Mr.
Paterson: Two points. First, as I understand it, if no
third party is involved there is currently no requirement to remain at
the scene of a crime or to demand the emergency services or anyone
else. In fact, the police advise people to move on as quickly as
possible. Secondly, the Minister must acknowledge that under current
legislation there is flexibility for courts. We are not suggesting a
mandatory 14-year prison sentence for someone who inadvertently brushes
another vehicle and does not realise what he has done. We intend for
the very severe penalties to be restricted to the hard core who make
the serious and unpleasant decision to leave the scene of a crime where
someone might have been mortally
wounded.
Dr.
Ladyman: If personal injury is involved, there is already
a clear requirement to stop and report an accident. There is also a
list of other circumstances in the 1988 Act under which a person is
required to stop and report an accident but where only damage has been
caused. The problem is not with that list, which requires people to
stop and report an accident, and I do not think that anyone whom the
hon. Gentleman is trying to reach with the new clause fails to realise
that they have committed an offence and that they should
stop. My
understanding of what the hon. Gentleman said is that he is trying to
catch those people who know perfectly well that they should stop and
report an accident, but do not because they think that the consequences
of doing so might be worse than those of being caught subsequently,
having not stopped. He is
right that we need to ensure that the offences that are available for
not having stopped are used sufficiently strongly to deter people from
not stopping. However, allied to the offence that the individual has
committed, and for which they can still be prosecuted, the additional
offence of failing to stop already carries a sufficiently wide range of
penalties that, if they are used appropriately by the court, can ensure
that there are sufficient incentives for people not to drive away from
the scene of an accident. I offer the hon. Gentleman the
assurance that I shall speak to the Home Office about the use of
sentencing guidelines to deal with the
problem.
Mr.
Paterson: I am not entirely reassured, but I should like
to reserve our position and possibly come back to the matter on Report.
With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
motion. Motion and
clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
New
Clause
18Prohibition
of retrofitting of bull
bars ‘The Road Traffic Act
1988 is amended as follows—In section 41(2), after paragraph (l)
insert— “(m)
prohibiting the modification or retrofitting to the front of vehicles
which reduce the crashworthiness of the
vehicle.”.'.—[Mr.
Carmichael.] Brought
up, and read the First
time.
The
Chairman: We now come to new clause 18, and we have a new
face—Mr. Alistair
Carmichael.
Mr.
Carmichael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a
Second time. Thank
you, Sir Nicholas, although I am not sure that I am so much a new face
as what is known in this trade as a retread, although this is the first
time that I have had occasion to welcome you back to the Chair and to
move the motion for a new
clause. I hope that
the new clause can be dealt with in fairly short compass. The title
says it all. It would empower the Secretary of State to introduce
regulations prohibiting the retro-fitting—that is a ghastly
word, but it seems to be the term of art used—of bull bars to
vehicles. We all know what we mean by such things: they are pretty
hideous appendages, to four-wheel drive vehicles in particular. In this
day and age, they have limited use in the rural context. In my youth, I
might have had occasion to use them, as a farmer’s son, but they
are generally not regarded as being best practice for animal husbandry.
I do not think even that many involved in agriculture or sporting
activities would have any real clamant need for them. Certainly in a
town or city they are a menace. They significantly increase the
likelihood of a fatality resulting from an accident involving a
motorised vehicle and a pedestrian.
As such vehicles are generally
higher sprung, bull bars are particular dangerous for small children,
who are more likely to be hit on the head and sustain head injuries,
and for older people who are much more likely to sustain bone injuries
to the hip. The time has come
for us to say that there really is no need for the retro-fitting of bull
bars, and I hope that the Minister agrees. Dr.
Ladyman: I entirely agree. I see no place for bull bars on
the roads of the United Kingdom. I suppose that they may have some use
if one is driving a Land Rover through the African plains chasing
rhinoceroses for photographic purposes, but since there are few
rhinoceroses in London or elsewhere in the United Kingdom, I can see no
reason for them whatever. They are unsafe. They cause damage to
pedestrians. The hon. Gentleman need not press his new clause to a
Division because I can assure him that the European Union is already
alive to the problem. Consultation with the EU has led to a directive
that will ban the retro-fitting of bull bars. We are currently in the
process of transposing it into UK law. It will become mandatory from
next May, so the objective of the new clause will be
achieved.
Mr.
Knight: Will the Minister confirm that the new directive
will not have a retrospective effect wider than the problem of bull
bars? For example, can he confirm that it will not prohibit the
continued display of, for example, the “Spirit of
Ecstasy” on a vintage
Rolls-Royce?
Dr.
Ladyman: Once again, the right hon. Gentleman puts his
finger on the nub of political debate. My postbag contains nothing but
letters on this very subject. I can assure him that the “Spirit
of Ecstasy” does not count as a bull bar, nor will the directive
ban the fitting of devices to the front of vehicles that make them
safer. People may wish to retro-fit equipment to the front of their car
to improve its safety to pedestrians and that will also be allowed
under the new directive. With those assurances, I hope that the hon.
Member for Orkney and Shetland will withdraw the
motion.
Mr.
