Road Safety Bill [Lords] |
|
Dr. Ladyman: I shall give the hon. Gentleman the information that he seeks. How authorised persons might access the information could be determined routinely by the Secretary of State—he would simply issue an instruction on how it was to happen—but he would have to come back to Parliament to get permission on who would have access. Were he to come back to Parliament for permission for somebody not on the list, one of the questions that Parliament would ask would concern how they were to get that information. Although that would not necessarily be in the statutory instrument, I have no doubt that it would be something to which he would have to give a solid answer when the debate came to Parliament. Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con) rose— Mr. Carmichael: If the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) can contain himself for a second, I am sure that his remarks will be worth waiting for. I accept the Minister’s assurances and thank him for his assistance. Mr. Bellingham: I want to ask the Minister a couple of practical questions, because we have had quite a lot of theory this morning. In my constituency, we have recently seen a large increase in the number of overseas drivers. There is a large Portuguese community in and around Swaffham and Thetford in Norfolk, many of whom work in agriculture-related businesses such as food processing. A lot of growers in the area are using Portuguese labour. They are very welcome because they work extremely hard, and they are of course EU drivers. Will the Minister elaborate on the Dutch case mentioned in the explanatory notes—the case that went to the European Court on the grounds of discrimination? The previous system operated on the basis that an EU driver stopped by the UK police showed their national licence, and there would be no legal counterpart on which an endorsement or points could be recorded, although there would be a court record of the offence. EU drivers are a great deal easier to track down because of reciprocal arrangements. However, there is a large number of eastern European workers in Norfolk, who add a lot of value to the local economy. When the Prime Minister said that residents of accession countries would come to this country only in small numbers, he hugely underestimated what would happen. There are very many Latvian, Estonian and Polish workers in Norfolk, who are based mainly in the agricultural sector. They add a lot of value, they are welcome and they have integrated well into the community, and most of them are here only for a short time. Unfortunately, however, there has been a number of incidents where drivers have been stopped by the police and where accidents have taken place from
By definition, we are talking about people in temporary jobs; they are part of a transient community which moves on the whole time, very often from one part of the local economy to another. I am not suggesting for one moment that they have not added a degree of vibrancy to the local economy, but there have been at least 10 cases where driving offences have been committed after which the police have tried to track people down and have failed to do so. Will the Minister tell us which provision in this set of clauses, which he has explained are part of a package, would assist in such cases? If there is a legal counterpart, presumably it will be held at the DVLA. Let us say a Latvian driver is stopped for speeding. Under the current system, he must produce his licence to the police. He will receive not a fixed penalty notice but a court summons, and he must give his address. That process works only if he co-operates. Under the new system, presumably there will be no legal counterpart issued to him until an offence is committed. Is that correct? A legal counterpart will be issued to a non-EU driver only when an offence has been committed and he has gone to court—in other words, when something needs to be recorded. Perhaps the Minister would elaborate on that. I know that the Norfolk constabulary is concerned about that problem, because there has been a growing number of cases involving young drivers from non-EU countries, who have been driving recklessly and dangerously and have committed driving offences. The police tell me that if those people refuse to co-operate, they are virtually powerless to do anything about it. Dr. Ladyman: All will become clear to the hon. Gentleman when we discuss the subsequent amendments, because they concern the power to tackle that problem. However, the subsequent amendments are dependent on these provisions, because without them the police cannot issue fixed penalty notices at all. If they could not issue them because someone did not have a counterpart driving licence, the subsequent amendments, which refer to the ability to take a deposit or immobilise someone’s vehicle if the police do not think the address is real, would not work. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall answer most of his questions when we come to a later group of amendments, which I assure him will not work if we do not agree to these provisions. Stephen Hammond: The Minister’s explanation was absolutely correct, although I suspect he may wish to address some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk under clause 10 as well. I am grateful to the Minister for giving us a useful introduction to this set of clauses. He will understand that I wish to explore clause 9, schedule 2 and clause 10 in a little more depth. Column Number: 100 I am afraid I do not share the confidence of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) that we have finished with insurance for the day. I suspect that this afternoon, under clause 21, we shall detain ourselves for rather longer than we have on this clause. A forerunner of that is the Minister’s statement that people knowingly try to kid insurance companies. Indeed, a large number of people do, but a large number of people have genuine slips of the mind as well, and I am sure we will want to explore that point under clause 21. However, I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful and useful clarifications in respect of my amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9 Unlicensed and foreign drivers Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Stephen Hammond: I do not want to detain the Committee too long on this