HC Deb 01 December 1937 vol 329 cc2073-4
66. Mr. David Adams

asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the growing tendency of magistrates not to disqualify from holding a licence motorists convicted of bad driving offences, he will take further steps to define the offences for which the penalty must, in all cases, be disqualification?

Mr. Burgin

For certain offences the courts must disqualify unless they see special reason to the contrary; to remove this discretion would, I am afraid, result in a tendency for the courts to refuse to convict in cases where they thought the penalty would be excessive. Disqualification for serious driving offences is not becoming less common.

Mr. Adams

Does not the Minister know that I am calling his attention to the case of bad driving offences, and does he not think that disqualification should always follow?

Mr. Burgin

This must be a matter for the discretion of the courts, and while it is a remedy of which I appreciate the usefulness, I think that the assumption of the hon. Member that the disqualification is becoming less common is mistaken. The figures are the other way.

87. Mr. David Adams

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the growing tendency of magistrates not to disqualify from holding a licence motorists convicted of bad driving offences, he will state whether the intentions of the Government still remain, as expressed in the Home Office circular to migistrates of 22nd September, 1936, that suspension or endorsement of licences should be the normal consequence of conviction for bad driving offences?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd)

The circular letter of September, 1936, called attention to the provisions of the Road Traffic Acts and pointed out that it was clearly the intention of Parliament that suspension or endorsement of the offender's driving licence should be the normal consequence of conviction of certain offences. My right hon. Friend has no evidence to support the suggestion in the first part of the question, but he entirely endorses the view that it is still most important for the Court to give full effect to the statutory provisions on this subject.