Dr.
Ladyman: I can give the right hon. Gentleman the assurance
that we are considering mirrors that will help lorry drivers see in
front of the vehicle. It had not occurred to me that the drivers of
large trucks would not be able to see in front of the vehicle, but if
one can imagine sitting back from the windscreen, the angle of descent
extends beyond the bonnet of the cab and there is a piece of road on
which small pedestrians and children can disappear. That is a problem
that we need to
examine.
1.15
pm
Mr.
Paterson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton,
South-East (Dr. Iddon) on catching the Minister on his blind spot and
raising the matter of retro-reflective materials. It is worth reminding
the Committee that the Minister said that we could not use such
materials because they were contrary to European law, but the hon.
Member for Bolton, South-East and I found out that the Italians have
already done so.
Dr.
Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend did indeed
find out that the Italians have done that. However, they did not find
out that the Commission has indicated that it requires the Italians to
think again and is considering infraction proceedings against them
because they should not have used those
materials.
Mr.
Paterson: The fact is that there are Italian trucks
driving around with retro-reflective material on them, and the
Commission is moving towards that. It would be worth the
Minister’s while, either alone or with the help of his
officials, to find out what has happened in Holland and Belgium. I
think that I have read that the domestic legislation applies to foreign
hauliers operating in Holland and Belgium, but I could not find any
documents that establish that
point. I was
encouraged by the Minister’s comments. He has a constituency
interest in the matter, which might be spurring him on more than
anything else. That is good news. He is right to cite the fact that
there are small mirrors that can be screwed on to the inside of a cab;
I have managed to find some information on a supplier.
Like my right hon. Friend the
Member for East Yorkshire, I think that it is a pity that the Minister
is not determined to crash on and push through domestic legislation.
However, given the commitments that he has made and the fact that he is
already well down the road on the matter, we will take his comments in
good faith. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
motion. Motion and
clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
The
Chairman: Before we move on, I should say that I have
added up the number of new clauses that we have still to debate, and
the other matters that have to be considered before we finish at 4
o’clock. If every new clause takes as long as the previous one,
we will be up against some very sharp wire. I merely advise the
Committee of
that.
New
Clause
16Seizure
of motor vehicles ‘(1) Where
a constable in uniform has reasonable grounds for believing that a
motor vehicle has been used on three or more occasions in a manner
which contravenes section 89 of the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1984
he shall have the powers set out in subsection
(2). (2) These powers
are— (a) power to seize
and remove the motor
vehicle; (b) power, for the
purposes of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a) to enter
any premises on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the motor
vehicle to be. (3) Subsection
2(b) does not authorise entry into any private
dwelling. (4) A constable in
uniform shall only have powers
where— (a) the driver
cannot be identified (b) the
owner cannot be identified
and (c) a court summons cannot
be issued to the relevant owner or driver.'. —[Mr.
Paterson.] Brought
up, and read the First time.
Mr.
Paterson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time. I am as keen to
push on as anybody. The new clause is inspired by my hon. Friend the
Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who spoke with
elegance and passion on Second Reading, citing some amazing cases in
his constituency in which people have offended again and again, but
because their addresses are false they have not been brought to
justice. He has given me a quotation from Dunstable on Sunday,
citing the cases of a car that was captured 81 times on the A505. He
has also informed me of a motor cycle that has been used to commit 60
offences of excess speed, 61 of disqualified driving and 61 of driving
without insurance. My
hon. Friend says that there is a very real problem, and he has cited
the fact that there have been 1,585 dangerous driving offences on south
Bedfordshire’s roads. A van has been clocked for 73 offences and
a motor bike for more than 61. Cars have been caught doing 98 mph in a
50 mph limit. The police were apparently powerless to do anything
because they could not track down the owners of the vehicles to a given
address. Although I
have a number of quotations from a range of police forces, given the
shortage of time I shall read only the most authoritative. It is from
Mrs. Gillian Parker, the chief constable of Bedfordshire police, who
said: “The key
areas within the Police Reform Act in relation to power of seizure
are: A vehicle is
being used in contravention of section 3 of the Road Traffic Act
(careless and inconsiderate driving), and its use is causing, or is
likely to cause alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the
public. Advice has
been sought from the CPS and our local judiciary, there is agreement
that to apply the Section 3 test to speeding offences, that is to
suggest that speeding per se also represents careless and inconsiderate
driving, would be inappropriate and unlikely to succeed in court. As a
result we are powerless to seize these vehicles under this
legislation.” That is
what is being proposed to Bedfordshire police.
There is support for the
measure from Nottinghamshire police, Humberside police, Thames Valley
police, Derbyshire police and Wiltshire police. Our simple proposal is
that if a vehicle is used in contravention of the Road Traffic
Regulations (Special Events) Act 1994 on three or more
occasions—I have taken that number out of the air, as this is a
probing new clause—it can be subject to the powers set out in
proposed subsection (2). My hon. Friend had a constructive meeting with
the Minister, and we are happy to withdraw the motion if the Minister
has some concrete proposals that would serve the purpose intended by
the new clause. There
is a real problem of a small number of people—we return to the
hard core, whom we have mentioned before—who are breaking the
law in a grotesque manner, with extraordinary frequency, and who cannot
be brought to book because they cannot be tracked down. The proposed
power would be welcomed by many in the police, because it would give
them the power to seize and remove the vehicles involved in such
offences. Mr.
Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): I am not
without sympathy for what the hon.
Gentleman is saying, but what would he propose doing once the vehicle
had been seized? Would it not have made sense to have included
provisions for the return, confiscation and forfeiture of the
vehicle?
Mr.
