Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Randerson Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Lords Hansard - part two & Report stage
Monday 13th December 2021 Lords Chamber

I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson. I am saying that I support it before I have heard what she has got to say, but there we are—I look forward to what she has to say.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for that vote of confidence. I wish to speak to the amendments in my name and to the group in general.

I start with Amendment 63, on exceptional hardship. If you Google “exceptional hardship”, the first listing is an advert from a firm of solicitors. I will not give their name; they do not need free publicity from me because they also advertise on the television. They describe themselves as “exceptional hardship” and “totting up” solicitors. They define exceptional hardship as “real hardship”. They say they have covered more than 10,000 cases and have a 98% success rate. No wonder, as a recent FoI request revealed, there are 8,632 drivers driving around with more than 12 penalty points. The firm I have described is not alone; there are dozens of other firms of solicitors advertising similarly. This is an industry: this is not an exceptional situation that we are dealing with.

Amendment 63 seeks to define exceptional hardship as something significantly greater than the definition provided by that firm of solicitors and significantly greater than the hardship that would arise for a large majority of other drivers. The definition takes into account the offender’s economic circumstances, location and family circumstances. I bring this to the attention of the Government, and say that there is no point in putting down amendments for more and more stringent penalties if there is a gigantic loophole which is being exploited in front of our eyes.

Amendment 66AA, on bridge strikes, is the manuscript amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. I am grateful to him for persisting with this issue because it is a very serious accident waiting to happen. As he has described, lorries hit bridges all the time. This causes a major impact on train services and on our economy, as well as obviously presenting a road safety issue. There are huge costs to the HGV drivers as well. Clearly, drivers do not do this deliberately, so there must be a problem. The problem is almost certainly in the signage; we have the technology nowadays, and improved signage needs to be implemented. There also needs to be a reappraisal of responsibilities between Network Rail and the highways authorities, where there is an interface.

Clearly, both my Amendment 66A and that of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, present examples of the type of issues that need to be included in a long overdue review of road traffic offences. My amendment is similar to that from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, but I have selected some other features that I think are important. It is unfortunate that all these are lumped together, but it is important that we look at this in a little detail. There is a separate group for pedicabs, which are a very small feature of modern roads and do not exist outside London, but they are one of a large number of new features of our transport system that need to be looked at and reappraised in the context of road traffic overall.

Another example of a new feature is e-scooters. It is reported that at least 11 people have been killed in the last year either on or by e-scooters. The Government’s approach has been to set up lots of pilot projects. Basically, e-scooters have been allowed to spread nationwide as a result of a lack of intervention. In a Written Answer I received from the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, when I made inquiries about safety issues associated with e-scooters, she said:

“While trials are running, privately-owned e-scooters will remain illegal to use on the road, cycle lanes or pavements.”


That is fair enough, but no one ever does anything about the fact that thousands of them are being used, and tens of thousands more will be bought this Christmas.

The large number of pilot projects has led people to believe that e-scooters are legal everywhere. The problem is that, because they are illegal, there are so many of them around and the rules not enforced, bad practice is now the norm. Noble Lords have only to walk outside this building to see that bad practice. There are issues such as minimum age—they are often ridden by very young people—maximum speed, wearing helmets, registration, and where you ride: on the pavement or on the road. This week, Transport for London has responded to the latest danger: fires from exploding batteries. There have been several fires on TfL vehicles because people carry those scooters on trains. Transport for London has said that people can no longer do that, but it has had considerable problems and all transport operators will have to consider this issue.

We will come later to the issue of alcohol levels, so I will leave that, but another issue I want to raise is road signage. In 2016, there was a relaxation of the specification and standards for road signs. It appears to be part of a drive to reduce red tape. Last week, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and I met the family of a young woman who drowned when she drove at night into a ford in bad weather on a country road. From the coroner’s report, it is obvious that the poor quality of the signage was a key factor because other people had also driven into that ford by mistake—luckily for them, with not such a terrible impact. The depth gauge at that ford was so slim and poorly marked that it was invisible at night. The previous standard for depth gauges, which was abolished in 2016, required a much bigger and clearer structure.

This and others are simply taster issues for the huge range that need to be included in a review. It was promised in 2014, with a public consultation phase. We are still working on the basis of the endlessly amended Road Traffic Act 1988. Our roads have been transformed since then by the number of vehicles, vehicle technology and capability and new sorts of vehicles. The key point I am trying to make with this amendment is that the review must be comprehensive, rather than just addressing a handful of issues that are annoying Ministers at the moment. It needs to be done now, not kicked into the long grass again. It needs specifically to grapple with new technologies and forms of transport such as autonomous vehicles. It must take an overall approach to consistency of sentencing.

