Clause
2Compensation
in respect of
suspension Amendments
made: 11, in
clause 2, page 3, line 13, after
‘Registrar’, insert
‘decides not to refuse the application for
an extension of the person’s registration or (as the case may
be)’. This
amendment would extend the circumstances in which compensation may be
payable to those where the Registrar suspends an instructor pending a
decision in respect of an application made under s127(1) of the RTA
1988, but then decides not to refuse that
application. Amendment
12, in
clause 2, page 3, line 16, after
‘Registrar’, insert
‘to refuse the application for an extension
of the person’s registration or (as the case may
be)’. This
amendment would extend the circumstances in which compensation may be
payable to those where the Registrar suspends an instructor pending a
decision in respect of an application made under s127(1) of the RTA
1988 and subsequently decides to refuse that application, but the
instructor successfully appeals that
decision. Amendment
13, in
clause 2, page 3, line 19, after
‘Registrar’, insert
‘to refuse the application for an extension
of the person’s registration or (as the case may
be)’.—(Paul
Clark.) This
amendment would limit compensation so that, where the Registrar decides
to refuse the instructor’s application under s127(1) of the RTA
1988 and that decision is successfully appealed after taking effect, it
may only relate to any suspension imposed in relation to the
application.
Paul
Clark: I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 2,
page 3, line 41, leave out from
‘may’ to end of line 44 and insert ‘appeal to the
First-tier
Tribunal’. This
amendment changes the venue for appeals against compensation awards
from the Transport Tribunal to the First-tier Tribunal, which is
established under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act
2007.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 15, in
clause 2, page 3, line 45, leave
out ‘Transport Tribunal’ and insert ‘First-tier
Tribunal’. See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
14. Amendment
16, in
clause 2, page 3, line 45, leave
out ‘they consider’ and insert ‘it
considers’. See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
14. Amendment
17, in
clause 2, page 4, line 1, leave
out ‘consider’ and insert
‘considers’. See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
14. Amendment
22, in
schedule 1, page 9, line 11, leave
out from ‘may’ to end of line 14 and insert
‘appeal to the First-tier
Tribunal’. See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment 14.
Amendment 23,
in
schedule 1, page 9, line 15, leave
out ‘Transport Tribunal’ and insert ‘First-tier
Tribunal’. See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
14. Amendment
24, in
schedule 1, page 9, line 15, leave
out ‘they consider’ and insert ‘it
considers’. See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
14. Amendment
25, in
schedule 1, page 9, line 17, leave
out ‘consider’ and insert
‘considers’. See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
14.
Paul
Clark: I have the pleasure of speaking to all those
amendments in the name of the Government. The Bill provides for
compensation to be paid to suspended driving instructors in certain
circumstances. Where an affected instructor disputes the Secretary of
State’s decision on whether they are entitled to compensation,
or what the level of compensation should be, the Bill permits an appeal
to the transport tribunal. The amendments are necessary to change the
body that will decide appeals regarding compensation under the Bill
from the transport tribunal to the first-tier tribunal created under
the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. That is in consequence
of the intended transfer of the transport tribunal’s functions
to the new tribunal in the near
future.
Mr.
Goodwill: I have one brief question on which the Minister
might want to comment. When we dealt with the money resolution, we
talked about a figure of five or six cases a year in which compensation
might be payable and around £60,000 in total to include both the
administration and the compensation. While it is fairly easy to
identify a figure for loss of income, does he have any concerns that a
reputation figure might well be inflated? Is he content that the
figures we are talking about are likely to be the sort of figures
settled upon in such
cases?
Willie
Rennie: I accept the amendments. It is really about a name
change. The tribunals Act has changed the name of the tribunal from the
transport tribunal to the first-tier tribunal, so it is a logical
update. The compensation is necessary, but it only covers the period
when the person has been suspended, not the period after the
termination or any other effects, apart from reputation. The number of
cases has been estimated at five or six, but I think that that is at
the upper level, because we are not dealing with a lot of people who
have been convicted and go on to be removed as a result.
