Clause 38 (Hansard, 19 October 1982)

§ Mr. Archer
I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 25, line 32, at end insert— '(h) make provision for interest accruing from the investment of sums deposited with justices' clerks by way of security as a condition of bail' . I ventured to raise this matter in Committee at the instance of the Justices' Clerks' Society. Clause 38 makes provision for interest on money deposited with justices' clerks. The amendment deals with a specific problem relating to that.
Sometimes as a condition of bail the accused is required to deposit a sum of money as security for his future attendance. That money may be held for many months. It may be a large sum. An experienced and conscientious clerk will place it on deposit. The question arises who is entitled to the interest. In Committee I referred to the Home Office's suggestion that it should accrue to public funds. However, that money belongs to the accused. It is not a fine. He has not been convicted of an offence. If he attends when he is required to do so, he has done nothing wrong.
In Committee the Solicitor-General said that the Government recognised the problem, but the suggestion in the amendment might not be the best way of dealing with it. I have never claimed infallibility for Opposition amendments. The Solicitor-General fairly said that he 298 would consult about the matter. The Opposition have tabled the amendment so that at least we may have a progress report on the consultations.

§ The Solicitor-General
I am glad that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) has brought this matter before the House again. The amendment is identical to one discussed in Committee, when he urged me to bring forward detailed proposals to deal with sums deposited by way of security for bail. I said that I would see what I could do. I do not have much to report, as the right course is by no means obvious. The Government wish to consider first whether it is right that interest should be paid on the sums we are talking about, bearing in mind that if it were to be paid as a matter of course there would certainly be some administrative and possibly financial consequences to be overcome by the magistrates courts.
Even if the answer in general to the preliminary question—I do not exclude the possibility that we may come to that conclusion—is that interest should be paid, other questions are bound to arise. What would happen when a defendant failed to surrender to custody having been granted bail on the deposit of a security? In such a case he would forfeit the principal sum making up the security. Is it appropriate that in such circumstances he should nevertheless benefit from the interest? Should the security be placed in an interest-bearing account in all cases, or should that be done only at the request of a defendant, or where the sum is greater than a certain figure, or if the date for the defendant's surrender to custody is long enough ahead to make it worth while placing the money in such an account? Should the regulations provide that all those factors be juggled in one combination or another? I know the right hon. and learned Gentleman well enough to know that he will agree that those are all matters that require considerable thought before any decision can be taken. He may say that we should have made up our minds on some method, but he also knows that it is easier to say that than to do it.
One has to identify first the areas of difficulty, and only after thinking about them carefully, decide how to deal with them. That is when one arrives at the stage of making the regulations. I say that, because the House should bear in mind the fact that in the amendment we are talking about the giving of a power to make regulations when the questions have been resolved. If it is decided that interest should be paid on sums deposited on security, the burden of operating the administrative arrangements will fall mainly on court staff. We shall therefore shortly be consulting the Justices' Clerks' Society to identify the practical difficulties which might be encountered by magistrates' courts. Consideration is being given also to the arrangements which might apply to money deposited at the Crown court.
I have tried to explain, as briefly as I can, that before we come to a conclusion we must consider those questions. Many other questions may be thrown up during our considerations. It might be said that even if all those matters have to be decided, why not have the rule-making power added by the amendment? I am not convinced that the amendment is necessary. If we decide that the regulations might best be made under the present Bill, my view is that the clause is already sufficiently widely drawn to allow the making of such regulations. The Home Secretary has an alternative regulation-making power 299 under section 61 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979. He has used that power already to make the Justices' Clerks' (Accounts) Regulations 1973 relating to the keeping, inspecting and auditing of accounts for all sums received by a justices' clerk, other than sums for his own use.
We should wish to examine whether regulations in regard to interest on bail securities—if it be decided to make some—could not be better made under that power than under the powers contained in the present Bill. Whatever the answer, my advice to the House is that we already have adequate powers to make regulations to deal with the questions that the right hon. and learned Member has in mind.

§ Mr. Archer
I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for saying that there may be an alternative power. I shall not press him tonight to say that the power suggested in the amendment is necessarily preferable.
I find difficulty in seeing the argument that the interest should not normally be paid to the person who has been required to deposit the money. Up to that stage he is simply someone who has had the misfortune to be accused of a criminal offence. He may or may not be acquitted. But to suggest that because of that he should lose the use of his money for what may be a long period does not bear examination.
Different considerations will apply if, subsequently, he forfeits the principal sum, and a number of questions need to be decided which require careful thought. Having had experience of being where the Solicitor-General is now, I would not suggest that the matter should necessarily have been concluded over the Summer Recess, but I hope that the Solicitor-General will be in a position to give the House information in the not-too-distant future.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.