|
Mr. Knight: The Minister is unduly harsh on his comments. He did make things clear. It would be an overstatement to refer to the clause as closing a loophole, but it clearly removes an inconsistency so we do not wish to divide the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Alcohol ignition interlocks
Mr. Chope: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in clause 14, page 17, line 17, leave out paragraph (a).
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 58, in clause 14, page 17, line 40, leave out '9' and insert '30'.
No. 59, in clause 14, page 18, line 14, at beginning insert
'without reasonable excuse to comply with a reasonable requirement.'.
No. 60, in clause 15, page 21, line 35, leave out from '2010' to end of line 37.
Mr. Chope: The purpose of the amendments is partially to draw more from the Minister about the thinking behind the path that is being taken with this clause. Amendment No. 57 would remove from subsection (7) the provision that a court must be satisfied that a place on an approved alcohol ignition interlock programme will be available before it can make an alcohol ignition interlock programme order. Does the Minister agree that that provision could be a big inhibiting factor in the implementation of such a programme?
Column Number: 133
A court will consider making an alcohol ignition interlock programme order when it has a defendant before it. If it wants to make such an order, it should not feel constrained if it has not yet been notified that there is a place available on an approved programme. In criminal cases, things such as probation can result in defendants' sentences being delayed while approval is found as to whether a particular type of community sentence can be imposed.
The provision will apply only in specific areas of the country, and in those areas the magistrates and courts will know where it applies. The best solution would be for the courts to be able to put offenders on such programmes when it appears to them that the offender should go on the programme and consents to do so, rather than their having to be satisfied that there is a place on such a programme before they can make an order. A sentence could be imposed and if there were any problem with its implementation, a further order could be made. The current wording is likely to result in far fewer orders being made than would otherwise be the case.
I move to amendment No. 58. Can the Minister explain why, although the legal limit is 35 micrograms of alcohol in 100 ml of breath, when it comes to having an alco-lock, one will be in breach of the order or will be unable to make the vehicle work if one has more than 9 micrograms of alcohol in the breath? In this probing amendment, I replaced the figure nine with 30 on the basis that 30 is less than 35, but gives a larger margin within the legal limit than nine does. Nine micrograms of alcohol in 100 ml of breath is probably in line with what one could get in the atmosphere in a pub full of people, or it might be the amount of alcohol that is residual in the body for many hours, if not half a day, after one has been drinking.
Amendment No. 59 deals with certificates of failing fully to participate, and is a practical suggestion that I am putting forward, with all due humility of course, to the Minister. At the moment, the provision is absolute in that if the offender has failed
''to attend at a place specified by the programme provider for the monitoring and maintenance of the alcohol ignition interlock, at a time specified by the programme provider or a person with whom the programme provider has made arrangements for its monitoring and maintenance'',
he has got himself in a mess.
Mr. Paul Stinchcombe (Wellingborough) (Lab): Will the hon. Gentleman clarify two aspects of the amendment? First, is he suggesting that if someone fails to attend such a course with an excuse, they can be certified as having participated in a course that they did not attend? Secondly, why is he seeking to insert the phrase ''without reasonable excuse'' only in one paragraph of new section 34E(2)?
Mr. Chope: To deal with the last point first, the issue of reasonableness does not arise in subsection (2)(a), which refers to making payment of fees and is straightforward. The hon. Gentleman will also notice that reasonableness already appears in paragraphs (b) and (d), but is conspicuous by its absence in paragraph (c).
Column Number: 134
The reason why there should be a defence of reasonable excuse, and why the requirement should be reasonable, is that the person due to attend a course may have moved a long distance away from where he originally lived as a result of having to change his job. Unless paragraph (c) is modified as I suggest, the person running the programme can say to the offender, ''Thou shalt attend at this place at a time specified, however inconvenient, difficult or impractical it is for you.'' I am not suggesting that the offender should not have to comply with reasonable instructions and requirements, but if he has a reasonable excuse for not complying, or if the requirement to comply at a particular place on a particular day is unreasonable, he should have a defence against the other provisions of the clause, which would result in his being regarded as having broken the terms of the order.
