UK Parliament / Open data

Road Safety Bill [HL]

I have Amendments No. 105, 109 and 111 in the group. Turning first to Amendments Nos. 105 and 109, New Section 30A(7) of the Road Traffic Offenders Act prohibits the court from making an order for retraining unless it is satisfied that a place is available. First, how is the court to know that a place is available? Secondly, are we not in a chicken and egg situation? This point also links in with my previous amendment and the problem identified by the Minister about training capacity. There are plenty of people who could do driver training but who choose not to. I used to be a qualified Army driving instructor. My qualification is now out of date, but I could probably re-qualify if I wanted to. I enjoy the work and have done it commercially. However, like many others, I do not do it because it is not remunerative enough. I am also quite busy at the moment, but at some level of remuneration I would have to be tempted, even if only on a part-time basis. If there was an increased and temporarily unsatisfied demand, more potential instructors would come forward to meet the demand. Drivers requiring retraining will simply have to pay what the market demands. After all it is their problem since it is their driving that is below standard. My Amendment No. 111 covers appeals against issuing a retraining certificate for drink offenders under proposed new Section 30B. I have to apologise to the Committee because I should also have drafted a new provision for Section 30A which deals with penalty points. However the principle behind my amendment is the same for both new sections. The provisions in the Bill are a major concession to offending motorists. I am concerned that the regime could be undermined if the trainers were worried about being appealed in court if they refused to issue a retraining certificate, even if they knew they were right to do so. Can the Minister explain why my fear is groundless? Without the appeal provisions, what is the worst that could happen? The offender would have to take another course with a different provider. I am not convinced that the Minister has got the balance right.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

674 c638 

Session

2005-06

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords chamber
Back to top