Column Number: 41
Standing Committee A
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairmen:
Janet Anderson, †Sir Nicholas Winterton
†Bellingham, Mr. Henry (North-West Norfolk) (Con)
†Carmichael, Mr. Alistair (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
†Hammond, Stephen (Wimbledon) (Con)
†Harris, Mr. Tom (Glasgow, South) (Lab)
†Iddon, Dr. Brian (Bolton, South-East) (Lab)
†Keeble, Ms Sally (Northampton, North) (Lab)
†Kidney, Mr. David (Stafford) (Lab)
†Knight, Mr. Greg (East Yorkshire) (Con)
†Ladyman, Dr. Stephen (Minister of State, Department for Transport)
†McFadden, Mr. Pat (Wolverhampton, South-East) (Lab)
†McKenna, Rosemary (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch, East) (Lab)
Osborne, Sandra (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)
†Paterson, Mr. Owen (North Shropshire) (Con)
†Pugh, Dr. John (Southport) (LD)
†Rowen, Paul (Rochdale) (LD)
†Roy, Mr. Frank (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)
†Scott, Mr. Lee (Ilford, North) (Con)
†Slaughter, Mr. Andrew (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd’s Bush) (Lab)
John Benger, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
Column Number: 43
Tuesday 21 March 2006
(Afternoon)
[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]
4.30 pm
Mr. Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con): On a point of order, Sir Nicholas. Would it be possible for you to ask the relevant officials to make available copies of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988? As we go through the Bill, we will find that it gets fiendishly complicated, and it would be helpful if we could have hard copies to use during the debate.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): Further to that point of order, Sir Nicholas. I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson). I have served on Committees considering similar Bills in the past, where it has been of immense service to have copies available of the statute being amended. In passing, I notice that the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 also features from time to time, but as the hon. Gentleman says, the principal statutes that we are dealing with are the two 1988 Acts.
Mr. Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): Further to that point of order, Sir Nicholas. I may be able to help to a small extent in that I have a copy of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, having foreseen the problems that have been identified, and I am quite willing to lend it to other Committee members.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Stephen Ladyman): Further to that point of order, Sir Nicholas.
The Chairman: I was going to suggest from the Chair that the Minister will have heard the points of order raised. Being entirely unbiased, I can only say that it would be helpful to Members of all parties if hard copies of the Acts mentioned, including the Road Traffic Act 1998 and the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 in particular, were made available to all members of the Committee, including the Chairman.
Dr. Ladyman: The problem we have is that there has never been a reprinted version of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to take into account all the amendments that have been made since it took effect. It may be difficult to be helpful to the Committee. I will certainly ask my officials to do their best, but it may be necessary for hon. Members to avail themselves of the House of Commons Library and “Halsbury’s Statutes”, a copy of which my Parliamentary Private Secretary has availed himself of.
Column Number: 44
The Chairman: Following up the Minister’s comments, I am confident that electronic copies of the Acts are available. It should be up to the Department to make copies available to Committee members and I am sure that the Minister, even if his officials are second hand in this arena, will have heard what I said. The availability of an updated Act in both cases, perhaps provided electronically to hon. Members, would be very helpful to the future progress of the Bill.
When we broke for lunch, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight) was on his feet, and I ask him to resume his brief remarks.
Clause 3
Graduated fixed penalties
Question proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question again proposed.
Mr. Knight: I was reflecting on what we are letting ourselves in for if we accept clause 3. Will the Minister give us some idea of the scope and nature of the orders that will flow from the clauses 3 and 4? I have no difficulty at all with the status quo, whereby a police officer trained in the rules of evidence can give out a fixed penalty ticket in certain circumstances where he feels that an offence has been committed. The clause breaks new ground, however, in that an element of flexibility has been introduced. To some extent, that will lead to a subtle shift in the behaviour of the police in which they will move from being mere enforcers of the law to acting to some extent as a judge of the situation. As I understand it officers will, for the first time, have the precise level of sentence in their own hands.
