HC Deb 14 April 1981 vol 3 cc238-44
Mr. Kenneth Clarke

I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 13, line 38, at end insert '(or, where a range of numbers is so shown, a number falling within the range)'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

With this we may take Government amendments Nos. 44 and 45; amendment No. 23, in schedule 7, line 28, column 3, leave out '6' and insert 'not less than 2 and not more than 10 at the discretion of the court.'. and Government amendments No. 46 and 47.

Mr. Clarke

We now go in for an abrupt change of subject. We are into the motoring law part of the Bill, dealing with the changes to the totting-up system that the Bill makes. There was a general welcome on Second Reading and throughout the Committee proceedings for the broad changes that we are making.

We are moving away from the present system where three endorsements for any traffic conviction within three years can give rise to a risk of disqualification to a system whereby endorsements will acquire a given number of points reflecting the seriousness of different traffic offences, and it is when the requisite number of points has been achieved that a motorist will face the risk of disqualification.

We believe that this is a more effective way of dealing with the persistent offender against traffic laws. At the same time, it is much fairer to the motorist, because he runs the risk of losing his licence only when he has persistently offended to the extent that he has run up a serious traffic record. A clear distinction is made between the motorist who may have three comparatively minor traffic infringements within the set period and the motorist who has three, or even just two, serious infringements within the same period.

The appropriate schedule sets out a range of suggested points penalties. It is part II of schedule 7, showing offences varying from "reckless driving", which shows 10 points, to "failing to comply with conditions of licence" which acquires only two points. "Carrying passenger on motor cycle contrary to section 16" acquires only one point. It is when 12 points have been acquired within the period of three years that the risk of losing the licence occurs.

9.15 pm

In fixing the number of points for varying offences we used as guidelines the average level of fines imposed by magistrates' courts over recent years, because that gave us a ready way of judging the seriousness which those charged with hearing cases tended to attribute to different types of traffic offence. When we drafted the Bill we suggested fixed points penalties in each case, and did not leave ay discretion to magistrates in respect of the number of points to be imposed once an offence had been proved or admitted.

One reason for not including an element of discretion was that we thought that if discretion was left to magistrates' courts in each case the result would be an inevitable inconsistency between courts in different parts of the country. This could give rise to a feeling of unfairness among motorists. We felt, too, that if discretion was left to magistrates many motorists in routine cases in which they were happy to admit their guilt would feel the need to go to the magistrates' court to argue for the lowest number of points possible. They might also, if dissatisfied with the points imposed, go on appeal to a higher court to try to have the number revised. The resulting work load on the courts would be insupportable and would get in the way of the serious criminal and traffic business that magistrates' courts have to transact.

In Committee, however, we faced arguments from hon. Members on both sides about the complete lack of discretion proposed. Those arguments concentrated on two offences in particular, namely, "failing to stop after accident" and "failing to give particulars or report accident". Although, when we drafted the Bill we were minded—and I gave the reasons in Committee—to put forward fixed penalty points for those offences, having listened to the arguments and considered the matter further we accept that those offences include a wide range of situations. They range in seriousness from a minor bump in traffic, at one extreme, to a hit-and-run accident in which a victim is left dying or bleeding in a ditch at the other.

Therefore we felt that it would be right to give a band of points to magistrates' courts, leaving it to them to choose the appropriate points to be imposed, on endorsement, for either of those offences. These amendments, taken as a body, set out the Government's proposals. For "failure to stop after accident" we suggest a band of points from five to nine, and for "failure to give particulars or report accident" we suggest a band of points from four to nine.

I hope that the effect of these suggestions will enable magistrates' courts to reflect the seriousness of the offence in which someone has been left injured. As I said in Committee, we should expect, in the most serious cases in which someone has literally been left in a ditch by a hit-and-run driver, that if the driver is caught and prosecuted for, among other matters, failure to stop after an accident, he is more likely to run the risk of immediate disqualification. It is open to the magistrates' courts to impose such a penalty rather than any range of points.

Up to nine points, the system will enable magistrates to endorse a licence and impose a serious points penalty in the worst cases of failing to stop, whereas they could come down to five points in a case of failure to report, or down to four points when the case was a more minor one.

Fears were expressed in Committee that there could be insignificant cases of accidents in which a serious penalty for failure to report or failure to stop was inappropriate. As I then pointed out, if someone has an accident and does not know that he has been in an accident, he cannot be guilty of either of these traffic offences. In every case that comes before the courts we are dealing with people who know perfectly well that they have had an accident and, despite that, have gone on either without stopping or possibly without reporting it.

In the absolutely trivial case the police have a discretion not to prosecute at all, but even the case that involves merely damage to a vehicle tends to be a serious anti-social act. To hit a parked car, for instance, and drive off without leaving one's name and address is dishonest and antisocial. It leaves somebody else to handle, with his insurance company, liability for damage that is not his fault. The motorist who drives off without stopping is avoiding his responsibilities and saving himself money at someone else's expense.

