§ Clause 19, page 23, line 29, leave out ("three") and insert ("four").
§ Clause 24, page 27, line 43, leave out ("three") and insert ("four").
§ Clause 25, page 28, line 26, leave out ("three") and insert ("four").
§
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendments for the following Reason:
Because it is undesirable that persons remanded under the Bill should be remanded in custody for a period exceeding three weeks on any single occasion.
§ 9.36 p.m.
§ LORD CHORLEYMy Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on their Amendments. These Amendments concern the length of the period of remand for which a court can send a lad back for purposes of report in connection with such matters as Borstal detention. On the Committee stage, in your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, moved to extend the period from three weeks, as in the Bill when it originally came before your Lordships, to five weeks. As a matter of compromise, I agreed with the noble Lord that we should split the difference and insert four weeks. That was accepted and the Bill went to the other House with the provision for four weeks in it instead of one for three weeks. In the other House, however, a strong case was made that it is not right that lads should be remanded in custody for so long as four weeks without being brought back before a court, and that if it is a question of the convenience of the magistrates being put against the liberty of the lad, the liberty of the lad ought to have precedence. That argument was put very forcibly by one of the Opposition Members and was accepted by my right honourable friend, the Home Secretary. Therefore, these Amendments come back to your Lordships' House. I hope that your Lordships will agree that that is the right view of the matter and will not insist upon your Amendments.
§ Moved, That this House do not insist on the Amendments to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Chorley.)
§ LORD SCHUSTERMy Lords, it is quite clear that we cannot go on fighting and dividing the House on all these Amendments. My noble friend Lord Raglan is not here to-night, and all I want to say is that on the Committee or the Report stage this matter was argued 1089 seriously and coolly, and the case for the Amendments was proved beyond demonstration. It is useless to talk about a choice being between what is called the liberty of the lad and the convenience of the magistrates. It is intolerable that arrangements should be made so that the whole structure of petty sessional courts should be torn to bits and that there should be a three weeks' adjournment instead of a monthly adjournment. But, as the House of Commons has taken that view, and as Lord Chorley supports it, I suppose we must submit.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.