---

Baroness Blatch: If the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, had not said that, I would have opened with that very point. It is extraordinary that one should oppose a clause standing part before there has been any attempt whatever to modify it. The whole point of coming to the end of discussions on a clause, whether or not there have been attempts to modify it, is that your Lordships can then decide whether or not it should stand part of the Bill.

The clause allows for the introduction of the provision on a pilot basis in courts specified by the Secretary of State. It is a punishment and another disposal which is available to the court. It would be dispensed as a punishment. Taking away the freedom to drive is already an effective penalty for a range of road traffic offences and other offences where a vehicle is involved--for example, theft of a car. We believe that disqualification from driving can usefully be used more widely and that its extended use will give the courts greater flexibility to deal with offenders in the most effective way. Disqualification from driving is not just a means of keeping bad drivers off the road. Noble

20 Feb 1997 : Column 889

Lords will know that it is not used only in this way. It can be an effective punishment because it denies the offender the freedom to drive. Thus, it restricts his liberty in the same way as a fine restricts his economic liberty and community sentences restrict his liberty to determine how to spend his time. Curfew orders and custodial sentences restrict liberty. This is just another way of restricting liberty.

I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and my noble friend Lord Carlisle spoke about the effects of disqualification from driving. All of the effects that they have spoken about apply to those who lose their right to drive when this measure is used by the courts now. Lots of people come before the courts and are disqualified from driving. That will be a restriction on their liberty. Sometimes it will affect their livelihood and their families. It will almost certainly have an effect on their leisure activities--unlike the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.

Very recently I spent a night with the police force in my own authority. I admit to my shame that I started off the evening, as many armchair critics do, by criticising the police for spending far too much time dealing with motoring offences and not enough time chasing criminals. Having spent the evening in a police car travelling along the roads of Cambridgeshire, my views made a complete U-turn, because I realised that criminals are out on the roads driving from one burglary to another. They commit an offence in one part of the country and then travel to another part to commit another offence. The police found that by gathering intelligence about people driving without number plates or without lights they could identify drug runners and so on.

Indeed in the course of that evening the police were able to apprehend a number of people because they were able to use all of the powers available to them under the Act. What impressed me more than anything else was that a lot of people up to no good were driving around in motor cars. If disqualification can be used as a punishment to keep some people off the road, then I believe that that would be a good thing.

While disqualification from driving would be particularly appropriate for offences in which a vehicle was used, it will be for the courts to decide whether or not to use the penalty in any particular case. In reaching this decision they will of course take into account the circumstances of the offence and of the offender. They will be able to use disqualification from driving, alone as a punishment for the offence or in combination with any other penalty as part of the punishment. Both the Crown Court and the magistrates' court already have a discretion to disqualify offenders from driving for quite a range of offences. They are experienced in weighing up the circumstances of each case where such discretion is available to them before deciding whether or not the penalty is appropriate.

The clause allows for the proposal to be introduced by way of pilots. We intend to pilot the provisions to ensure that they can be put to most effective use. The pilots will also help to identify whether any sentencing guidelines by the judiciary, such as those already

20 Feb 1997 : Column 890

produced by the Magistrates' Association, would be helpful. Extending the power to deprive criminals of the ability to drive whatever the offence will be an additional and powerful tool for the courts.

I take on board the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, when he referred to pilot schemes running in rural areas. We have not made decisions as to where pilot schemes will take place but the point that the noble Earl made is certainly one I shall take back to my right honourable friend.

Reference was made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, to the phrase "such periods as he thinks fit." Again we go back to the fundamental principle of sentences in courts, and that is that courts will sentence as they think fit, which also includes and subsumes the appropriate sentence for the crime that is being considered by the court. I would also use that in relation to the point made by my noble friend Lord Carlisle. There is no question of gratuitously adding this to a sentence unless it is appropriate in the minds of the court to do so. My noble friend referred to life prisoners in Clause 35. It simply means that one cannot be disqualified from driving instead of receiving a mandatory or automatic life sentence. It can, however, be added for such a sentence if the court in its discretion thinks fit, and of course if it is appropriate, and that would be absolutely fundamental.

The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, referred to Clause 35 being anomalous. The provision follows Section 44 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 in providing no limitation for the length of the disqualification period for offenders who have used a vehicle in committing an offence. There is nothing anomalous about it in this respect. I am almost afraid to give the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, this answer because I do not ever accept this as an explanation, but it is the explanation for using the word "for" rather than "from", which was discovered by his noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn. I am told it is not a mistake. It follows the language of another Act of Parliament, in this case the Road Traffic Act 1988. I would invite noble Lords to look up Section 103(1).

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Will the Minister introduce the amendment to the Road Traffic Act 1988 or shall I, because it is clearly wrong?

Baroness Blatch: What I was going to say to the noble Lord is that I never think it is the best explanation to give. It happens to be the explanation that I am offering at this moment but I am not sure that any government would find time in their parliamentary programme to allow the word "for" to be changed to "from" in primary legislation. That indeed is the explanation and I do not believe that the sky will fall in if we change the word "for" to "from" in this Bill, but I have no doubt counsel will have something to say to me on that score.

I have given an assurance that we will pilot these powers for driving disqualification to see the practical implications of allowing the courts to make what they will of them and of the impact that they have.

20 Feb 1997 : Column 891

The noble Earl, Lord Russell, raised a number of important points. Since it will be for the courts to decide whether or not to disqualify from driving, taking account of the circumstances of the offence and of the offender, there is no reliable way of calculating the cost or indeed of identifying the implications of national roll-out in advance of the pilots. The noble Earl's amendment much later in the Bill--Amendment No. 109--impacts on the debate we have had this evening. It would prevent such pilots from being introduced. We should consequently be unable to calculate the resultant costs which he would like identified. In a sense, it is chicken and egg. We need the pilot schemes to identify costs. I should perhaps point out that a court will not impose disqualification from driving unless the court itself is satisfied that such a penalty is appropriate to the nature and the seriousness of the offence. Courts will consider the likely result of disqualification upon the offender, and will look at any implications for the offender. Employment, of course, would be one consideration put forward in mitigation.

The pilots will also identify any need to produce guidelines for the courts such as those produced in other circumstances by the Magistrates' Association. I was asked, why these provisions. I have to say that it is because it is another form of punishment. I suggest that for some people it will be an effective form of punishment, but it will be for the courts to make that decision. They will have to consider the impact on, perhaps, other members of the family--taking children to school, and the car is the only form of transport, especially in rural areas, and is essential for the family. Given that there will be pilot schemes, those are the type of things for which one would be looking in the course of the pilot schemes. I believe that Clause 35 should stand part of the Bill.

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I hope that I shall not be accused of being difficult, but I am concerned about what my noble friend the Minister has said about the clause. I share her view. I believe that disqualification for driving is a penalty. It is a penalty which has a considerable effect on many people. The power to prevent a person from using a car is not just a penalty, it discourages the person from doing anything that may lead him into that situation.

I hope that I am wrong, but quickly reading Clause 35, am I to understand that since subsection (1) starts:

"Subject to subsections (2) and (3) below",

and subsection (2) below states:

"Where the person is convicted of an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law or falls to be imposed under section 1(2), 2(2), or 3(2) above"

the whole of the clause applies only--

---