|
Mr. Jamieson: I am advised that disqualification cannot be served in the other country—it can be served only in the state of the offence. There would be enormous complications in trying to alter that. I will look at the matter to see whether we can be clear about how the system operates. There will probably be very few cases but, nevertheless, that is not unimportant.
Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the Minister, and I hope that it is as unimportant as he thinks. We are talking about countries within the EU, but potentially many more countries might be involved. We know that there is huge movement of people, and it is perfectly reasonable that someone could be disqualified from driving in, say, Germany, then move to France, which is also a signatory to the convention. For example, someone could be disqualified for 12 months in Germany, spend two months in Germany, then move to France which, by virtue of its equivalent legislation, could apply the same measure, and spend eight months disqualified there. By then, that person would have done 10 months and have two months left to serve, according to my calculations but, according to this legislation, when they then pass through the channel tunnel to Britain, they would have 10 months left to serve. That is totally wrong. If the Minister wishes to consult his officials, and come back to me before I conclude, he can by all means do so. I hope that he has taken what I have said on board. Given that we are talking about countries just across the channel with which we are close in many ways, and given the fact that people move through those countries so frequently, I wholly support the totality of the measures. The general public will also support them
Column Number: 232
because they get very angry when they see people escaping the implications of their bad driving.
I am rattling on to give the Minister a chance to get advice. Most hon. Members will have had constituency cases that highlight this issue. I have identified a problem, and I hope that the Minister will be able to assuage my fears.
Mr. Jamieson: It was kind of the hon. Gentleman to allow me to receive some advice. I am advised that if a UK resident—as with the case that the hon. Gentleman mentioned—was disqualified from driving in France, he would be disqualified everywhere because he would have no UK licence.
Mr. Paice: I wish that I had not given way. I confess to being even more confused than when I started. I will take the Minister's earlier remarks that he would examine this issue. Perhaps he will write to Members of the Committee with a clearer explanation than he was able to give on the spur of the moment.
Mr. Heath: I will not make it any clearer. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's original proposition, but I wonder whether the country of residence does not stop the clock running as far as the original disqualification is concerned in the country where the offence took place. At the end of the 10-month period, 10 months would expire in France despite the fact that the offender had been living in Germany. It may come to the same thing, but it needs examination to ensure that that is the case.
Mr. Paice: The hon. Member was correct when he said that he would not make the issue any clearer. I have raised the matter, and I look forward to the Minister's response.
Mr. Jamieson: For absolute clarity, I will look at the precise circumstances that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and make sure that he gets a full response.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 59
Appeal against disqualification
Mr. Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 110, in
clause 59, page 39, line 31, leave out 'given to' and insert 'served upon'.
Some might call this amendment a quibble over legal jargon. We are suggesting that the words ''given to'' do not constitute a legal term, and that the use of the term ''served upon'' would be more appropriate. I am not sure what in legal terms would be defined as having been ''given to'' the applicant, where as ''served upon'' is clearly a recognised legal statement about the method of that service. ''Given to'' is a much looser phrase, at least as I understand it; I am not a lawyer. I am not sure whether it is definitive enough.
Mr. Jamieson: I hope that I do not further confuse the hon. Gentleman. The amendment would introduce an inconsistency with other parts of Bill, principally clause 57, which states that the appropriate Minister:
''must give the offender a notice under this section''.
Column Number: 233
The amendment might imply a different intended meaning, where of course none is meant. Clause 58 already provides that a notice given under clause 57 must be in writing. The procedure that we have provided for the delivery of a notice is explained more fully in clause 71, to which we will come shortly. That requires that a notice to an individual under the relevant chapter may be given to him by
''delivering it to him . . . leaving it at his proper address, or . . . sending it to him by post.''
The individual's proper address is his latest address as known to the appropriate Minister.
The expression ''service'' includes giving or sending. Under section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978, the service of any document in the post is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, prepaying and posting a letter containing the document. It is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post, unless the contrary is shown. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.
5.30 pm
Mr. Paice: I am grateful. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 60
Power of appellate courts in
England and Wales to
suspend disqualification
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Heath: I want to be absolutely clear about the grounds for appeal under clause 60 for a suspension of the disqualification. Under clause 59, the only grounds for appeal appear to be that section 57 does not apply. In other words, it is not possible to argue the correctness or otherwise of the facts of the original case or the verdict of a court that applied the original disqualification. The only matter is whether the disqualification exists and whether it falls within the context of clause 57
That does not appear to be the case under clause 60. Am I right or wrong? Clause 60 does not appear to have the same qualifications, so I presume that it opens a door to a person who is disqualified under clause 57 to have that disqualification suspended on any grounds, including the facts of the original case. If that is not right, where does it say that?
Mr. Jamieson: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that any appeal will not be on the substance of the case, but only on whether the process was duly followed.
Mr. Heath: I am not clear where it says that in the Bill. It says simply that
''the court may, if it thinks fit, suspend the qualification.''
There is not any elaboration of why it should think fit to do that. As far as I can understand it, clause 57 does
Column Number: 234
not qualify clause 60 or the subsequent Scottish and Northern Irish provisions.
Mr. Jamieson: To help the hon. Gentleman, I can jot him a line and get the legal definition tied up for him. I am assured that an appeal can be only on the process rather than the case, but if he wants to know the precise legal process in the Bill, I shall be happy to provide it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 61 to 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 79
Disability and prospective disability
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Lady Hermon: I rise to speak particularly in relation to Northern Ireland. The Minister will be well aware, following the Good Friday agreement, that the Northern Ireland Act 1998 made certain provision in relation to promoting equality of opportunity between disabled and able-bodied persons. That was a good development, if I may say so. I am therefore concerned that, in relation to the Bill, the appropriate authority is the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister clarify the implications of the statutory duty on that Department to promote equality of opportunity for those with disabilities, which covers their ability to travel to their job or to travel throughout Northern Ireland? How does the clause sit with the statutory obligation to promote quality of opportunity for disabled people in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Jamieson: I cannot see anything in the Bill that would inhibit the Department of the Environment from carrying out that particular work. I do not entirely understand the point that the hon. Lady makes. Nothing will inhibit the Department from carrying out that particular duty. The clause is concerned only with disabilities that impact on a person's driving ability.
Lady Hermon: I say it in relation to a gentlemen who suffered from polio when a teenager. He worked for a considerable time in Cambridge and chose to retire to the wonderful constituency of North Down, where he was required to undertake another assessment. Under the Northern Ireland Act 1998, every Department, including the Department of the Environment, has a duty to promote equality of opportunity between disabled and able-bodied people. Every person from the rest of the United Kingdom who had worked in any establishment and who came to Northern Ireland would not have had to sit another assessment. I want to hear from the Minister that those with disabilities will not be at a disadvantage under the clause. It is very simple.
Mr. Jamieson: I cannot see them being disadvantaged in any way under the clause, because it merely equalises treatment in both parts of the United Kingdom.
Question put and agreed to.
Column Number: 235
Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]
Column Number: 236
Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes to Six o'clock till Thursday 19 June at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.
The following Members attended the Committee:
Benton, Mr. Joe (Chairman)
Cairns, David
Flint, Caroline
Gardiner, Mr.
Hawkins, Mr.
Heath, Mr.
Heppell, Mr.
Hermon, Lady
Hesford, Stephen
Iddon, Dr.
Jamieson, Mr.
Kilfoyle, Mr.
King, Andy
Knight, Jim
McDonagh, Siobhain
Paice, Mr.
Simmonds, Mr.
Syms, Mr.
Wiggin, Mr.
Woodward, Mr.
| 