Carmichael: If the Minister is not careful he may rekindle
in me some latent enthusiasm for the European Union. In view of his
comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
motion. Motion and
clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
New
Clause
20Vehicle
data recording devices ‘(1) A
Vehicle Data Recording Device (“VDRD”) is a device which
records such data relating to the progress and manner of driving of a
motor vehicle as the Secretary of State may by regulations
prescribe. (2) The Secretary of
State may by regulations designate a class or classes of motor vehicles
which shall be fitted with a
VDRD. (3) The Secretary of
State may by regulations
prescribe— (a) the data
which a VDRD must record, and how and by whom and for how long such
data must be retained; and (b)
the technical specifications of a
VDRD. (4) Before the Secretary
of State makes regulations under subsections (1) to (3), he shall
consult— (a) the Society
of Motor Manufacturers & Traders,
and (b) such other
organisations as he considers appropriate.
(5) The power to make regulations under this section
is exercisable by statutory instrument; and a statutory instrument
containing regulations under this section is subject to annulment in
pursuance of a resolution of either House of
Parliament. (6) A person
commits an offence if he uses a motor vehicle of a class which the
Secretary of State has, by regulations made under subsection (3),
designated as a class of vehicle to which a VDRD must be fitted, and
that person knows, or has reasonable grounds to believe, that the motor
vehicle— (a) does not
have a VDRD fitted; or (b) has
a defective VDRD fitted. (7) A
person commits an offence if he knowingly causes or permits another
person to use a motor vehicle of a class which the Secretary of State
has, by regulations made under subsection (3), designated as a class of
vehicle to which a VDRD must be fitted, and knows or has reasonable
grounds to believe that the motor
vehicle— (a) does not
have a VDRD fitted; or (b) has
a defective VDRD fitted. (8) A
person who commits an offence under subsections (6) or (7) shall on
conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding Level 4 on the standard
scale. (9) A person who does
anything with the intention of preventing data being recorded or
retained by VDRD is guilty of an offence, unless the motor vehicle in
which that VDRD was fitted has been destroyed and he knows that there
are no court proceedings likely to be started or
pursued. (10) A person who
commits an offence under subsection (9) shall on conviction be liable
to a fine not exceeding Level 4 on the standard
scale. (11) Subsections (6) and
(7) shall not come into effect until regulations made under subsections
(1) to (3) have come into
effect. (12) Data recorded or
retained by a VDRD fitted to a vehicle involved in a road traffic
incident in which an injury occurs may be used
only— (a) for the
purposes of bona fide
research, (b) by the police or
other lawful authorities when investigating the causes of any such
accident, or (c) in connection
with the bringing of court proceedings (whether criminal or civil) as a
result of any such accident, whether or not any such proceedings are in
the event commenced, but shall not be used for any other purpose.'.
—[Mr.
Carmichael.] Brought
up, and read the First
time.
Mr.
Carmichael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a
Second time. Although
it is a fairly substantial new clause, it can again be put in a fairly
short compass. It is offered by way of a probing amendment and reflects
the fact that as technology advances, so must the law. We have
experience of black boxes in aeroplanes. We have the experience of
so-called spies in the cab—the tachograph devices for lorries.
It now becomes eminently possible that similar devices will soon be
available for general domestic motoring.
The inclusion of data recording
devices in cars could bring significant advantages for road safety.
They certainly make the investigation of road traffic accidents an
awful lot easier. In my professional experience, before I came here, I
saw tremendous advances in the investigation of road traffic accidents.
When I started as a boy solicitor many years ago, it was a fairly crude
science. It has become much more sophisticated over the years. The
information available to the police from the scene of a road traffic
accident is
now considerable. The fitting of such devices to cars would be of
immense assistance to police when investigating accidents, and would
provide definitive evidence regarding the duration and speed of travel,
which are important factors to establish in the investigation of
crime. I have been
involved in a number of other cases in which there has been an issue
about whether a car was being driven at all at a certain time. A
classic example of that is that the police are following someone, but
manage to lose him or her and eventually turn up at someone’s
house to find that they claim to have been sitting at home all night
and that, as it happens, they just had four stiff measures of Highland
Park before the police arrived, which is why they are in the state in
which they are in. That is all grist to the summary courts’
mill, but a somewhat unsatisfactory situation for a 21st-century
criminal justice system. Surely, if the technology to establish such
things is available for use, with important safeguards to ensure that
it would not be misused in a way that would concern those of us who
still take civil liberties seriously, I see no reason why we should not
consider its
introduction.
Mr.
Paterson: We believe that there is real merit in having
black boxes. We are probably behind America on this. I know that it
sometimes irritates the Minister when I go on internet forays, but I
wonder whether he has heard of the method of world crash investigation
that Ricardo Martinez, the chief executive officer of Atlanta-based
Safety Intelligence Systems, who is considering using data recorders,
describes as BOGSAT—a bunch of guys sitting around talking, or
coming up with their best guess. There is real merit in the idea of
having a recording of the last five to 10 seconds of the performance of
the car. All it does is use the existing technology that is used to
trigger air bags and automatic braking systems and records the speed,
length of time for which the brakes were applied and other factors
which would have controlled the car at the time.
The Americans seem to be
further down the road than us. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration ran a Ford F-150 truck into a wall at 30 mph to test a
whole series of different black boxes. They are taking it seriously.
The boxes are also being used in court cases. We have said that we
should be careful about citing court cases, but I shall mention two.
There was one in Fort Myers, in which a man claimed to be doing 60 mph,
but was actually doing 90 mph. In another case, in Arlington Heights, a
hearse struck a squad car and the hearse driver claimed that he had a
medical condition. It turned out that he accelerated to 63 mph in the
last five seconds, which was 20 mph above the posted limit. Therefore,
it can cut both ways. This technical advance has merit, and I am
interested to hear the Department’s official view on the
measure.
| 
