| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is not right.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I am glad to hear that I am wrong. I am not sure what is the purpose of the clause.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: To be helpful, the purpose of the clause--I shall be disqualified from this side--is that one needs to put one's eye to, "or instead of". I believe that that is the point of Clause 35(2).
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I am sorry, but I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Williams, gets my point.
- "Subject to subsection (2)(3) below"
implies that the clause relates only to those who are convicted of offences under Clause 1(2), 2(2) or 3(2) of the Bill.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: What the Minister is about to say is that you can have disqualification as a free-standing sentence except in the circumstances described and prescribed in Clauses 1(2), 2(2) and 3(2).
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I happily withdraw. I have had too good a dinner. I have got it the other way round. I could not believe that it was as mad as it appeared to be, but I still repeat my original view that I should like to know--if my noble friend the Minister will tell us--with whom any parts of the Bill were discussed before they were announced.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We do not need to wait for the election. My noble friend has clearly changed sides.
Baroness Blatch: I am glad that my noble friend is satisfied with the answers. I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. It has been a long day, and I am grateful for any help whatsoever at this time of the evening.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: Perhaps I may respond to some of the things that the Minister said. She paints an interesting picture of the roads around Cambridgeshire, filled with criminals driving in all directions. One cannot help but wonder what the Member of Parliament for Huntingdon is doing about that disgraceful situation on his patch.
Baroness Blatch: He is supporting this legislation.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: He is supporting legislation which quite clearly requires limited police resources to be used for the Minister to pursue criminals around his patch. That is taking things a little far.
The Government ought to think about the clause from scratch and start again. As my noble friend Lord Rodgers said, it was introduced as an amendment at a late stage; it did not form part of the structure of the original Bill; it is ill-thought out; it is ill-considered; and, as we have heard from the Minister, it is uncosted. No attempt has been made to discover how much the provisions will cost.
I addressed the Committee on proportionality in relation to another amendment, but I wish to return to the topic in order to consider the differences that are likely to arise, for example, between an offender who lives in a rural area and an offender in an urban area who commits the same type of offence; perhaps they commit it together. In the one case, disqualification from driving is a huge penalty. In the other, within the urban environment and where public transport is available, it
is not such a great penalty. What will happen? Are people who live in rural areas to receive lesser sentences of disqualification than those who live in urban areas?Let us compare someone who is holding down a job which requires a car either to carry out the job or to get to work with someone who works round the corner or who is unemployed. Let us suppose that together they commit the same offence. A disqualification on the one will be extremely hard, expensive and difficult to bear. The other may be able to shrug it off without any particular difficulties. All those disproportionate sentences between people who commit similar offences will undoubtedly cause considerable problems in the future.
The clause is opposed not by the motoring organisations--this is not a motoring matter--but by the Magistrates' Association and the Justices Clerks Society, which, I respectfully suggest, know better than the Home Office what it is like to try to deal with people who have been disqualified at the magistrates' court level where most of the offences are dealt with. In the face of their hostility and in the face of public hostility to the idea of disqualification for non-motoring offences, I urge the Government to think the matter through again before the Report stage.
The Earl of Balfour: I know that in cases of people living in rural areas the DSS gives them money to acquire a car. That must be borne in mind.
Baroness Blatch: When I addressed the amendment, I made the point that those are the kind of issues that the
courts must take into account when passing any kind of sentence. Whether the offence was driving or motor related, the courts must consider those particular factors. We believe that the measure is effective to punish criminals. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, once again came to the defence of magistrates and judges using their discretion. It would be a matter for magistrates and judges to use their discretion in court and for the court to consider all the circumstances which relate to the offence and the offender. The circumstances described by the noble Lord, in which the disqualification from driving would be a disproportionate punishment, would be out of kilter with the fundamental principles which are operated by the courts. Judges and magistrates would dispense the punishment appropriately, taking into account the circumstances relating to the offence and the offender. Of course, it is to be piloted, and the pilot schemes will tell us whether it is as effective as we believe it will be.
Lord Monkswell: I listened to the debate, although I am sorry that I came in late and may not have heard the particular response to my question. Surely if you have a law-abiding person, he will abide by the disqualification. But it will have no impact on a criminal who pays no regard to the law.
Baroness Blatch: Nobody will be disqualified from driving under these provisions unless he is a person who has already disobeyed the law.
- House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past ten o'clock.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |