I understand the nature of the noble Lord’s query. The new definition in Clause 26 will enable the Secretary of State to prescribe by regulations the circumstances in which, where a court has ordered that someone must pass a retest to recover driving entitlement, the retest must be either an extended driving test or an ordinary test of competence to drive. Furthermore, the clause improves driving licence security by applying the forgery provisions, to which I am sure the noble Lord has no objection.
Section 36 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 gives courts a power, and in some cases places a duty on them, to require road traffic offenders to pass a driving test in order to regain their driving licence entitlement. Subsection (2) of Clause 26 amends Section 36(3), not only by providing broader powers on where a court may order that a person be disqualified until a test has been passed, but also by making it clear what is for an order and what is for regulations.
Subsection (3) of Clause 26 substitutes a new subsection (5) of Section 36. Currently, where the offender is convicted of an offence involving obligatory disqualification, or is disqualified under the totting-up provisions, the appropriate driving test is an extended test. We regard that as overly rigid. There could be circumstances in which it was appropriate to use Section 36(3) to require obligatory retesting but where it would be sensible that the retest be just the ordinary test of competence to drive. We have already announced, in the context of our measures to address drink-driving, that we envisage providing that any person disqualified from driving for two years or more should always have to take a retest before recovering a full licence. But we envisage that an appropriate test in those circumstances could be the ordinary test, including both the computer-based test of knowledge and hazard perception and the practical driving test.
All we seek is flexibility for the courts to decide which test to apply. The extended test is double duration and has a double fee. It can be taken only in a motorcar or a motorcycle, so it applies to drivers who seek to achieve competence in that area. The extended test is a significant extra imposition. We want to give courts the flexibility that they need on whether to impose the extended test or whether to require merely that the offender pass the driving test again.
We have a database of approximately 3,000 consultees. All the consultations are placed on the agency’s website. We are consulting fully. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that we are justified in framing the clause to include the element of flexibility.
Road Safety Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Davies of Oldham
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 17 October 2005.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Road Safety Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
674 c661-2 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-06-21 11:52:50 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_267230
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_267230
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_267230