HC Deb 15 April 1948 vol 449 cc1221-8

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Mr. Ede.

Mr. James Hudson (Ealing, East)

On a point of Order. Is it intended to call the Amendment in the names of my hon. Friends and myself dealing with the question of intoxication, in Clause 3? In page 3, line 17, at end, insert: (5) In any case where it appears that an offence has been caused or partly caused by the offender's addiction to drugs or intoxicating liquor, the court shall consider whether, if the offender is to be placed on probation, a condition of abstinence from drugs or intoxicating liquor shall or shall not be attached to the probation order

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I am afraid not. Mr. Speaker has not selected that Amendment.

Mr. Emrys Hughes

Further to that point of Order. Can you give us any guidance on this matter, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Some of us are not old Members of the House, but we put down these Amendments and have waited very patiently for them to be taken. I have got the impression that all the lawyers have got going with their abstruse, academic points and their Amendments have been taken without any consideration for those put forward by laymen. I protest most emphatically.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Gentleman must protest to Mr. Speaker. If he wants to know whether Amendments, have been selected or to make representations, he should see his Whips or Mr. Speaker or the Chairman of Ways and Means in Committee.

Mr. Hudson

Did Mr. Speaker take into account that there were 50 hon. Members who were so anxious about this matter that they put their names to this Amendment which, in actual terms, is a different Amendment from the one submitted in the Committee?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That may be but the Standing Orders provide that Mr. Speaker shall have an absolute discretion. He has exercised that discretion, and has not selected the hon. Member's Amendment.

Mr. Hudson

May I ask if this would be a reasonable case for you to consider and submit in some way to Mr. Speaker? The position is that there is a tremendous interest in the matter covered by the Amendment which we wish to move, and we feel that we are under a very great disability. I would add to the complaint which my hon. Friend has made that the lawyers have had a great run, but that the laymen have had no opportunity of discussing matters very dear to the hearts of many of them. These are matters which have been within the legislation of the last 20 or 30 years and been accepted in the courts.

Sir T. Moore

Was Mr. Speaker aware—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. I cannot allow hon. Members to discuss the way in which Mr. Speaker exercises his discretion. He has exercised that discretion, and I must ask hon. Members to abide by it.

Sir T. Moore

I fully accept the position of Mr. Speaker, and I am not appealing against it in any way. I was merely wanting to ask if he was aware that there was a very limited attendance at the Standing Committee and that this point was not fully discussed, because the Committee was totally unrepresentative of this House on that occasion.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Order. I am calling the next Amendment. Mr. Ede.

Mr. Ede rose—

Mr. Hudson

May I ask a question? Is there any opportunity, either now or at the end of the discussion on the Report stage, when any expression of opinion can be made on this or other points? Is any possibility of raising this matter finally ruled out?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I gather that the matter is covered, to some extent, by Subsection (3), but I could not offer any further advice, except that there will be an opportunity on Third Reading to discuss what is in the Bill. That is all I can offer the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hudson

But this is not in the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Mr. Ede.

Mr. Ede

I beg to move, in page 4, line 1, to leave out from "court," to "is," in line 2.

There are, on the Paper, three further Amendments also dealing with Clause 4, which, with the consent of the House and yourself, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it would be desirable that I should deal with at the same time: In page 4, line 3 after "practitioner," to insert appearing to the court to be experienced in the diagnosis of mental disorders. In line 3 to leave out second "the" and insert "an. In line 7, to leave out from "court," to "a," in line 8, and insert "may, if it makes a probation order, include therein. The first and fourth of these Amendments make it clear that the inclusion in a probation order of a requirement relating to the treatment of a mental condition is governed by the general provisions of Clause 3, which require the consent of an offender over the age of 14 before the order is made. When we were in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) expressed doubt whether this was the effect of the Subsection as drafted, and I undertook to consider whether the Clause should be amended so as to make this clear. The effect of the first and fourth Amendments will be to make the Subsection read, reciting only the operative words: (1) Where the court is satisfied … may, if it makes a probation order, include therein a requirement … and so on.

The second and third of these Amendments deal with an undertaking which I gave to make it quite certain that the medical practitioner who was consulted about the mental state of an offender should be one who was really competent to give to the court guidance on the matters in question. It will be seen that I am moving the words: appearing to the court to be experienced in the diagnosis of mental disorders. That is as near as I can get. During the Committee stage, I said that I was not going to confer a statutory distinction upon any particular diploma or society that might be formed of medical men who would claim to possess this particular knowledge. It will be the duty of the courts to make themselves reasonably acquainted with the qualifications of the medical practitioners concerned who give an opinion on the matters on which they are consulted. I think this removes the misgivings that were felt by some hon. Members that an ordinary general practitioner with no great knowledge in this matter could be called before the court and express an opinion and an offender might be dealt with on what was really not very skilled advice. I think that these Amendments meet the pledges that I gave during the Committee stage.

Mr. Janner

On a point of Order. May I ask whether it is proposed to call the Amendments relating to a similar matter regarding this Clause, which stand in the names of the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) and myself, amongst others, suggesting two practitioners instead of one.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

Those two Amendments are not being called.

