| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Earl Attlee: I am grateful for the Minister's reasonably positive reply. She spoke about penalties, but I am not sure she understood that my intention and, I suspect, that of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, was significantly to increase penalties. The Minister also talked about other government departments, particularly the Home Office. Does she speak for Her Majesty's Government or the Home Office?
Baroness Crawley: From this Dispatch Box, I speak for Her Majesty's Government.
Lord Bradshaw: I am a little confused and somewhat disappointed by the reply that I have received. The education of people who do not wear seat belts is almost a dead letter. I reiterated very clearly that only 10 per cent of people who are prosecuted by the police elect to go on an education course: 85 per cent of people caught for speeding do so. In other words, people do not care. The reason they do not care is that the fine is totally derisory. The offence needs to be endorsable. I am not saying that the endorsement should be three points, just that there should be something in the way of points. Then people will go on education courses and will see the consequences.
27 Jun 2005 : Column 73
I hope for a better reply on Report, because I will put the matter to a Division. I will make sure that the Government are very firmly put in the position that the seat belt deaths that are occurring week by week are their responsibility. They are not the responsibility of anyone else and cannot be brushed off on the public at large or someone else. I assume that it is because the Government refuse to take action. There must be something better: a £30 fixed penalty notice is nonsense. I cannot think that a £30 penalty is in any way appropriate for offences that may lead to the deaths of people. On Report, I hope that the Minister will have reconsidered her position. The position of the department is untenable and will not lead to the necessary reduction in deaths to reach the Government's targets. It is a serious matter.
I fully understand the situation of black cab drivers, who are in a special position. There is a big partition in a black cab. It is very unlikely that people in the back will be thrown through. They are also professional drivers. We may all have our stories about black cab drivers and their behaviour, but they drive all of the time in the worst possible traffic conditions. They are professional drivers. Nor do they drive very fast in London because it is not possible, although occasionally they may try.
Lord Monson: When I referred to black cab drivers, I was talking about the drivers themselves, who I contend show the same improvement in their fatality and serious injury rate as motorists taken as a whole.
Baroness Hanham: As regards the point about who will be penalised with penalty points, I do not think that any of us is arguing about the fact that people ought to wear seat belts. We are not. It is the sine qua non that they save lives. I am trying to extract who will be the subject of the penalty points. Will the driver be responsible for making sure that everyone in the car is wearing a seat belt? If they are not, is he or she likely to be subject to the penalty points or will it be the person not wearing the seat belt; that is, a passenger, either in the front or the back?
It would be very difficult for the police or courts to bring in a judgment about penalty points, whereas it is not so difficult to impose a fixed penalty fine for not wearing a seat belt. If the noble Lord is to produce these amendments, we must have real clarity on where the penalty points will impinge.
7.15 pm
Earl Attlee: The answer to my noble friend's question is that it must be the driver, but he needs to have a reasonable defence. If he can show that he tried to get the passengers to wear seat belts, he may be able to prove mitigating circumstances.
Lord Bradshaw: In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, if the person who was not wearing a seat belt was a driver, I cannot see why he should not get the penalty points. He knows as well as anyone the importance of wearing a seat belt. The driver is responsible for children, about whom I am most
27 Jun 2005 : Column 74
concerned. I am well aware of the accident to which the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, drew attention when a number of children were killed on the Oxford bypass about three weeks ago. It was a most dreadful accident. That does not necessarily make good law, but, assuming a passenger who is a driver is a responsible person, he may well be the person who will suffer the penalty.
The penalty is derisory and ridiculous. It is a sticking point, to which I will return and divide the House because it is a point of principle. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 [Endorsement: all drivers]:
Baroness Crawley moved Amendment No. 29:
"35A (1) Section 30 (modification of sections 28 and 29 in case where fixed penalty also in question) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(b)—
(a) omit "the counterpart of his licence or", and
(b) for "57, 57A, 77" substitute "57A".
(3) In subsection (2)(b)—
(a) omit "on the counterpart of his licence or", and
(b) for "57, 57A, 77" substitute "57A"."
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 29, I speak also to government Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32, which correct minor drafting errors and omissions in Schedule 3 to the Bill. Clauses 7, 8 and 9, together with Schedules 2 and 3, introduce a new system of endorsement of driving licence which, when extended to all drivers, will mean that the counterpart will no longer have any function, as we discussed earlier.
As a result, Schedule 3 contains further legislative amendments about the endorsement of driving records in the case of all drivers, much of which is concerned with removing all references to the counterpart. The amendments ensure that all relevant legislative references are properly updated to take account of the provisions in the Bill concerning the new system of endorsement. I urge Members of the Committee to support the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Crawley moved Amendments Nos. 30 to 32:
(a) in the definition of "the provisions connected with the licensing of drivers", for "91ZA to 91B" substitute "91ZA, 91A", and
(b) in the words following the definition of "the Traffic Acts""
Page 79, line 23, leave out "subsection (3)(b)" insert "subsections (3)(b) and (4)(b)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
27 Jun 2005 : Column 75
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Financial penalty deposits]:
Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 33:
"( ) that the person committing the offence is not normally resident in the United Kingdom,"
The noble Baroness said: Before turning to the amendment, perhaps I may put a question to the noble Baroness, or to the noble Lord if he is to respond to this amendment. I ask forgiveness if this is just ignorance, but it is an opportunity to put me right. In the new system of deposits, I am not clear who is entitled to collect them. My question is this. Are the people who issue the fixed penalties or the notices requiring the deposit able to collect them; that is, is a policeman or vehicle inspector able to take a deposit immediately? If so, that is a big step away from what we understand has been the position in the past.
I preface my amendment with that question because it is relevant to Amendments Nos. 33 and 34. They would limit the requirement for a deposit payment to a non-resident offender driving a vehicle registered abroad. They would also restrict such a requirement to an offender not normally resident in the United Kingdom.
These amendments are designed to probe the Government on why they are making the ambit of the financial penalty deposit system set out in the clause much wider than any sensible justification for it would suggest. The justification for the system is that it would enable an enforcement authority to ensure that foreign drivers who break UK traffic laws with impunity can be dealt with expeditiously. That is to be welcomed. Some 44,000 offences committed by the drivers of foreign-registered vehicles went unpunished during the last year for which figures are available. That gives an idea of the extent of the problem.
However, the Government are taking extra catch-all powers in the clause which can be used against United Kingdom citizens and residents and those with UK-registered vehicles, when in effect it deals only with foreign lorry drivers who break the law and commit other offences.
We understand that there is little opportunity to catch those drivers and that a financial deposit scheme will be of only limited use. Indeed, the clause will not give immediate relief because nothing in it would ensure that the driver of a lorry that has triggered, say, a speed camera at a site where no one is present will be stopped. The lorry driver will not pay the penalty before he returns to the Continent, which is where most of the lorries come from. In that case, why do the Government intend to extend the scheme to local residents as well as foreigners?
In view of the co-operation between EU member states in many areas, are not negotiations taking place on the matter? Can the Minister give a précis of the stage we have reached in achieving an agreement with our European partners on this problem?
27 Jun 2005 : Column 76
How will this clause be used in light of the real concerns about the growing problem of, for example, Travellers, many of whom do not have fixed addresses let alone roadworthy vehicles? Moreover, what exactly is meant by a "satisfactory address", and more to the point, how will the police decide whether it is satisfactory?
That brings me back to my original point. If the police cannot take a deposit immediately, but still have to issue a notice to someone who will be on the ferry by the next night, it seems that the whole thing will be a complete waste of time. I am sure that the Minister will say that that is not the case, but perhaps he will enlighten me on these points. I beg to move.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |