Road Safety Bill [HL]

First, I attest the obvious—that I am no lawyer, and therefore these questions leave me gasping for air in terms of answers. I hear the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, that we think about this debate before Report stage. We certainly think about these debates whenever a genuine controversy develops and arguments are presented that are worthy of consideration. This is one such occasion. The point I want to emphasise is that, as the noble Lord suggested, these issues require some flexibility because we are talking about prosecutions. Even the excellent illustration of whether one has the keys in one’s pocket and how close one is to the car is a question of evidence before the court. If you are five miles away travelling home on a bus, as drunk as some people can be on such occasions, you are clearly not in control of a vehicle, although your vehicle may be stationary elsewhere. The police may have good reason to look into that. On the other hand, if you are in very close proximity to your car with the keys in your pocket, and the police are able to establish that there was a clear intention to drive—certainly, if you are sitting in the driving seat—you are in serious trouble. The judgment will be made on that basis. I sought to suggest that these matters need to be defined by the court. I tried to emphasise—as I sought to do with the previous group of amendments—that we do not define in statute the concept of driving. We define offences in statute but not the concept of driving because we cannot distinguish—to take the most obvious example—whether the engine has been switched off because the driver has suddenly become very ill, whether the driver has had too much alcohol or whether the engine has been switched off not by the driver but has automatically switched off. I hear what the noble and learned Lord said about advanced technology malfunctioning. We are all used to innovations not being perfect; in fact, I do not believe that any technical innovation has ever been perfect. Of course mishaps occur. However, there are increasing sales of vehicles with technical innovations because the technology is fairly secure. You would never sell a car if it continually demonstrated the fault to which the noble and learned Lord referred. The police will scarcely prosecute the noble and learned Lord for using his mobile phone to avoid a serious traffic incident obtaining. Of course this is a question of what the police define as an offence. All I seek to emphasise is that it is not easy to define. In moving the amendment the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, gave the excellent example of being stuck in an hour-long jam on a motorway and wanting to make a humanitarian call—I take it with the aim of helping other people rather than getting in contact with one’s bookmaker or whatever—but how on earth are the police supposed to know whether it is a humanitarian call or a trivial one? A few moments ago we heard why the use of a telephone while driving might be extremely dangerous. How can we have a situation where someone says, ““Because the vehicle is stationary it cannot under any circumstances be dangerous””? People can be in control of a stationary vehicle but constitute a real hazard to others. It depends where the vehicle has stopped. Given that we are concerned to maintain calmness and good order on our motorways, I venture to suggest that someone who is a little slow to get their car going again because he or she is busy talking on a mobile phone after the vehicle has been stationary for a while on the motorway will scarcely be conducive to good behaviour on the part of fellow drivers. I emphasise that there are hard cases but they make bad law. I certainly give the Committee an assurance that we shall look at this issue again but I emphasise that the concept we are addressing concerns not that of driving but of being in control of a vehicle. All kinds of new technologies make it absolutely clear that in a stationary car you do not have plenty of time in which to switch off the engine, relax completely and make the appropriate phone call. That is how the modern technology in some cars operates. However, if we accepted the noble Lord’s amendment, we would drive a coach and horses through the legislation. Anyone who drove a car with the technical innovations that we have discussed could say, ““At the moment when you allege that I committed an offence, the car was stationary and the engine was off, because when it is stationary, the engine is always off; therefore I cannot be guilty of the offence””. I will reflect upon this important debate. I recognise the wealth of contributions that have been made to it. However, I hope the noble Lord will recognise that there is no way that I can accept the amendment as it stands. I believe that other Members of the Committee also have reservations about it. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will consider that we have had a constructive debate and that he will withdraw the amendment. We shall return to the matter.