HC Deb 24 May 1982 vol 24 cc657-63

`(1) in any case where—

  1. (a) a constable in uniform finds a person on any occasion and has reason to believe that on that occasion he is committing or has committed a fixed penalty offence;
  2. (b) the offence appears to the constable to be an offence involving obligatory endorse-ment; and
  3. (c) the person concerned does not produce his driving licence for inspection by the constable; the constable may give him a notice stating that if, within five days after the noticeis given, he produces the notice together with his driving licence in person to a constable at the police station specified in the notice and the requirements of subsection (2)(a) and(b) below are met, he will then be given a fixed penalty notice in respect of the offence.

(2) If a person to whom a notice has been given under subsection (1) above produces the notice together with his driving licence in person to a constable at the police station specified in the notice within five days after the notice was so given to him and the following requirements are met, that is—

  1. (a) the constable is satisfied, on inspecting the licence, that he would not be liable to be disqualified under section 19(2) of the Transport Act 1981 (disqualification where penalty points number twelve or more) if he were convicted of that offence; and
  2. (b) he surrenders his driving licence to the constable to be retained and dealt with in accordance with this Part of this Act; the constable shall give him a fixed penalty notice in respect of the offence to which the notice under subsection (1) above relates.

(3) A notice under subsection (1) above shall give such particulars of the circumstances alleged to constitute the offence to which it relates as are necessary for giving reasonable information about the alleged offence.

(4) This section does not apply in respect of offences committed in Scotland. '.—[Mrs. Chalker.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)

With this it will be convenient to take the following: As amendments to the proposed new clause:

  1. (a) in subsection (1) after 'specified', insert `by the person and recorded'.
  2. (b) in subsection (2) after 'specified', insert 'by the person and recorded'.

Government amendments Nos. 31 to 33, 35, 36, 40,42, 41, 43, 48, 49, 51 to 55, 59 and 60.

Mrs. Chalker

In Committee a number of right hon. and hon. Members asked that we should make the fixed penalty system available to people who are not carrying their licences with them when they are stopped for a traffic offence.

The new clause was put down by the Government in recognition of the point that was put so strongly to us in Committee, that a fixed penalty should be available to those drivers who were not able to show their licences to the constable at the time. In preparing it, we had foremost in our mind the need to make sure that the procedure is as simple as possible and does not create too much extra work for the police. As was said in Committee, it is no part of our intention to move the bulk of fixed penalty ticket offers from the roadside to the police station. For those cases where this is not possible, however, the amendment provides that it will be open to the constable to offer a preliminary fixed penalty notice. As with the fixed penalty itself, there will be no obligation on the driver to accept it. If he wishes to take up the offer of a fixed penalty, he will have to present himself at the police station of his choice, with his licence, within five days, in order that the number of points on the licence may be checked. If he is eligible on points and is willing to surrender his licence, he will be given a fixed penalty notice. From this point, all is as it would be with a normal fixed penalty. He has 21 days in which to decide what to do, and the normal consequences will flow from his decisions. If, on the other hand, he is found not to be eligible on points, no fixed penalty notice will be offered, and the force that issued the preliminary notice will have to decide whether to bring proceedings against him. The same will apply if he does not produce the notice and licence to the police station within the five days allowed.

In devising this scheme we have followed as closely as possible the existing procedure for requiring a licence to be produced for inspection under section 161 of the Road Traffic Act 1972, and we envisage that in many cases the two procedures will go hand in hand. This is the principal reason why we have selected five days as the time within which the preliminary notice must be presented at the station together with the licence. Five days is the period already allowed by section 161 for the production of the licence, and, as I have said, we envisage the two procedures working hand in hand. To have selected a longer period for the production of the preliminary notice would not, therefore, have assisted the driver who was required in any case to produce his licence under section 161 independently of the fixed penalty procedure, as I understand that he will be in all cases where the licence is not produced at the roadside.

In addition, we should be wary of building too much delay into the system. That is not what was asked for in Committee. I believe that five days is not only consistent with the existing provisions under section 161, but is a reasonable length of time for drivers to present their licences at a police station of their choice.

I hope that what I have said is sufficient to explain in brief the way in which we propose that the fixed penalty system should work for drivers who do not have their licences with them at the roadside when stopped by a member of the police force. I hope that, in the light of what was said in Committee, right hon. and hon. Members will welcome the new clause. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

The Opposition welcome the new clause. The scheme has been presented as a result of strong representations by Committee members.

We wanted the five-day option largely because a different procedure was being adopted in Scotland under the conditional offer. The position in Scotland appears to be unaffected by the new clause. The fact that the time may be slightly longer in Scotland does not bother us.

The new clause removes the anxiety that, by a back-door method, carrying a driving licence was being made compulsory. In the study on road traffic law by the Home Office and the Department of Transport, recommendation 14 on page 36 was that there should be a statutory requirement for drivers to carry licences. The recommendation was, sensibly, not accepted by the Government. Drivers do not carry licences for a variety of reasons. Some fear that it may be lost; others forget.

