Road Safety Bill [HL]

I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken in this short debate. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady   Hanham, for speaking to her Amendment No.   49. I shall speak to the government amendments, which are of a purely technical nature and do not affect the content of the Bill. By inserting new sections into the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, Clause 13 makes provisions to give courts the power, in certain circumstances, to offer offenders the opportunity to participate in an alcohol ignition interlock programme. Part of that process involves the court making an order for the offender to participate in such a programme. Under proposed new section 34D(7) a court shall not make an order unless certain conditions apply. One of the conditions is that the offender appears to the court to be over the age of 17. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, suggests that this should be 18. However, the condition specified in the clause applies in the parallel situation where a court makes an order for a drink/drive offender to attend a drink/drive rehabilitation course under Section 34A of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. This places an obligation on the court to be satisfied that the offender is of an age sufficient to make him eligible for a licence to drive a motor vehicle. I do not see any strong arguments for restricting the scheme. I would remind the Committee that in view of the lengthy period of disqualification—at least a year—that will precede the time when an offender gets back behind the wheel—even the youngest offender will be 18 in practice before they are in that situation. Although I recognise the point being made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, the process envisaged by which justice will be dispensed makes it inevitable in this area. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, have identified an issue that has been examined at some length in the context of alcohol ignition programmes where they have been implemented in other countries. However, I am not in a position to accept Amendment No. 46. Circumvention of the system is never likely to be stopped completely. There is always a problem of enforcement regarding such activity. Frankly, short of locking offenders in prison, it is hard to prevent them driving while disqualified—except through the deterrent effect of the risk and consequences of being caught. We know that some people do in fact take this risk. The only response that we can apply is a suitable punishment when that is done. Experience from other countries suggests that participants in alcohol ignition interlock programmes come, on the whole, with a positive frame of mind. They want to drive; they want to be compliant with the law; and they are willing to pay for it. All of those factors are likely to obtain when we introduce a similar programme. They are not inclined to risk a loss by cheating. Anyone driving while not in compliance with the programme conditions would be driving while disqualified—and liable on conviction to a custodial sentence consistent with that serious offence. I was asked to specify some details by my noble friends. The key to the system is the black box type recorder which allows the participant to be held to account for all attempts to give breath specimens to start the car. I understand that the technology is being developed to allow individual drivers to be identified by a breath specimen. That is not effective at present in those countries where the device is used, but the technology is being developed. Of course noble Lords   are anxious about the situation in which we may introduce the system where that sophisticated dimension—an imprint on the nature of the individual’s breath sample, guaranteeing which driver has provided it—may not be in force. Once we have that technology, any false specimens would certainly be detected and investigated. It would become clear that cheating could not possibly succeed. If this system were used, the likelihood of someone successfully providing a specimen on behalf of the person on the programme would be small indeed. We have made provision, under subsection (12) of our new Section 34D, for an offence of interfering with the proper functioning of the interlock, and we do not feel it necessary to extend it to the specific circumstances which the amendment identifies. I cannot at this stage promise that the full technology will be in place. However, the expectation is certainly that it will be worked on and that the full programme will operate that way once implemented. The obvious fact is that a person who is compliant in cheating in this way would, if discovered, find that the driver would be guilty of a very serious offence—and that the person who collaborated in interfering would themselves find trouble being visited on their head. In summary, we expect to be operating a foolproof technology. If we have an interim period when we are not, it is equally clear that we are faced with the same situation: if people cheat by driving while disqualified they are balancing that cheating against the risk that if they are found out the consequences will be severe. Of course, that would also apply in this case. We would all recognise that some people are prepared to take such risks. If there were none at all they would not appear before the courts and we would not have the disastrous details that are revealed on occasions. The vast majority of people who are required to meet these obligations do so in good faith. I emphasise again that we expect participants within the framework of this particular provision to be already of a mind to comply with the law and eager to make progress with regard to their situations. Therefore, cheating ought to be at a minimum. The two government amendments, Amendments Nos. 47 and 48, deal with two instances in Clause 13 where the wording currently in the Bill is in error. Reference is made on page 18 at line 27 and at line 42 to,"““an alcolock ignition interlock programme””," where the correct term should have been,"““an alcohol ignition interlock programme””." I apologise for those two mistakes. The amendments are merely to clear up that technical error. On the last amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, I must refer to the early development of the drink-drive rehabilitation courses and the arrangements put in place under the Road Traffic Act 1991 to allow courts to refer offenders to such courses. On successful completion of such a course an offender can have a reduction in his period of disqualification. The scheme was begun as an experiment in a limited number of court areas but, in 2000, after evidence had been gathered that reoffending among course attendees was around two and a half times lower than among non-attendees, it was rolled out nationally. I can happily report to the House that the scheme continues to be successful. We now have in prospect, in the form of alcohol ignition interlock programmes, a new disposal for which the scale application may be slightly narrower but the impact could still be significant. Broadly speaking, referral to a programme works in the same way as referral to a drink-drive rehabilitation course. Accordingly, the legislative provisions have been modelled very closely on those for the drink-drive courses under Sections 34A, 34B and 34C of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Those sections have clearly served us well and to a large degree we have stuck with them. Clause 14 provides for an experimental period for the,"““alcohol ignition interlock programme””." Amendment No. 49 would omit the references in paragraph (a) to ““2010”” and in paragraph (b) to ““such later time etc””. The intended effect is, I presume, to remove provision for a date by which a decision should be taken whether to move from an experimental period to a full scheme. This is a worthwhile provision and I would resist its removal. I hope that I have put into context the way in which we expect the scheme will work and reassured noble Lords about its general operation. I have indicated that we are making progress with regard to the technology to make it even more foolproof. Of course, we are vulnerable to those who take the extreme risks of cheating and are prepared to risk the condign punishment consequent upon such cheating. But that dimension is ever with us. The only thing that I can report is that we are intent on making sure that, in all aspects of the observance of motoring law in those terms, the cheats do not prosper. In general terms, we think that we have got the framework of the provision right, with the exception of the two minor mistakes that I seek to correct with my two amendments.