Paterson: This is a probing amendment. I am making the
case that there is a hole in the law. I am quite happy to withdraw the
motion, but on the condition that the Minister is prepared to bring
forward workable legislation. I am not pretending that the new clause
is perfect, but a real problem has been brought to our attention by
several police forces and, in particular, by my hon. Friend the Member
for South-West Bedfordshire. I commend the new clause as it stands, but
I look forward to hearing how the Minister proposes to sort the
problem, as I think he said he would when he met my hon. Friend
privately.
Dr.
Ladyman: I hope that I have taken the issue very
seriously. I met the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire, who was
kind enough to bring with him his constituent, the police constable who
had identified the problem. They provided me with the evidence as they
saw it. I took the matter up subsequently with chief constable Med
Hughes, who is chairman of the traffic team of the Association of Chief
Police Officers. The problem in Bedfordshire had been raised with the
Home Office, which took the position that the law was quite clear and
that there were powers to deal with such a problem. There was a dispute
about that matter. Med
Hughes and officials from the Home Office were absolutely clear when
speaking to me that the law provides them with all the powers that they
need, and ACPO made it clear to me that it is not asking for more
powers. ACPO believes that the powers to deal with the problem are
sufficient and comprehensive. If future experience suggests otherwise,
it is happy to come back to us to request further powers, but at the
moment its view is that it would be a mistake for Parliament to grant
further powers to the police when they have perfectly adequate powers
that have not been utilised properly.
ACPO believes that the problem
arose from a misunderstanding in Bedfordshire about how the powers can
be used. To try to deal with that, I facilitated a meeting between Med
Hughes and the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire at which those
issues were to be explained. In addition, Med Hughes has spoken to the
chief constable in Bedfordshire and explained the position to her. My
understanding is that she is now satisfied that the police do have the
powers to deal with the problem and that it is just a matter of police
enforcement—using the powers
appropriately. I
suspect that in forthcoming days there will be more discussions, and if
the chief constable of Bedfordshire remains uncertain that she has the
powers that she needs to deal with the problem, no doubt that will be
relayed to us before the remaining stages of the Bill. However, at the
moment, ACPO is quite clear that the police have all the powers that
they need. There are police strategies that can be used to deal with
the problem and they need to be employed in Bedfordshire and other
places to crack down on
it. With those
assurances and the assurance that I still have an open mind on the
subject, should the advice I
am receiving from the chief constables turn out to be inaccurate, I hope
that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the
motion. Mr.
Paterson: I am grateful to the Minister for updating us. I
think that the best way of proceeding is for me to consult further my
hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire on whether the
discussions that the Minister described have borne fruit. With the
caveat that we may return to the matter on Report, I beg to ask leave
to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
New
Clause
17Failing
to stop at the scene of an
accident Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 is amended as
follows— (a) In section
170(4), in column 3, leave out “summarily” and insert
“on
indictment” (b) in
section 170(4), in column 4, leave out “six months or level 5 on
the standard scale or both” and insert “up to 14
years”.'. —[Mr.
Paterson.] Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Mr.
Paterson: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second
time. This new clause
relates to hit-and-run accidents and is another attempt on our part to
bear down on the infamous hard core. In 2004, 145 people were killed in
23,714 hit-and-run accidents and in 1997, 119 people were killed in
18,357 similar accidents. That is a 22 per cent. increase in the number
of deaths and a 30 per cent. increase in the number of hit-and-run
accidents. The number of people injured rose by 31 per cent. from
21,574 in 1997 to 28,397 in 2004. There is a real
problem. As my hon.
Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) said, another
aspect is that at the moment there is a strong incentive for some
drivers to get away from the scene of an accident. They may have had a
drink or be part of the large number of people—perhaps 1
million—that the Government have announced are driving without
insurance. Our intention in the new clause is simple: to impose a
strong sanction on those who leave the scene of a crime. We intend the
new clause to be used when there has been an injury and other motorists
are involved. At the moment, members of the hard core have everything
to gain from getting away and getting off scot-free. Our intention is
to provide a strong incentive to make them stay on the spot and, if
necessary, help an injured person or call the emergency services and
wait for them to arrive.
This is a simple provision that
would change the offence in section 170(4) of the Road Traffic
Offenders Act 1988 from a summary to an indictable one with an increase
in the penalty from six months’ imprisonment to 14 years. That
would impose a severe sanction on those who attempt to get away in
appalling cases when they might have injured a third
party.
Dr.
Ladyman: The Committee will not be surprised—I am
sure that the hon. Gentleman will not
be—that my advice is to resist the new clause. Having said that,
I entirely agree with the sentiment behind it. Hit-and-run driving is
abhorrent and we need to clamp down on it. It is already an offence,
punishable with six months’ imprisonment and a £5,000
fine. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, the new clause would make
available a raft of more significant
penalties. One of the
unintended consequences would be that it would affect someone who
genuinely did not know that they had been involved in an accident and,
therefore, did not stop. That occasionally happens. It might not mean
that they were not at fault for the accident, but they might not have
realised that they had been involved—we have discussed truck
drivers who cannot see what is happening on the road all around them.
If someone in those circumstances failed to stop and was subsequently
prosecuted, one of the side effects of the new clause would be that
they could face 14 years in jail, which would be an over-reaction.
However, we have said many times on previous clauses that one would
expect the courts to be rational about the way they imposed such
sentences, and that is the way to deal with the matter.
I am prepared to offer the hon.
Gentleman the assurance that I shall take the matter up with the Home
Office—indeed, I am already doing so—to look at
sentencing guidelines, so that the existing penalties can be used more
appropriately when people have failed to
stop. 1.30
pm
| 
