Paul
Clark: In terms of the provisions, it is for the registrar
to use his or her judgment on the revocations made. We are talking
about the most serious cases. The overriding need is to protect the
general public from individuals who may be a danger, as has been
highlighted by the case of the constituent of the hon. Member for
Dunfermline and West Fife, but there is a provision within the
arrangements to make compensation available for loss of earnings and
for damage to
reputation. Mr.
Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con): The case
that brought the issue to the public’s attention involved a
conviction that did not result in a custodial sentence, which is a
loophole that has been identified by the Bill. Does the Minister
envisage that there will be cases where people will have to be
suspended when charged or arrested, rather than waiting for a
conviction?
Paul
Clark: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We have
been talking about the use of the supervision power when a conviction
is already in place. I do not envisage that the provision will be used
in the way that he describes.
Returning to
the amendments, as I have already indicated in response to my hon.
Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk, the Bill provides
for a compensation scheme, providing payments to suspended instructors
where the registrar does not subsequently remove their permission to
give paid instruction, or where they have successfully appealed against
the
revocation. The
Road Safety Act 2006 makes some significant changes to the regulatory
scheme for driving instructors, which have not yet been commenced. In
particular, the
Act will abolish the licensing system for trainee instructors and will
introduce a new system of exemptions from regulation. The Bill
therefore makes changes to the system as it stands and to the way in
which it will have effect once the 2006 Act is fully commenced. The
Bill ensures that the new suspension power remains available under the
new regulatory scheme, as well as the existing
one. The
amendments will enable the registrar to suspend instructors not only
where he or she intends to revoke their registration or licence, but
where an instructor has applied for renewal of their authorisation to
instruct. Suspension will be possible only where the registrar
considers the application for renewal; where the registrar is minded to
refuse their application; and where he or she believes that the
instructor poses a significant threat to public safety that merits
suspension. The amendments apply both to the current regulatory regime
as set out in the Road Traffic Act 1988, and to the new regulatory
regime to be introduced by the 2006 Act, once it is fully
commenced. The
amendments also alter the compensation scheme in paragraph 5 of
schedule 1 for the existing regulatory scheme, and in clause 3 for the
new regulatory scheme to be introduced under the 2006 Act. The
amendments provide for instructors who are suspended pending the
registrar’s decision on their renewal or extension application
to be compensated, and provide for the circumstances where the
application is subsequently granted, or where instructors have
successfully appealed against a refusal to
grant. The
amendments clarify how the removal, revocation, renewal and extension
procedures work together. In the Bill as drafted, there may be
uncertainty about how an instructor’s application to extend
their registration may affect an ongoing procedure to remove their name
from the register, or how an application to renew a licence affects a
revocation process. The amendments make it clear that suspension is
available in all cases, and that it is safeguarded by compensation
where
appropriate.
Mr.
Goodwill: It is a great pleasure to serve under your
chairmanship today, Mr. Wilshire. I also congratulate the
Minister on his survival following the reshuffle.
Credit is due
to the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife, for his tenacity in
promoting the Bill. It is an example of how parliamentary democracy
should work when a case brought to the attention of a constituency
Member by a constituent results in a private Member’s Bill
getting to this stage of the process. I am pleased that Her
Majesty’s official Opposition support the Bill, and I hope that
it quickly gets on to the statute book.
We should be
clear from the start that the legislation will apply to only a small
number of approved driving instructors. The vast majority of the 40,000
driving instructors who teach our young people and others to drive are
fit and proper people to carry out that role. The legislation might be
needed in a very small number of cases.
We have a
responsibility to protect learner drivers, especially as many of them
are young. The fact that we use the word “approved”
driving instructor, means that we can expect the person in question to
meet certain
standards. As the Minister has said, we have an obligation to driving
instructors to consider their appeals as quickly as possible. If those
appeals are successful, compensation will be paid. The hon.
Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk raised the issue of vexatious or
malicious claims, but I think that we have got the balance right. In
other cases, such as those of teachers or people who drive school
buses, if a malicious allegation is made, the person often finds that
they are suspended for a considerable period. There was a case in my
constituency of a school bus driver who, it was alleged, had paedophile
information on his computer. It turned out that that was a malicious
allegation and that there was nothing on the computer. However, because
of the backlog in police computer forensics, it was more than six
months before that person could commence work again.
In the
present case we have got the balance right, and I say that for two
reasons. First, we are generally dealing with young adults. The
youngest person involved would be 16—a moped rider,
perhaps—but the majority will not be as vulnerable as school
children or those adults who suffer from mental health conditions that
might make them vulnerable. Secondly, if we were to embark on an
arrangement in which a person would be suspended when an allegation or
an arrest was made, we might be looking at paying compensation for far
more than 45 days, which is the duration of the average
case.
