Second Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation
Monday 26 July 1999
[Mr. John Butterfill in the Chair]
Draft Courses for Drink-Drive Offenders (Experimental Period) (Termination of Restrictions) Order 1999
4.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Courses for Drink-Drive Offenders (Experimental Period) (Termination of Restrictions) Order 1999.
It is a pleasure to be serving under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr. Butterfill.
The order before us will introduce, on a permanent basis throughout Great Britain, a scheme to provide an incentive for drink-drive offenders to attend courses whose purpose is to persuade them not to reoffend. If they complete the course satisfactorily, their period of disqualification from driving will be reduced by up to a quarter. This scheme has been running in certain designated court areas, on an experimental basis, since 1993. The experiment was first proposed as long ago as 1988 by the review of road traffic law.
Since 1993, a number of different organisations have been running courses on a self-financing basis, using fees paid by the offenders. A typical course is organised into sessions lasting two to four hours per week for a period of eight to 10 weeks, and in groups of eight to 10 people. Monitoring by the Transport Research Laboratory has involved tracking three groups of drink-drive offenders, convicted between 1993 and July 1996. These groups are those who attended an experimental rehabilitation course; those who did not, although convicted at desiganated courts; and those convicted at 18 control courts, where rehabilitation courses were not available.
Researchers considered the proportion of offenders reconvicted within a three-year period as the main measure of the effectiveness of rehabilitation courses in reducing reoffending rates for those who attended a course.
The final research report suggests that those who do not attend a course are at least twice as likely to reoffend as those who do, while course attendees are almost three times as likely not to reoffend. This is a very good result for a rehabilitative measure, and surveys conducted at the end of courses suggest significant success in improving both the attitudes of participants and their knowledge of the effects of alcohol on driving ability.
At the end of courses, participants were more willing to accept that a small amount of alchohol makes drivers less safe than they were at the outset of courses. Thirty-five per cent. of course attendees felt that they should not drink anything at all if they wished to be safe to drive, compared with 8 per cent. before the course. A follow-up study will shortly consider in more detail the reasons for variations between referral and take-up rates for different courts, including a survey of offenders who have been referred but do not take up courses.
If a permanent and Great Britain-wide scheme is established, we intend to publicise it widely, to encourage courts to refer offenders to courses and offenders to take up their places on courses. The success of the present experimental scheme has been due in no small measure to the skill and dedication of those organisations that have been providing courses. I want to encourage them to continue and widen their efforts.
At present, we are considering possible measures that might give new impetus to our on-going campaign against drinking and driving, and we intend to make an announcement on drink-drive policy later this year when we publish a long-term target for reducing all road casualties up to 2010. Much of the progress made in reducing the level of drink-driving in recent years has been attributed to a change in attitudes, and I hope that I have convinced the Committee of the effectiveness of rehabilitation courses in engineering such a change. I commend the order to the Committee.
Mr. Shaun Woodward (Witney): I thank the Minister for circulating the papers in advance of the Committee, for which we are extremely grateful.
The scheme was introduced by the previous Government and renewed by them, and I am pleased that the present Government are extending it. None the less, I should like the Minister to answer several relevant questions, the first of which is what provisions have been made to ensure that, nationally, all courts will be informed properly of their new powers to make the rehabilitation orders? My second question relates to the cost of the courses, which at present is met by those who take part in them. However, given that the cost of administration in the courts is a grey area, will the Minister tell us who will pay for that and from where the money will come?
Thirdly, is the Minister happy with the way in which the powers have been extended to Scotland and Wales? As I understand it, they remain in the hands of Westminster and have not been devolved to Scotland and Wales. Will the Minister confirm or deny that and explain how the powers will be extended to Northern Ireland? Fourthly, when we renewed the regulations, the Labour spokesman at the time, the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), rightly asked about reoffending rates. Will the Minister tell us precisely what those reoffending rates are and, as the hon. Gentleman asked in 1997, say how the research and methodology was put together? Will she publish that research and methodology?
Fifthly, in 1997, the shadow Minister said that
``offenders should be required to carry out such courses without the incentive of a shorter period of disqualification.''
He was extremely insistent about that as a point of Labour party policy, so can the hon. Lady tell the Committee whether all offenders will be required to carry out the rehabilitation and, if not, what has led to the Labour Government's change of policy since 1997? Finally, can she say whether it is still the Government's intention to reduce the blood-alcohol level for convictions from 80 mg per 100 ml to 50 mg per 100 ml in the autumn?
4.37 pm
Ms Glenda Jackson: It is somewhat regrettable that the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) did not welcome the order in the spirit in which it was drafted and felt it necessary to make party political points about which party was in government when the measure was introduced. The commitment of the different parties to saving lives on the road is clear from the minimum number of Conservative MPs on the Opposition Benches, which is in marked contrast to the many Labour Members in Committee.
As for informing the courts, clearly it is dependent on the Committee agreeing to the order and to what has been an experimental scheme until now becoming one that is accessible nationally. We perceive no difficulty in informing all the magistrates courts that such a scheme will be available to magistrates if they should wish to offer it to offenders. I am sure that the hon. Member for Witney is aware that it is not within the power of Parliament to insist that magistrates offer such courses but, as I said in my opening remarks, we intend to advertise not only the accessibility of such courses, but their efficacy in relation to reducing the number of drink-drive offenders who reoffend, causing such grievous damage on our streets.
Mr. Woodward: Of course, we welcome the order. That we introduced it and renewed it is a rather self-evident point for the Minister to take into consideration, although I accept that she was buying time to read through the answers that the officials gave her in respect of my questions. Despite what she said, the Labour shadow spokesman made the point that the courses should not be optional. The hon. Lady might now be rightly correcting the former shadow Labour spokesman for not understanding his brief, but he did inform the Committee at the time that
``the courses should not be optional, but offenders should be required to carry out such courses''.—[Official Report, First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 11 March 1997; c. 5.]
Perhaps the Minister is now telling us that the then shadow Minister was incorrect.
Ms Jackson: If we demanded of Conservative spokesmen that they should address the issues that we raised when their party was in government, or the incidents where we were told something would happen but it did not, or where the country was deliberately misinformed about the Conservative Government's actions, this and every other Committee would have to sit for considerable periods.
The hon. Member for Witney asked specifically about costs. As he is aware, the costs of such courses are covered by those people who take up the opportunity of attending them. Fees range between £50 and £250. Clearly, those who implement such courses take into consideration the ability to pay of those involved. There will be no direct costs either to the taxpayer or to the courts. There is no inherent cost in simply informing offenders that courses are available to them.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the powers are devolved to Wales and Scotland. They have been devolved not to Scotland but to Wales. They are administered by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on an agency basis. Northern Ireland has its own scheme, which is being trialed.
Mr. Woodward: As the powers have been devolved to Wales, will the Minister explain why the Scottish Parliament cannot be trusted with them?
Ms Jackson: That is a somewhat bizarre question given that it comes from a member of the Conservative party, whose regard to devolution in Scotland was antipathetic. It is not a question of not trusting Scotland; it is my understanding that Scotland preferred to maintain the existing system, whereas the DETR administers such schemes on an agency basis. I believe that I have answered the questions asked by the hon. Member for Witney. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will accept the order.
| 
