|
Clause 57
Recognition in United Kingdom of
foreign driving disqualification
Mr. Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 108, in
clause 57, page 38, line 43, leave out subsection (7).
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 111, in
clause 59, page 39, line 32, leave out subsection (4).
Amendment No. 113, in
clause 63, page 41, line 26, leave out subsection (2).
Mr. Paice: The amendments all address the issue of the Minister taking powers to change things when the Bill does not work out as expected. In all three cases, the Government specify the relevant period for providing information as 21 days, but then take the power, in this case in subsection (7), that
''The appropriate Minister may make regulations substituting a longer period for the period for the time being mentioned'',
that is, 21 days. I notice that by no means are the Government taking powers to shorten the period, only to lengthen it. That implies that they recognise that 21 days might not be enough.
There are two issues. First, how did the Government arrive at 21 days and secondly, why do they not think that it is sufficient? All that is required is for a notice to be compiled and dispatched within 21 days. Most hon. Members are probably familiar with the fact that in some cases it takes Government Departments more like 21 weeks to answer letters from MPs, so it is understandable that they might consider 21 days to be too short a time in which to do anything. However, most people would consider that to be a reasonable time in which to issue a piece of correspondence, which is all that we are talking about when it comes to passing over information about driving qualifications. The point is simple but important. Why have the Government chosen 21 days? Unless it resulted from a complete wet-finger, blowing in the wind exercise, they must have given some thought to the period, but in case it turns out to be wrong, they have taken another power to change—but only to lengthen—it. If it turns out that 10 days is long enough, never mind, they will leave the law as 21 days, but if it is not possible, it can be 28 or 50 or any other number of days.
It is all part of the worrying trend that I have identified previously. The Government are not prepared to commit themselves to meeting particular objectives. Their target-setting agenda is in chaos; we
Column Number: 229
learned only yesterday about their pledge on getting young people into court. First, they changed the target and now they have abolished the regulation altogether. Here, they are setting a target but saying, ''If we do not meet it, so be it—we will change it.'' In other words, it is meaningless. It is a sign that the Government are beginning to lose it. That is worrying enough, but to find evidence of the fact in legislation that we might hope will be in force for a considerable time is of particular import. I want to hear from the Minister why they chose 21 days and why, having chosen that period, we assume with some thought, they want to take the power to change it at any time.
5.15 pm
Mr. Jamieson: I wonder how the hon. Gentleman sleeps at night with all the dreadful things that the Government are supposedly doing. The period of 21 days was not just plucked out of the air. That length of time has been used in previous legislation and is the normal period for an appeal in domestic cases—that is where it came from.
The hon. Gentleman also said that it takes the Government a long time to answer letters. I hope that he was not referring to my Department, which has a very good record in Whitehall and Westminster on responding to hon. Members in correspondence. Although my Department probably gets almost twice as much correspondence per Minister than any other Department, we have the equal best record on responding in good time. I say that for the assistance of the Committee, because there has been a slur against some Departments in relation to their responses to letters. I believe that the time of responding is actually rather better than it was prior to 1997. There may have been a period during which the hon. Gentleman himself was a Minister, although I am sure that he was excellent in responding.
The amendment would remove the power to make regulations prescribing a period longer than the 21 days specified in the Bill for a disqualification to take effect in which to lodge an appeal or to produce a license following disqualification. The power to make regulations will be used only if we conclude that a longer period should be prescribed in which the specified actions should occur. Such regulations would not make provision for different time lengths in different circumstances—the time lengths would be common to all cases. A decision to give effect to a foreign disqualification necessitates giving the offender notice that he is disqualified. Although the offender should have been aware of the proceedings, the notice given under the clause will be used to inform the driver of disqualification in the United Kingdom.
We consider that the period of 21 days before the disqualification takes effect is both reasonable and appropriate. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has another figure in mind—he has not tabled an amendment to that effect—but I should be interested to know if he does. We are a listening Government and I should be very happy to hear any suggestion that he has to make. The provisions allow for the delivery of the notice and give time for the
Column Number: 230
driver either to surrender his or her license or to consider lodging an appeal. Reference is made to the period currently allowed in which to lodge an appeal against a domestic disqualification from a decision of a magistrates court.
The power to prescribe a period longer than 21 days is needed, because it would allow us to make adjustments in line with any changes to the appeal court and also, in the light of experience, in the operation of convention procedures. To some extent, we are sailing into uncharted waters in relation to co-operation between countries. If drivers consistently experience difficulties in complying with the requirements within the 21-day period currently specified, we need to be able to prescribe a longer period. The regulations would therefore not prescribe criteria for the automatic extension for the time limits laid down in the Bill.
I hope that that has assuaged the hon. Gentleman's concerns, because he seems to have got himself rather worried on the last two groups of amendments and convinced himself that the Government are up to some subterfuge. I can assure him that that is not the case.
Mr. Paice: We understand why the Minister has not been nominated for eviction from the Big Brother house yet. His commitment to the cause is obviously absolute and he has endeavoured to persuade us of the validity of his case, however thin it may be.
My comments about responses to correspondence were not specific to his Department, but they were definitely specific to the whole Government. I have files that I can happily show the Minister to illustrate that and would remind him that the previous Government—in which he rightly said I was a Minister—regularly published the times that it took each Department to respond to correspondence.
The Minister explained, perfectly cogently, why the period of 21 days is needed. It is already in plenty of other pieces of legislation, and so is perfectly reasonable. However, I fail to understand why it is necessary to expect that that period will not be long enough. The Minister said that we are sailing into uncharted waters, which I suspect is quite an admission and demonstrates the validity of my case, which is that the Government do not quite know the implications of what we legislating for. That issue is worrying and is part of a trend. Whether the Minister thinks that I am getting over-excited about it is a matter for his judgment, and I assure him that I do not sleep at night owing to all sorts of problems that the Government are causing the country.
Mr. Jamieson: Would the hon. Gentleman accept, especially under the circumstances, that some flexibility is sensible for whomsoever would form the Government in the future?
Mr. Paice: I accept, as I have already made clear in other debates in which we have referred to the 1990 Act—although it does not apply to this chapter—that legislation sometimes needs to be changed. There may be occasions, when conventions have been in existence for a number of years, when we see the need to make changes. However, I am concerned that the Government are taking the power to make those
Column Number: 231
changes on the hoof. We have had a debate on the matter, I have heard what the Minister has to say, and there is probably little more to be gained from pursing the matter. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Paice: I want to ask the Minister a brief question. Subsection (2) defines
''the unexpired period of the foreign disqualification''
as the period less whatever sentence has been served
''in the State in which the offender was convicted.''
It occurs to me, bearing in mind that we are talking about a convention to which a number of countries are signatory, that similar measures apply to many countries. Therefore, some part of the period of disqualification may be served in other countries, not just the state in which the offender was convicted. The way that the clause is written makes it seem that that period is not counted, and all that it counted is the period served in their own state. Unless I have misunderstood something else in the clause, there is a point here that the Minister may wish examine. It seems reasonable that if a person who has been disqualified serves some of the disqualification in another country that is a signatory to the same convention, then that should be considered as part of the period.
|