Mr. Janner

Those of us who have fears about the type of medical men who will be consulted are bound to say that my right hon. Friend has gone per- haps as far as he can go to satisfy those fears. There is not the slightest doubt at all that it is highly essential, in cases where a question of the mental state of the individual concerned is at issue, that the medical man who has to give evidence, or has to give his opinion, should be a person who really understands that particular kind of complaint, and not be one whose practice has not been concerned with that type of complaint.

We were discussing yesterday a very important matter in the question of capital punishment. In my view these matters relating to the mental state of an accused person are of equal importance to those matters which were then being discussed, because, in the very large number of cases that come before the courts, that particular condition is of material importance and is very often overlooked. We ought to express our thanks to the Home Secretary for having considered that point. I would have preferred, as I think many other hon. Members would, that he went a little further and said that he would not leave it entirely to the opinion of one practitioner. As my Amendment is not being called, I assume I would be out of Order in arguing that; nevertheless, I still hope that, before the final stages of the Bill my right hon. Friend may realise that the matter is a grave one where the question of the mental condition of an individual is concerned, and may, perhaps, extend his generosity towards allowing another practitioner to be consulted as well.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede

I beg to move, in page 4, line 3, after "practitioner," to insert: appearing to the court to be experienced in the diagnosis of mental disorders. This Amendment is one of those which I included at the time of the original discussion. In answer to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) may I say that, if the defence wish to bring a second doctor in front of the court, it is always open, to them to do so.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 4, line 3, to leave out second "the," and insert "an."

In line 7, leave out from "court," to "a," in line 8, and insert "may if it makes a probation order, include therein."—[Mr. Ede.]

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

I beg to move, in page 5, line 14, to leave out from "order," to "are," in line 15, and to insert: (6) Where any such arrangements as are mentioned in the last foregoing Subsection. Perhaps at the same time I might refer to the next Amendment in line 24, because this first one is purely a drafting Amendment which creates in form a new Subsection in order to make it follow on to the rather more lengthy form of words now proposed to be inserted by means of the next Amendment at line 24. The more substantial Amendment at line 24 substitutes for the first four lines of Subsection (6), as it is now drafted, a provision in similar terms, subject to the modifications which have become necessary in consequence of the Amendment which we have just accepted to Clause 4 (1), which requires the evidence to be that of: a duly qualified medical practitioner appearing to the court to be experienced in the diagnosis of mental disorders. There is another new addition in the last two lines of the Amendment at line 24, but this is only formal and is included for clarification.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 24, leave out from beginning, to end of line 27, and insert: Subject as hereinafter provided, a report in writing as to the mental condition of any person purporting to be signed by a duly qualified medical practitioner experienced in the diagnosis of mental disorders may be received in evidence for the purposes of Subsection (1) of this Section without proof of the signature, qualifications or experience of the practitioner."—[Mr. Younger.]

Mr. Younger

I beg to move, in page 5, line 30, to leave out "appears to the court to be," and insert "is."

This Amendment appears, as hon. Members may have noticed, in the same form in many places in the Order Paper. There are many different Clauses in this Bill where it is necessary to consider the age of a person coming before the court, whether for purposes of probation or for going to prison or to Borstal detention, as well as for many other purposes. As the Bill is drafted, in each case the phrase is used: "where this person appears to the court to be of a certain age." That is a reasonable provision, designed to prevent the necessity for strict proof of age if there is no dispute about it. This is really only a drafting Amendment, because what is now proposed is that the phrase: appears to the court to be should be omitted in every case throughout the Bill and that, instead of it an Amendment covering all cases where this question of age arises should be inserted in the interpretation Clause towards the end of the Bill. For the convenience of hon. Members I should say that the Amendment referred to is that appearing on the Order Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend—in page 58, line 42, at end, insert: (3) Where the age of any person at any time is material for the purposes of any provision of this Act, or of any Order in Council made thereunder, regulating the powers of a court, his age at the material time shall be deemed to be or to have been that which appears to the court to be or to have been his age at that time. There are Government Amendments down in the name of my right hon. Friend which cover all the occasions when this phrase occurs in the Bill, a point which, under the present draft, is dealt with separately in each instance. I am explaining this at length because it is a form of Amendment which will occur many times, and I hope that the House will be prepared to accept it as a convenient form of redrafting.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. David Renton (Huntingdon)

One fully appreciates the advantage of not having to require direct proof in many cases, but there are some cases where direct proof will obviously be necessary. Would the hon. Gentleman tell us to what extent the door has been opened, so to speak, in such cases?

Mr. Younger

If I may have the leave of the House to speak again, I do not think there can be any question of there being a lack of direct proof where there is any dispute about it, but if the hon. Gentleman will look at the various Amendments as we come to them I do not think he will find any instance where one can say that there ought normally to be direct proof. Of course, it is clear that if there is a dispute the court will have to be satisfied on evidence produced by one side or the other.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 35, leave out "appears to the court to be," and insert "is."—[Mr. Younger.]