Clause 10 - All drivers
Road Safety Bill [Lords]
10:00 am
Stephen Hammond (Shadow Minister, Transport; Wimbledon, Conservative)
The Minister referred to this set of clauses as a whole in his opening remarks on the amendments tackled under clause 8, but I want to pick him up on one or two things that he said then, because I understand that they should rightly be dealt with under clause 10.
The clause introduces the new system of endorsement that we have talked so much about this morning. It is based on the inspection of the driving record rather than the counterpart. As I understand the clause, and as the Minister has made clear, the counterpart is currently a legal document, but will cease to exist as one. In attempting to clarify what will happen for their lordships, the Government spokesman in the other place said:
“in place of the counterpart ... there will be a document containing information useful to a driver”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 June 2005; Vol. 673, c. 62.]
Is the counterpart being replaced, and if so, exactly what is replacing it? Am I right in thinking that whatever replaces it will not be a legal document? Exactly what information will be held on it? We have touched on the way in which it will be updated and changed, but some questions remain open about exactly how the system will work, and I am keen to hear the answers. Will there be a replacement to the counterpart for every driver and how will the driver be notified of the changes? How will the driver be able to correct the information, if it is erroneous, on the record or on the non-legal document that is given to him? Under the present system, all of that is relatively obvious, but it is not clear how it will work under the new system. If there is a document or record for each driver, will there be electronic access to it? From what the Minister said, there clearly will be, so we will need to debate potential misuse.
On Tuesday night we tackled a number of amendments on the clause, and the misgivings that we had then have not receded. In spite of the Minister’s assurances, we remain extremely concerned about the extension of Vehicle and Operator Services Agency examiners’ powers. Is it necessary? There is little evidence that VOSA examiners have had training to the standard of the police laid down in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 on the rules of evidence or the necessary contemporaneous notes. As we said, we believe that VOSA examiners should be able to stop a vehicle and prevent it from driving on the roads, but we are reluctant to accept the Minister’s reasons for changing the status quo.
Let us say that it is a dark night and someone out there in overalls is trying to flag down a vehicle, which has a lady driver. If somebody steps out into the middle of the road and tries to flag her down, she will not recognise them as officialdom or authority and may understandably be cautious about stopping. In those circumstances, I would be too. Under the current system, vehicles are usually flagged down by the police. They are then inspected by VOSA examiners, who do their job and are accredited, as the Minister said, under his regulations. The police then issue, or not, the fixed penalty notice.
I ask the Minister to reconsider what he said about how it would pervert the clause and his purpose if VOSA examiners could not issue fixed penalty points. Opposition Members accept their power to stop a vehicle and prevent it from moving on, but we remain extremely uneasy about extending their powers. I ask the Minister to think again about that, and I should be grateful for any reassurance that he can give on my questions about the replacement document.