Although I support the principle of flexibility, I am just a little concerned about how such provision will operate in practice. Will the police officer carry in his car or in a box on his bike a range of tickets with different penalties? Or will he have a box to tick when he fills out the ticket for a motorist who he believes has committed an offence? Is the heat of the moment the best time for the police officer to make that judgment? There is a real risk that where a motorist who has been stopped for an offence is truculent or bellicose, the police officer may decide to ratchet up the level of penalty, although the offence does not warrant it, merely because he has experienced a degree of friction with the motorist.
Hitherto, the Government attitude has been that the motorist can take it or leave it; he can accept what is in the fixed penalty ticket or he can go to court. However, that answer is not entirely satisfactory. Has the Minister considered that point? If not, will he do so before the orders are made? Is there not a case for having the police officer issue an open ticket—a ticket recording the offence and inviting the motorist to tell the officer what mitigating circumstances there are, if any? Within 14 days of such a ticket being issued, someone else in authority could decide what grading the ticket should have. A person behind a desk seeing both the facts as alleged by the police officer and any
Column Number: 45
comments in mitigation by the motorist would be better placed to determine the grading. I wonder whether the Minister has reflected on that possibility.
Clearly, we do not want motorists arguing by the side of the road with a police officer. We do not want motorists saying, “No, I should be graded down one,” and the officer saying, “No, I think that you should be graded higher.” I wonder whether a system in which that is done at base will remove the risk. The police officer could simply issue a ticket and say, “Within 14 days you will know full details of the impact of the ticket. Is there anything that you want to say?” That could be fairer, and it is more likely to be just. If the motorist decides at the end of the day to take the matter to court, the prosecution will make great play with asking, “What did the defendant say when the accusation was first put to him? What did he say in answer to the allegation?” The prosecution will not ask, “What is he saying now, in court?” If the motorist is invited to have his say there and then, when he is stopped by the police officer, and the police officer puts that in his notebook, it is more likely to lead to a just outcome.
Those concerns are relevant to cases in which the ticket is issued by a police officer, but how much more relevant are they when the scope is widened, as the Minister said, and a non-police officer issues the ticket? What if it is issued by a vehicle examiner who has no experience or knowledge of the rules of evidence? Should not he be encouraged to note down what the driver has to say at the time of the offence, before the grading of the penalty is determined?
Dr. Ladyman: The intention is not that that flexibility should exist at the roadside. The flexibility will exist when we come to make the order in Parliament. That order should prescribe the circumstances in which a motorist will get a particular type of penalty. In other words, if the officer stops a motorist at the roadside, the officer should be in a position to say, “You were doing 45 mph in an area with a 30 mph speed limit, and I am able to offer a fixed penalty for that. The fixed penalty is this, because that is what Parliament has prescribed for these circumstances.” That will be the level of flexibility.
Having said that, I can see some merit in what the right hon. Gentleman suggests, in that perhaps the appropriate thing is for the policeman to just say, “This is the offence I’ve stopped you for, and you will hear within a period of time as to whether we’re going to offer you a fixed penalty, and what it will be.” I shall reflect on the matter and confirm what I say later, but to the best of my knowledge, a policeman would not be prevented from taking that course of action if it were the view of the local constabulary that that was how it wanted to issue tickets. The flexibility will come when we make the order in Parliament, and we will prescribe the precise circumstances at that stage.
I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says about the fact that if somebody is belligerent at the roadside, there may be a temptation for the policeman to ramp up the penalty. That will almost certainly not be a circumstance that Parliament would want to cover in the order. In such circumstances, the policeman’s
Column Number: 46
response should be to say “Okay then, there will be no fixed penalty. We’ll take you to court, and I’ll be explaining to the magistrate how you have behaved.”