The problem with the approach in the Bill is that the Government have plucked out some offences for tighter sentencing, which will inevitably leave them out of kilter with other offences. The Government’s approach is for stiffer sentences with longer jail terms, but many transport campaign groups would prioritise appropriate sentencing, especially disqualification and community sentences. There are many bad drivers out there, but they often lead otherwise law-abiding lives. We have nothing to gain as a society by locking them up, which is costly to the taxpayer in the short term and in the long term, as they become much less employable on release. So, alternatives ought to be considered to simply putting people in prison.

The good thing about disqualification is that it protects the public. The key point of my amendment is that there needs to be full public consultation. In 2016, in a debate in the other place, the Government claimed that there had indeed been a review, as promised in 2014, but there was no public consultation and no published outcome. That makes a mockery of the whole process, so I am very pleased to hear from the Minister that there are plans now for a proper review, and I shall be listening carefully to what she has to tell us. I hope it will be a full and comprehensive review with proper public consultation that will take place in the very near future.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is good that the Government have realised that our road traffic laws are a mess, because the cost—the human cost, the social cost—of the crimes and offences we are talking about is extremely high. When we think of the cost of the deaths and injuries to the NHS, to social services, to the emergency services, we are talking about billions of pounds and we really ought to understand that a lot of the causes are avoidable.

When I first got on to the Met Police authority, I went out a lot with the traffic teams—I have told this story before—and one sergeant said to me, “If I wanted to murder somebody, I would run them over with a car, because nobody could ever prove it was not an accident”. This brings me to the word “accident”, which we really should not use when we are talking about road collisions, road incidents and so on. It offends me and the whole road safety community deeply, because the minute you use the word “accident”, you are judging the cause of whatever happened and that is obviously unfair. You have to look into what really happened.

The most dangerous idea is people who should be disqualified from driving being able to plead exceptional hardship. We have heard a lot about “exceptional hardship”: what a misnomer. People are often allowed to keep on driving and quite honestly, they should feel lucky that they have not gone to prison because a lot of the time, it is complete nonsense. I have read about a lot of cases where the judge or the magistrate allowed someone to get away with—well, not murder, but certainly manslaughter at times. It is obviously a crime against society, not to mention the families themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, moved her amendment extremely clearly and explained the background in a way that I, as a sitting magistrate in the City of Westminster, understand very well. I have indeed dealt with some pedicabs in my time. The noble Baroness said that she will not divide the House, and I understand that.

I will pick up a couple of points made by my noble friend Lord Berkeley. This is a fast-evolving situation with freight pedicabs and electric freight pedicabs. Even in my current sitting pattern over the last few months, I have seen the way the police charge e-scooters changing really quite radically. To give an example, probably less than a year ago, I only ever saw e-scooters charged with traffic offences if there was another offence associated with it, such as robbery or an accident. But now, literally in the last month or so, I see e-scooters charged as a stand-alone traffic incident, if I can put it like that. There is clearly an evolution in the way the police are addressing these issues. Nevertheless, the noble Baroness has tabled an interesting group of amendments, and I look forward to exploring it in more depth if the Private Member’s Bill ever gets here.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I will comment briefly on the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. This is an evolving situation. The key point is that the noble Baroness has raised the issue of a particular type of pedicab, but there is a crossover with the cargo bikes that are increasingly being used and are increasingly welcome for the delivery of goods, parcels and so on. They are hugely welcome on our streets. It is really important that any legislation deals with those two issues and separates them out, although the vehicles are very similar. To my mind, that underlines the point I was making earlier about my amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley: we need a complete and comprehensive review of the emerging and changing picture of traffic on our streets.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank again my noble friend Lady Stowell for her work on this issue. I know she feels passionately about the regulation of pedicabs, particularly in the capital. I also thank all noble Lord who took part in this brief debate.

In England outside of London, as my noble friend is aware, pedicabs can be regulated as hackney carriages—that is, as a taxi—so the local licensing authority can require the driver and the vehicle to be licensed. In London, which has separate taxi and private hire vehicle legislation, this is not the case, as my noble friend pointed out. This means that there are not many powers for Transport for London to regulate pedicabs.

