HL Deb 08 May 1958 vol 209 cc104-15

3.18 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD

My Lords, I do not make any apology for introducing this short and very simple Bill to the House and asking your Lordships to give it an uncontroversial Second Reading. The Bill comes from another place with the backing of representative Members of all three Parties. It was originally introduced by Sir George Benson who, as most noble Lords will know, is one of the most practical experts in questions of this kind. The Bill passed through its various stages in another place without any Division and it now comes to this House as a Bill unanimously supported in another place.

Let me say at the very outset that the Bill interferes with the powers of nobody. It takes no powers away from benches of magistrates. If benches wish to inflict a sentence of imprisonment they will continue to be empowered to do so. All the Bill does is to ask benches of magistrates, in the case of adult first offenders, to give their reasons for a sentence of imprisonment and to say why they have not adopted one of the other alternatives. The Bill is founded upon a section of the Criminal Justice Act which adopted this procedure for juveniles. The result is very interesting. Without imposing any obligation upon benches of magistrates the Act has had the effect of reducing sentences of imprisonment upon juveniles by no less than 60 per cent. I do not claim that this Bill, dealing with adults (the Bill deals with adult first offenders over the age of twenty-one), will have the same very notable effect. The convictions of adults for first offences for which sentences of imprisonment are imposed number between 5,000 and 6,000 a year. I would be on the cautious side and say that after the Bill is passed the reduction in prison sentences might be, say, about 1,000. But that is a number that need not be ignored.

What, apart from the actual number, do we hope to get out of the Bill? Let me give the reasons as they occur to me, in ascending order of merit. First of all, I think that by calling the attention of benches of magistrates to the alternative forms of punishment we shall probably see less disparity between the sentences of one bench and those of another. The last thing in the world that I wish to do is to impose uniformity upon benches of magistrates. They rightly attach a great value, and so do the general public, to their independence. The Home Office has always been very careful not to attempt to impose uniformity of sentences. But within that consideration, it seems to me surprising that there is so great difference between one bench and another in the matter of sending first offenders to prison.

Let me give noble Lords a single example. In Bootle, an urban industrial district, only 8 per cent. of the offenders who are liable for imprisonment are actually sent to prison, whereas in Worcester the proportion is no less than 44 per cent. It seems to me that a disparity of that kind wants explaining, and I am inclined to think that when magistrates are required, under this Bill, to give their reasons for sending first offenders to prison they will have brought to their attention the alternative forms of punishment, and in a great many cases they will adopt those alternatives rather than prison sentences. That is the first reason for this Bill.

The second reason for the Bill—I do not put it too high; at the same time I do not ignore it—is that the Bill to some small extent reduces the pressure upon the prisons. I need not discuss to-day the overcrowding in the prisons. We had a long debate on the subject a week ago. We had the very sinister figure given to us that no fewer than 4,300 prisoners are sleeping three in a cell. I imagine that a great many of those prisoners who are sleeping three in a cell will be those in local prisons, and it is in local prisons where almost all the sentences with which I am dealing in this Bill take effect. The result of that, quite apart from overcrowding, is that it does clutter up these local prisons. This number of short-sentence prisoners are sent to prison for a week or a fortnight, or perhaps a month. Noble Lords will see that in circumstances of that kind it is quite impossible to have anything serious in the way of training. It is impossible to have any kind of organised labour. There they are—here to-day, gone tomorrow; and it not only does the prisoners little or no good, but makes confusion in the prison organisation.

On that account, the more we can reduce these short sentences the better it will certainly be for the prison administration; and I am inclined to think also that the better it will be for a great many of the prisoners. I believe myself that in a great many cases these short sentences do more harm than good. They accustom offenders to prison life and, particularly in local prisons, to a life in which scarcely anybody has anything to do. One of the great criticisms of our local prisons is that the present over-crowded conditions, with shortage of staff and so on, make it impossible to organise long shifts of work for the prison inmates. That being so, I am convinced that the more we can keep these petty offenders out of prison the better it will be. All that is proposed in this Bill is, as I say, not to impose any compulsion upon benches, but to call their attention to these facts and to insist that before they send a first offender to prison they should give their reasons and state them on the warrant of commitment.

Noble Lords will see that that is quite a simple point and it is covered in this very short Bill. This is almost a one-clause Bill. Indeed, I propose at the Committee stage to make it even simpler: I am going to propose—and the undertaking was given in another place—that we should cut out of the scope of the Bill defaulters upon fines. I can go into the question in detail upon the Committee stage, but let me say here and now that further consideration, both in the Home Office and outside, has shown that to include in this Bill defaulters upon fines would merely complicate its proceedings; and for no particular reason. Because in the case of the imposition of a fine it stands to reason that the bench have already carefully considered the question; they have considered the offender's circumstances, and so on, and it really would be a work of supererogation to ask them to give further reasons in the case of the defaulter who defaults upon his fine when the alternative is admittedly a prison sentence.

That being so, with, as I say, the undertaking given in another place, and with the present view of the Home Office, I shall propose Amendments to omit from the Bill the provisions relating to defaulters upon fines. The result will be a very short Bill, of practically only one clause, stating what I have already stated: that, in the case of adult first offenders, if a sentence of imprisonment is imposed a reason should be given by the bench of magistrates as to why they have not adopted some alternative method. I have hopes that, although this is a comparatively small issue, it will help the work connected with prisons and crime, in which so many noble Lords are interested. It is fully in line with the general movement that is taking place in the country, and it is particularly in line with the work which the Prison Commissioners are attempting to do in the prisons. I hope therefore that, after these few remarks, noble Lords will be prepared to give the Second Reading of the Bill unanimous support and will help me to get the Bill through as soon as possible. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Templewood.)