I have a childhood memory of my brother driving a car, with my uncle in the passenger seat. My brother was stopped by a policeman, and my uncle kept repeating to my brother, “Humble pie, humble pie,” to keep him calm while the policeman told him off. In the end the policeman sent him on his way, so my advice to any motorist who is stopped by a policeman in future is, “Plenty of humble pie; listen carefully to what the officer has to say and learn from it, and maybe that will serve you well.”
I repeat, however, that the flexibility will arise from making the order in Parliament that will prescribe the circumstances in which a penalty will be available.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Graduated fixed penalty points
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Paterson: Will the Minister clarify where we stand on the system of graduated penalties? This morning, he mentioned the guidelines produced by the Association of Chief Police Officers, which refer to an excess speed of 10 per cent. plus two that we should be reached before an offence kicks in, but we are debating these matters against the background of a spectacular increase in motoring offences. The latest figures that I have are for 2003, in which the number of motoring offences dealt with by the police in which a penalty was charged is 13.2 million, which is up 15 per cent. on the 2002 level and is the highest number ever recorded. I understand that that trend has continued, and that the number of motoring offences dealt with by fixed penalty notices, including those issued by traffic wardens, was 3.6 million, which is up 27 per cent. on 2002. There were 2.3 million court proceedings for motoring offences during 2003, which is up 9 per cent. on 2002.
Speed cameras, our friends of this morning, provide the evidence for 1.9 million offences that were dealt with—93 per cent. of speeding offences. There are now up to 5,000 camera sites and the number is growing. The result is that whereas there was previously some flexibility, there is now the rigidity of the camera system. The Government published what we thought was a consultation document, but we were told that it was a discussion document. In relation to the 30 mph limit, it was proposed that there would be a schedule of lower penalty points: two points plus a £40 fine at 39 mph, a standard penalty of three points from 40 to 44 mph and a higher penalty of six points at 45 mph.
Without rehearsing this morning’s arguments on penalty points, which were similar, I can say that we welcome the flexibility to allow for conditions. I am intrigued, however, by how the system will work if ACPO adheres to an excess of 10 per cent. plus two,
Column Number: 47
which I believe is sensible. Indeed, some major newspaper reports appeared over the weekend saying that some police monitoring devices are not accurate. It is therefore sensible to have some flexibility about the speed that is being prosecuted, aside from taking into account the circumstances.
4.45 pm
We said in previous debates and in the House of Lords that we were not happy that proposed new subsection (3A) to section 28 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 states that all these matters will be decided in a separate debate on a statutory instrument. It would be better for us to have the debate now so that it is on the record and so that all the parties can hear the Government’s thinking.
The Government’s proposals have support outside the House. The RAC Foundation is a respected organisation that has a great deal of knowledge and which has done a great deal of research on the subject. It stated that while it appreciated that all speeding could be dangerous, it supported the graduated penalty system. It believes that the level of punishment needs to fit the crime, and that a range of penalty points may in fact discourage people from excessive speeding. The greatest reduction in road casualties would come from reducing the speeds of faster drivers—a point that we discussed this morning. The foundation states that there is no evidence to suggest that a graduated system would encourage motorists to drive just above the limit, as two penalty points are still a strong deterrent to speeding. So there is support from respectable bodies outside the House.
My party supports graduated penalty points because of the variability and flexibility that they give, but I would like a clear idea from the Minister as to whether he has a schedule in mind that might be debated at a future stage in a Statutory Instrument Committee. Would it not be better for him to debate it now and tell us how the ACPO ruling will affect it?
Mr. Carmichael: As I understand the clause, the existing floor for penalty points—the minimum that is normally imposed—of three is to be removed, and there will be greater variation. I believe that that will apply in all parts of the United Kingdom. Can the Minister tell me what consultation he has had with the Scottish Executive? As the statutory instruments under the proposed new subsection will apply in Scotland, the Executive will be responsible for them. The challenge for the Government, wherever they are, is that the certainty that exists with the three-point minimum will be lost, as it will be possible to have different rates north and south of the border. That is an undesirable development.
