Road Safety Bill [HL]

I am grateful for that, too. We will continue to work together towards that common objective. I am also grateful for the noble Lord’s amendment, as it gives me the chance to clarify our position. However, I must be precise about what I am prepared to accept in the Bill and that which I am not. Although I understand the noble Lord’s position in principle, I cannot accept his amendment. Amendment No. 104, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, would remove the power of the Secretary of State, by regulations, to add or remove offences in respect of courses under Clause 23. I cannot see the argument for that. I understand why we must be watchful of the powers that we give Ministers, and why proper checks and balances must be in place, but new offences are bound to emerge, given the inceasing amount of traffic. It would be odd if we had to return to primary legislation before we could bring any of those within the scope of the provisions. The last amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, would remove the power to approve courses subject to conditions. Without those conditions, we would be constrained to approve courses that might be acceptable in limited circumstances but would not in their generality meet the Secretary of State’s standards and guidelines for approval. I recognise what the noble Lord is driving at and accept his point that we might need flexibility in different parts of the country. Imposing on someone in central London the obligation to attend a course for three days a week is different from imposing on someone in the Scottish Highlands the obligation to attend a course in Inverness three days a week. I am grateful for the nod from the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, who knows those issues only too well. If we can achieve the same objectives by limiting the duration of the course and cramming it into a shorter period, we may need to do so thus avoiding adverse penalties depending on the part of the country in which the offender lives. We seek such flexibility. The noble Lord indicated that Amendment No. 107 was a probing amendment. That is why we take that position. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, seeks to remove the provision that the court must be satisfied that a place on the course will be available to the offender. I am afraid that we must defend that provision. This is an important duty for the court. In order to sustain the court’s credibility in adopting this penalty for a person who has committed a traffic offence, it is essential that the penalty can be imposed and complied with. That is what we do, as I illustrated earlier, by guaranteeing places for drink-drive offences, and we seek to sustain that in Clause 23. I understand the noble Earl’s point, but we feel that to remove these requirements would leave the offender in the unsatisfactory position of not being able to take advantage of the court’s order, and therefore having to have the other punishment, because there were not places available. That would put the authorities in a difficult position, one we would seek to avoid. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has tabled Amendments Nos. 106 and 110. My noble friend Lord Berkeley also supports them, although he is not able to give voice to that this evening. What happens in the situation where the provider might decline to issue a certificate of completion, thus denying the offender the opportunity to benefit from a remission of penalty points? These circumstances involve failing to pay the fee, failing to attend the course in accordance with the course provider’s reasonable instructions, or failing to comply with any reasonable requirement of the course provider. As I understand them, the noble Earl’s amendments provide for additional circumstances to be inserted into all this regarding failure to achieve an appropriate standard. We are all concerned about standards with regard to such courses, and I understand that his motivation is to ensure they achieve our objective. The courses improve the skills of the motorist, and make them better, more responsible drivers, so the offences are not committed again. I do not doubt the motivation behind these amendments. The problem is that we do not propose formal assessment or marking at the end of the course. That would introduce a whole new concept into the way the courses would run, and raise a whole strand of issues with regard to appeals, which I will come to in a moment. Once we introduce the concept that the course evaluates performance in some detail, the role of these courses is totally different. Our expectation is only that the offender attends and participates in accordance with the requirements of the course provider. Lack of co-operation or recidivist behaviour would be grounds for immediate dismissal from the course, which would involve the other penalty being imposed. We would not want to be involved in setting standards of performance. I think noble Lords will recognise that we have a large and complex enough task to establish courses of this kind and to make them work and achieve their objectives with rigour and consistency, especially if we make progress with the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, to extend them to a far wider range of offenders. To introduce a whole range of evaluations and performance tests would lead us into a difficult area. I hope the noble Earl will recognise that I understand his desire to raise standards. We just do not think that is possible within this framework. On Amendments Nos. 109 and 112, I assure him that the development of such schemes is done in collaboration with other bodies involved, notably the courts, as well as course providers, with which the Department for Transport has a routine dialogue on the subject. To bring in a statutory consultation procedure would not bring any particular benefit, and it is not necessary. There is no way we can institute these courses without the fullest consultation, both with the courts which will impose the penalties and with those who would be expected to be the providers. I hope he will recognise that I understand the sentiment behind the amendment, but we would guarantee that effective consultation went on. In fact, we cannot attain our objectives without that appropriate consultation. Finally, on Amendment No. 111 regarding the question of appeals, it seems to me that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is at one end of the spectrum, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, is at the other. If we had any evaluation along the lines proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, we would have great trouble with any concept of appeal. Suffice it to say, on the basis that we intend to operate these courses, we think the right of appeal should be guaranteed. It is in our drink-drive rehabilitation scheme, and we think the scheme should have the same concept. It is an elementary right for people who have been through a process of this kind at least to have some challenge, if the process should let them down so hugely that they might have a case to put against the provider. That is why we think there should be a right of appeal, but we also recognise that these are offenders who go on courses because they have committed breaches of the law, so we recognise that the powers of appeal would be used sparingly on fairly narrowly defined lines. It would not escape anyone’s imagination that there could be one occasion when a provider so failed in his duty with regard to the course that an individual had a complaint against him, and that is why we think a right of appeal should be there. I hope the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, will recognise that we are not weakening at this juncture, but safeguarding a basic right. I hope that I have answered all the points on the amendments sufficient for the movers to withdraw them, but I notice I have not quite.