SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT (Hansard, 9 December 1991)

§ Mr. Anderson
Again I raise the question of Scotland. How can the Government justify this Bill in respect of England and Wales only? The Government say, properly, that the offence is prevalent in England and Wales and argue that there is considerable public concern about it. They say that it merits urgent attention and that the present law is inadequate in terms of its scope and penalties. What, therefore, makes Scotland different?
Is it said that the offence is less prevalent in Scotland and that degrees of latitude make the offence less frequently committed in Scotland? Is it said that there is less public concern in Scotland and that there is less urgency about the matter? Or is it said that the relevant legislation, as applied to Scotland—the 1988 Act—is such that there are no lacunae in the law as it applies to Scotland? I do not think that the Government can argue that there is a serious difference between England and Wales and Scotland, so will they assure the House that legislation for Scotland will be introduced with the same urgency?

§ Mr. John Patten
We are often told that Scotland is different, that it is a nation and that it has its own laws. Home Office Ministers are often lectured by Scottish Members that we should import decent bits of the Scottish law into the English and Welsh legal code. I see the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) nodding in agreement.
In Scotland, aggravated taking is dealt with under section 178 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and under other statutory or common law offences, some of which were described graphically by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) in his brief intervention earlier this afternoon.
Measures suitable for one area of the United Kingdom may not be equally applicable to another.

§ Mr. Anderson
Surely the common law offences that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) related in respect of Scotland are equally applicable in England. The Minister will be aware that the penalties available under section 178 are lower than those in England and Wales—three months imprisonment or a fine, but not both. On indictment, I believe that the maximum penalty is 12 months imprisonment. Surely the Minister is not arguing that the offence is less prevalent, or that there is less public concern, in Scotland, so why is there a difference?

§ Mr. Patten
I recognise that the penalties available under section 178 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 are different. The maximum penalty north of the border is 12 months imprisonment. I am not arguing that there are no differences between us. On the contrary, I am arguing that there are substantial differences between us, but all that I can say is that these are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, not for the Home Secretary or myself.

§ Mr. Jim Lester (Broxtowe)
I support the Bill because I know that this serious offence was drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State by the chief constable of Nottinghamshire two years ago. I rise simply to ask whether it is possible for the Home Office to publish a pamphlet on the change to the law that can be widely distributed to sixth forms and to many others who commit this offence—many of whom have been charged once but have repeatedly offended—so that our young people understand how serious it is to steal a car, to drive it dangerously and in some cases to set it on fire wilfully? We want to ensure that they understand the way in which the law has changed and how it can be reinforced. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to find out whether that can be undertaken as early as possible on completion of the Bill's passage.

§ Mr. John Patten
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) makes a constructive suggestion. I know how long he has been concerned about the aggravated taking of vehicles and the mayhem caused by young men in parts of Nottinghamshire over the past couple of years. His concern has been reflected by the chief constable.
I have not contemplated production of the type of leaflet to which my hon. Friend referred, but it is a good idea. We shall try to do more about car crime during 1992, and I shall reflect on my hon. Friend's comments to see whether we can accommodate his request.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science—the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon)—is on the Front Bench with me. We know how important it is to educate children, sometimes even those in their late primary school years, about the offending temptations with which they may be faced. Last week, I was at a Salford school, having visited one of those motor projects to which the hon. Member for Huddersfield referred. I was struck by one of the comments of the primary school headmistress. She said that she felt that children aged between seven and 11 were at particular risk of being cloned by their elder brothers or elder friends into people with the same offending habits. We may well want to follow my hon. Friend's suggestion.
I believe that the Bill, as it goes to another place, has been properly and fully scrutinised on Second Reading and in Committee—as will be shown in Hansard. I hope that this excellent measure will receive not only the assent of the House but the strong support of everyone who has been so concerned about this issue during 1991. I commend the Bill to the House.