Clause 54 - Application of section 55
Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords]
4:00 pm
Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 70, in
clause 54, page 36, line 4, leave out 'in prescribed circumstances' and insert
'where a member state other than the United Kingdom has declared that it will apply discretionary conditions to the recognition of disqualifications, as described in Article 6(2) of the Convention on Driving Disqualifications 1998'.
In passing, I commend the Minister on the way in which she has fulfilled her responsibilities on her first day in this Committee. I also welcome the latest addition to our discussions, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport. He is here in name but he has not been present in person for most of the proceedings so far. I welcome the Minister, who will handle the chapter dealing with driving disqualifications.
Amendment No. 70 is a probing amendment, as so many of the amendments are. It would amend subsection (4), which says
''Section 55 does not apply in prescribed circumstances.''
Later, we are told that ''prescribed circumstances'' basically means whatever a Minister says. I want to hear from the Minister what is really meant by the term. We are seeking to remove ''prescribed circumstances'' and instead say that clause 55 should not apply
''where a member state other than the United Kingdom has declared that it will apply discretionary conditions to the recognition of disqualifications''
in the convention. It is perfectly clear what we mean by that. Obviously, if another country has decided not to apply the convention in total, but will apply discretionary conditions from the convention, that should be reflected in how we deal with that country. It is quite clear that clause 55 should not apply in those circumstances.
There may well be other circumstances in which clause 55 should not apply that I cannot think of at present. I shall not pretend to the Minister that I am unduly wedded to the insertion that the amendment would make, although I think that it is important, and the situation that I mentioned certainly needs to be a prescribed circumstance. I want to know what other circumstances the Minister thinks could be prescribed, apart from his jocular agreement that they are anything that a Minister thinks they should be. It is important to put on record the sort of circumstances in which the Minister envisages clause 55 not applying.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Subsection (4) is the sort of provision that brings Government into disrepute. The provision should not be framed in that way; it must be more specific. I hope that the Minister can give us the full range of circumstances in which he would expect the provision to apply, and the terms under which it would be prescribed.
Mr David Jamieson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Plymouth, Devonport, Labour)
It is a pleasure to appear in Committee before you this afternoon, Mr. Benton. It has also been a pleasure to listen to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley, on her first outing in her new job. I seem to have survived eviction from the ''Big Brother'' household for another year, but I dare say that I might be nominated on another occasion.
Clause 54 describes when the duty to notify a driver's state of residence would apply, so that a disqualification imposed in the United Kingdom on a resident of another member state could be enforced under the EU convention. Clause 54(4) allows regulations to specify when the requirement to notify will not apply. That is necessary because article 6 of the convention allows member states to declare that they will always refuse to enforce a disqualification where the conduct does not constitute an offence in that state, where the driving disqualification would not be a measure available in that state for the conduct involved, or if the remaining period of disqualification is less than one month.
Regulations are required to detail the exact terms of the declaration made by the state concerned. The EU convention allows a member state—this is the important point for the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome—to declare that it will always apply the conditions in article 6(2)
''in part or in full''.
It may also withdraw from its declaration at any time.
The amendment is too broad. It would not discriminate in its application according to the terms of the declaration made by each state. That is why we need regulations—to take into consideration the different circumstances of individual states or changes in circumstances, which may occur from time to time. That is the reason for the provisions in the clause that we are discussing.
We do not know at this stage how many member states will make a declaration in respect of article 6(2). That will become clear only as and when other member states ratify the convention. We intend to seek agreements with those member states to allow us to implement the convention on a bilateral basis in advance of full implementation. Given the changing circumstances and considerable amount of flux, the part of the clause that we are discussing is required. I can assure the hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire and for Somerton and Frome that the Government have no ulterior motive in inserting the clause into the Bill.
Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
The Minister said what I suspected he would say—that everything would be done in regulations—but he added a little more, particularly
about our not yet knowing which countries will apply discretionary conditions to the convention. That seems a fairly reasonable response, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
I shall not detain the Committee long. I, too, welcome the Minister who is responding to this aspect of the Bill. He will have noticed that Opposition Members tabled a new clause to deal with disqualified drivers and their insurance, which is of interest in the media and the country as a whole, but sadly it was not selected. I applied my ingenuity as carefully as I could, with the enormous help of the Clerk to the Committee. The Clerks are always tremendously helpful, but whatever ingenuity I was able to summon up, I could not draft the new clause in such a way that it was selectable. However, it appeared on the amendment paper, so no doubt the Minister had an opportunity at some stage to look at it briefly in case it was selected.
