The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chair:
†Mr
Andrew Turner
†
Barclay,
Stephen (North East Cambridgeshire)
(Con)
†
Barwell,
Gavin (Croydon Central)
(Con)
†
Bottomley,
Peter (Worthing West)
(Con)
†
Brine,
Mr Steve (Winchester)
(Con)
†
Buckland,
Mr Robert (South Swindon)
(Con)
†
Hilling,
Julie (Bolton West)
(Lab)
†
Horwood,
Martin (Cheltenham)
(LD)
†
McFadden,
Mr Pat (Wolverhampton South East)
(Lab)
†
Mitchell,
Austin (Great Grimsby)
(Lab)
†
Penning,
Mike (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for
Transport)
Robinson,
Mr Geoffrey (Coventry North West)
(Lab)
†
Scott,
Mr Lee (Ilford North)
(Con)
Shannon,
Jim (Strangford)
(DUP)
†
Singh,
Mr Marsha (Bradford West)
(Lab)
†
Smith,
Angela (Penistone and Stocksbridge)
(Lab)
†
Smith,
Miss Chloe (Norwich North)
(Con)
†
Woodcock,
John (Barrow and Furness)
(Lab/Co-op)
†
Wright,
Simon (Norwich South)
(LD)
Mark Etherton, Committee
Clerk
† attended the
Committee
First
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Monday
13 December
2010
[Mr
Andrew Turner
in the
Chair]
Draft
Road Safety (Financial Penalty Deposit) (Appropriate Amount)
(Amendment) Order
2010
4.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike
Penning):
I beg to move,
That the
Committee has considered the draft Road Safety (Financial Penalty
Deposit) (Appropriate Amount) (Amendment) Order 2010.
It is
privilege to serve under your chairmanship for the first time as a
Minister of the Crown, Mr Turner. The order introduces small amendments
to the financial penalty deposits for vehicles for which there is no
satisfactory registration address in the UK. The fine for failing to
have a number plate on a vehicle, or for having a number plate that is
obscured, is now £60, so the amendment increases the deposit
from £30 to £60 to bring it into line with the new fine.
It is important that we have a level playing field on our highways so
that everyone feels that natural justice is taking place. For vehicles
that are registered overseas, and for drivers of vehicles who do not
have a fixed abode that can be verified in the UK, a deposit is
required so that it can be withheld should they break the law
and fail to pay the relevant fine.
There is also
a small change that will correct an anomaly in the law. Currently, a
motorcyclist with insufficient tread on their tyres would be fined
£120, but the fine for an equivalent vehicle—a
car—is £60. That is an unintended consequence of an
amendment made in April 2009, so the order will bring that fine into
line with the existing legislation for motor vehicles. It is not a
particularly contentious amendment.
Austin
Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab):
Is it not a cumbersome and
fiddly procedure to have to pass periodic amendments to the level of
fines imposed by a 2009 order? Surely it is a great waste of
parliamentary time, so why must we do it
periodically?
Mike
Penning:
As I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, the
existing legislation requires us to bring such amendments before the
House. If we wish to change the levels of fines and deposits set out in
current legislation, we have to come before the House and amend them. I
would much rather be doing something else this afternoon, as I am sure
would other members of the Committee, but the law requires us to attend
and ensure that any anomalies are removed—the fine relating to
insufficient tyre tread on motorcycles is one such anomaly—and
that owners of vehicles that are registered abroad and owners or
drivers who cannot prove that they have an abode in this country incur
the same fines as others in this country. It is not a particularly
contentious order,
as it just tweaks the legislation to ensure that it fits with the
existing legislation, and I hope that the Committee will
agree.
4.33
pm
John
Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op):
Notwithstanding
the reasonable point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Great
Grimsby, I have to say that there is nothing I would rather be doing
than responding on behalf of the Opposition on this important issue.
Fixed penalty notices have been successful and allow police officers
and other traffic enforcement officers to crack down effectively on
relatively minor, but none the less important, traffic offences. We are
pleased that the new Administration, from the statutory instrument
before us, seem to understand the value of the legislation that Labour
introduced in government, and I hope that they will continue to build
on and amend it where appropriate. It is right that the level of fixed
penalty notices be reviewed from time to time so that they continue to
serve as an appropriate deterrent, so we welcome the attempt to make
amendments.