We therefore felt that it was not proper, even in the case of failure to report—which is dealt with by amendment No. 47—to go down below four points at the lower end of the scale. If we went below four points we would be inviting the magistrates to impose a less serious penalty than is imposed now for this offence. The discretion that we have given tends to take the upper level up rather than the lower level down. We think that to be right because, as I said, these cases are anti-social. None is completely trivial or insignificant. At the least, they are dishonest. There is concern about the growing number of hit-and-run offences, failure to stop, and failure to report. The police and many other people feel that it reflects in part the consequences of the breathalyser law that more and more people tend to race off without stopping after an accident, because they know that they are over the breathalyser limit and they seek to avoid the more serious penalty that follows from a breathalyser offence.

Mr. Dan Jones (Burnley)

The Minister spoke eloquently on what the Government intend to do in case of an accident. I humbly suggest that the Minister has left out one important point. What happens if the accident occurs as a result of a defect in a car?

Mr. Clarke

All types of offences can be raised, not least the fact of not complying with the construction and use regulations. That in itself carries three penalty points under the schedule. Other consequences follow if the owner of the vehicle is driving with the knowledge that he has a defect in the car. Various traffic offences may be committed if a driver knowingly does that, and plainly insurance liability will arise, too.

What we are talking about in respect of the amendments is accidents of any kind, whatever has been the cause of them. If a motorist is involved in an accident that causes injury to the property of a third party, or personal injury, it is the driver's duty to stop and to report the accident. We are talking about the penalties to comply with that offence.

We have accepted the case for discretion on these offences. The discretion that we have tended to give is to enable magistrates to impose more serious penalties than they used to in the past. We feel that that is right, because these are, at best, anti-social offences. Sometimes, as with attempts to avoid the breathalyser law, they are serious offences. I am sure that magistrates and responsible members of the public will welcome the fact that magistrates are given more powerful penalties to impose when a serious case comes before the courts, although the case might not qualify for immediate disqualification.

Mr. Stott

The Under-Secretary of State indicated that we have now moved from the more party political contentious issues embodied in the Bill to an issue that is equally important but less of a party political nature. We are debating a road safety measure for the first time in a number of years.

On the Second Reading the Opposition complained that this road safety measure should not have been tacked on to the end of a contentious and politically divisive Bill. The Government, in their wisdom, however, saw the need to bring these measures forward. Therefore we have to debate the issues on their merits.

The Under-Secretary is right. We spent a good deal of time in Committee examining the proposals. At the time I indicated that I thought that the new proposals in schedule 7, as they related to a totting up of a number of points until 12 points were reached, when a person was automatically disqualified, probably constituted a better way of dealing with road traffic offences than was the case under the old regime. The way in which the original Bill was drafted, however, meant that several of my hon. Friends and, indeed, hon. Members on the Government side, were concerned about the allocation of points for particular offences. I am grateful that the Minister and the Government have actually taken on board and understood the feeling that emerged during the Committee. I see the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) nodding. He will recall that in Committee we had a long debate about whether magistrates ought to have discretion with regard to the awarding of points for failing to stop after an accident.

You may not be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there was a tied vote in Committee and the Government won the vote only by virtue of the fact that the Chairman of the Committee voted, as he does normally, with the Government. However, I am pleased to see that the Minister has taken on board the valid points that were made during that debate. It was a constructive debate, in which the points were fully aired, and we had the benefit of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stevens), who was a magistrate. I do not see him here this evening, but he made several good speeches on this issue, drawing on his experience as a working magistrate in the courts and indicating to the Committee that it would be beneficial to magistrates to have a certain amount of flexibility when awarding penalties for failing to stop and failing to give particulars or failing to report an accident. Therefore, I am pleased to see that the Minister has taken these points on board and rewritten the Bill to incorporate the general will of the Committee as it was expressed when we were debating these issues.

The Minister will no doubt be aware that we tabled an amendment—amendment No. 23—which was not selected. It is an identical amendment to the one that we tabled in Committee. I now see the reason why that amendment was not selected. Clearly, in the Bill the Minister has taken care of the points that it raised.

Finally, I confirm one point on which the Minister laid a certain amount of stress—the question of failing to stop after an accident. This, I regret to inform the House, is a problematical offence. Only this afternoon, in relation to a further amendment, which the House will be debating a little later, I spoke to Mr. Roger Birch, who is the chief constable of Warwickshire and chairman of the Chief Constables' Association. He informed me by telephone this afternoon that the offence of failing to stop after an accident is growing. It is rather distressing to find that this kind of offence is taking place and that people are failing to stop and failing to report if they have an accident. Therefore, the House and magistrates generally ought to deal seriously with this offence, and I am pleased that this evening the message will go out to everyone concerned that Members on both sides of the House are concerned about the increase in the number of offences that are taking place and that people who fail to report or fail to stop after an accident will be dealt with severely.