I leave the
Minister to respond on what he thinks is an appropriate level of
compensation. That is difficult to judge, because it depends on what
the reputation of the person concerned was before, which will have to
be considered. It is appropriate to have a compensation scheme because
Governments, although it is difficult to believe, sometimes get it
wrong and we do not appropriately suspend people all the
time.
Paul
Clark: First, in response to the question from the hon.
Member for Scarborough and Whitby, I think that the figure of five or
six cases a year that has been indicated is at the upper end of the
scale. Indeed, members of the Committee have indicated that that would
act as a deterrent to anyone who might be
marginally in that position. Secondly, the estimates we have made give a
figure in the region of those figures we have been talking
about.
Mr.
Knight: My reading of subsection (4) is that the Minister
may, in due course, specify a scheme whereby certain areas of
compensation are excluded. In other words, it may well be that the
Minister’s ultimate scheme does not allow for compensation for
loss of reputation. Can he confirm that? Furthermore, as the scheme is
not actually set out in the Bill, can he give an undertaking that, when
he is putting it in place, he will write to every member of the
Committee to give us details about its precise
terms?
10
am
Paul
Clark: On that point, the scheme makes provision for
potential loss of earnings and an effect on reputation. The right hon.
Gentleman is right that the Bill allows the details of the scheme to be
drawn up subsequently. Certainly, I will give the undertaking to write
to members of the Committee with details of the scheme.
Amendment
agreed
to. Amendments
made: 15, in
clause 2, page 3, line 45, leave
out ‘Transport Tribunal’ and insert ‘First-tier
Tribunal’. See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
14. 16,
in
clause 2, page 3, line 45, leave
out ‘they consider’ and insert ‘it
considers’. See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
14. 17,
in
clause 2, page 4, line 1, leave
out ‘consider’ and insert
‘considers’. See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
14.—(Paul
Clark.) Clause
2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause
3Exemptions
from prohibitions concerning
registration
Paul
Clark: I beg to move amendment 18, in
clause 3, page 4, line 15, after
‘exercise’, insert ‘(whether in individual cases
or otherwise)’. This
amendment would confirm that regulations providing for exemptions from
prohibitions concerning registration may give the Registrar a
discretion as to whether the exemption should apply in individual cases
(or a discretion in relation to persons more
generally).
The
Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 19, in
clause 3, page 4, line 26, at
end insert— ‘(5) Regulations
made by virtue of this section may, in particular, make provision for
the payment of
fees.’ This
amendment would permit fees to be charged in respect of exemptions from
prohibitions concerning
registration.
Paul
Clark: As I indicated earlier, schedule 6 to the Road
Safety Act 2006 will make significant changes to the way in which
trainee driving instructors are regulated. In particular, the current
licensing system will be abolished and a new system of exemptions from
regulation will be introduced. That is intended to provide for a more
flexible system of qualification to be prescribed by the Driving
Standards Agency. However, one effect is that it may reduce the
registrar’s ability to regulate trainee instructors, as it does
not explicitly envisage exemptions being granted on an individual basis
so that the registrar may grant, suspend or remove exemptions from
individual applicants wishing to become driving instructors.
The
exemptions from registration are to be introduced by regulation. Clause
3 elaborates on the circumstances where such exemptions might apply. It
envisages that the registrar might exercise his discretion over who can
and who cannot take the benefit of an exemption and that the
regulations may include a system for withdrawal of exemptions as well
as a system of appeals and compensation in connection with such
withdrawals.
The group of
amendments enables the registrar to exercise his discretion regarding
exemptions from registration in respect of individual and other cases,
when provisions in schedule 6 to the 2006 Act are commenced. In
particular, they permit the registrar to consider not only class
exemptions from the requirement to be registered before giving paid
driving instruction but individual applications for exemption, so that
the registrar retains complete control over who can give paid
instruction once the new regime is commenced. They also enable the
registrar to charge a fee in connection with the exemptions, reflecting
the extra administrative overhead that will be involved. That permits a
fee to be charged in much the same way that there is currently a charge
for granting training licences.
