§ Mr. Harry EwingI beg to move amendment No. 64, in page 46, line 20, leave out from 'section' to '183' in line 21.
I am tempted to say that this is a drafting amendment with no policy implications. Unfortunately, I cannot say that. The amendment is important and deserves the attention of the House. We do not recognise the consistency in someone having an endorsement when an absolute discharge is recorded in the court. We suggest that the Solicitor-General for Scotland accepts that there is an inconsistency in clause 54. The provision represents a great injustice. The House should accept the amendment.
§ The Solicitor-General for ScotlandIt is competent in solemn proceedings to take such an action. The question is whether it should be taken in summary proceedings. The issue is simple. If the amendment is accepted a sheriff who wishes to discharge or put on probation, but to prevent a person from driving for a period of time, has a simple alternative. He can either not take that lenient view or take another action that will enable him to prevent the person from driving. That would not be proper.
In summary proceedings one is not allowed to do what one is allowed to do in solemn proceedings. It is a matter of principle. I cannot see the distinction. The suggestion is more likely to lead to more absolute discharges and more probation orders.
§ Mr. DewarAn absolute discharge is not a conviction. Combined with the real penalty of disqualification or endorsement the clause will put the court off following the course that the Solicitor-General advocates. The court will admonish and endorse the road traffic penalty on the licence. The amendment is recommended by the Law Society and a number of other legal bodies. Could not the Solicitor-General throw at least a few crumbs?
§ The Solicitor-General for ScotlandUnfortunately, I forgot to bring my bread.
§ Amendment negatived.