Dr. Ladyman: The Government will take this power if the Committee and, ultimately, the House agree. As the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) said, the Bill does not include the detail of how graduation will work. That is a matter for the future. I can understand why he would want to have some sort
Column Number: 48
of debate on it now, but such a debate would have to be fairly superficial. It will be held in much more detail when the time comes to lay an order.
For the hon. Gentleman’s information, clause 3 penalties—that is, matters to do with money—will be subject to a negative resolution, and orders under clause 4 will be subject to an affirmative resolution. The reason for the difference is that we regard penalty points as more serious than sums of money, as they can ultimately lead to the loss of one’s licence and possibly even one’s livelihood. If someone loses their licence but carries on driving, they can even be imprisoned. As that issue is clearly more serious, there will have to be a debate in this place before an order is made.
What sort of things do we have in mind? On 1 September 2004, we published an outline of what we think might be appropriate, and we opened that up to consultation. We shall review the feedback from that consultation, if the Bill is passed. We will suggest another set of proposals based on that consultation and then move to further consultation and an order. My promise to the hon. Gentleman is that there will be thorough consultation before we make the order.
How will the proposals mesh with the ACPO guidance? First, in England and Wales, enforcement guidance from ACPO is discretionary. The situation is different in Scotland, where I understand the Lord Advocate sets the enforcement guidelines and the police have no discretion. Let us assume for the purposes of debate that the ACPO guidance is in operation in England and Wales and let us take the 30 mph figure that the hon. Gentleman has given us. The proposal that we took out to consultation was that, in a 30 mph zone, there should be a lower penalty of two points and £40 up to 39 mph; a standard penalty of three points and £60 between 40 and 44 mph; and a higher penalty of six points and a £100 fine for 45 mph.
If we overlay the ACPO guidance, I envisage no charge being made between 30 and 35 mph, because that is ACPO’s enforcement guideline. However, should a person exceed the speed limit at more than 50 mph, the opportunity to offer a higher penalty of six points and £100 will lapse and the person will be taken to court, because that is where ACPO guidance sets the higher level of court enforcement. Therefore, I envisage the order that the House ultimately passes will be overlaid by the ACPO guidance.
I can tell the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) that discussions on all aspects of the Bill have taken place with the Scottish Executive. The instruments will be dealt with not in Scotland but in Westminster, as they are for the whole of Great Britain. This is a reserved matter that will be dealt with in that way.
I hope that I have answered the questions put by the hon. Member for North Shropshire and that he will agree that clause 4 should stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 49
Clause 17
Penalty points
Mr. Paterson: I beg to move amendment No. 55, in clause 17, page 21, line 25, leave out ‘“2-6’ and insert ‘“1-6’.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 88, in clause 17, page 21, line 29, leave out from ‘substitute’ to end of line 30 and insert
‘3-6 or appropriate penalty points if committed in respect of a speed limit on a restricted road; 2-6 (fixed penalty) in other cases”, and
“restricted road” in paragraph ( ) means a road defined as restricted in section 82 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27).’.
No. 56, in clause 17, page 21, line 29, leave out ‘“2-6’ and insert ‘“1-6’.
New clause 13—HGV speed limits—
‘In Schedule 6 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (speed limits for vehicles of certain classes), in paragraph 5(2)(b)(iii) column (c) leave out “40” and insert “50”.’.
Mr. Paterson: I do not want to delay the Committee by making the same points as were made in the previous debate, because the clause centres on flexibility and variation according to circumstances. The Government propose points of two to six, and amendment No. 55 proposes points of one to six, giving even more flexibility to allow circumstances to be taken into account.
An interesting report published last week suggested that 1 million drivers are now on six or more licence points. Perhaps the matter has been rather dramatically put, but it has been said that, as there is a chance of getting six points on any speeding offence, some people are only one flash away from losing their licence completely. I think that we would all agree that people should not be driving so fast that they get six points, but a large number of people who have been caught—I think mainly because of the big increase in speed cameras—are now reaching the point where their driving is affected: they are so paranoid about being caught by a speed camera that they are concentrating on the cameras rather than on their driving technique, although I have only anecdotal evidence of that.
