| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
A number of amendments to the Bill were also made in Committee and it may be helpful if I summarise the main changes. The bodies to which the Bill applies are now found in clause 1. The power to return victims’ property is set out in a new clause 2. This might be an appropriate moment to provide further clarification on the point raised by the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Vaizey) about whether the term “cultural object” needs to be defined in the Bill. Although the Bill as introduced included such a definition, it has been substantially amended, with the able assistance of parliamentary counsel, and I can now say that the Bill as amended does not need to define a “cultural object”.
The Bill gives trustees a power to return any object which is in the collection for which the trustees are responsible where the two conditions are met, and we believe this is sufficient.
The new clause 3 defines the advisory panel for the purposes of the Act. The panel is to be designated by the Secretary of State and he may designate only a panel whose functions consist of considering claims relating to events occurring during the Nazi era of 1933 to 1945. Clause 4 deals with the short title, extent, commencement and sunset clause. Provision was also made for the Bill to extend to England and Wales and Scotland, although the power is not needed for museums in Wales. The short and long title of the Bill have been amended. The original reference to “stolen art” was too restrictive and does not reflect the many ways in which people were deprived of their property. The Spoliation Advisory Panel’s terms of reference do not define the circumstances of loss and do not therefore limit its consideration to items that were stolen. The new long title better describes the Bill’s purpose, which is to give the trustees of named bodies an additional power to transfer cultural objects in their collections.
This concludes the consideration of amendments made in Committee, and I should like to end by thanking my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), for the work she did on the Bill, by thanking the officials who have worked very hard with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, and by once again congratulating him. This is a real achievement, and the Bill is in excellent shape going forward. I hope that it receives wide support in the other place.
10.10 am
Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to all hon. Members for their comments this morning. This is an important measure. It might not be used—on the other hand, we cannot say that for sure: there may be other such cases. As I said earlier, up to 20 such items are in dispute. However, what is important is that we be seen to do justice to the victims of the holocaust and their families, and this Bill will do that. It closes, I hope, a chapter that we opened with the setting up of the Spoliation Advisory Panel nine years ago. I hope that now, we have finally produced the mechanism that will allow people to have back the objects taken from their families by that evil regime, the Nazis, between 1933 and 1945, and that the Bill will now receive its Third Reading.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Driving Instruction (Suspension and Exemption Powers) Bill
Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee
10.11 am
Willie Rennie (Dunfermline and West Fife) (LD): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am grateful for the opportunity to give this Bill its Third Reading. For a child eager to prove their maturity, the driving licence is often a symbol of adulthood. I am not quite sure what my driving licence says about me—whether its ink-splatters and holes indicate maturity, or a now slightly tattered politician—but the learner’s first lesson is filled with excitement and anticipation, and as the seat belt clicks into place and “kangaroo” petrol is put in the tank, there is a great sense of pride and excitement. For parents, there is only a feeling of dread at the number of hours they will spend on country lanes, never quite being sure whether this will be their last lesson—ever in this world.
I recall driving round the country roads of Fife on a dark, wet and windy night with my mother constantly reaching for a brake pedal on the passenger’s side and never quite finding it. There is still a hole in the carpet on that side of the car. However, the thrill when I passed my driving test was unimaginable. I suddenly felt like a man, even though I was still a teenager. That is an important point, because many of those who pass their test are still children, and we entrust those who teach them with a duty of care and responsibility. I want to know that when my son reaches for the car keys, the person who will teach him to drive has been through the system, has been properly tested and audited and has the right qualifications.
That is why the case of Lesley Anne Steele, which had the potential to crush confidence in the whole driving instruction authorisation process, was horrifying. In 2005, Lesley Anne, a constituent of mine, was enthusiastically learning to drive. She was progressing well and gaining confidence with every lesson. She was looking forward to passing her test and enjoying the freedom that that brings. After one particular lesson, her instructor, James McNair Bennett, asked whether he could use the convenience in her house. Being obliging, Lesley Anne agreed, but Mr. Bennett had something else in mind. He sexually assaulted her in her own home. He was charged by police, and apparently admitted the offence immediately.
This is what Lesley Anne later told me in a letter:
“On the day of the trial Mr. Bennett was found guilty of assaulting me and with immediate effect was placed on the sex offenders’ register. I was relieved that this was finally over and thought that Mr. Bennett wouldn’t be allowed to continue to teach. The following day I received a call from a friend who had just seen Mr. Bennett out teaching. Then my partner spotted Mr. Bennett on the Monday, picking up a pupil close to our house”,
just round the corner. Not surprisingly, Lesley Anne was angry—furious, in fact. She was disgusted not only by the original assault, but by the fact that Mr. Bennett was allowed to continue to operate as a driving instructor. The fact that he was out teaching the very next day was rubbing her nose in it. She was raging with anger and rightly so.
