Clause 23 - Breach of duty to give information as to identity of driver etc.
Road Safety Bill
9:45 am
Mr David Jamieson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Plymouth, Devonport, Labour)
The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire's amendment relates to a clause that is, I believe, affectionately known as the Hamilton clause. It refers to an instance in which somebody goes through a speed camera and then has a remarkable act of amnesia when they receive a penalty notice some time afterwards and cannot remember who was behind the wheel.
I take the point about pre-legislative scrutiny. The measures were published six or seven months ago. The Select Committee on Transport had an opportunity to pick over some of the points and I do not take it as a personal attack if an amendment is tabled. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman will recall that we accepted Opposition amendments to the Railway and Transport Safety Bill. Not many, I admit, but we felt that the Opposition had come up with a good idea in some cases.
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen this amendment as one that he thinks is good and ought to be accepted. In the circumstances to which it relates, a road traffic offence is detected but the actual offender cannot be identified without the co-operation of another person—typically, but not necessarily, the vehicle keeper. The most common occurrence of this is in association with speeding offences remotely detected by safety cameras. If the offender was driving greatly in excess of the speed limit he would, if caught and prosecuted, be liable to an endorsement of up to six points or even disqualification in court. However, if in his capacity of vehicle keeper he claimed that he had suddenly been struck by amnesia and did not know who was driving the car at the time, he would then be liable to only three penalty points. So there is an incentive not to admit to a speeding offence. In existing law, if someone is way over the limit, there is a strong incentive to pretend not to know who was behind the wheel.
Amendment No. 48 suggests that the court might consider giving fewer than six points in some cases. I understand the concern. In certain circumstances, people may genuinely not find it possible to be sure of the driver's identity. However, even in the case that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned of a car or vehicle being used in an election, it is reasonable to expect the person who has taken responsibility for the vehicle to keep a log of who drives it because they need to know that the person driving it has the proper licence. We would not freely allow people to jump in and out of the driving seat. It would not be unreasonable to check the drivers to ensure that they are eligible to drive the vehicle.
However, the law comes to the rescue of such a person in exceptional circumstances. Section 172(4) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 provides a defence whereby the person
''did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was''.
That will not allow members of the right hon. Gentleman's party to drive faster than the speed limit with impunity at the next election—although they will need to accelerate if they are going to improve in the polls—but it does provide a defence. The main point is that the amendment allows a person who has gone way over the speed limit to get three points rather than six or a disqualification. I am a little surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is on the side of such a person.