The Minister said that the police station at which the licence had to be delivered, along with the preliminary notice would be of the driver's choice. We put down amendments (a) and (b) to make that clear. I take it that they are not necessary, although the hon. Lady has not said so specifically. The word used is "specified". Section 161 of the earlier Act uses the same term, and in that measure it is clear that the choice may be made by the person against whom the offence is alleged.

A driver may be hundreds of miles away from home and have left his licence behind when the offence is committed, and it would not make sense to specify that locality. If there is any doubt about the matter the Government may consider the amendments, but if the hon. Lady is satisfied that they are unnecessary we shall not press them. We are glad that the Government listened to what we said in Committee.

Mr. Peter Fry (Wellingborough)

I am a member of the RAC's public policy committee and I hope that I am also regarded as a friend of the AA.

I welcome the new clause. It is a small step towards meeting the points put forward by the motoring organisations on the vexed question of the fixed penalty and the way in which it is to be introduced. My hon. Friend the Minister cannot expect entirely to please those organisations. Many motorists may find the fact that a police constable can inspect a driving licence extremely annoying. It may interfere with the relationship between the police and the public.

The Government have missed an opportunity. They have brought in a new range of fixed penalties and have made the situation more complicated than necessary. They could have penalised the wrongdoer, but helped the motorist generally, by allowing the fixed penalty office, rather than the police, to inspect the licence. The motorist could have been stopped and a judgment made without prior knowledge of previous convictions. If a different attitude had been taken to the list of fixed penalty offences, relations between the police and the public could have been improved.

4.15 pm
Mr. Eric Ogden (Liverpool, West Derby)

I, too, welcome the new clause, but I should like the Government to consider two possibilities.

A family from Aberdeen may be starting a fortnight's holiday in the seaside resort of Wallasey. On the second or third day the driver may be in difficulty because of a possible offence under the clause. No one is at home to produce the licence. The only way to do so is to make an 800-mile round trip to Aberdeen. Could there be exceptions to the requirement to produce the licence within five days? I appreciate that if there is such a provision for this offence there many also have to be exceptions for other offences. One of the hon. Lady's constituents holidaying in Aberdeen could be equally disadvantaged.

What would be the attitude of the Department or the police to a driver carrying Photostat copies of his licence, MOT and insurance certificates and possibly his authorisation for the AA relay service and the RAC? My AA registration number ends in the letters "FC". I thought at one time that it meant frequent caller for aid and assistance. Would a police constable accept a Photostat copy if a driver did not have his licence on him?

I welcome what has been done. I hope that it presages further concessions.

Mr. Barry Sherrman (Huddersfield, East)

I join those who welcome the concession. We argued for it long and hard in Committee. I am tempted to err on the hard side for carrying licences, but the new clause is a sensible accommodation.

Can the Minister assure us that the clause will not open up the system to the abuse that exists for fixed penalties for parking, where only 50 per cent. of the fines are paid? I hope that she has that in mind.

Mrs. Chalker

I am glad that the House is giving a general welcome to new clause 1, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) for his comments. I assure him that I said that it was a police station of the motorist's choice at which he should present his licence. Therefore, there is no need for the hon. Gentleman's two amendments (a) and (b). If he wants to press the matter, I advise him that there is a tidier way of doing it, but I am told that it is not necessary. However, after the hectic last few days I shall have another look at the amendments to make sure that I am right.

As we are covered by section 161 of the 1972 Act, which will work hand in hand with the Bill when it becomes an Act, I see no reason for such a specific insertion as that envisaged by the hon. Gentleman, but I am grateful to him, because it has enabled us to probe the matter.

Mr. Robert Hughes

I realise that there are many Government amendments on the Order Paper and I do not wish to overload the parliamentary draftsmen any more. I take the hon. Lady's point. The amendments are for the avoidance of doubt. If she thinks that the tidier way becomes necessary, I hope that she will look at the matter in the other place.

Mrs. Chalker

The hon. Gentleman has my assurance on that matter. If we think that it is necessary, we shall do it in the tidiest way.

In response to the hon. Gentleman's jab about the number of Government amendments, I can only say that I have done my level best to respond to all the things that he asked for in Committee. As that is why there are so many amendments, it shows that there has been a good mutual effort, with him prodding me and my responding.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry) for his slightly limited welcome. I understand the concern of the local organisations about the move towards a fixed penalty system, because there have been misgivings. As my hon. Friend knows, there has been enormous pressure on our courts in dealing with motoring offences, some relatively minor. The Government felt it only right to take these steps.

My hon. Friend said that he wished that we had been able to allow inspection of the licence at a fixed penalty office rather than at the police station. I was worried about that suggestion when it was made in Committee, because it should he a police officer who looks at the licence. As my hon. Friend will appreciate, the fixed penalty points system brought into force by the Transport Act 1981 limits the maximum number of points with which one may continue to drive.

