|
Mr. Jamieson: I said that this was affectionately known as the Hamilton clause, but I did not say it was correctly known as such because in that case the court accepted the evidence given, which shows that the system works and that that defence is available.
Mr. Knight: I rise to help the Minister. Would it help if he referred to it as the Sir Gerald Nabarro clause? There was a dispute as to whether Sir Gerald was driving or his secretary; his secretary was Mrs. Hamilton.
Mr. Jamieson: Alas, I am old enough to remember that case. I do not want to besmirch someone who is long since dead, but I believe that he was out on important parliamentary business with his secretary and the occasion was so exciting that he could not remember who was in the driving seat at the time.
Column Number: 205
The defence is available and it was used in that case. I called it the Hamilton clause because it raised some of the difficulties involving not those who genuinely forget, but those who conveniently forget. We are after those who conveniently forget who was in the driving seat. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Mahmood) has pointed out that often, if people drive through a camera, they will see the flash. It is difficult not to see it; people cannot be attending to their driving if they do not see the flash.
Often, I see cameras flash a great distance away when other people trigger them. It is often occasion for discussion among those in the vehicle as to whether they triggered the flash, or whether it was someone else. It is unlikely that someone would genuinely trigger a camera and not realise that they were behind the wheel. However, the defence exists; it was used in that case and the court agreed to it. I do not mention that to cast a slur on the court or anyone involved in the decision, but that was what the court decided. Nevertheless, there may be other people who try to use that defence wrongly.
On the question of trading penalty points, I would not have thought that it was in the interest of someone to accept a penalty on behalf of someone else, any more than it would be for someone to admit to any other crime on someone else's behalf. That would be extremely foolish.
10.15 am
I am informed that a person who claims wrongly to have committed an offence to get someone else off the hook could be deemed to be perverting the course of justice. If someone got up in court and made a statement, that might be perjury. Those are serious offences, attracting far higher penalties than a small fine or a few points on a licence. The law provides a pretty strong disincentive for someone to lie to the police, or, even worse, to lie to a court of law. In those circumstances, I hope we can support the clause.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 12, Noes 4.
Division No. 9]
AYES
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
Thurso, John
NOES
Chope, Mr. Christopher
Knight, Mr. Greg
Rosindell, Mr. Andrew
Wilshire, Mr. David
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 206
Clause 24
Penalty points
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): There are no amendments to the clause, but it merits a brief debate for at least three reasons. First, the courses dealt with here could become one of the Bill's more significant boosts to road safety. Secondly, the Government ought be congratulated on introducing such a measure. Thirdly, I have some questions about how the statutory provision here relates to current practice.
Drink-driving rehabilitation courses were established by law by the last Conservative Government in 1991, piloted in 1993, and made into a national scheme by Labour in 2000. They are now nationally available and well-established, with a statutory basis, national guidelines and approved course providers. The courts use them well enough; 30,000 people passed through them in 2003. They also appear to be effective, according to research and evaluation by the Transport Research Laboratory's paper TRL613, which says it is most people who go through such courses are unlikely to drink-drive again in the future.
That is what is in place already. Clause 24 proposes to extend those courses to other road offences, most significantly careless driving and speeding. In those cases, courses are already available. However, they are not on a statutory basis, hence this provision; nor are they as well established as the drink-driving rehabilitation courses in terms of national guidance, or even their national reach. It is down to the discretion of individual police forces to offer people the chance to go on, for example, a driver improvement course, instead of accepting a conviction for careless driving. The person pays for the course and undertakes the rehabilitation and education instead. In the case of speeding, some police forces exercise their discretion and offer a place on a speed awareness course, instead of going to court and collecting the fine and the points. Again, the person pays for that course.
Mr. Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent, Central) (Lab): My hon. Friend refers to ''discretion''. Will he say slightly more about that? Who confers the discretion on the police forces that exercise it? What basis in law, if any, does it have at present?
Mr. Kidney: I hope that the Minister can help me about the statutory basis. I am not aware that there is any beyond the fact that the police have discretion over whether to take cases to court. At present, in cases of careless driving, police forces sometimes offer the offender the opportunity—instead of going to court and facing a fine and penalty points—to pay to go on a training course and undertake rehabilitation and education at his or her expense. Driver improvement courses are subject to some kind of national guidance by police forces and there are registered driver trainers used under contract. I do not think they are available everywhere, but most places now offer them.
Column Number: 207
Speed awareness courses are newer and far fewer police forces currently make use of them. I do not believe that there is any national guidance. I do not even think that there is an established model for the courses or who is offered a course the first time. Not many places in the country are using them. Both driver improvement courses and speed awareness courses are available in Staffordshire, the part of the country that I represent.
I want to raise the issue of how the new statutory provisions interact with the existing courses and the basis on which people will be offered courses. Driver improvement courses can be offered to anybody who is facing a careless driving offence. It might be their first offence, or their second or third. Under the clause, it is a precondition that the person must have at least seven points already on their driving licence before the court can direct that instead of a conviction, penalty points and a fine, they should undertake one of the courses. I question the logic of that. Should it not be first offenders who are offered the opportunity of rehabilitation and education and who are able to undertake courses instead of being prosecuted, rather than those who are at a stage where their licence is at risk? With seven points they would be getting close to disqualification.
For example, take a persistent speeder. To get at least seven points on their licence under the current law, they would need to have been caught speeding three times. In that case, they would have nine points on their licence. They could not get seven, because it is three points each time. So, when that person comes into court for the fourth time, they will have at least seven points on their licence. If they are convicted for a fourth time, they will get three more points. If all the offences have occurred within three years, they will be disqualified under the totting-up procedure.
The Bill offers an opportunity to avoid the penalty prescribed by law in relation to disqualification, rather than an opportunity to educate someone who has erred. I just wonder whether, as a matter of public policy, we would prefer to offer the education at the beginning, rather than giving people the chance to buy off disqualification because they are persistent offenders. That is why I ask about interaction and about why we offer the courses under those conditions rather than the conditions I mentioned.
Driver improvement courses and speed awareness courses are being offered on a discretionary and voluntary basis to first offenders at the moment. Must that stop if we pass this law, or can the courses continue to exist side by side with the law? If we say, ''No, courses will be offered only on the statutory basis in the future,'' I am concerned that we will prevent people from undergoing education and rehabilitation at the beginning, as they can at the moment in some parts of the country. I hope that the Minister can answer my questions.
I raised those issues for obvious reasons. The significance of widespread opportunities for rehabilitation and education is that they could be an extremely valuable tool in reducing future casualties on our roads, as long as we get the model right in
Column Number: 208
relation both to the conditions in which the courts make directions and offer courses to offender, and to the content of the course.
In the RAC Foundation briefing to Members for Second Reading, there was a comment about the variable quality of the courses at present. In that respect, the Bill will make a big improvement. The other thing is public acceptability; whether those who are not offenders think that people are dodging the law by undertaking the courses or genuinely contributing to improving road safety, which benefits us all. That is why I raised these issues with the Minister, and I hope that he can explain and justify what is proposed.
| 
