| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Thomas of Gresford: What a pleasure it is that for once there is nothing between the Minister and myself on the principles of this matter. I cannot accept that the proposals contained in the amendment are unnecessary. If they are unnecessary in this context, why is it necessary to have statutory requirements which govern the discretion of the court sentencing a person to custody, community service or a fine? Why is it necessary that in those instances sentencers should have the issue of what is appropriate and what is proportionate statutorily thrust upon their minds?
As the noble Lord said in his intervention, the fact that this is a new kind of sentence which will be imposed by magistrates all over the country, as well as by Crown Courts, is an important reason why a statutory provision such as that contained in my amendment should be included.
I should like to reflect on what has been said. This is not the time to seek the opinion of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 35 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: In opposing the clause I am likely to part company with the Minister on the principle of disqualification from driving for non-motoring offences. What is so surprising about this provision is that it was introduced without any consultation. It is such an infliction upon people's freedom that one would have thought that the widest consultation would have taken place before it was introduced. The Magistrates' Association has expressed serious reservations about the wisdom of the measure and the Justices' Clerks' Society has opposed it. Those are people very much concerned with the nitty-gritty of the criminal justice system. They see it at grassroots level.
My first criticism of the proposal to take away a person's driving licence for something which is completely unrelated to driving is that it will inhibit the offender's rehabilitation. In the course of the discussions that have taken place on the Bill, time and again--no doubt ad nauseam--I have stressed the importance of rehabilitation of the offender, so that further offending is prevented. One of the most important features of rehabilitation is that a person gets a job. In today's society that very often requires the ability to get to work in the absence of public transport or the ability to get a job which is driver-related. That is my first objection; namely, that it will affect the rehabilitation of the offender.
Secondly, I have some sympathy for the police who are required to enforce disqualifications of this nature. Bearing in mind that disqualification of this kind has nothing whatsoever to do with the particular offender's manner of driving, the temptation upon that offender to continue driving will be very considerable. As things are at present, it is difficult enough for the police to enforce driving bans, but it is unlikely that anybody who is disqualified under these provisions will ever get caught unless he is involved in some accident or is stopped for some road traffic offence. The police will have very considerable problems with the large number of disqualifications which are likely to arise if this measure is introduced.
My third difficulty concerns the problems of the person driving without a licence who is thereby uninsured. It is extremely difficult for a person injured in a road traffic accident to obtain compensation from an uninsured driver. There are procedures through the Motor Insurers' Bureau but they are lengthy and outside the ordinary system. I am sure the Committee is well aware of the numerous injustices that occur because a person has been injured by someone who is uninsured by reason of being disqualified.
The Justices' Clerks' Society has said:
- "Disqualification has been based on issues of road safety and there is therefore no merit whatsoever in extending its use to cases where no motor vehicle was used to commit or facilitate the offence.
- Punishment must fit the crime. There are real dangers of this particular punishment being disproportionate to the offending, with the cost of resultant appeals. In addition, enforcement difficulties which will undermine the sentence cannot be underestimated".
A person who is found guilty of dangerous or careless driving or who has been breathalysed understands perfectly well why he or she is being disqualified as a result of the motoring offence that has been committed. It is related to that particular offence and, no doubt, if not acceptable is understandable by the defendant who is disqualified in that particular way. But the persons who appear before the court, generally speaking, for offences which have nothing to do with driving are bound to feel resentment and anger if a sentence which has no connection with their offending is imposed upon them.
Strong criticisms of the Bill were made by Sir Ivan Lawrence in another place. He highlighted a number of objections as he saw the matter. First of all, his view as a Conservative chairman of the Home Affairs Committee was that the measure offends the fundamental principle of sentencing that the punishment should fit the crime. Secondly, he said that the courts were unhappy about disqualification sentences for the simple reason that a car is necessary in many cases for getting to work, and disqualifying someone as a punishment puts a great deal more pressure on him to commit more crimes. If we are trying to rehabilitate the offender, the least that can be done is to get him to work. For all those reasons, I oppose the addition of this clause to the Bill.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: Before the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, completes his speech--he may say that it is already complete--I invite him to expand on one comment that he made. He said that one of the most surprising things about this clause was that it had been introduced without any consultation with any of the parties involved in the Bill. Can he tell me which parts of the Bill did involve prior consultation? With whom did those consultations take place? Why is it surprising that this clause was not the basis of any consultation with anybody?
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, for his intervention. Since the noble Lord sits on the other side of the Chamber, it would be churlish of me to suggest that these proposals were rushed through with a view to securing the re-election of his party. But that seems to me to be the reason why there has been no consultation. These proposals throughout the Bill have been brought forward to gain publicity for electoral purposes. It is not the first time I have said that; I have repeatedly said it in relation to the provisions of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Before I comment in more detail on the objections of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, perhaps I can ask whether line 9, page 26 of the Bill should read,
- "disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence",
- "disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence".
If I am right and there is a mistake, I immediately give the credit to my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn who pointed it out to me.
I find this issue to be genuinely difficult. On the one hand one wants to see the billiard shark, when caught, suffer by being made to dwell in a dungeon cell in a spot that is always barred and all the rest of it, including making him play with elliptical billiard balls. But, at the same time, driving a car or a vehicle is a more widespread activity.
There has been debate in the columns of the press as to whether driving is a privilege, a right or whatever, and whether it is proper to take that away. I tend to the view that the objections--for example, from the motoring organisations--do not have much validity. There are difficulties about a driving disqualification. The obvious one is that it is of differing importance to different people and the magistrates will not sensibly disqualify someone who needs a car to get to work, to take children to school or some other essential purpose. I cannot believe that magistrates would disqualify someone under such circumstances.
There are some people, like myself, to whom a car is only a thing with a wheel on each corner and one to hold on to. I have no interest whatever in driving and disqualification would not inflict on me any psychological damage. But some people are passionate about their cars and it makes a great deal of difference as to whether they are allowed to drive.
Then there is the question that is not raised in the clause on the relationship of such a disqualification to other driving offences. Will such a disqualification count on the tariff of driving offences? Does it mean that a subsequent disqualification for a driving offence will be that much worse? The Minister should tell us. I do not believe that has been thought out.
Having made those uncivil remarks, I am fundamentally in favour of searching for other forms of non-custodial sentence. I recognise that subsection (3) of the clause says that the sentence is on a trial basis and can be withdrawn at any time if it does not work. On that basis, if the specific questions can be answered, I would on balance be prepared to give it a fair wind.
9.45 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I wish to ask about the use of such penalties in rural areas. It strikes me that their use in such areas would impose an impossible burden. People who live in cities or large towns, where there is adequate public transport, could get by. Will one of the pilot projects be in a rural area?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page