| Crime (International Co-operation)
|
|
Mr. Paice: I find it ironic that some of the time we are tying to include in the Bill what is in the convention, then the Minister resists including something because it is not in the convention. It is somewhat perverse that we cannot understand why something is not in the Bill, despite the fact that it is in the convention, and yet the reverse argument is used against us. The amendments do not represent big issues, so I shall not detain the Committee any longer. I am grateful for the Minister's comments, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Column Number: 225 Mr. Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 105, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 109, in
Amendment No. 112, in
Mr. Paice: The common feature of the amendments in this group is that they are trying to address what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome referred to earlier: sloppy drafting of legislation and vagueness in meaning. Amendment No. 105 would leave out subsection (3), which states:
We are back to the idea that the Minister can say anything that he feels like saying, as that subsection gives him the power to do so. Amendment No. 109 would remove a similar subsection from clause 58. That sort of catch-all provision is worrying. It is a sign that the Government have not thought through the implications of the legislation with which they are involved. They do not fully know the impact of it, or what they need to do when it is enacted. Therefore, they take such generic powers as are necessary to enable them to do whatever they like afterwards. The next group of amendments is similar, although I shall not trespass on those. It is all part of the same problem. The Government do not seem to understand fully the implications of their proposed legislation. Therefore, they take powers to deal with whatever may arise. Clause 55(3) says:
Apart from being dreadful grammar—two appropriates in four words—it is meaningless. The Minister ought to tell the Committee what the Government consider might be appropriate. We should bear in mind his criticism of my earlier amendment, in which I proposed a subjective statement, whereas all he wanted to put in the notice was facts; there is obviously a limit to how many facts there are. Yet he is trying to say that he will put in anything else he wants to include. Such things may, of course, be subjective, not facts. Having resisted an amendment because it is not factual, but subjective, he then takes a power that would allow him to put a subjective addition in the notice. That is extremely odd. The Minister must explain it.
5 pmI shall read clause 59(8) to the Committee—it is even more vague and it defies belief.
I am fortunate to have been a Member of Parliament for a number of years. I have seen some pretty poor drafting under all Governments, but this comes fairly Column Number: 226 high up the list. It is totally meaningless. It is the same problem as the one that I have referred to in the other amendments. Whatever the Minister decides to put in the notice, he can include; whatever he decides not to put in the notice, he may not include. In fact, subsection (8) is to do with sending the notice, not even what is included in it. There is extreme vagueness in this sloppy drafting—it is meaningless.The Government ought to know what are the implications of what they include in Bills. The Minister must do a better job than the Bill does of defining, in the three different areas dealt with in the amendments, what the Government expect a Minister to do on notices and their content. Mr. Jamieson: Perhaps I can be allowed to smooth the ruffled brow of the hon. Gentleman, who is clearly worried. He says that he sometimes finds Bills confusing. If it is any assistance to him, I always find them confusing. The amendments would have an unduly restrictive effect on the content of notices given under clauses 55, 58 and 59. Amendment No. 105 would restrict the content of the notice of a disqualification given to another member state to only those details specified in clause 55(2) and no other information. That would impede the effective operation of the notification procedures by preventing the UK from including additional information that might assist the driver's state of residence in executing the disqualification. That might include information relating to the court proceedings, or to the period of disqualification already served in the UK, which the driver's state of residence must take into account, or information about any condition placed on disqualification, such as reducing the period of disqualification for attending courses for drink drivers. That could also include extra information, as yet unforeseen, that would be important in executing the disqualification in the other country. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman. Lady Hermon: I apologise to you, Mr. Benton, and to Committee members for being an hour late for this sitting. I was speaking to my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) about our Ulster Unionist council meeting on the ramifications last night, so I am delighted to be here. The Minister has just given us a list of additional information, which he thinks that the court should have. Is that list in the convention on driving disqualifications? Mr. Jamieson: Yes, they are specified, as is the case in clause 55(2). What we are saying is that these parts of these clauses give the ability to provide additional information where that is appropriate. Lady Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that because clause 55(9) states:
Column Number: 227 That Minister has an obligation to do that. This is already covered, so I do not understand why the Minister has just made the point that these additional matters should be listed. Mr. Jamieson: This part of the clause gives the ability to do that. Member states may also have particular information requirements in order to give effect to disqualifications. Those will only become apparent in the course of the concluding agreement—the bilateral implementation of the convention—and we have to take that into consideration as well. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire asked whether it is catch-all or not thought through, not knowing what is coming up. To some extent that is true, because we do not know what is going to be in those bilateral agreements. We could need that flexibility for arrangements that might arise. Flexibility for a changing circumstance is what we need to consider. Amendment No. 109 concerns the notice given to a driver resident in the United Kingdom that a foreign disqualification is to be recognised here: it would restrict the content of that notice to those details specified in clause 58(1). That would be unduly restrictive in that it would prevent the appropriate Minister from including additional information, as he considers that to be appropriate, in a notice of disqualification sent to a UK resident disqualified abroad. Additional information would be included in the notice only where it is relevant to the offender in respect of the disqualification imposed on him. For example, the offender may be required to surrender his licence, if it was not seized by the state where the offence took place, and information on how to reapply for a licence might also be usefully included. Amendment No. 112 could lead to inconsistencies in the information provided by courts in notifying the appropriate Minister of a successful appeal against disqualification. That would cause difficulties in updating the information held by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency here and Driver and Vehicle Licensing Northern Ireland in respect of disqualified drivers. Under current procedures, courts use a format provided by the DVLA, which acts on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport, for notifying the details of the successful appeal. The DVLA provides the court with a detailed instruction booklet covering those issues. It is important to the courts and the DVLA that the notification should have a consistent form and content and be determined centrally, so that the process works efficiently. Mr. Paice: Methinks the Minister protests too much sometimes. [Interruption.] I protest at the vagueness and sloppiness of the drafting and the fact that the Government do not have full cognisance of the implications of what they are doing. They want what the Minister interestingly refers to as flexibility—in other words, the powers that are here for Ministers to do what they want. It is a worrying trend in legislation that this power is increasingly being taken. It has been around for a long while but every piece of legislation that I look at increases its usage—Ministers take powers to make Column Number: 228 whatever decisions they may think fit if the Bill does not seem to work. This is an important point, and I intend to reflect on it and to study what the Minister has said when we read the record of these proceedings. We might need to pursue the matter at a later date. At this stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 17 June 2003 |