The Government agree that there needs to be greater regulation of pedicabs in London. That is why they are fulsomely supporting the Private Member’s Bill being brought forward by Nickie Aiken MP in the other place. I know my noble friend has also been a strong supporter of that Private Member’s Bill. The Government also strongly support that Bill as it would enable Transport for London to put in place a cohesive regulatory framework for the licensing of pedicabs in London. I share my noble friend’s disappointment that it has yet to pass its Second Reading, but, as she noted, that has been rescheduled for 21 January.

Should that Private Member’s Bill be unsuccessful, the Government remain committed to bringing forward the necessary legislation when parliamentary time allows. I assure noble Lords that we will take this commitment seriously. We explored whether the provisions of the Private Member’s Bill could be incorporated into this Bill, but regrettably, as they focus on regulation and licensing, they fall outside its scope.

Once again, I praise my noble friend’s commitment to resolving this issue, but although I note the spirit with which her amendments have been proposed, it is the Government’s view that amendments are not the right method for making these changes. The introduction of a licensing regime for pedicabs, as the Private Member’s Bill would introduce, is the appropriate way forward for this matter. The Government do not believe that a partial way forward would be an appropriate or effective way to deal with this.

On the subjects raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, to go back to the previous group, my noble friend the Minister outlined the call for evidence. I suggest that that would be the appropriate place to raise those points, because they are very good ones. This is probably not the right time to get involved in a debate about what is and is not a tandem, however.

I hope my noble friend is somewhat reassured that the Government share her view and commitment on this. Although I cannot give her the categorical assurance she seeks, I hope she feels able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I support the opposition of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and my noble friend Lady Randerson to this clause. The clause as it stands is simply wrong in principle and I agree with the noble and learned Lord that this is not a case where you can simply tinker with the language. The problem is that the clause threatens to penalise the outcome of the offence—that is, serious injury—with imprisonment, yet the mental element of the offence of careless driving is no more than negligence. Careless driving involves no more than a driver falling below the standard of care of a prudent driver. All negligence is careless; a simple mistake or inadvertence will suffice. To make such an offence imprisonable because it results in serious injury is not a step that we have taken before. It offends against the principle that the seriousness of the offence should depend not just upon the act done, but on the state of mind of the offender. That is what distinguishes careless driving from dangerous driving, because dangerous driving involves a very serious departure from the normal standard of a careful and sensible driver.

I make one further point. In the absence of mechanical failure or an unexpected event, almost every accident is the result of negligence on the part of at least one of the drivers involved. Sadly, a large number of accidents involve serious injury. A broken limb is a serious injury for this purpose, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, pointed out.

The vast majority of accidents arising from negligence —whether they cause serious injury or not—do not currently lead to prosecution. I should be grateful to hear whether the Minister regards the establishment of this new offence as likely to lead to more prosecutions. This clause would leave it to the police and prosecuting authorities to pick out the few accidents which they decided should lead to prosecution. This would expose drivers to the risk of imprisonment for a simple mistake. Leaving this decision to the police and prosecuting authorities to implement in a very few selected cases would be arbitrary and unfair. It would introduce an unwelcome element of lottery into our justice system.

It may well be that the noble and learned Lord does not press this to a vote. I hope that, for the reasons I have outlined, we will get a very clear statement from the Minister as to how prosecuting decisions will be taken in these cases and as to what he regards as the likely approach to sentencing. I suggest that imprisonment for inadvertence is a retrograde step.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

My Lords, I was pleased to have the opportunity to join the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on Amendment 60A—whether Clause 67 should stand part of the Bill. I thank the Minister for his time and willingness to try to assist us. I shall listen carefully to what he has to say.

The crux of this is when careless becomes dangerous. My experience in 20 years as a magistrate is that, basically, people are charged with both in the hope that the prosecution manages to make one or the other stick, as they say. I share the concern expressed by my noble friend of exactly what careless means. What should it mean? It should mean exactly what comes into our minds when we use the word. It should not be regarded as just a slightly milder form of dangerous. The thought processes behind it should be significantly different. Careless usually implies without specific intent—often a momentary lack of attention. Most of us sitting here will have suffered from this at some point in our driving careers. Most of us will have been lucky enough not to have caused an accident during that momentary lack of attention. Or, if we did cause an accident, hopefully it did not cause injury. Even the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has struggled with the definition and hence opted to try to remove the clause.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response, because he has assured us that he will be able to elucidate sufficiently for us to feel that there will be a clear distinction. We do not want to face a situation in which, for example, a harassed mother with a child or two in the back who backs out of a parking space and inadvertently hits a pedestrian might go to prison, when she was backing out carefully in terms of her own concentration at that moment, was not going fast and was looking in her mirrors, but there were too many things happening at the same time for her to be able to concentrate fully and she made a terrible mistake.

