HL Deb 26 July 2000 vol 616 cc548-51

36B.—(1) Where the Secretary of State receives a notice sent to him under section 36A(2) of the particulars required to be endorsed on the counterpart of a person's licence, the Secretary of State must by notice served on that person require them to attend mandatory retraining classes.

(2) A requirement under subsection (1) shall have effect from a date specified in the notice of retraining which may not be earlier than the date of service of that notice."").

The noble Earl said: I am sure that all Members of the Committee have received numerous letters imploring us to address the issue of the penalties available to the courts when there has been a loss of life attributable to careless driving. Many of these letters relate to the tragic death of a child or youngster. There is obviously a well organised campaign under way to raise the profile of this issue and I am sure that the Committee is grateful for the efforts of those responsible.

Few people in society have the opportunity to save lives, even directly. In Parliament, we can do just that, albeit indirectly. We also know that road safety is at the top of the agenda of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. His road safety strategy paper recognises the problems. I am sure that the Committee is fully aware that in the UK we have a very good and improving road safety record. There is, of course, always room for improvement, and successive governments have made their contributions.

However, we have a particular problem because we still have a disproportionate number of children killed or seriously injured. Campaigners seek to reduce casualties by increased deterrence through more severe penalties. My understanding is that there is a desire to create an offence of causing death by careless driving or something similar. This offence would attract a custodial sentence.

I have some difficulty with this approach. First, a responsible and decent motorist will have an absolute dread of the courts finding him or her responsible for death or serious injury. For most that is deterrence enough; penalties in terms of fines and penalty points are secondary considerations. Secondly, it smacks more of revenge and retribution rather than measured punishment. Finally, it can be hard enough to secure an immediate custodial sentence in a case of causing death by dangerous or reckless driving; I cannot see how it would be any easier in a case involving a moment's inattention.

That does not mean that we should do nothing—far from it. I believe that we should concentrate on the prevention of accidents rather than taking revenge afterwards. Accidents are mainly caused by a lack of skill and inappropriate attitude, but this can be corrected by training people to drive to advanced standards. The Committee may be aware that commercial driver retraining organisations expect to be able to reduce the claims experience of a fleet by 20 per cent.

It always seems peculiar to me that we religiously submit our vehicles to an annual MOT test but a car driver is tested only once, and at a very tender age. To suggest a compulsory driver retraining scheme would be prohibitively expensive and electoral suicide. On the other hand it could bring about a considerable reduction in accidents. However, we could introduce either retraining or retesting for those drivers who have demonstrated that their driving is not up to standard and who have been convicted of certain moving traffic offences. The prime candidates would be careless or dangerous drivers and those convicted of any offence which involved disqualification.

Retesting could involve a standard or, more likely, an extended test. Obviously, it would be necessary for a candidate to seek training in order to be able to pass. The anxiety I have to this approach is that it is relatively easy to pretend for 45 minutes that one always drives to advanced standards. Furthermore, it is a poor tool for addressing an inappropriate attitude, and this is so important as regards youngsters and lorry drivers.

The alternative is to follow the route of retraining, which, after much thought, I prefer. The aim would be to raise the standard of trainee to that of advanced driver in order to be granted the necessary certificate. My amendment has a sting in the tail for the trainer who signs the certificate. If his trainee is involved in an accident after training, the trainer can be called on to justify the grant of his certificate. He cannot just take the money and run. Clearly, the training organisations would need to be properly approved.

I do not want to weary the Committee with detailed explanations of my amendments, as they are exploratory and, I am quite sure, defective—or even unworkable. The issues that the Committee needs to consider are, first, whether retraining would be an effective tool, or do the Committee and the Government favour revenge and retribution, or indeed some other solution? Secondly, is there more scope for a retesting scheme and, if so, how should it be used? Finally, if the Committee does favour the retraining approach, when should it be made available? Perhaps the answer is after the first more serious moving traffic offence for the novice and after the second for a more experienced motorist. Should the courts have discretion over when to apply it or should it be automatic?

I shall be interested to hear the views of the Committee. I have no intention of pressing the amendment tonight. I hope therefore that the Minister will concentrate on informing the Committee of his approach to the problem, which will no doubt have the benefit of considerable research on his part. I appreciate that I may have been speaking out of turn on the groupings, and I would appreciate having a few minutes in which to gather my thoughts. I beg to move.

10.45 p.m.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood

I think the noble Earl was speaking to Amendment No. 415; I did not actually hear what was called. I do not think there is anything wrong with the ideas put forward in the amendment but it is rather unfortunate that they should have been put forward with an alternative to dealing with careless and dangerous driving. These may be valuable amendments in the fight for safer roads but I should not like to be associated with any moving away from giving penalties to those who drive carelessly and cause death or injury thereby.

Viscount Simon

I am led to understand that the current retraining scheme and the extended test for those who are subject to it have been quite successful in that people do not re-offend to the same extent. It would be nice if magistrates seized their powers in appropriate circumstances not only to disqualify a person but also to take away the vehicle of the offender.

Lord Whitty

I agreed with quite a lot of what the noble Earl said even before I realised what amendment he was referring to. All those who have spoken will be pleased to hear that my colleagues at the Home Office with, in this case, rather more active participation by me in joined-up government, are about to issue a major consultation document, taking forward the right strategies in relation to penalties and the way they are enforced. The document will deal with stronger penalties for careless and dangerous driving, and also with the idea of providing an alternative of retraining in certain circumstances. Retraining, as we have just heard, does have a very good effect in the limited circumstances where it is now applied. It should be much more widely used. It deals also with re-testing in relation to offences attracting a penalty above a certain level. That will all be covered in the Home Office document. There will be a clear sense of direction there. Noble Lords will have the ability to comment on it. I hope that fairly shortly the Home Office will once again be legislating on that issue.

Earl Attlee

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I shall read it carefully. I look forward to the Home Office consultation paper. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 416 not moved.]

Earl Attlee moved Amendment No. 416A:

After Clause 256, insert the following new clause—