|
Caroline Flint: Just when one thinks that it is safe . . . There are no plans for similar legislation in overseas territories. That would be a matter for them. In an earlier discussion today, I said that we would provide a note on how the Bill will affect overseas territories. Gibraltar was mentioned.
The hon. Gentleman also asked which state would prosecute. If the offence was committed abroad, the question of where the defendant is tried in the UK would depend on whether the suspect was arrested in the UK and, if so, in which part. The second main factor is which prosecuting authority in the UK sought extradition of the suspect if he was arrested abroad. If the English Crown Prosecution Service sought extradition, it would probably be in England. In
Column Number: 218
such cases where there may be competing claims from the states involved relating to who will prosecute the subject, the extradition arrangements between states will be used to decide which jurisdiction will prosecute the suspect. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
I will write to the hon. Gentleman about his final point in due course.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54
Application of section 55
Mr. Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 70, in
In passing, I commend the Minister on the way in which she has fulfilled her responsibilities on her first day in this Committee. I also welcome the latest addition to our discussions, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport. He is here in name but he has not been present in person for most of the proceedings so far. I welcome the Minister, who will handle the chapter dealing with driving disqualifications.
Amendment No. 70 is a probing amendment, as so many of the amendments are. It would amend subsection (4), which says
''Section 55 does not apply in prescribed circumstances.''
Later, we are told that ''prescribed circumstances'' basically means whatever a Minister says. I want to hear from the Minister what is really meant by the term. We are seeking to remove ''prescribed circumstances'' and instead say that clause 55 should not apply
''where a member state other than the United Kingdom has declared that it will apply discretionary conditions to the recognition of disqualifications''
in the convention. It is perfectly clear what we mean by that. Obviously, if another country has decided not to apply the convention in total, but will apply discretionary conditions from the convention, that should be reflected in how we deal with that country. It is quite clear that clause 55 should not apply in those circumstances.
There may well be other circumstances in which clause 55 should not apply that I cannot think of at present. I shall not pretend to the Minister that I am unduly wedded to the insertion that the amendment would make, although I think that it is important, and the situation that I mentioned certainly needs to be a prescribed circumstance. I want to know what other circumstances the Minister thinks could be prescribed, apart from his jocular agreement that they are anything that a Minister thinks they should be. It is important to put on record the sort of circumstances in which the Minister envisages clause 55 not applying.
Column Number: 219
Mr. Heath: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Subsection (4) is the sort of provision that brings Government into disrepute. The provision should not be framed in that way; it must be more specific. I hope that the Minister can give us the full range of circumstances in which he would expect the provision to apply, and the terms under which it would be prescribed.
Mr. Jamieson: It is a pleasure to appear in Committee before you this afternoon, Mr. Benton. It has also been a pleasure to listen to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley, on her first outing in her new job. I seem to have survived eviction from the ''Big Brother'' household for another year, but I dare say that I might be nominated on another occasion.
Clause 54 describes when the duty to notify a driver's state of residence would apply, so that a disqualification imposed in the United Kingdom on a resident of another member state could be enforced under the EU convention. Clause 54(4) allows regulations to specify when the requirement to notify will not apply. That is necessary because article 6 of the convention allows member states to declare that they will always refuse to enforce a disqualification where the conduct does not constitute an offence in that state, where the driving disqualification would not be a measure available in that state for the conduct involved, or if the remaining period of disqualification is less than one month.
Regulations are required to detail the exact terms of the declaration made by the state concerned. The EU convention allows a member state—this is the important point for the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome—to declare that it will always apply the conditions in article 6(2)
It may also withdraw from its declaration at any time.
The amendment is too broad. It would not discriminate in its application according to the terms of the declaration made by each state. That is why we need regulations—to take into consideration the different circumstances of individual states or changes in circumstances, which may occur from time to time. That is the reason for the provisions in the clause that we are discussing.
We do not know at this stage how many member states will make a declaration in respect of article 6(2). That will become clear only as and when other member states ratify the convention. We intend to seek agreements with those member states to allow us to implement the convention on a bilateral basis in advance of full implementation. Given the changing circumstances and considerable amount of flux, the part of the clause that we are discussing is required. I can assure the hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire and for Somerton and Frome that the Government have no ulterior motive in inserting the clause into the Bill.
Mr. Paice: The Minister said what I suspected he would say—that everything would be done in regulations—but he added a little more, particularly
Column Number: 220
about our not yet knowing which countries will apply discretionary conditions to the convention. That seems a fairly reasonable response, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Hawkins: I shall not detain the Committee long. I, too, welcome the Minister who is responding to this aspect of the Bill. He will have noticed that Opposition Members tabled a new clause to deal with disqualified drivers and their insurance, which is of interest in the media and the country as a whole, but sadly it was not selected. I applied my ingenuity as carefully as I could, with the enormous help of the Clerk to the Committee. The Clerks are always tremendously helpful, but whatever ingenuity I was able to summon up, I could not draft the new clause in such a way that it was selectable. However, it appeared on the amendment paper, so no doubt the Minister had an opportunity at some stage to look at it briefly in case it was selected.
I simply want to state on the record before we vote in the Chamber that whether we are talking about drivers from overseas, to which the main purpose of this part of the Bill relates, or UK drivers, there is great concern in the country about what might happen if someone is convicted of the offence of not having insurance, because it is understood that the Government might be contemplating a change in the arrangements for sentences. The concern is that the sentence for not having insurance, particularly for young drivers, will, according to guidance from the sentencing council, be a fine lower than the cost of insurance. In that case, given how those in their late teens, who are new drivers, tend to think, there will no incentive for them to get insurance policies.
Having children and stepchildren in their late teens, I know that it is very expensive for new drivers to get insurance. It quite often costs more than £1,000. It was recently suggested that the Government might be contemplating saying to magistrates courts that the sentences for such offences would only be of the order of fines of £200. If we move in that direction—I certainly urge the Government not to do so—an awful lot of young drivers will say that it is much cheaper to pay the fines. I see the Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner), nodding. He understands what I am saying, because he has a child of a similar age to one of mine. We need to fire a warning shot across the Government's bows, even though I did not succeed in drafting a new clause to deal with the matter.
I am sure that the Minister is listening to what I have to say. I hope that, even though he may not be able to respond in great detail now, he will report back to his fellow Ministers, and that the Home Office and the Department for Transport will ensure that we do not go down that road. There are too many young uninsured drivers on the roads. I see the Minister nodding. We do not want that situation to get worse, so I hope that the rumours that the sentences, the guidance to magistrates and even the law might change
Column Number: 221
will prove unfounded or, if there is such a plan, that the Government will have second thoughts.
| 