I think we have all been guilty of that sort of momentary inattention or error of judgment and people should not find themselves being sent to prison for something such as that. It is therefore very important that the Minister is able to reassure us that that is not the kind of thing the Government have in mind.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, it appears that there has been some constructive discussion behind the scenes in preparation for this debate—I can see the Minister nodding his head.

I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for his very clear exposition of the issues he is raising with this. Essentially, his points were that the law should not threaten prison if somebody is careless, when a disqualification is more appropriate, and that adding the word “very” before the words “careless” or “serious injury” is not an appropriate way forward and there should be another approach. I hope we may hear from the Minister on that in due course.

I support the opposition to the clause itself expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and also listened with great interest to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, on whether the Minister thinks there may be any possible increase in prosecutions under this new definition of carelessness. I hope that is not what the Minister intends.

I also share the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, that in magistrates’ courts you often see dangerousness and carelessness charged in the alternate and it is up to the court to decide which is the more appropriate charge. Having said all that, I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope I have answered the particular point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, but before I sit down I again record, sincerely, my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for the time they spent with me discussing the issues to which Clause 67 gives rise. I therefore suggest that it should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his explanation, which is very interesting and largely reassuring. The one aspect of it that worries me is the comparison with the maximum six-month sentence for driving while disqualified, because that goes back to the points my noble friend Lord Marks was making: if I go out and drive while disqualified, I am doing so with a settled determination to do something I know is wrong. I have already been punished for doing something pretty bad, and I am building on that by ignoring the disqualification. Comparing that with the case of someone who goes out with no intention to be careless—because it is at the heart of carelessness that it comes on you unexpectedly—but does something wrong by mistake and someone is injured as a result, it seems to me that the mental state is far worse in the case of the person who goes out to drive while disqualified, however perfectly they manage to drive.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, of course I understand and to a certain extent accept that point; we have previously helpfully discussed it. What we try to do with the two-year maximum is find the appropriate level. One has to fit it between that six-month point and the five-year point for the reasons I have explained. Even if the noble Baroness does not accept the comparison with six years, it still obviously has to be below five years. The question is where we should put it. The central point is that maximum penalties are there for the worst imaginable case. The two years, therefore, is really for the worst imaginable case. I have sought to set out, in not too great length but clearly, why it is two years and, more importantly, what a maximum sentence means in this context and what the very limited circumstances are in which we would expect a maximum sentence to be imposed—not because the Government are telling the courts what to do but because, given the guidelines under which the courts already operate, it would be a very rare case to have a term of imprisonment or, certainly, a maximum term of two years. That is why I set it out earlier in the terms I did.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

I will speak briefly to support my noble friend’s amendments and welcome the support that other noble Lords have given to him. I watched from the sidelines an issue that reminded me that the drink-drive legislation comes from the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. It does not just apply if you are driving on a public road; it applies if you are on a private road, driving along a beach in a 4x4 or driving round a large field or estate that you own. The fact remains that if you are under the influence there and you injure somebody, the penalties are no different from those you would incur if you were on the road.

I reflect that it is a responsibility to drive a vehicle. It is no different to driving a train, piloting an aircraft or operating machinery in a port or a factory. Most companies nowadays are adamant that employees should not have alcohol in their bloodstream. We all accept that and think it is a very good idea—we do not want to be on a plane if the pilot is half drunk. Why, then, do we accept that people can go around with too high a blood-alcohol level when driving a car, which is just as lethal as a plane, a train or a piece of machinery?

I support these amendments. I would go further, as I think the noble Baroness would. This is not about fun. It is about driving safely what can be lethal machinery.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

I was very pleased to add my name to Amendment 61. Alcohol has been a factor in road safety for as long as there have been roads, but we know a lot more about it now and there is worldwide evidence of what works. That evidence has been taken up across Europe and, indeed, across the world, by a large number of countries.

In Committee, I was surprised to hear doubt being cast on this issue on the basis of an apparently disappointing impact in Scotland of lowering the limit. However, this is a very misguided approach, casting doubt on the scientific evidence rather than looking to see, if it has not worked in Scotland in the way that was hoped, why. Indeed, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that there are sound grounds for saying that it has had an impact in Scotland.