I have
pondered on the matter at length, and I think that we have got the
balance right. The justice that we need to deliver for accused driving
instructors and the protection that we must give to young people have
both been covered. I am pleased that we can support the amendments, and
I hope that the Bill reaches the statute book as quickly as
possible.
Michael
Connarty: We are all gathered here today to support and
pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West
Fife in promoting the Bill. I agree with the hon. Member for
Scarborough and Whitby that this is an excellent example of a case that
was raised at a local level turning into legislation in Parliament that
Members on all sides can support.
A instructor
or teacher—I spent 14 years of my life as a teacher—has a
duty of care to the person whom they are instructing or teaching. If
they breach that duty, they cause a great problem not only for
themselves but for those who wish to use and deliver the services. As
has been said, the horrendous case that was explained to me by the hon.
Member for Dunfermline and West Fife is a terrible example of what can
happen when someone takes advantage of that position of trust, and it
exposed a loophole that we are now going to close.
I commend my
hon. Friend the Minister for the way that he has phrased the
amendments. Unfortunately, from serial cases of vexatious complaints
against teachers, it is clear that often people never recover from such
accusations, despite getting a clear judgment in their favour, due to
the stigma and, in effect, being put out of the profession for some
time. It is important that we protect the people affected by such
complaints, but the balance must obviously be in favour of the
person who puts their trust in the individual who offers
to instruct them.
If there are
any predatory people in the profession, hopefully the Bill will send a
clear signal that they will be dealt with severely. If, however, at any
time the legislation is used wrongly, the individual can be assured
that they will be recompensed properly. I am therefore very happy to
support the Bill, and I commend the efforts of the hon. Member for
Dunfermline and West
Fife. 9.45
am
Mr.
Knight: It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr.
Wilshire. It seems that I usually find you in the chair in the Smoking
Room, so it is good to see you in harness in a different
venue.
The
Chairman: Order. I just want to prove that I can stand up
straight at this time in the morning. If I could ask the right hon.
Gentleman to withdraw that, I would, but it is now on
record.
Mr.
Knight: I was not in any way implying that you were
inebriated, Mr. Wilshire, but just that you are generous
about buying your round when you are in the Smoking
Room.
The
Chairman: Order. This is getting worse—I do not
think it has anything to do with the Bill. If we can get back to the
Bill, it will save me some
blushes.
Mr.
Knight: I will get a move
on. I
rise not to oppose the Bill or the amendments, but to ask the Minister
a number of questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and
Whitby referred to the scenario of paedophiles being employed as
driving instructors. They should be immediately suspended either when
an offence is committed or when certain circumstances are discovered,
but surely the power of suspension goes wider than such cases. For
example, will it include someone who was training to be a driving
instructor and all the evidence revealed that they were basically an
incompetent tutor and a bad driver? Will the Minister issue any
guidance to the registrar about the sort of cases in which he should
consider using the power, or will the power be at the total unfettered
discretion of the registrar? Some members of the Committee would feel
happier knowing that there was some sort of guidance for the registrar
in respect the cases for which he ought to consider suspension and
those for which he should
not. Willie
Rennie (Dunfermline and West Fife) (LD): I thank you,
Mr. Wilshire, for the supportive way in which you have
chaired this morning’s proceedings. I hope that the rest of the
sitting will proceed
efficiently. I
accept the Minister’s amendments. Basically, they are about
ensuring that no one can avoid suspension by seeking an extension to
their registration, which is logical. They will bring clarity to the
process of removal from the register.
As has been
explained, the Bill is about the 45-day period from when somebody has
been convicted to when they can be at least removed from the register.
The natural justice process means that one would have to write to the
instructor to say that one is intending to
remove them. They then have the right to write back and give their
opinion, and then the judgment is made and they have a right to appeal.
There is therefore at least 45 days from the point of conviction to
when they will at least be removed. That was where Lesley Anne Steele
got caught, as the very next day after James McNair Bennett was
convicted of the sexual offence on her, he was out teaching a young
girl to drive in the very same
community. Mr.
Goodwill: Of course, the key point is that the person
concerned was put on the sex offenders register, even though he was not
given a custodial sentence. That is one of the key elements that the
registrar would bear in mind when seeking to suspend
someone.