We
particularly support the decision to double the level of the fixed
penalty notice that can be served on motorists who are in breach of
regulations on seat belt use. In January 2008, my hon. Friend the
Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), the then Minister,
was able to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the legislation on seat
belts, which had been pioneered by the late Barbara Castle. It is
estimated that 60,000 lives have been saved and 670,000 serious
injuries prevented as a result of that legislation, so it is right that
penalties are fixed at a level that sends a strong message about the
importance we attach to adherence to the law, especially in respect of
children. We therefore support the decision to increase the penalty to
£60.
The
Opposition also support the decision to increase to £60 the
fixed penalty for failure correctly to display registration numbers.
The clear and accurate display of registration plates is essential for
effective traffic enforcement, as well as the wider fight against
crime. We believe that £60 is a proportionate level of fine. We
fully accept the principle of differential levels of fines for
motorbikes and other vehicles in respect of tyre tread offences, and
support the amendment to reinstate that differential, which seems to
have been lost as a result of previous
misdrafting.
The
Opposition are happy to support the statutory instrument. The proposed
changes seem to be fair and proportionate, and we are happy that the
new Administration are building on the fixed penalty schemes that the
Labour Government
introduced.
4.36
pm
Peter
Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con):
I am delighted to follow
the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness, and I congratulate him on his
approach to the matter. I hope that whenever he speaks on future
statutory instruments he will be as brief and as interesting as he has
been today.
I congratulate
the Minister and his Department on spotting the anomaly. Motorcyclists
would rightly say that motorbikes are not the same as commercial
vehicles, although in practice having a roadworthy motorcycle is even
more important to their bodies and lives, so their
gain from obeying the regulations is far more important than the
reduction of £60 and the possible deposit that they might have
to pay if
detected.
That
leads me to the wearing of seat belts by children and adults. The real
gain is in the wearing of the restraint, not the penalties or the
detection of offences. Many countries that legislated long before us
had compliance rates of 50 to 60%. When we made the wearing of seat
belts compulsory in front seats we moved from about 60 to 95% almost
overnight. The confirmation of what people already knew made the big
difference. We then had to move on to the responsibility of people
inside a vehicle, unless someone was driving alone, to tell passengers,
or passengers to tell drivers. “I wish you would wear the seat
belt to protect me.” I shall give an anecdote. When I was a
Minister in Northern Ireland, the two kind Royal Ulster Constabulary
drivers who took me around said that they would not wear their seat
belts because they would have to protect me if there was a crash. I
said that they would be far more likely to be able to protect me if
they had been wearing seat belts.
We must
remember that tragic crash in Paris when there were four people in the
car, and the one who survived had been wearing a seat belt, but the
three who did not survive had not been wearing seat belts. If world and
European media coverage of that crash had given that information and
the fact that it was likely—this was later confirmed—that
the driver was way over the legal alcohol level, I suspect that the
number of road deaths in Europe would have halved from 50,000 a year to
25,000 a year straightaway. The fact that it turned
into a paparazzi story meant that we lost that chance of gaining at
least some benefit from what was a ghastly family tragedy for all those
concerned.
I
hope that the message goes out that the reason for children and adults
wearing restraints in the front and the back of a vehicle, and the
reason for having legal tyre tread depths, is not to save money, but to
save bodies and lives. The same cannot necessarily be the direct
consequence of having visible and proper number plates, but that is an
issue that need not delay us now. Enforcement matters; example matters,
but what matters most is people’s understanding of what is good
for them and those they care
for.
4.39
pm
Mike
Penning:
I completely agree with my hon. Friend,
especially as he was a health and safety Minister in a previous
Administration, and I pay tribute to his work then. I am sorry to delay
the Committee for a few more moments, but the order has nothing to do
with seat belts. That matter is the subject of a negative procedure
statutory instrument, and is being handled differently. We have had a
good debate on seat belts, but the instrument before us deals with
fines and fixed penalties. On that note, I hope we can agree that this
provision brings the deposit for fixed penalties into line with fixed
penalties legislation, and that we are amending some legislation that
was wrongly implemented by the previous Administration—even
though they did it, I am sure, with the best of
intentions.
Question
put and agreed
to.
4.40
pm
Committee
rose.