The final amendment in this group is to clause 15 and is related to the experimental period operating for clause 14. We are asking whether the Government should be able to extend that period beyond 2010 at their own behest. The provisions currently enable the Secretary of State to run the experimental period for much longer before coming to a decision on whether it should be made permanent. Again, I hope that the Minister can explain why he needs to take the extra power of enabling an order to be made at
''such later time as may be specified . . . by the Secretary of State''
rather than at or before the end of 2010.
3.45 pm
Mr. Jamieson: I will take the Committee, and in particular the hon. Member for Christchurch, down memory lane again. He will recall from his days in office the early development of the drink-drive rehabilitation courses and the arrangements put in place under the Road Traffic Act 1991 to refer offenders to such courses. On successful completion of such a course, an offender can have a reduction in his period of disqualification. We are replicating here something that was tested in those early days.
The scheme was begun as an experiment—here again we are trialling it—in a limited number of court areas, but in 2000, after evidence had been gathered that reoffending among the course attenders was about two and a half times lower than for non-attenders, it was rolled out nationally and continues to be successful. In the new system of alcohol ignition interlock programmes, the scale of application may be slightly narrower, but the impact could still be significant.
Broadly speaking, referral to an alcohol ignition interlock programme works in the same way as referral to a drink-drive rehabilitation course. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will remember, albeit that it is 14 years ago, what was in the 1991 Act. We have now replicated it in the Bill. That is why I was surprised that he tabled amendment No. 57, because it seems to contradict what he put into the legislation in the heady days of the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Column Number: 135
Mr. Chope: I am sure that the Minister is really saying that he does not believe that the legislation that I pushed through the House was subject to as much detailed scrutiny and argument as the Bill.
Mr. Jamieson: If a Bill is not receiving detailed scrutiny and argument, that is the Opposition's fault, not the Government's. I was not in the House at the time, but I am sure that my hon. Friends gave the Bill careful scrutiny. I am sure that you were here, Mr. Pike, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) was here. Had he been on the Committee considering the Bill, he would have given it the closest and most thorough scrutiny, as befits a good Opposition. The hon. Member for Christchurch might learn something about being a good Opposition from this Government, because once he has learnt to be a good Opposition, there is a good chance that he might one day become a good Government.
Accordingly, the provisions for the drink-drive courses have been modelled closely on those in section 34A, B and C of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. The sections have clearly served us well and we have largely stuck with them.
By amendments Nos. 57, 58, 59 and 60 the hon. Gentlemen have sought to make some refinements to the arrangements, and I shall go through them quickly. Amendment No. 57 would delete subsection (7)(a) of new section 34D, one of four conditions that must be satisfied before a court can make an alcohol ignition interlock programme order. Paragraph (a) says that the court must be:
''satisfied that a place on the approved alcohol ignition interlock programme specified in the order will be available for the offender''.
There would be no point in the court referring someone to the alco-lock programme if no place was available. The court would have to be sure that a place was available, as it must be now with the rehabilitation courses. The intention here is clearly not to raise false expectations of a course of action that cannot be fulfilled. In practice, the effect of the requirement is that the courts assure themselves of the general availability and capacity of courses in their area and liaise with course providers. We would expect much the same co-operation with alcohol ignition interlock programme providers under the provisions in the clause.
The hon. Gentleman said that the court would be saying, ''Thou shalt attend''. That is not quite the case. First, not all drink drivers will be able to go on the programme. Certainly serious offenders and those on the rehab courses will not be able to. The court, in its wisdom, would have to decide whether a person was sufficiently contrite and would benefit from such a course. If it did not feel that they would, it certainly would not give them any remission of the ban.
We have to remember that the alco-lock system will not be imposed against the will of the offender; it will have to be done with their co-operation. The person would have to agree beforehand where they were going to attend, how the lock was going to be fitted, and confirm that they understood the limits of what they
Column Number: 136
could do. The lock could be fitted only in those circumstances. It would certainly not be fitted without the total acquiescence of the offender.
On the other point, an alco-lock programme order is not a compulsory course of action for a court. Before the course is taken, it will be for either the court or the offender to suggest it. Once the offender has begun the course, they will be compelled to complete it properly. If they do not, they will be removed from the course and their ban will start again—and quite right too. The option should not be an easy one, but one for those who are seriously contrite and want to mend their ways.
| 
