| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Monson: I apologise if this question has already been raised and answered earlier in the Committee stage at a time when I happened to be out of the Chamber. When she replies, will the noble Baroness clarify the position regarding insurance if these amendments, and indeed these clauses, are ultimately accepted? When an individual is disqualified from driving for one, two, three or four years, or longer--as is usually the case when disqualification is imposed--the insurance cover automatically lapses. But if an individual is disqualified only for a matter of a few weeks, presumably the insurance policy normally remains in force. If, despite being disqualified, an individual nevertheless drives during the disqualification period, is the insurance cover--both the third party cover and, for example, the cover against injury to passengers--automatically invalidated? If so, it is the innocent who will suffer.
Baroness Blatch: The first amendment of the noble Viscount would restrict to a maximum of 56 days the period of disqualification from driving a court could impose for fine default. This Committee's debate on Clause 35 last week highlighted the fact that disqualification from driving can affect different offenders in different ways. For example, the person who lives in the country will feel a greater degree of punishment by being deprived of the freedom to drive than the person who lives in the town and has ready access to public transport.
It is not our intention that those who default on small fines should be disqualified for years and years. Nor would it be right for the person who defaulted on a small fine to end up losing his job as a result of disqualification. But we do not doubt that magistrates will use this power responsibly. As the noble Viscount said, magistrates are sensible, sensitive and wise, and they will take such factors into account when determining an appropriate disposal of the court. I think the noble Viscount said that if a person's job was in jeopardy and he lived in a part of the country where it was simply not possible to get to and from work without driving, magistrates would be sufficiently sensible to take into account whether they were imposing a disproportionate sentence. That would, of course, be a matter for the magistrates.
I also take seriously the point the noble Viscount made about the pilot scheme. He asked what would be considered in the process of evaluating pilot schemes. I believe he mentioned solid evidence of a pilot scheme being unworkable. If there was evidence it was unworkable, or that it was not a practical disposal, or was not having the effect we believed it would have, there is nothing we shall not be prepared to consider in the course of looking at the pilot scheme. We would wish to consider carefully all the points raised by the noble Viscount and the many other aspects that will arise as the provision rolls out in the courts.
Magistrates will be able to decide in each individual case whether disqualification from driving is appropriate and, if so, for how long. We do not anticipate that magistrates will have any need for a power to disqualify fine defaulters for longer than a year. There is no reason not to make that clear on the face of the Bill. I propose, therefore, to bring forward amendments at Report stage to provide for an upper limit of 12 months. I note that the reasons given by the noble Viscount for 56 days are rather different, but addressing the principle of whether there should be a maximum is important, and we would wish to bring forward an amendment which would put the 12 months upper limit on the period of disqualification from driving which could be imposed for fine default.
The much shorter maximum period of 56 days proposed in the amendment would in my view be too short to be an effective means of enforcing anything but the smallest fine. Magistrates need a wider discretion so that they can reflect properly the amount of the fine in the penalty for default.
The pilot projects will provide an opportunity to judge whether 12 months gives magistrates a wide enough discretion in practice. It could be that even 12 months is too short a period for the effective enforcement of many fines. It would therefore be sensible to allow for this 12-month limit to be varied subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. This mirrors what we have already provided in the Bill in respect of the community service hours and curfew days that can be imposed for fine default.
Perhaps I may accept the spirit of what the noble Viscount said: we have to continue to be imaginative about balancing effective punishment but keeping
people as far as possible out of prison cells. This is at least one more step down that road. Even though the noble Viscount has expressed reservations, I think that he is sufficiently open-minded to accept that this is an attempt to deal with fine defaulters in a way that would be effective. Without such a provision there would be no incentive for an offender to repay either in part or in whole.I now deal with Amendment No. 101. We have already debated a similar amendment in relation to Clause 31. As I said on that occasion, the main purpose of provisions dealing with fine default is to make the offender pay the fine or other financial penalty imposed upon him by the court. That is why we have provided under subsection (4) of this clause for an offender who has been disqualified from driving for fine default to reduce the period of disqualification either fully, if he repays the total amount of fine outstanding, or in proportion to the amount of the outstanding fine repaid.
Perhaps I may respond to the point about the poor policeman in the middle of the night--I believe that 2 a.m. was mentioned--dealing with the complicated formula set out in Clause 36(4). I hope that that would not be the intention in the practical working out of the provision. I suspect that there would be some form of codifying the adjusted date so that the policeman's concern would be whether the person was or was not disqualified on the day that he was caught driving at 2 a.m. It would not be for the policeman to have to do that calculation but for the courts to make the adjustment in sentencing. I hope that that is helpful.
As regards the other points raised by the noble Viscount, buying back provisions would be complicated. It would be a matter for the courts to deal with, as I said. That is where the payment of the fine is made. We believe that the Bill's provisions will be clear to court staff who will have training in the matter. However, the noble Viscount did not want, nor do we want, policemen having to make those complicated arithmetical calculations in the middle of the night when their business is arresting someone who is driving while disqualified.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, asked about insurance. We think it unlikely in principle that insurance cover will continue to apply to any person disqualified from driving for however short a period. I do not think that an insurance company would wish to carry that responsibility. It would be normally a condition of the insurance policy that it covers only a driver with a licence. However, that is a matter that we would wish to consider when working out the details of the provision. I believe that insurance companies would take that view.
Perhaps I may assure the noble Viscount that we shall consider all the points raised by him in speaking to the amendment, and will be extremely mindful of his reservations when evaluating the exercise.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: Before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I may refer to the question of insurance. Are
not a large number of private motor vehicles stored on the public highway? Would they not have to be insured whether or not the driver was disqualified?
Baroness Blatch: The property would be insured. We are talking about the driver who may be involved in or cause an accident while driving and the degree to which the insurance company would consider itself liable for compensation. I cannot believe that there is an insurance company--if there is one, I should like to know where it is--which would meet a liability if the driver was disqualified.
Lord Ackner: Might I suggest that the Minister looks into the position about the motor insurance bureau and the extent to which it carries the risk where a third party ceases to be covered? I cannot tell the noble Baroness the position offhand, but I believe that it is a relevant matter to look into.
Baroness Blatch: I have given an assurance that we shall consider these matters. I have answered the question intuitively at present, but I should like to come back with a more reasoned reply, perhaps in writing, to the noble Lord.
Viscount Tenby: I am grateful to the Minister for her helpful reply to some of the concerns expressed. I am encouraged by some of the remarks she made. Perhaps I may leave one question hanging in the air, so to speak. Is the noble Baroness satisfied that people who have had endorsed points on their driving licence for motoring offences should have those points wiped off when their disqualification is the result of something totally unconnected with motoring? I have to confess to dramatised polemics in my illustration of the policeman. I also have to confess to an omission as regards the policeman. The incident took place in Cambridgeshire.
Perhaps I may leave the question with the Minister. On the grounds that she has been kind enough to express, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 101 not moved.]
Clause 36 agreed to.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page