Mr. Tom Harris (Glasgow, South) (Lab): I should rise to declare the same interest that I declared on Second Reading: I am one these many millions of drivers with six points. Knowing that every mile I drive I am on the verge of losing my licence, which would happen if I were caught speeding again, I concentrate not on the location of speed cameras, but on keeping my speed below the legal limit. I am sure that that experience is common to others in my situation.
Mr. Paterson: That was a helpful contribution. One feels for the hon. Gentleman and we should wish him good luck with cautious driving. Perhaps he will shortly endorse our proposal about detection devices, but I will not test your patience on that, Sir Nicholas.
Column Number: 50
We are all citing our friends and family histories, as well as horrible incidents yesterday on the M6. Much of this is anecdotal, but people have been telling me that as they have reached six points, they are under pressure and are really worried about it. As the Minister said, their lives, careers and jobs may depend on having a driving licence. Our proposal is quite simple. We have done to death the idea of flexibility and attention to the conditions surrounding the circumstances of being stopped and we propose just a little more flexibility to go from one to six.
On new clause 13, there is a slight change in subject. The purpose of the new clause is simple. We have had a considerable number of representations from the commercial trucking industry saying that there would be sense in increasing the speed of heavy goods vehicles on single-lane main roads from 40 mph to 50 mph. I have completely failed to establish where the 40 mph limit originated. That is the first problem. It seems to be ancestral. I can find no evidence on why it was established, but those in the industry think that it was introduced many years ago when vehicle technology was quite different, anti-lock braking systems did not exist and suspension systems were different.
We have established that about 50 per cent. of accidents are caused on single-lane roads, and they tend to be head-on collisions. Again, the evidence is anecdotal. Many car drivers do not understand that heavy goods vehicles are limited to 40 mph. The trucking industry believes that frustrated drivers are queuing up behind trucks and then choosing inappropriate moments to try to dash past them. On roads such as the A9 in Scotland, the A5 near me and the A41 that can be quite dangerous. There is a clear case for considering increasing the speed of heavy goods vehicles.
5 pm
Mr. Harris: I have two quick points to make. It seems a very radical measure to base on purely anecdotal evidence. Secondly—the hon. Gentleman has been given notice of this question because I asked it of his Front Bench colleagues on Second Reading—can he name a single country in the world where an increase in the speed limit has led to a consequent reduction in road fatalities?
Mr. Paterson: Yes, I am talking trucks. There is evidence in the United States, from states such as Montana. When the limits imposed during the fuel crisis in the 1970s were lifted, there was an improvement in the accident rate.
Rosemary McKenna (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch, East) (Lab): Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot compare roads in Montana or any other American state to the roads in Orkney, or to the A9 in particular, which he mentioned.
Mr. Paterson: I am touched that the hon. Lady queries my reply to a straight question from her hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South (Mr. Harris).
Column Number: 51
He asked whether I had evidence, I said yes and I gave it. I do not want to upset her, but I am going to give her some more evidence from America.
I considered two studies of changes in traffic; one from the US Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration, and the other from the Wyoming legislative service office. They show that when trucking limits were devolved, certain states maintained a differential speed limit, with one speed for trucks and another for cars, and others maintained a uniform speed limit, with the same speed for cars and trucks. For example, Arkansas had a differential speed limit, keeping cars at 70 mph and trucks at 65 mph. Idaho was uniform; it went for 75 mph for all vehicles.
The evidence from the federal report is, bluntly, that the changes did not make much difference. It is not absolutely clear from the study whether they made any difference. The problem with that study and the Wyoming study is that we are talking about interstates, which are the same as our motorways, with traffic flowing in the same direction; interestingly, there has been no dramatic change either way under either regime.
|