There are two factors involved in all this: the level at which it is illegal to drive and the enforcement of that level. There is scientific evidence for the former and a debate to be had on the best ways of enforcement, which is why I did not sign the other amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. That does not mean that I do not agree with it, but I think that there is a serious debate to be had about how you enforce it most fairly. The story in Scotland is that enforcement has been weak. All social change requires a combination of legislation, enforcement and social debate. There has been proper legislation in Scotland and some social debate, but also a lack of enforcement.

I want to concentrate on the statistics. In Committee, I made the point that with Scotland remaining at a stable level and things getting worse in England and Wales, you could say that Scotland was a success story. I am very pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has done her maths and confirmed that this speculation is possibly accurate. However, I want to turn to government analysis, because government statistics say that overall, 5% of casualties in reported road accidents in 2019 occurred when at least one driver or rider was over the limit. In Wales, the figure was 6.9%, which is very disturbingly high. In England, the figure was 5.1% and in Scotland it was 4.6%, despite the fact that Scotland has a lower limit, which you would expect to lead to a higher percentage of those involved in accidents being over the limit.

So the difference might be marginal, but at least these statistics show a positive impact in Scotland—and, remember, each percentage point represents lives saved. I can think of no reason why British drivers and riders should be different from those across the world. We need to modernise, and this should be a top priority for the review of road traffic legislation—but I will be supporting the noble Lord if he presses this to a vote.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I well remember the debates that we had on this issue shortly after Scotland decided to reduce the drink-driving limit in 2014. My recollection was that the Government were in effect saying, “We want to wait and see what the outcome is in Scotland”, while others were saying, “Why wait to see what has happened? Why not just proceed and lower the limit to the same level as Scotland has done?”—which, as has already been said, would be in line with most other countries. The Government held their line that they wanted to wait for evidence from Scotland and would then look at the matter. I may be wrong, but I think that there was a general feeling that if it had had an impact on reducing drink driving in Scotland, the pressure would have been quite considerable on the Government to move, as far as this country was concerned.

Not all the suggested difficulties that might have arisen from reducing the limit in Scotland actually materialised. My understanding is that there was not a significant impact on pubs and restaurants, which is one thing that was said. We did not end up, as I understand it, with the police and the courts in Scotland being overloaded. My understanding—although obviously I will stand corrected if I am wrong—is that the lower limit was generally accepted by the public in Scotland. But it did not have the impact that many of us hoped it would have as far as drink-driving in Scotland was concerned. As I understand it—once again I will stand corrected if I am wrong—there have been academic studies by Bath University and Glasgow University that rather confirm that situation.

This is clearly an important issue and it needs looking at. There must be some logic in saying that one would have expected that reducing the drink-drive limit would have an impact on the level of such driving, to the benefit of us all—but it does not seem so far that it has had a great effect on the number or severity of accidents in Scotland. Views have been expressed this evening about lack of enforcement and lack of publicity for the change as far as Scotland was concerned, but certainly Scotland is not providing a particularly robust evidence base at present, subject to further studies and a more robust evidence base—the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, referred to issues concerning the figures. We need to look at all the factors that might contribute to making people safer, including, although it is only one, the level of enforcement, and the culture.

The Government have said that they are putting out what they describe as a wide call for evidence on a number of road safety issues. It is supposed to be starting in a month’s time. I hope we will be told that this will be a major one, because the question is repeatedly asked why we have a much higher limit than virtually everywhere else, and that surely the logic would show that if you reduce the limit you ought to get a benefit from that in a reduction in drink-driving.

So we welcome the call for evidence that the Government are making. I know that I cannot speak for all my colleagues in saying this, but we accept that the evidence from Scotland is not showing that the change has had the effect many of us thought it would have. There may well be reasons for that and perhaps that needs further investigation and study, but our view is that, as long as the Government commit to look at this seriously in the review that is being undertaken and the call for evidence on a number of road safety issues, we should not vote on this issue immediately but wait for that further review. However, we have heard points raised quite validly about whether this review will go on and on, or whether it will be conducted within a reasonable timescale to enable decisions to be made that could involve further legislation.

The Government need to say what plans they have to bring down the level of drink-driving. One hopes that that will emerge from the review that is being undertaken and that the course of reducing the limit might well be part of it. In the meantime, we will wait for this call for evidence and the outcome of the review. We want some understanding that it will be conducted within a reasonably speedy timescale. In the meantime, we could not support the amendment that my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe has moved if he decided to push it to a vote.