Road Safety Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 90:"Page 23, line 27, leave out ““six”” and insert ““three””." The noble Lord said: Clause 20, as I read it, introduces disqualification for the second offence of using a vehicle in a dangerous condition. That is a serious offence and I can fully understand the mischief that the Minister seeks to remedy. However, there are some difficulties. First, a six-month ban is quite onerous: I suggest that a three-month ban would still have a salutary effect. Secondly, whether a vehicle is in a dangerous condition is very much a matter of judgment, and not of fact—such as whether a vehicle is exceeding a speed limit. I have never been prosecuted for any offence, not even a motoring offence, touch wood. But if I were prosecuted under Section 40, I would seek the best specialist legal advice. I would certainly not take it on the chin, because if convicted, I would already be halfway towards losing my licence. My noble friend Lord Hanningfield will deal with the position of someone who is an employed driver, who can be in a more difficult position than a private motorist. I will fully support him in that amendment. My final concern is that I will vigorously defend any prosecution for the offence of using a vehicle in a dangerous condition. But what happens if, prior to the passing of the Bill, a motorist is convicted for using a vehicle in a dangerous condition? The court knows that giving him three points will only take him a quarter of the way, or an extra quarter, towards losing his licence—and therefore takes that into account when setting the fine. Then, after the Bill is passed, and the court is considering a second offence of the same kind— using a vehicle in a dangerous condition—the court will have to disqualify if it convicts. But the court considering the first offence of using a vehicle in a dangerous condition would not have been able to take into consideration the effect of the Bill when setting a fine. Therefore, the Bill will effectively increase the penalty awarded by the first court. I am not convinced that that is compliant with the ECHR.