Road Safety Bill [HL]

Again, it has been a debate of some complexity. First, let me reassure the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, on that question of against whom the legislation is directed and whether there is any scope for inadvertence. There certainly is. Section 172(4) of the Road Traffic Act provides a defence where the person did not know who was driving and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was. That is a proper defence. There is scope for exception in what we would regard as unusual circumstances. In most circumstances that we are dealing with, the driver is known. Let me reassure the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that there are no exemptions. If a husband is driving the wife’s car, his good lady is obliged to supply that information, and he incurs the penalty points if he is guilty of the offence. Let me emphasise what we are seeking to achieve here. We are not seeking to be punitive for its own sake and up-rate from three to six points just because that affects people more adversely. We are trying to deal with a situation where someone tells an untruth about who was driving and in doing so incurs three penalty points where, if the truth was known—namely that he was driving—he would collect six. So it is an incentive to him to lie to the court, because at present the penalty for the vehicle-keeper who claimed that he did not know who the driver was would only be three points, when the offence merits six points. Of course it is reasonable for us to close that gap. It cannot be the case that we would countenance a position in law where by lying a person effectively defends themselves against a more serious sentence. The Bill ensures that the penalty is six points, but the amendment would create a position where someone would be advantaged if they carried out that activity. That is what we are trying to deal with, and that is the major basis on which I resist the amendment.