Mr. Michael Brown (Brigg and Scunthorpe)

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity to speculate why people fail to stop and to comment on the fact that we were speculating in Committee that the reason was that they had been consuming alcohol.

Mr. Stott

The hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) is absolutely right. We were speculating in Committee on the inordinate increase in the number of accidents that were reported where people failed to stop. One of the reasons that was contemplated during the Committee proceedings was that these people had consumed alcohol and that if they had stopped they would have been breathalysed by the police and thus have been liable to an automatic disqualification if their blood alcohol level was over 80 mg per 100 ml. That is a real problem.

There are later amendments that will allow the House, if it so wishes, to debate the merits of the breathalyser or the police powers as they relate to the breathalyser, but that is one of the real problems with people who fail to stop after an accident. They think to themselves that if they report the accident or get caught by the police they are between the devil and the deep blue sea—either they are done because they have failed to stop or they have been drinking and will therefore get a harsher penalty, so the best thing to do is to bolt for home and avoid the odious consequences of being breathalysed.

I think that it is absolutely right that this offence should be treated as a serious offence. The points awarded—between five and nine—are about adequate for the kind of offence that we are talking about, backed up by the additional strengthening in the Bill that the Minister has included a little later.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in saying that that is one of the reasons why we felt it necessary to demonstrate that this kind o f offence, and the increase in this kind of offence, ought to be stamped on very hard indeed. It is a pleasure to tell the Minister that the Oppostion welcome the Government amendments and will certainly give them a fair wind.

Mr. Parris

I, too, welcome these Government amendments. It is a tribute entirely to the power of advocacy of my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary rather than to the strength of his case that he succeeded in defeating the amendment that I moved in Committee. I honestly think that my hon. Friend could have argued that any measure from Christmas trees to consular services was so intrinsic a part of this package of measures that the entire Bill would stand or fall with it and he would have been able to convince the Committee of it.

We have gone through the arguments for giving the courts discretion and there is no need to go through them again. The changes proposed by the Government are entirely sensible. Some of my hon. Friends and Members of the Opposition who supported me in moving my amendment in Committee may feel a little unhappy that the discretion given to the courts is generally a discretion in the upwards rather than the downwards direction. I am a little unhappy about that, but not very. The point is that the principle of discretion has been introduced and it will be up to the Minister, on the evidence that he gets from the courts and the police in the future, to decide how the discretion should be applied and whether the range should be altered. We now have the principle of discretion, and I welcome that.

This totting-up system was, even as initially proposed, a great improvement on what had gone before. This small but important refinement further improves that system, and I am glad that the Government have changed their mind.

Mr. Waller

In congratulating my hon. and learned Friend on accepting the arguments that were put forward in Committee, may I ask him whether any guidance will be given to magistrates on their discretion? As he said, there is a danger that different courts in different parts of the country will exercise their judgment in different ways. It is not possible at any time to avoid this entirely, and we know that as far as the generality of traffic offences is concerned there is a difference between the way in which courts in London and, say, in the North-West of England exercise their discretion in respect of fines and the power to use disqualification.

It is not possible entirely to avoid differences, but will any guidance be given to magistrates so that in relation to different kinds of offence—for instance, driving away without reporting an accident—they can exercise their discretion fairly.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke

I first thank the House for the way in which it has received the Government amendment. I acknowledge that it was a straightforward change of mind by the Government compared with the case that I originally put in Committee, and it was the result of reflecting on the obvious views of the Committee and the arguments that were then put forward. This means that at the very least all those hours that we all put in on the Standing Committee were not spent in vain, because we now have made quite a significant amendment to magistrates' courts powers.

The answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Waller) is that in this field, as in all others, it would not be right for the Government to start giving clear directions to magistrates about the kind of penalties that they might impose. Parliament lays down a range of penalties and magistrates are there to exercise their judgment about the appropriate penalty to reflect the seriousness of each case.

The Magistrates' Association publish guidelnes for benches throughout the country, and sometimes benches in a particular county will draw up their own guideliines. Here, however, we are not talking about the level of fines. There is such a range of seriousness, for instance, in failing to stop alter an accident, that this is an area in which magistrates will have to apply their own judgment.

It is because of that range of seriousness, and because of the scope for responsible judgment, that the Committee prevailed upon the Government to put in discretion at all. The system is not in any way adversely affected by the change. It gives rise to the possibility of more flexibility in some offences in future, due to the powers in the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Parris) said, and I am glad that at no stage has any hon. Member expressed doubts about the underlying policy.

The points basis for endorsing is undoubtedly an improvement on the present crude system of one endorsement for any offence, whatever its seriousness. It is fairer to the motorist, but it also gives an opportunity of reflecting properly the more serious traffic offences when they are committed regularly by offenders who flout traffic laws. I trust that after hearing our debate the amendment will prove acceptable to the House as a whole.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 44, in page 13, line 42, leave out 'could' and insert 'would'.

No. 45, in page 15, line 25, after 'offence', insert '(or, where a range of numbers is so shown, alter that range)'.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

Forward to