part of the Bill. As with clause 8, we support entirely the thrust of the Government’s purpose. However, as I have not had the opportunity before, I wish to explore three items with the Minister. Throughout subsection (3) there is continual reference to “particulars”. Could the Minister clarify exactly what they are? I assume that they are about the nature of the fine, custodial sentence or courses attended, as the subsection already refers to fixed penalty points. Particulars are something extra, and I would like to hear what the Minister has to say about them. I understand that the intent of the clause is that non-holders of UK licences can get an endorsement on their record. Is the intent also that UK citizens who are unlicensed and who have driven without a licence should get an endorsement on their record prior to getting a licence, or will the fixed penalty notice be only a fine for such individuals? Finally, proposed new section 57A refers to a sum being paid to the fixed penalty clerk and the fixed penalty clerk sending notice to the Secretary of State about the endorsement. What happens if an unlicensed individual does not pay? Am I right in thinking that those circumstances will be caught by clause 11, which deals with deposits, or will a separate prosecution be necessary? There is also reference to payments within the suspended enforcement period, but I would like to know what will happen at the end of it. Will there be an increase in the fixed penalty notice and, possibly, punishment? If the Minister clarified those points, I am sure that we could move on swiftly. Dr. Ladyman: I shall do my best to clarify those points. Clause 9 is about unlicensed and foreign drivers. Proposed new section 57A in the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 describes the process for endorsing
These clauses came about as a result of the situation alluded to by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk. A Dutch citizen committed an offence that, for a British driver, would have been an opportunity for a fixed penalty notice, but she could not be issued with a fixed penalty notice because she did not have a counterpart. She had to go to court, where the potential fine was much greater and, in addition, she had court costs. She argued correctly that she was being discriminated against because, had she been a British citizen, she would not have had to go through that procedure. This group of clauses is intended to rectify that situation and allow people who for good reason do not have a counterpart to their licence to be treated in the same way as British citizens. I hope that that is sufficient explanation for the hon. Gentleman. 9.45 amStephen Hammond: That certainly addresses the point I was trying to reach with my third group of points about proposed new section 57A. I understand that clause 11 will be helpful, as it will enable the taking of the fixed penalty deposit. It will cover that circumstance, and I just wanted to clarify as much. The Minister has not clarified—I am sure he will do so quickly—the provision in proposed new section 44A, which states:
Will he confirm that the particulars are fines, custodial sentences, anything that the magistrate or court might say and any courses attended as reparation for or for making good someone’s driving habit? Is that what particulars means? Dr. Ladyman: Broadly speaking, the hon. Gentleman is right. Particulars refers to the offence code, fixed penalty fine, the date of the offence and any penalty points issued. Mr. Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): I rise to ask the Minister how he envisages the system working for someone who is from overseas and refuses to co-operate with the police, as in the case described by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk. If that person were a multiple or—if I may put it this way—serial fixed penalty receiver, and he received a ticket and continued to commit offences, would there be a mechanism to deal with them? There must come a point when the driving record is such that the police
Dr. Ladyman: There are two answers: one answer is in the Bill, and we shall come to it when we discuss under clause 11 the ability to take deposits and to immobilise vehicles if we do not think that somebody has a suitable address. The other answer—this is where my officials might start to panic, because I am going to lapse into areas of legislation and European directives that are not directly part of the Bill—is in the second EU driving licence directive. It puts in place a mechanism whereby EU countries will recognise the penalty points, endorsements and licences of each other’s country. The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for speaking from memory, but I think that the directive does not come into force until every member state has ratified it, and currently only three have done so. It provides for bilateral agreements between member states to try to deal with the situation. So far, we have entered into a bilateral arrangement with the Irish Government to recognise each other’s driving licences. If somebody loses their licence in the UK, they will not be able to return to Ireland to get another one; likewise, if somebody loses their licence in Ireland, they need not think that they can come to the UK to get a licence. The arrangement has been complex, because Ireland’s totting up system is different from ours and much negotiation is required to reach synergy in two different legal systems. It is complicated and it takes a long time. Given that it will take even longer—almost glacial periods—to get EU-wide agreement to all those arrangements, we must do the best that we can in the meantime. This set of clauses and clause 11, which provide powers to take deposits, immobilise vehicles and change our arrangements so that the counterpart licence is not necessary to access our fixed penalty point system, are the best that we can do in the meantime. I freely acknowledge that a thorough EU-wide system of checking each other’s driving records and licences with synergy of our legal systems would be better, but it will be a long time coming. Stephen Hammond: May I ask the Minister for further clarification on two points that I mentioned earlier? First, am I right that the clause does not deal with unlicensed UK citizens, but with only unlicensed foreign citizens? Secondly, at the moment, if one receives a parking fine, it is a fixed penalty fine and not endorsable. If one pays within a certain amount of time, one pays a certain amount, after which the amount is increased. There are continual references in the clause to payments within the suspended period. Is it intended that someone who makes a payment after the suspended period—either because they knowingly decide to, or because it slips their mind—will be
Mr. Knight: I am grateful for the Minister’s answer to my earlier question. He mentioned the European directive. As recently as last year there was a view in Europe that a new driving licence directive should require all member states to issue short-term licences for, say, five years, with regular eye and health checks when licences came up for renewal. That runs contrary to our system, in which licences are generally issued until the driver reaches retirement age. Will the Minister confirm that the Government’s view is the same as it was18 months ago—that that proposal should be resisted? Dr. Ladyman: I can certainly confirm that we would resist that. The third European driving licence directive will be discussed at the Transport Council in Brussels on Monday, which I shall attend on behalf of the Government. There are no such recommendations in that directive. I suspect that it will be adopted by the Council on Monday, although the Government are resisting parts. Not for the first time, however, we stand alone, and therefore it will be adopted. Nevertheless, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the third driving licence directive does not include the sort of measure to which he refers. It may be an ambition of some Eurocrat for the fourth or fifth directive, but that is a battle for the far distant future. On the question raised by the hon. Member for Wimbledon, my understanding is that if the fine is not paid within a specified period it can be recorded as an outstanding debt. One would hope, though—subject to the Committee’s agreement to the clauses following this group—that we will not get into that situation. I hope that, if a policeman is not convinced that an individual is contactable and has a proper address, the vehicle will be clamped at the road-side until such time as that person has been to the cash machine and returned with some money. The situation that the hon. Gentleman mentions might arise if such drivers were caught by a speed camera, and the police were not dealing with the individual at the time. In those circumstances, the debt would be recorded and efforts would be made to recover it later. Stephen Hammond: The Minister has been helpful on several issues that we wished to probe. Question put and agreed to. Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 2 Endorsement: unlicensed and foreign drivers Question proposed, that this schedule be the Second schedule to the Bill. Stephen Hammond: I understand that clause 9 will enact schedule 2. There has been much clarification from the Minister, for which I am grateful, but I have just a couple of questions. Paragraph 6 of the schedule
Secondly, under proposed new section 84A, I should like to be reassured that the
are exactly those about which we sought reassurance in the stand part debate. Does the Minister anticipate any circumstances where those particulars might differ under this schedule? Dr. Ladyman: I hope that I have understood the hon. Gentleman’s query correctly. The clause allows the police the same powers to check the driving record, when the record is the DVLA database, as they currently have to check the driving record from the counterpart. The schedule will remove all references to “counterpart” in existing legislation, because that will no longer be a legal necessity. Incidentally, in my experience, when people receive a new driving licence—a plastic card and a counterpart—they almost always say, “Why do we have both things?” The answer in future, once the Bill is enacted, will be, “You don’t need both any more. The only thing that you will ever need to show a policeman is the little plastic card that comes with your driving licence. Anything else that the DVLA chooses to send with your licence will simply be a convenience and will have no legal standing.” That is the purpose of the schedule. I understand that the officer will check the driving record first, and if a fixed penalty would lead to disqualification, the case will be referred to court. That is the same as the present situation. The hon. Gentleman has not had the experience, as my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Glasgow, South and I have had, of the police writing to us, saying that they caught us on their camera and that we have the opportunity to accept a fixed penalty or go to court and argue the case. If people decide to accept the fixed penalty, they send their licence and counterpart to the police so that the driving record can be checked. If the police see that a person has nine points, they do not issue a fixed penalty, but say that they have to go direct to court. In future, they will not need to do that; when the police write and tell them they have the fine and they reply, saying that they will take the fixed penalty rather than go to court, the police will just check the DVLA record, which will be the real driver’s record, so people will not need to send their licence to the police any more. That is the essential difference. However, people who have totted up sufficient points so that the next points that they receive mean a ban will still have to go to court and answer the case. Column Number: 105 Mr. Knight: Presumably, this change will not lead to any change in the practice in the courts. At present, once the points on a driver’s licence have expired, he can send it away for no other reason than to have them removed and a clean counterpart issued. Will the Minister confirm that when the courts are dealing with a defendant under the new system, although the clerk of the court will have access to the driving record, he will still be under a duty not to refer to points that are spent? Dr. Ladyman: That is correct. As I said earlier, although I have addressed my offending behaviour and now have a clean licence, my counterpart still has a record of my endorsements, which are now four years old. Although endorsements last only for three years, a person cannot apply for a clean licence for four years in case they appear in court between the third and fourth years, at which time the court would need to be able to look back to see that they had committed their fourth offence during the three years when they had nine points. After four years, the person can send the counterpart back, and they will be sent a clean piece of paper. That is what I intend to do in the very near future. Under the new arrangements, the convictions will simply be expunged automatically from the computer record when they are four years old, so the courts will have no knowledge of them if they look at the database. 