|
Mr. Chope: The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) has raised a number of issues, many of which I wanted to raise myself with the Minister. This is potentially a good and useful clause, which emphasises the importance of education and training in improving road safety. As the hon. Gentleman said, it builds on the initiative introduced by the Conservative Government in the Road Traffic Act 1991 to establish drink-drive rehabilitation courses. There are some pertinent questions about why the figure of seven to 11 points has been specified in the Bill, and I await the Minister's explanation on that and other questions that have been put to him.
One other question that I want to ask the Minister is why 12 months must elapse from the date of the order before there is a reduction in the number of penalty points. It is important that the courses are undertaken as quickly as possible, because, as soon as they are completed successfully, there is a better driver on the road than there was before. Surely the reduction in penalty points on the licence should take place as soon as the course has been completed. As I understand it, it would not take place until after a year, thereby reducing the individual's incentive to undertake the course quickly instead of waiting until the end of the one-year period, as only after a year will they see a reduction in the number of penalty points on the licence.
Mr. Fisher: I agree with the thrust of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and indeed with the spirit of what the hon. Member for Christchurch said. However, before my hon. Friend the Minister replies, will he think about answers to a couple of questions?
This is a sensible clause that I hope we shall pass, and I shall certainly support it, but is it based on empirical evidence? Do the courses work? The hon. Gentleman said that they were of variable quality. Have the Government done any study of whether those undertaking them are deterred from reoffending? The idea behind them seems excellent, but there is no point in having a system of education and training if it simply defers the moment when a habitual careless driver or speeder meets his nemesis and is disqualified. Do the courses work and have the Government carried out any surveys?
Mr. Jamieson: This has been a short but useful debate. The clause enables the courts to offer offenders convicted of certain specified offences the opportunity
Column Number: 209
to undertake a retraining course, which will give them a remission of penalty points. The clause inserts into the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 new sections 30A, B, C and D, which enable the court to offer persons convicted of the offences of careless and inconsiderate driving, failing to comply with traffic signs or speeding the opportunity to pay for and undertake a retraining course in circumstances where the driver is not to be disqualified but his licence endorsed with penalty points. Those circumstances are that at least seven and no more than 11 points are to be taken into account at the time of sentence.
I accept the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, but we must look at the worst cases first. People caught with a couple of offences are perhaps the ones we need to tackle first. If we later think that there is some merit in looking at those on the first occasion, we may do so.
The hon. Member for Christchurch asked why we set the number at 11. We did so because it is the maximum amount of points that one can get before being disqualified. That includes the points from the most recent offence. If the person has three points, they must have had at least eight points to get to 11. They cannot get a remission of their penalty points if the offence takes them over the top; to 12, 13 or 14 points.
10.30 am
Mr. Kidney: I am interested in my hon. Friend the Minister's decision to ''take the worst first'', and give attention to them. A four-time speeder is the worst offender and rightly should be disqualified from driving to teach them a lesson, rather than being sent on a course to avoid that disqualification. That is what I think should happen to the worst.
Mr. Jamieson: Perhaps I gave a bad example. Of course the worst get disqualified. That is absolutely correct. They cannot be given remission of their points. However, those who are moving in the wrong direction may be within redemption. That is what the clause is about; trying to redeem those who have sinned somewhat but have not proven to be serial sinners, although they may be en route to losing their licence.
On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, I will check what research has been done on the courses that are offered. I know from what he called empirical information, or what one might call anecdotal information, that people who have been on the courses are full of praise for them. They would not have been totally cynical, or they would not have agreed to do a course, but they may have gone into it with a bit of cynicism, but most people I have spoken to said that the course changed their attitude and was extremely valuable to them.
Mr. Fisher: Once the clause is, as I hope, passed and becomes law, is it my hon. Friend's intention to issue national guidance so that there is uniformity among the courses and common high standards? As I understand from everything that has been said in the
Column Number: 210
debate by my hon. Friends and others, the courses are being developed in a piecemeal fashion, so different courses have different standards.
Mr. Jamieson: It is true that the courses have been developed on a piecemeal basis. I do not think that they have been any the worse for that, although some are indeed better than others. We have been finding our feet.
On page 29, clause 30C and 30D says that the national authority—the Secretary of State or the Secretary of State for Wales—will approve the courses and, in 30D, other provisions to ensure the quality of the courses are set out. As the courses roll out further and become more widely available to the courts, it is inevitable that there will be some standardisation throughout the country. The courses do not all need to be the same, but we need guidelines as to their quality. After all, although the offender will have penalty points taken off their licence, the courses will cost about £150 or £200. They are not a cheap option.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford asked about the police's driver improvement courses. They tend to last about a day or a day and a half, whereas we are envisaging a course that lasts 16 to 30 hours in total, on at least three separate days. That means that it will be much more intensive. It may be for offences other than speeding, perhaps something more complex, such as addressing the carelessness in someone's driving or their deficiencies.
Mr. Chope: If the courses are going to last for 16 to 30 hours and be spread over three days, surely the cost will be much greater than £150 to £200, unless the courses will be subsidised.
Mr. Jamieson: I said that the costs are in that region at the moment. They may cost more. We must, however, ensure that we get good value for money. There is no intention to subsidise the courses. It is not the role of the taxpayer to subsidise people who break the law and then get a remission of their penalty points. It is absolutely proper that that is paid for by the offender not by the taxpayer.
The hon. Member for Christchurch mentioned that it takes ten months before the points come off the offender's licence. That is reasonable and sensible because, if a person had the points taken off their licence immediately, they might think that they could reoffend. They have to demonstrate over almost a year that they have not reoffended. If they reoffend during that period having completed their course, they may, after totting up, lose their licence. First, the person takes the course, and secondly, they receive some remission of points. The provision is a further incentive to that person, who will have almost another year in which to demonstrate that they have learned from the course. Otherwise, the points come winging their way back and could lead to a disqualification. It is right that that provision is included and the clause is valuable and useful.
Mr. Kidney: I just want to check two final points with my hon. Friend the Minister. First, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent,
Column Number: 211
Central, will he provide an assurance that, just as the Transport Research Laboratory researched and evaluated the drink-drive rehabilitation courses, there will be similar research into and evaluation of the proposed courses? Secondly, does that scheme crowd out the existing discretionary schemes, including offers to first-time offenders? If so, will my hon. Friend the Minister look more closely at my concern that first-time offenders will lose the opportunity of education at the right time; when they first offend?
Mr. Jamieson: I do not think that the scheme will crowd out those courses. The clause provides in specific circumstances for certain courses. My hon. Friend just reminded me of something rather important when he mentioned drink-driving, as the provision would not be appropriate for drink-drivers. They do not receive any remission of points; they face an immediate ban. The provision would be inappropriate for a person in those circumstances. My hon. Friend will see that some of the other drink-driving issues are covered in the clause that we are about to address.
Mr. Chope: On getting access to those courses, as the clause is drafted one would be able to gain access to them only through the court. If, for example, a driver has three fixed penalty speeding fines, giving him nine points, how would he get his case before a court, thereby enabling him to get on one of those courses and reduce those points? Otherwise, it is all done administratively. As I understand it, the virtue of the driver improvement and speed awareness courses that the police offer is that they are done as a trade-off at the point where the police meet the offender.
| 