I simply want to state on the record before we vote in the Chamber that whether we are talking about drivers from overseas, to which the main purpose of this part of the Bill relates, or UK drivers, there is great concern in the country about what might happen if someone is convicted of the offence of not having insurance, because it is understood that the Government might be contemplating a change in the arrangements for sentences. The concern is that the sentence for not having insurance, particularly for young drivers, will, according to guidance from the sentencing council, be a fine lower than the cost of insurance. In that case, given how those in their late teens, who are new drivers, tend to think, there will no incentive for them to get insurance policies.
Having children and stepchildren in their late teens, I know that it is very expensive for new drivers to get insurance. It quite often costs more than £1,000. It was recently suggested that the Government might be contemplating saying to magistrates courts that the sentences for such offences would only be of the order of fines of £200. If we move in that direction—I certainly urge the Government not to do so—an awful lot of young drivers will say that it is much cheaper to pay the fines. I see the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), nodding. He understands what I am saying, because he has a child of a similar age to one of mine. We need to fire a warning shot across the Government's bows, even though I did not succeed in drafting a new clause to deal with the matter.
I am sure that the Minister is listening to what I have to say. I hope that, even though he may not be able to respond in great detail now, he will report back to his fellow Ministers, and that the Home Office and the Department for Transport will ensure that we do not go down that road. There are too many young uninsured drivers on the roads. I see the Minister nodding. We do not want that situation to get worse, so I hope that the rumours that the sentences, the guidance to magistrates and even the law might change
will prove unfounded or, if there is such a plan, that the Government will have second thoughts.
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
It was rather discourteous of me not to welcome the hon. Gentleman during my last contribution. I shall put that right now, although I feel that he was with us at least in spirit.
I confess that this part of the Bill, for me, is the most opaque. I have little experience of traffic offences, and I find it difficult to understand some of the provisions. However, I am sure that the Minister can help me in two respects. First, can he confirm my understanding that the whole clause deals only with road traffic offences that are genuinely road traffic offences—in other words, that disqualification from driving was the result of having committed an offence in a motor car, and not for reasons unrelated to traffic offences? I think that he will tell me that I am right. Secondly, is there anything in the clause that allows for transfer of information about partial disqualifications or endorsements of driving licences that fall short of full disqualification?
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
On resuming—
Mr David Jamieson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Plymouth, Devonport, Labour)
I thought that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath was rather clever—I have never said it before—by speaking to an amendment that had not been called. At one stage, he said that my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North was nodding in approval, but he told me that he was nodding off.
It is true that there is a fixed penalty of £200 plus six penalty points for having no insurance. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath knows that if a case goes to court under section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a fine of up to £5,000 and between six and eight penalty points can be imposed and it can result in discretionary disqualification. If someone receives a fixed penalty and is caught again a few days later, he will receive another fixed penalty, although repeat offenders are likely to be taken to court.
Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)
I am grateful for the Minister's congratulating me on my ingenuity. I think that I ought to defend the character and reputation of the Parliamentary Private Secretary. He was not nodding off. Despite the badinage, I know the difference between someone nodding off and someone nodding in agreement.
The Minister understands our concern about the fixed penalty. Our argument is that all cases should continue to be heard in court. They always were when I was prosecuting or defending cases at the Bar. I hope that the Minister will deal with the issue seriously—he has already started—and will reflect on the points that I raised, which have received extensive media coverage.
Mr David Jamieson (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport; Plymouth, Devonport, Labour)
This is probably not the place for such a debate, but some important points have been raised. Road safety is an important part of my brief.
That is why we are enforcing vehicle excise duty—the road tax—so vigorously; many of those who have no road tax have no insurance or MOT certificate, and they often are committing other offences. However, that is enough of that.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome asked about other types of disqualification. I assure him that disqualification applies only to road traffic offences. I believe that one can be disqualified for not paying CSA payments, and one can be disqualified on medical grounds, but that would not apply in another country.
The hon. Gentleman then spoke about endorsements. That is a little more complex, and I wonder whether he meant penalty points. The penalty points system is different in each country—and non-existent in some. The totting-up arrangements allow the points to be totalled, and in this country, those who have 12 points are disqualified. In other words, it is only the act of disqualification that is recognised on a bilateral basis by countries, not penalty points, not least because the system varies so widely across the European Union.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.