10 amLet us say that the courts looked at the database because a person happened to be in court for a fourth offence. The previous three offences were committed within three years, but the fourth was committed outside those three years. That could not lead to the person being disqualified; clearly, they would not have enough points to be disqualified if the latter offence was committed outside the three years. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman understands what I mean. Basically, the answer to his question is yes, the provision does not change current practice; it just changes how it will be administered. Mr. Knight: I understand the Minister perfectly. I am well aware of why points stay on for four years: it is because the totting-up system runs from the date of conviction to the date of offence, and one could then appear in court in the fourth year, but for an offence committed in year three. I understand that. But when the Minister says “expunged”, does he mean expunged? I am thinking back to an earlier debate. If an insurance company had access to the record, it would not be right and proper if it could identify spent convictions that, although not referred to in court, were still on the record. Dr. Ladyman: The convictions are expunged. I asked that very question of my colleagues in the DVLA yesterday, with all the cynicism of a former computer systems designer who knows how lazy software and database designers are, and who knows their willingness to leave information on the record just in case it might be needed in future. I checked that
Mr. Carmichael: My apologies, Mrs. Anderson; I had to leave the room briefly, and I am not sure whether the Minister is speaking or being intervened on. I am curious about this business. I can see the force of what the Minister says in relation to fixed penalties that come from outwith the court system, but not all penalty points are imposed in that way. A lot are imposed through courts. Surely they cannot just be removed from the driver record. Having that information available must be relevant to the court’s considerations. Dr. Ladyman: I am equally confused as to whether I am making a statement or being intervened on, but as long as Mrs. Anderson is happy, I am happy. I will check on the hon. Gentleman’s point. Clearly, if the court has imposed a sentence, it may have a record of it, but my understanding is that, as far as the driver record is concerned, the DVLA deletes any points that may exist on a driving licence. However, I will certainly check that for the hon. Gentleman. Question put and agreed to. Schedule 2 agreed to. Clause 10 All drivers Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Stephen Hammond: The Minister referred to this set of clauses as a whole in his opening remarks on the amendments tackled under clause 8, but I want to pick him up on one or two things that he said then, because I understand that they should rightly be dealt with under clause 10. The clause introduces the new system of endorsement that we have talked so much about this morning. It is based on the inspection of the driving record rather than the counterpart. As I understand the clause, and as the Minister has made clear, the counterpart is currently a legal document, but will cease to exist as one. In attempting to clarify what will happen for their lordships, the Government spokesman in the other place said:
Is the counterpart being replaced, and if so, exactly what is replacing it? Am I right in thinking that whatever replaces it will not be a legal document? Exactly what information will be held on it? We have touched on the way in which it will be updated and changed, but some questions remain open about exactly how the system will work, and I am keen to hear the answers. Will there be a replacement to the counterpart for every driver and how will the driver be notified of the changes? How will the driver be able to correct the information, if it is erroneous, on the
On Tuesday night we tackled a number of amendments on the clause, and the misgivings that we had then have not receded. In spite of the Minister’s assurances, we remain extremely concerned about the extension of Vehicle and Operator Services Agency examiners’ powers. Is it necessary? There is little evidence that VOSA examiners have had training to the standard of the police laid down in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 on the rules of evidence or the necessary contemporaneous notes. As we said, we believe that VOSA examiners should be able to stop a vehicle and prevent it from driving on the roads, but we are reluctant to accept the Minister’s reasons for changing the status quo. Let us say that it is a dark night and someone out there in overalls is trying to flag down a vehicle, which has a lady driver. If somebody steps out into the middle of the road and tries to flag her down, she will not recognise them as officialdom or authority and may understandably be cautious about stopping. In those circumstances, I would be too. Under the current system, vehicles are usually flagged down by the police. They are then inspected by VOSA examiners, who do their job and are accredited, as the Minister said, under his regulations. The police then issue, or not, the fixed penalty notice. I ask the Minister to reconsider what he said about how it would pervert the clause and his purpose if VOSA examiners could not issue fixed penalty points. Opposition Members accept their power to stop a vehicle and prevent it from moving on, but we remain extremely uneasy about extending their powers. I ask the Minister to think again about that, and I should be grateful for any reassurance that he can give on my questions about the replacement document. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 24 March 2006 |