Willie
Rennie: The hon. Gentleman is spot on. The seriousness of
the offence has to be taken into consideration, and that is why we need
to give the registrar discretion in how he judges whether somebody
should be
suspended. The
crucial thing, to which the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk
and the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire referred, is the
seriousness of the case. The registrar will suspend only when the
person is on the road to removal anyway, so the decision will already
have been made that they should be removed at some point. We are not
setting up a different set of standards; we would be using the ones
that already exist and under which the process towards removal would be
under way. The proposal would ensure that no one in that sphere could
operate as a paid driving instructor during the relevant period. The
period of time would be closed down so that the person could not
operate and pose any threat to the public. Young people tend to be the
ones learning to drive and they are most vulnerable, which is why we
need to provide extra protection.
The clause
will enable the suspension of the instructor’s registration
where the registrar is considering termination of that
instructor’s registration, or when the instructor had applied
for an extension to an existing registration. There might have been a
loophole by which an instructor would seek an extension to their
registration as a means to avoid suspension. That would be a travesty,
were it allowed to happen, which is why the Government’s
amendments are appropriate. A suspended instructor will be prevented
from giving paid driving instruction while the registrar considers
whether to terminate the registration. There will be a time limit. If
the DSA does not get its act together and move
speedily—within 75 days—there will be a time out
and the instructor will be allowed to continue. That is appropriate, as
there have to be some safeguards for instructors so that they are not
penalised by the pace of the administrative process. I agree with the
Minister’s amendments and am glad there have been supportive
comments from both sides of the
Committee.
Paul
Clark: I will be brief, bearing in mind that there is
clearly strong support across the House for the Bill and the amendments
in this group. Regarding the comments from the right hon. Member for
East Yorkshire, it is clear that the registrar will issue guidance for
all to see. That comes back to getting the balance right, which was a
point picked up by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby and my
hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk.
We are dealing
with the few, as I said when moving the money and Ways and Means
resolutions in the Chamber on Monday. The vast majority of driving
instructors—whether fully qualified or in training—are
fine and fit for purpose. They have an important vocation that they
undertake with due seriousness. However, we know there are others,
which is why the Bill recognises what Lesley Anne Steele—the
constituent of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West
Fife—went through. We hope that there will be no need to use the
provisions of the Bill—soon to be an Act—but we owe
people such as Lesley Anne Steele protection, when necessary. I will
only add that, on conclusion of this Committee stage, we look forward
to joining you in the Smoking Room for a drink, Mr.
Wilshire.
The
Chairman: It is going to be a long time before I live that
one down. I was saying to the Clerk that I do not think that anyone
from the Daily Telegraph is here, so perhaps that will not
feature. Amendment
1 agreed
to. Amendments
made: 2, in
clause 1, page 1, line 12, after
‘considering’, insert
‘whether to refuse the application for an
extension of the person’s registration or (as the case may
be)’. See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
1. Amendment
3, in
clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave
out ‘to terminate the registration’ and
insert ‘so to refuse or
terminate’. See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
1. Amendment
4, in
clause 1, page 2, line 3, after
‘section’, insert
‘127(5) or (as the case may
be)’. See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
1. Amendment
5, in
clause 1, page 2, line 4, after
first ‘section’, insert ‘127(5)
or’. See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
1. Amendment
6, in
clause 1, page 2, line 4, after
second ‘section’, insert ‘127(5)
or’. See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
1. Amendment
7, in
clause 1, page 2, line 7, after
‘Registrar’, insert
‘decides not to refuse the application for
an extension of the person’s registration or (as the case may
be)’. This
amendment would provide for a suspension relating to an application to
extend an instructor’s registration under s127(1) of the Road
Traffic Act 1988 (‘RTA 1988’) to end where the Registrar
decides not to refuse that
application. Amendment
8, in
clause 1, page 2, line 8, after
‘decides’, insert
‘to refuse the application for an extension
of the person’s registration or (as the case may
be)’. This
amendment would provide for a suspension relating to an application to
extend an instructor’s registration under s127(1) of the RTA
1988 to end where the Registrar refuses that application but the
decision has not taken effect and the instructor successfully appeals
it. Amendment
9, in
clause 1, page 2, line 11, after
‘decided’, insert
‘whether to refuse the application for an
extension of the person’s registration or (as the case may
be)’.
This amendment would provide for a
suspension relating to an application to extend an instructor’s
registration under s127(1) of the RTA 1988 to end where the Registrar
fails to decide whether to refuse that application within 75 days of
serving a notice under section 127(5) of that
Act. Amendment
10, in
clause 1, page 2, line 13, after
‘section’, insert ‘127(5)
or’.—(Paul
Clark.) See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
9. Clause
1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