However, what made Lesley Anne explode was the response from the authorities. She made numerous calls to the Driving Standards Agency, which were never returned. On one occasion she did get through to the appropriate person, but was told that nothing could be done to help her. Because she was so furious, Lesley Anne subsequently waived her right to anonymity. She secured coverage in the national media to highlight her case, so that she could campaign for changes in order that others would not have to go through what she went through. At that point, she asked me for my help.
How could a sexual predator be allowed to continue to teach vulnerable young people in such a closed environment, when the judicial process had already determined he was a sex offender? I find it unbelievable that that situation was ever allowed to happen. However, Lesley Anne and I worked together to overhaul the process, and, along with the Government’s hard work, we secured a number of achievements, such as criminal record checks for all approved driving instructors. The first trawl weeded out eight people who would still be teaching to this day if Lesley Anne had not fought that case. Secondly, the profession of driving instructor is now included in the notifiable occupations scheme and its Scottish equivalent, so that the DSA’s registrar is informed immediately of any convictions. In fact, Mr. Bennett could still be teaching today if that scheme were not in place, because the courts were not obliged to tell the DSA that he had been convicted. Thirdly, customer care at the DSA was overhauled following the dreadful response to the case.
Most importantly, Lesley Anne got an apology from the then Minister and the officials. We were very grateful for that, because it made such a difference to her. Having to expose herself to media coverage was, like the event itself, a traumatic experience, so that apology was very important. However, there is still unfinished business, hence the Bill before us.
Because the appropriate process has to be gone through, there is a 45-day period between a driving instructor being convicted or removal from the register being indicated, and actual removal. In fact, it can take months—45 days is the minimum period. The registrar must first write to the instructor advising them that he is minded to remove their name from the register. The instructor then has 28 days to make representations against removal before the registrar can make a decision. The registrar must then notify the instructor of the decision and wait at least a further 14 days before removal can take effect. There is then a right of appeal.
It is right that all those measures be in place—it is important to have the right safeguards, so that representations and appropriate appeals can be made—but it is unacceptable to have a period of 45 days during which sexual predators could be out there teaching young people to drive. That is why I want the power of suspension to be introduced—so that young people cannot be preyed on by those such as James McNair Bennett, and so that such people are not allowed to exploit that loophole ever again.
The Bill’s purpose is therefore to give the registrar the power to suspend driving instructors. It aims to close the 45-day-plus loophole, and it introduces the power to suspend when the registrar is already considering removal from the register. The registrar would be permitted to impose a suspension only when he believes that the
instructor concerned would, if they were not suspended, pose a significant threat to the safety of members of the public. The Bill rightly also includes a package to compensate for loss of reputation and earnings when the process goes wrong. This covers only the period of suspension—between the point at which notice of intent to suspend is given and the decision on removal—and the estimated cost is likely to be a maximum of between £50,000 and £60,000 per year. It is not likely to be anywhere near that. The estimate is that it may affect five people every year, but that is probably the upper end, because the trawl of the criminal records picked up only eight people—and covered a longer period of time.
The Bill applies not only to approved driving instructors but to large trainee instructors. It is important that the mass army of trainee instructors is also covered, so that no one slips through the net. An amendment in Committee blocked a potential loophole connected to trainee instructors’ right to extend their certification. They will still have the ability to extend it, but not for the purpose of avoiding a suspension.
The DSA does not have an unlimited period to consider the removal from the register. It is limited to 75 days after which the suspension is withdrawn. That is an important safeguard. The instructors, of course, still have the right to appeal that natural justice requires. This is a simple, but essential, Bill, and I am grateful to the three Front-Bench teams for their support and indeed encouragement throughout this process.
Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD): Can my hon. Friend remind the House why the Bill does not and cannot apply to Northern Ireland?
Willie Rennie: That is a very good question, and I hope that the Minister will be able to assist me with it. My hon. Friend has been very helpful in asking a question to which I do not know the answer. I am grateful for that intervention although I hope that he does not make another.
I do not wish to give the impression that the driving instruction profession is riddled with sex offenders as almost every one of the 40,000 driving instructors is of good character and ability and has adopted the highest professional standards. I have been determined throughout the three years of this battle to protect not only learner drivers from sexual predators, but the reputation of driving instructors. This Bill will help to enhance that reputation, because people will be able to have confidence in the process and the system.
This has been a long battle. It has been more than three years since Lesley Anne knocked on my door and during that time I have been grateful for the support of so many hon. Members. They include the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) who was the Minister responsible at the time. He immediately recognised the problem, apologised personally to Lesley Anne and set in train many of the changes that I have set out this morning. I am also grateful to his successor, now the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who committed considerable time and effort to the Bill, overcoming many hurdles in the process.
