HL Deb 21 February 1928 vol 70 cc203-6
LORD STRACHIE

had given Notice to draw attention to the refusal of the Home Office to grant an interview to the representatives of the County Councils Association on the subject of the simplification of the law relating to the application of penalties imposed by courts of summary jurisdiction and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, so long ago as July 6, 1927, the County Councils Association made application to the Home Office for an interview on the subject of the simplification of the law relating to the application of penalties imposed by courts of summary jurisdiction. I should not have brought this question before your Lordships had it not been that the Parliamentary Committee of that Association, of which some of your Lordships are members, requested me to do so. Those of your Lordships who are connected with county councils will appreciate that it is a body of some importance, and that some notice of it should be taken by a Government Department. As a rule, I must say that we find Government Departments most courteous to us, and that they welcome our assistance and are very glad when we bring matters to their notice instead of coming to Parliament direct.

To their application of July 6, 1927, the Association received the following reply from the Home Office, dated August 23, 1927:— With reference to your letter of 6th ultimo, I am directed by the Secretary of State to say that the proposal of your Association regarding the application of penalties imposed by courts of summary jurisdiction would appear to affect materially the sums received by the Road Fund out of fines, and, if so, it is primarily a matter for the Ministry of Transport and the Treasury. It is, however, understood that any proposal affecting materially the sums so received would be unacceptable to His Majesty's Government. In these circumstances the Secretary of State thinks that no useful purpose would be served by an interview at this office. Your Lordships will see that they simply rode off on a side issue. We did not want to discuss the question of the Road Fund. Perhaps they thought we were going to object to the Government making further raids on the Road Fund to the detriment of local taxation. We followed the matter up by asking for another interview and again we were refused.

I should like to remind your Lordships shortly what it is we are actually asking about. We are asking that we may be able to make more simple the keeping of accounts by the county councils, and that all these sums should be paid into one fund, the Police Fund. I would like to give one or two instances. At present, under the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, the penalty not exceeding one half goes to the informer and the remainder to the overseers (now the rating authorities). Under the Companies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1908, any part of the penalty not paid to the informer is paid to the Exchequer. Again, under the Gas Works Clauses Acts and the Waterworks Clauses Acts of various years, the penalties go to the undertakers for some offences, sometimes one half to the informer and half to the overseers, sometimes to the local authority and at other times to the applicant, according to the nature of the offence. Then, in offences in connection with the sale of intoxicating liquors, penalties go sometimes to the Exchequer, sometimes to the County Fund and at others to the Police Pension Fund, and are occasionally split between the last two mentioned Funds.

I have quoted a few instances to show the complicated way in which the accounts have to be kept. That complication means more officials and more expenditure. I do not think it was unreasonable for the County Councils Association to ask for an interview with the Home Office in order to see whether we could not have the system simplified and all the penalties put into one account. The only complaint I have is that the Home Office rode off on the Road Fund, saying they had nothing to do with that Fund. We do not want to discuss the Road Fund but to discuss these various accounts to which I have referred. I hope the noble Lord will see that we are really trying to help the Government Department and are not desirous of interfering. I trust that the Department will now regard the matter differently and not refuse to give us an interview.

LORD DESBOROUGH

My Lords, in the first place I should like to disclaim any imputation of discourtesy on the part of the Home Office. The last thing they wish to do is to be discourteous, especially to such an important body as the County Councils Association. But it seems to me there is in this matter some mistake. The Home Office reply was that the matters into which inquiry was proposed to be made chiefly referred to two other Departments—namely, the Treasury and the Ministry of Transport. The various fines which are imposed in the courts are merely collected by the Home Office and then redistributed, and if there is a proposition that these sums, some of which are rather large, should be distributed in another manner that is not a matter upon which the Home Office itself can receive a deputation. As the Home Office tried to point out, it is a matter which concerns two other Departments and one which should be referred to those two Departments.

I have the list of the various fines as to which the Home Office act as the collecting agent. They get very little for doing it, but they have been in communication with the various police court authorities who say that it is more convenient that these sums should be collected through the instrumentality of the Home Office. The Home Office, itself, does not benefit from these sums to anything more than a very small extent. By far the largest stun collected is from the various road fines that are imposed. They amount to £162,502. That is a large sum of money and it represents fines that are sent direct to the Ministry of Transport under a comparatively recent Act, the Act of 1920. If there is any feeling that there ought to be a change in the distribution of these fines—and I have read the correspondence between the Home Office and the County Councils—I think it is a matter which should be discussed with the Ministry of Transport and the Treasury. The Treasury are the next largest recipients and it would, I think, be very improper for the Home Office to discuss the allocation of these large sums. I do not know that I need go into the matter any further except to say, speaking on behalf of the Home Office, that the list thing they desired to do was to show any discourtesy to the County Councils Association.