| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I echo the thanks expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for his constructive suggestion which resulted in these amendments.
Perhaps slightly less apropos I express thanks too to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for not tabling his amendments again. As the House will recall, they were extensive amendments and would have completely rewritten the Bill--in the view of some of us, not to very good effect. However, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, feels that his amendments were taken seriously and that proper debate was held on them. He said in Committee that he would bring them back at Report stage. I hope that, on reflection, his decision not to do so does not indicate that he will bring them back at Third Reading. I am not convinced that that would be helpful to the House.
These amendments are clearly in line with the spirit of the way in which the Bill addresses the extraordinarily difficult problem of stalking. The Lord Chancellor explained clearly not only why they may be necessary, but also why they may be necessary in only a limited number of cases. I am sure we all wish that to be the case. We would not want to see what is, in effect, contempt of court extended beyond what is absolutely necessary. I accept that the amendments fill a gap in the Bill; they make it more effective and I welcome them for that reason.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful for those comments. In relation to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, I echo the point that his proposals were taken extremely seriously. I spent some time examining them with him. The decision he took not to move them on Report results from his further consideration of the matter. For all I know, he may wish to say something about them later. However, I should have thought that, having regard to the nature of the amendments, it would probably not be appropriate to reconsider them fully at Third Reading when they have not been reconsidered on Report, but that must be a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 2:
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 3:
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, once again I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston. In Committee on 17th February, I listened carefully to the argument put forward by him in favour of an amendment which would have allowed a Scottish civil court to extend the duration of a non-harassment order which it had earlier made. That would enable the court, where appropriate, to continue its original remedy and provide extended protection to a victim who remains apprehensive.
Having examined this issue, the Government are able to bring forward today an amendment to that effect. The Government consider that this amendment would provide flexibility to the court and protection to the victim, while keeping in mind the interests of the person against whom the order is made.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, was slightly diffident in approaching this matter on the basis that it was the part of the Bill that concerned the law of Scotland while his expertise lies in the law of England. Nevertheless, I am glad that his intervention was fruitful and I am sure that it can happen sometimes in both directions. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.--(Lord Mackay of Drumadoon.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 14 [Driving disqualifications]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 110:
The noble and learned Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, in moving Amendment No. 110 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 111.
These amendments seek to restrict to a maximum of 12 months the period of disqualification from driving which a court could impose for fine default under the new Section 248B of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. It would allow the upper limit to be varied but only
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 111:
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 111 when moving Amendment No. 110. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 14, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McCluskey: I oppose that Clause 14 should stand part of the Bill. This is the clause with which Members of the Committee will be familiar from the Crime (Sentences) Bill. It gives the court the power to disqualify in respect of any type of offence at all.
The first point I wish to make is that the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill proceeds upon an assertion by the Government that the punishment should fit the crime. It is difficult to see what disqualification from driving has to do with the vast range of crimes for which it is to become a penalty under the provisions of this Bill.
A more general point applies to this clause, as to many others; that is, the absence of consultation beforehand. The Committee will have heard the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, address the Committee on the Crime (Sentences) Bill and point out that a disqualification power of this kind made its first appearance at the tenth sitting of the committee on the Crime (Sentences) Bill in another place. In Scotland it made its first appearance on 8th October when the Secretary of State made an announcement. He wrote in his letter to the Lord Justice General of Scotland,
That was intimated to the Lord Justice General. He was asked on 6th November to respond as quickly as possible because proceedings in the Standing Committee in another place were to start five days later, on 11th November. That letter of 6th November also intimated that implementation would proceed initially by way of pilots in individual sheriff courts. This matter concerned us on a previous occasion. It is difficult to see how one can have pilots in relation to a penalty of this
In relation to the matter of consultation, I should like to know from the Minister why this idea came up in October/November 1996. Whose idea was it? Was it simply borrowed from England? The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, informed the Committee--and I think Members of the Committee would know--that the Magistrates' Association in England had severe reservations about this and the Justices' Clerks' Society was entirely opposed to it. I wonder who, if anyone, supported it.
I have briefly made the points that I hoped the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, would be here to make, but he is not able to be in his place. This type of provision could pose a serious threat to the rehabilitation of offenders. Many offenders, if they are to obtain work--that is the best route to rehabilitation--will require to have their driving licence in order to obtain work. In addition, this provision poses a serious threat to other road users. Your Lordships, particularly those with experience of the law, will know that there are many uninsured drivers on the road. If a person is involved in a collision with or is knocked down by an uninsured driver he can have great difficulties in recovering appropriate compensation because the route via the Motor Insurers Bureau is by no means a satisfactory and easy one. There is a threat to other road users. Furthermore, a penalty of this kind is particularly hard in rural areas where people are much more heavily dependent upon motor cars.
Finally, one of the matters about which the public in Scotland are alleged to be concerned is inconsistency in sentencing in different courts--an arbitrariness in relation to such sentencing. If this power is given in the extraordinarily unqualified way in which it is given in this clause we are liable to see much more arbitrariness and much more inconsistency than we have now. For those reasons I would invite the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate to produce a better justification for this type of penalty than we have yet seen.
Page 2, line 13, leave out from ("purpose") to ("and") in line 14 and insert ("mentioned in subsection (2A)(a)").
Page 5, line 1, leave out from ("appropriate") to end of line 2.
3.55 p.m.
Page 21, line 9, leave out ("determinate period") and insert ("period not exceeding twelve months").
Page 21, line 30, at end insert--
("(6) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument vary the period specified in subsection (2) above; but no such order shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.").
"on 8 October I announced that we intended to allow the courts to disqualify persons from driving for offences which are not related to motoring offences".
That was an announcement of intention, not simply a proposal. On 6th November the Secretary of State wrote to the Lord Justice General saying,
"I am writing to seek views on a proposal I am minded to include, by way of Government amendment, in the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Bill. The proposal is to extend the use of discretionary disqualification from driving to offences not directly related to driving".
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page