Nobody other than a police officer should deal with this matter. While I realise that I am at variance with my friends in the motoring organisations on this issue, it is right that the licence should be inspected at a police station if an endorsable offence is being reviewed prior to the giving of a fixed penalty notice, following the issue of a preliminary fixed penalty notice at the roadside. I am sorry that I cannot respond positively, but I think that my hon. Friend understands the difficulties.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) hypothesised that one of the constituents of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North might come to my constituency for a holiday—he would be welcome to do so—but might leave his driving licence at home. In view of the recommendation of the working party that drivers should at all times carry their licences with them, and the extension in the new clause giving the drivers the benefit of five days, we should make the fixed penalty system unworkable if we were to extend it beyond that limited time.

I hope that drivers will carry their licences with them, because they are undoubtedly useful as a means of identification for other purposes. If one is away from home, it is sensible to have a means of identification. The point that I am making to the hon. Member for West Derby is that a further extension, or an exception, for whatever very good reason, would make the system unworkable. That is why I fear that I shall not respond to him positively now, or at a later stage.

Sir Albert Costain (Folkestone and Hythe)

There are many pickpockets about. What about a motorist who carries his driving licence with him, but loses his wallet? What can he do in those circumstances?

Mrs. Chalker

I hope that if anybody is sufficiently unfortunate to have his pocket picked and lose his driving licence, he will immediately report the theft to the police station. Such a report would obviously be available to another police officer when requesting a licence, or within the five-day period from the police station concerned. I hope that that communication will make this difficulty less serious.

The hon. Member for West Derby also asked about the Government's attitude to the carrying of photocopies of licences and other documents. Because of the forgeries that the police force tell me it comes across in these days of modern technology, we could not accept photocopies of licences. Sadly, they are a matter for forgery on more occasions than we should like. It must be the actual licence that is carried by the motorist. It is a valuable means of identification for all sorts of reasons unconnected with motoring. For that reason, I hope that motorists will always carry them.

Mr. Fry

The value of having a copy would be demonstrated if the original were lost for some reason. Swansea is not known for 100 per cent. efficiency. Nor, alas, is the Post Office. Over the years I have had cause to complain about driving licences that have been put in the post but have not arrived. Therefore, what will my hon. Friend say to the motorist whose licence has been lost in this way, and what defence has he when he is stopped for one of these offences?

Mrs. Chalker

I can say only that if the licence has gone astray the important thing for any driver to carry is a copy of the letter to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre reporting the fact that it has gone astray and has not been received. We hope that the driver will not commit an offence during this period, but if he should, it is a difficulty that will probably mean that he will not be given a fixed penalty notice at the police station.

That could mean one of two things, because the fixed penalty notice is a third option, above the two that already exist for a police officer in apprehending a motorist whom he considers to have committed an offence. The first is a caution of varying strength, according to the way in which the offence was committed. The second is the report for prosecution. One hopes that drivers will have i heir licences with them.

On the more general point, we are doing everything that we can to bring the existing system at the DVLC at Swansea to a better standard. I pay tribute to some of the improvements that have been made there recently. There are still great improvements to be made in the coming months and years at the centre, which we have in hand.

Mr. Fry

I welcome the Government's understanding of the problems of motorists who do not carry their driving licences with them, which has led to the new clause. However, as my hon. Friend has just spelt out, a motorist who inadvertently does not have his licence in his possession, because it has been lost in the post or gone astray, is forced to have his case put to court, because he cannot be given a fixed penalty.

The motorist in that unfortunate position would be in the same position as the motorist who did not have his licence with him before the new clause was introduced. Therefore, will my hon. Friend consider—I put it no more strongly at the moment—that in cases such as this advice could be given to the court that no penalty should be awarded higher than the fixed penalty where the absence of the licence, and therefore the reference to the court, was out of the hands of the unfortunate motorist?

Mrs. Chalker

I shall consider what my hon. Friend has said. My first instinct is to say "No, we cannot so advise the courts", because it has other, much wider complications. I say this with some hesitancy, because I cannot list the complications, but I know that they are there. I hope that my hon. Friend will allow me to write to him about this, as I do not think that it is possible to do what he asks.

4.30 pm

The hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. Sheerman) asked whether the Department had considered the possibility of abuse of the five-day leeway, as I will call it, in the presentation of the driving licence. Obviously, in any widening of scope, there is the possibility of abuse. In weighing the strong arguments put in Committee and those made by the motoring organisations and others for this extension to be in line with section 161 of the Road Traffic Act 1972, we are satisfied that there will be no greater abuse than is involved in the current presentation of a driving licence at the police station of the driver's choice.

This is obviously a matter that must be examined when the scheme comes into force. Should the need for amendment arise, then, as has happened over a long period as driving practices have changed and police instructions have changed, it may be necessary to make some small adjustments. I hope, however that the system will not be abused. The abuse of any system inevitably results in a tightening of the law in order to prevent the abuse.

The new clause is moved with the interests of motorists in mind, appreciating that it may not always be possible for them to carry a licence with them, for one good reason or another. The warning that I always give is that any part of the law that is abused will be subject to greater tightening, which further restricts the liberty of the individual.

I have been glad to hear the welcome given to the new clause. I hope that the practice, when it starts in about two years' time, will prove to be for the greater long-term convenience of the motorist. I believe that that will be so.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Forward to