§ REVISION OF PENALTIES FOR SUMMARY OFFENCES AND OF CERTAIN OTHER SUMS
§ Lords amendment: No. 120, in page 44, line 9, leave out "(2)," and insert (1A) to"
§ The Solicitor-General for ScotlandI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this we are taking Lords amendments Nos. 121, 122, 130, 150, 275, 276 and 287.
§ The Solicitor-General for ScotlandThe primary purpose of the amendments, and in particular the new clause, is to clarify the effect of the provisions of both the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 and the current Bill on the penalties for offences in respect of which there is no express provision regarding the mode of trial. Broadly speaking, those offences with no specific mode of trial which, prior to the Criminal Law Act 1977, carried maximum penalties which did not exceed a fine of £ 400 or three months' imprisonment, are made triable only summarily. The remainder are made triable either 573 summarily or on indictment. Those statutory offences which are at present triable only on indictment or in the High Court will continue to be only so triable.
The new clause makes amendments to section 289B and 289D of the 1975 Act which are consequential upon the new clause dealing with mode of trial. It also corrects certain defects and omissions. For the convenience of practitioners, the new clause sets out the amended section 289B in full.
The other amendments to sections 289B and 289D are, in the main, designed to clarify the effect of those sections on certain types of fine. I refer to fixed, as opposed to maximum, fines in respect of each period of a specified length during which a continuing offence is committed, and fines in respect of specified quantities or numbers of things.
The amendments to clause 45 and schedule 50 are consequential on the provisions of the new clause.
Mr. Bruce Milan (Glasgow, Craigton)Clause 45 is incomprehensible. The Government are suggesting a remarkable series of amendments, including amendment No. 150, which inserts a new clause into the Bill. That consists of several other new clauses to be inserted into the Criminal Procedures (Scotland) Act 1975.
I would not say that I come to the Bill fresh, but I come to it new and I do not understand why such substantial changes should appear as Lords amendments. The Opposition take a dim view of important changes in criminal procedure legislation in Scotland being spatchcocked into what is otherwise an English Bill. That is an unfortunate way to legislate, particularly when the amendments are incomprehensible.
What will be the effect of amendment No. 150 in terms of the number of offences triable summarily compared with the number tried on indictment? Will either category be increased or will it make no difference? If it will make no substantial difference, why is it necessary?
§ The Solicitor-General for ScotlandI understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern. The Bill seeks to bring into law an arrangement by which fines are uprated to take account of inflation without introducing a multiplicity of amendments to statutes.
The assumption has been that the provision for fines in the 1975 Act and in the Bill involves offences falling neatly into three distinct categories—those triable only summarily, those triable either summarily or on indictment, and those triable only on indictment.
The provisions and fines in the 1975 Act in part were designed to rationalise and inflation-proof fines for offences triable only either summarily or on indictment and offences triable only on indictment. The 1975 Act used a broad-brush approach which increased where necessary the fines for such offences to a fine not exceeding the prescribed sum on a summary conviction and an unlimited fine on conviction on indictment. This Bill seeks to rationalise and inflation-proof fines for offences which are triable only summarily. To that end it contains broad-brush provisions for fines for such offences. However, it is now apparent that there are a large number of offences in Scottish legislation for which there is no express provision for the mode of trial. That is the basis on which all the assumptions in the Bill are made.
I understand the right hon. Gentleman's concern that the discovery should come at a relatively late stage in the 574 Bill's progress. I'-lope that he will accept that we are trying to accommodate a particular set of circumstances when no mode of trial exists in Scottish statutes.
The amendments provide a better delimitation of apparatus to uprate fines in terms of charges which can be tried only on indictment or summarily. There is no significant change to the overall arrangement.
Mr. Milan:I understand that there is no significant change in the legislation, but there are a number of offences that can be tried one way or another. Do the new provisions carry some indication of the division between one category and another? What is likely to happen in practice? Will there be more trials taken summarily because of the provision, fewer, or just about the same number?
§ The Solicitor-General for ScotlandPractically there will be no significant alteration, but if I am wrong I shall let the right hon. Gentleman know.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Lords amendments Nos. 121 and 122 agreed to.
§ Lords amendment: No. 123, in page 45, line 25, leave out from "fine" to end of line 26 and insert
"or a maximum fine which is"
§ The Solicitor-General for ScotlandI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take amendments Nos. 124, 132 to 138, 143, 145, 146 and 148.
§ The Solicitor-General for ScotlandThe amendments are designed to ensure that the provisions of the proposed new sections 289E to 289G of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 achieve the correct result in cases where the fines can be imposed on conviction of an offence triable only summarily that has been non-textually amended. That will ensure that in cases of the type in question the fine provisions in the Bill achieve a textual amendment specifying the fine and not merely an amendment to the provisions that alter that fine.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Lords amendment No. 124 agreed to.
§ Lords amendment: No. 125, in page 45, line 36, after "the" insert "fine or"
§ The Solicitor-General for ScotlandI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is purely a drafting amendment. It amends section 289F(1) so that it refers consistently throughout to fines or maximum fines.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Lords amendment: No. 126, in page 46, line 1, leave out "in any Act passed" and insert "passed or made"
§ The Solicitor-General for ScotlandI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Subsection (1)(iv) of the proposed new section 289F is designed to exclude from the scope of the general uprating of fines provided for in section 289F fines which have been altered between the passing of the Criminal Law Act 1977 and the passing o f this Bill. The reason for the exclusion is that any such alteration should have been designed to put the fines in question on to the appropriate point of the five-point scale. It will be wrong further to increase such fines. 575 As drafted, however, subsection (1)(iv) excludes from the general uprating only fines which have been altered since 1977 by an enactment contained in an Act. The amendment extends that exclusion to cover fines which have been altered since 1977 by enactments contained in subordinate legislation.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Lords amendment: No. 127, in page 46, line 2, leave out from first "the" to end of line 3 and insert
"commencement of this section."
§ The Solicitor-General for ScotlandI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ The Solicitor-General for ScotlandThe Scottish fines provisions were drafted on the assumption that they would be brought into force as soon as the Bill received the Royal Assent. The intention, however, is to bring the fines provisions into force in about April 1983. It is, therefore, necessary to amend the fines provisions accordingly.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Lords amendments Nos. 128 to 130 agreed to.
§ Lords amendment: No. 131, in page 46, line 15, at beginning insert
"Subject to subsection (7A) below,"
§ The Solicitor-General for ScotlandI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ 8. 15 pm
§ The Solicitor-General for ScotlandThose amendments ensure that in any case where the fine formula is X per quantity or Y whichever is the greater, both legs are caught for the purpose of section 289F—the uprating of summary fines levels—and 289G—conversion to levels on the standard scale. Equivalent amendments have already been made for the English fine provisions.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Lords amendments Nos. 132 to 148, agreed to.
§ Lords Amendment: No. 149, in page 48, line 46, at end insert—
"(8) Where an enactment to which subsection (5) above applies confers a power such as is mentioned in subsection (4)(a)(ii) above, the power shall be construed as a power to make a person liable to a fine or, as the case may be, a maximum fine of the amount corresponding to the level on the standard scale to which the enactment refers by virtue of subsection (4) above or of a lesser amount."
§ The Solicitor-General for ScotlandI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment. This confers upon the makers of subordinate legislation the discretion to provide in that subordinate legislation fixed or maximum fines of an amount less than that in the relevant enabling power even when such discretion is not currently conferred by the enabling legislation.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Lords amendment No. 150 agreed to.