Road Safety Bill [HL]

I want to assure my noble friend Lord Berkeley that there are plenty of wonderful ideas that I am able to reject at this Dispatch Box and I am afraid that this is one of them. I shall pay the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, yet another tribute, which his noble and learned friend Lord Lyell emphasised. The concept of retraining is a good one. I can see its attraction. However, I am not able to accept the amendment for reasons I shall go into in a moment. I congratulate the noble Earl on the development of the concept. It parallels the drink-drive rehabilitation scheme, which has been in operation throughout Great Britain for more than five years. Under sections of the Road Traffic Act 1988 courts have powers to refer persons convicted of drink-driving offences to an approved course which, if they complete successfully, will entitle them to a reduction in their period of disqualification of up to a quarter. However, the disqualification is already in operation when they embark on the course. The disqualification is immediate and that is an important point on which I differ from the noble Earl. Nevertheless, that concept is there. Drivers are under no obligation to undertake that, but if they choose to do so, they must pay the costs themselves. Courses are provided throughout Great Britain by some 25 course providers, all of which are approved by the Secretary of State. The minimum course requirements are laid down by the Secretary of State. Typically the courses are of 16 to 30 hours’ duration, over a number of separate sessions and they involve groups of between eight and 20 participants. That is not a comprehensive description of the scheme, but it is an outline of what we already have in place. I would be only too happy to pass on to any noble Lord a leaflet setting out the details of the scheme. I recognise that the noble Earl is building on a concept that we have in place already. I must now emphasise to the Committee why I cannot accept the amendment. It would provide that courts may order that a person convicted of certain specified offences should be disqualified from driving if, within a period of 12 months from the time of the order, he has not successfully completed an approved retraining course. The offences concerned are careless and inconsiderate driving, failing to comply with traffic signs or speeding. The provision would apply only where the offender is not to be disqualified but is to have his licence endorsed with penalty points and the number of penalty points to be taken into account at the time of sentence is at least three points. If the course is not successfully completed within 12 months of the date of the court order, the person would be disqualified from driving. That brings in the concept of delayed disqualification which I must resist. I emphasise that under the scheme already in place for those who have committed drink-driving offences the disqualification is immediate. The court imposes enforced disqualification, but participation on a course can reduce the length of time of disqualification. Nor does the noble Earl’s amendment tackle the issue of whether a place is available on a course. To make the provision as strong as the noble Earl indicated he would want, we would have to guarantee that places were available on such courses in all such circumstances where an individual opted for that. The Committee will recognise the difficulties we would have in producing such an absolute guarantee. The purpose of the amendment may be to try to widen the scope of retraining courses—in principle, I am with the noble Earl on the advantages of retraining courses to improve driving skills—but we find the issue of deferred disqualification extremely difficult to accept. There is no provision in law for disqualification to be deferred. It must commence from the moment the order is pronounced. It is an important principle. I think that the noble Earl would say, in his own defence of course, that he is prepared to introduce that principle. We would have some difficulties with the practical implications of that. As a consequence, although I recognise the advantages of retraining in relation to punishment for offences as an aid to improvement, I do not think that I can accept this amendment.