The Bill would have fallen at Second Reading if it were not for two Members. The first is the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), who used considerable political capital to ensure the Bill progressed. He overcame the process to ensure that the Bill secured a Second Reading. The second—and some may be surprised at this—was the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who was in his place earlier. His wise advice and support were gratefully received, and I hope that that is not a reason for others to change their mind about supporting the Bill. I am genuinely grateful for his wise counsel.
I also thank the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) who served on the Front Benches in Committee and were very supportive. I also thank the Minister today. He is new to this Bill, but he caught on to it quickly in Committee and understood the details.
This issue has had an extensive hearing in Parliament—in Westminster Hall, as a ten-minute Bill and now this Bill. I am grateful for the support of the sponsors of my ten-minute Bill and of this Bill, and to the Committee members last week who tested the Bill in an extremely professional and fair manner. As they have been trained to do, the Whips have been lurking in the shadows, but have been benign on this occasion. They did inquire how long I intended to speak today—perhaps they had an ulterior motive.
I am also grateful to the Clerks and the departmental and DSA officials, who are impressive for two reasons. First, they are good at their job, and secondly they can explain it to me, and that is no mean feat. I have also been fortunate to have excellent members of staff, both in my constituency and in the House. I thank them for their work on this Bill, especially David Hall—who has since moved on—and Caron Lindsay who did the initial spadework in digging out the loophole. John Foster and my other members of staff in Dunfermline have also been fantastic.
John Myers devoted his life to teaching the art of safe and responsible driving. He built the Myers school of driving in Dunfermline into a thriving business that is respected and trusted in the community, and he was very supportive of my efforts. Unfortunately, John passed away recently so I am not able to thank him in person, but I am grateful for his support and for giving me the confidence that the driving instruction profession were behind my efforts.
Finally, and most importantly, I thank Lesley Anne Steele, my courageous constituent who stood up, braved the media and insisted that a wrong be put right so that others need not suffer as she clearly did. Lesley Anne has now passed her driving test and is a proficient driver. She is also now happily married and enjoying life. Let us pass this Bill for her, for her sake and for the thousands of people who learn to drive every year. I commend the Bill to the House.
10.26 am
Simon Hughes (North Southwark and Bermondsey) (LD):
First, I must apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Willie Rennie) for asking what was probably the one question on the Bill to which he did not know the answer. It was not
meant to be a trick question. He was so competent and omniscient on the Bill that I assumed that everything would be within his remit. I apologise profusely and I will make it up to him later.
Willie Rennie: I thank my hon. Friend for reinforcing the point that I was unable to answer his question.
Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend is giving me a hard time, but it is not justified.
My hon. Friend has done himself, his constituents, the country and, above all, his constituent, Lesley Anne Steele a great service by ensuring that this gap in the legislation has been filled. Everyone under the age of 80 or so has had to pass a driving test to be able to drive in this country—none of us is of that older generation. My dad certainly never had to pass a test, although he was a very good driver and a member of the Institute of Advanced Motorists. To pass a test, almost everybody has some formal lessons, usually at least eight or so. They are not cheap, so young and enthusiastic learners—although some people learn later in life—commit themselves to someone, trusting in their competence and in their integrity. My hon. Friend has exposed the loophole in the legislation that meant that we could not guarantee the integrity of the people doing that instruction.
It is almost invariably the practice, for good reasons of safety, that the person who is learning to drive is on their own with the instructor—many people, when they do their driving practice with family members, also do not have anyone else in the car—and that is another obvious reason why offenders should not be able to continue in that profession, and why those under suspicion should also be suspended for as long as the matter is being investigated. In the case that my hon. Friend has mentioned, the abuse was not committed in the car, but sometimes that does happen, so the powers in the Bill are very important.
My hon. Friend has also made sure, with the help of civil servants, no doubt, and of the people to whom he has paid tribute, that the Bill also provides the guarantee of natural justice—it ensures that compensation is available to anybody who is improperly suspected or suspended. However, the precautionary principle must apply in these circumstances—I am very clear about that. It is much better to err on the side of being careful than on the side of taking a risk. That is why the power to suspend and then, if something is unfairly alleged, to compensate, is much better than a power only to defer suspension until the facts are established. I am sure that that is the right way round.
My hon. Friend is the second example this morning of a colleague realising that a wrong needed to be righted, pursuing it through all the proper channels and being absolutely determined about it. We owe thanks to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) for his Bill and to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife for this one.
My hon. Friend paid tribute at the beginning and the end of his speech to the courage of his constituent, and we need to remind ourselves of that. Many people in her circumstances, understandably, would not want to go public about such an issue. But for her bravery in being willing to put the general public interest above her own traumatic experience, we would not have had the opportunity to use her enthusiasm, understanding and
commitment as the motivation behind this legislation. I hope that we will all join in paying tribute to her and wishing her and her family all the best. We should thank them, because they have done a public service that my hon. Friend has replicated this morning.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |