentary colleague. His comments were totally unwarranted.
Can the Minister confirm that nothing in the clause will affect whether the Hamilton defence will still be available to people if they cannot ascertain with reasonable diligence which person was driving? Will he take the opportunity of this short stand part debate to comment on the amount of anecdotal evidence of points trading, not just between husband and wife but between partners and other close companions? Someone who has a large number of points on their licence will get their companion to say that they were driving the car at the material time and that person then carries the points on their licence, thereby undermining the whole of our road safety law. What is to be done about that?
If the Government continue their inane war against motorists, more and more people will surely try to avoid the consequences of a law that they feel is unfair and oppressive. We know that quite a lot of people are playing a game whereby whoever has the fewest points on their licence takes the rap for a penalty offence,
Column Number: 204
irrespective of whether they were driving. That point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire in moving his amendment.
I hope that the Minister will be able to explain in this short stand part debate the Government's policy in respect of the increasing amount of anecdotal evidence about points swapping and also that he will confirm that the Hamilton defence, which he described disparagingly but others would consider a factual defence, is still available.
John Thurso: I supported the amendment because I believe that it is important to allow a certain degree of flexibility. Having flexibility in primary legislation means that amendments can be made, and points can be handed out according to the circumstances of a particular case.
In the intervention I made on the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, I drew attention to the fact that a substantial number of motorists in this country are supplied with company cars. In one notable case a few years ago, the car habitually driven by a well-known football manager was caught in a speed trap, and the football club chose not to state who was driving the car. As the Minister said, a substantial fine was paid—it was several thousand pounds—but the club deemed that that was acceptable rather than allowing whoever might have been driving to receive points on their licence.
Such cases mean that we begin to arrive at a justice system that has, to a certain degree, one law for the rich and another law for those who are not well-off. In my constituency, the vast bulk of motorists are people who are on sometimes, but not often, on reasonable wages, and they need their cars. I am concerned that they will feel the effect of punishment considerably more than a wealthy person who has the protection of a company.
I shall support the clause because the basic underlying thrust of the Government's direction is right, and it is correct that we point out to people that attempting to get round the proper penalties for speeding is wholly unacceptable. The Government should look again at the matter and consider whether there might be a case for flexibility at a later stage in the legislation.
| 