Willie
Rennie: I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the
group of amendments. He has identified a potential weakness in the
Bill, because my original Bill did not include trainees. That is a
large number of people who could, potentially, teach for
ever—they do not have to become fully fledged approved driving
instructors and can remain trainees for a very long time, until they
take that final test. Therefore, there was a potentially large loophole
for people who might want to subvert the system. I am grateful to the
Minister for tabling the
amendments. We
are caught between the old system of training registration and the new
one, which is more of a block exemption. The clause will eventually
straddle both systems and allow a proper supervisory arrangement to
cover trainees. It also introduces a charge, which was already there
under the old system, so there is no change. The Bill allows a charge
to be introduced so that we can fund the supervision of the trainees,
so that they cannot subvert the system. I am grateful to the Minister
for tabling the amendments. I shall close my remarks
there. Amendment
agreed
to. Amendment
made: 19, in
clause 3, page 4, line 26, at
end insert— ‘(5) Regulations
made by virtue of this section may, in particular, make provision for
the payment of fees.’ —(Paul
Clark.) This
amendment would permit fees to be charged in respect of exemptions from
prohibitions concerning
registration. Clause
3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
4 to 7 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
1Transitory
amendments to existing
regime Amendments
made: 20, in
schedule 1, page 7, line 13, at
end insert— ‘2A After
subsection (8) of section 127 of the Road Traffic Act 1988
(c. 52) (extension of duration of registration)
insert— “(9)
Sections 128(7A) to (7G) and 131A apply in relation to suspending a
person’s registration in connection with an application under
subsection (1) above as if the references in sections 128(7A) to (7G)
and 131A to— (a) a
notice under section 128(4) were references to a notice under
subsection (5) above, and (b)
the removal of the person’s name from the register were (or, in
the case of section 128(7E)(d), included) references to the refusal of
the person’s application for the retention of the
person’s name in the
register.”’. This
amendment would enable the Registrar to suspend a person’s
registration while considering an application under s127(1) of the RTA
1988 (as it currently has effect, without the substitution of that
section by Schedule 6 to the Road Safety Act 2006). Provisions relating
to compensation would also
apply. Amendment
21, in
schedule 1, page 8, line 8, at
end insert— ‘4A After
subsection (8) of section 129 of the Road Traffic Act 1988
(c. 52) (as it has effect without the omission of that section
by Schedule 6 to the Act of 2006) (licences for giving instruction so
as to obtain practical experience)
insert— “(9)
Sections 130(7) to (13) and 131A apply in relation to suspending a
person’s licence in connection with an application for a new
licence in substitution for a licence current at the date of the
application as if— (a)
the references in sections 130(7) to (13) and 131A
to— (i) a notice under
section 130(3) were references to a notice under subsection (7)
above, (ii) the revocation of
the licence were (except in section 130(11)(d)) references to the
refusal of the person’s application for a new licence,
and (iii) the decision not
being in effect were references to the decision not being in effect
because the licence has not expired,
and (b) section 131A(3), and
the words “(whether or not the Registrar’s decision has
taken effect)” in section 131A(2)(b), were
omitted.”’. This
amendment would enable the Registrar to suspend a person’s
licence while considering their application for a new licence in
substitution for a current licence under s129 of the RTA 1988 (without
its omission by Schedule 6 to the Road Safety Act 2006). Provisions
relating to compensation would also
apply. Amendment
22, in
schedule 1, page 9, line 11, leave
out from ‘may’ to end of line 14 and insert
‘appeal to the First-tier
Tribunal’. See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
14. Amendment
23, in
schedule 1, page 9, line 15, leave
out ‘Transport Tribunal’ and insert ‘First-tier
Tribunal’. See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
14. Amendment
24, in
schedule 1, page 9, line 15, leave
out ‘they consider’ and insert ‘it
considers’. See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
14. Amendment
25, in
schedule 1, page 9, line 17, leave
out ‘consider’ and insert
‘considers’.—(Paul
Clark.) See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
14. Question
proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the First schedule to
the Bill.
| 
