Clause 22 - Breach of requirements as to control of vehicle, mobile telephones etc.
Road Safety Bill
9:25 am
Mr Christopher Chope (Shadow Minister, Environment and Transport; Christchurch, Conservative)
I take completely the opposite view. If someone chose not to accept the fixed penalty and went to court, there would, in the light of the decided cases, be no defence at all. The magistrates would have to find them guilty on the facts. To suggest that some sort of discretion might apply is to mislead the public. The Government are seeking to change the law so that an endorsement and a fine are mandatory in the circumstances we have described. That is manifestly absurd.
If we do not make it clear that that is not our intention, we will be deemed to be accepting that the same rules apply to the use of a mobile phone while driving, as in the case set out in 1969. That may seem a long time ago, but it is still the leading case regarding the definition of ''driving''. What the Minister said in our previous sitting, and some of what she said today, could mislead motorists into thinking that they will not be committing an offence if they use their mobile phone in a long traffic jam with the engine switched off and they have left the car. If we do not accept the amendment, however, they will be committing an offence.
Unless the Government are prepared to come forward with another amendment to cover exactly that situation, members of the Committee should use some people power and common sense and support the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 10.