3.31 p.m.

LORD CHORLEY

My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, for the clear and persuasive way in which he has moved the Second Reading of this little Bill. Noble Lords on these Benches are in entire sympathy with his objective and believe, with him, that this Bill will carry out that objective. I think that the Howard League for Penal Reform, with which the noble Viscount has been associated for a long time as its President, can claim a certain amount of kudos in respect of this Bill, in that the Bill was piloted through another place by the Chairman of the League's Executive Committee; and in your Lordships' House is going, I hope, to have an equally smooth passage under the pilotage of the noble Viscount. As one of the noble Viscount's Vice-Presidents, it gives me particular personal pleasure to support him this afternoon.

The noble Viscount has deployed the arguments in favour of the Bill so persuasively that there does not remain much to say in support, and I can make my remarks very short. The noble Viscount has pointed out that the indirect effect of the Bill should be to relieve the pressure on the prisons. He did not put that aspect very high; but I am a little more optimistic about it than he is. In my experience, benches of magistrates in some parts of the country are apt to start by giving heavier sentences—of three, six or even twelve months. Obviously, if a good deal of that can be stopped, it will have an appreciable effect on emptying the prisons. But, of course, I do not think that that is the main reason for this Bill, which is good in itself.

Over and over again, in debates on prison policy, members of what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, recently called the "prison debating society" have emphasised the criminal folly (as one might almost call it, in the great majority of cases), of sending first offenders to prison; and the noble Viscount has shown how, up and down the country, there are a number of benches who are only too apt to commit that criminal folly, as I regard it. Most chairmen of quarter sessions must have had the experience of dealing with criminals whose history has started with terms of imprisonment. Obviously, the noble Viscount is right when he said that a substantial number of people cannot be expected to spend some months in local prisons without running a grave risk of becoming corrupted. Other people can take a lesson, and come out and lead honest, respectable lives afterwards; but I have no doubt at all that a substantial proportion of these young people, if put on probation, would prove amenable to the educational influence and discipline of the probation officers, and afterwards would lead respectable lives. So that if this Bill does have the effect, as I hope it will, of creating many more probation orders, it will undoubtedly be a good thing, because our experience of the probation system is that a substantial majority of lads, and even older men, for whom probation orders are made keep straight after the order has come to an end.

Even if the Bill leads to the imposition of fines, instead of imprisonment, it may be a good thing. Curiously enough, the fine has been neglected of recent times. With a certain type of man a fine can be very effective, especially in a time of high employment, when large wages are being earned. I have had a number of cases in which the man involved has undertaken to make good damage he has done. In the discussion which goes on between the chairman of the bench and counsel for the defence (though such an undertaking is not actually made part of a probation order), a man may indicate that if a certain course is taken he will repay the money, or make good the damage. And I think that, on the whole, there have been satisfactory results from that type of understanding; and in the same way a fine can be more effective than a short prison sentence.

The only argument that might be made against the Bill is that it might encourage a certain type of vicious person to have a "first bite", so to speak, hoping that, since magistrates will be required to think, at any rate, before sending him to prison, they will not do so. Obviously, there is a possibility of that, because there are persons who think these things out in advance—I have come across them—but the experience of the working of an analogous provision in the 1948 Act does not support this view. I have not come across arty suggestion that the younger offender, who is just as capable of thinking this out in advance as the older man, has behaved in this way. Of course, as the noble Viscount has pointed out, imprisonment will still be possible, and in a number of cases no doubt will still have to be imposed, so that the gamble which already exists—because, after all, there is a good chance of a first offender being put on probation—will not be much more in the favour of the man than it has been in recent years. So that, so far as I can see, there is no real argument against this measure. It is likely to produce good results, and I am sure that it will be welcomed in all parts of the House.

3.38 p.m.

LORD WINSTER

My Lords, I should like to say two or three words in support of this Bill. Speaking from my now long experience as a magistrate, I doubt whether it is always realised what a shattering experience it is for a first offender to find himself brought into court and charged with an offence. That man has to go back to his normal life amongst his family and friends with this stigma—for it is a stigma—on his shoulders, something which he has to live down; and in many cases such a shattering experience is in itself such a punishment that I doubt whether it is wise or right to add a sentence to the punishment which the man already feels he has suffered. In fact, I think that in many cases the placing of a sentence upon that man is likely to undo, to some extent, the effects of the experience he has gone through in being brought into court and charged with an offence. That has been a matter which has greatly impressed itself upon my mind and has led me to think that in a great number of cases the infliction of a further punishment on a man is more likely to do him harm than to do him good.

3.40 p.m.

LORD REA

My Lords, I rise to support warmly this small but excellent Bill and to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, for having brought it forward. It seems to be based on humanitarianism and common sense. As regards common sense, I think we must all pay great attention to those whose experience—and I refer particularly to the Prison Commissioners—shows that a short sentence (the normal sentence for a first offender), really does no good. We shall not agree probably about what is the intention of imprisonment, but that it should be only retributory does not seem desirable. In the nursery of to-day the first offender is seldom punished outright anti immediately. There are two schools of thought: one, that first offenders need a quick, sharp and painful penalty attached, and others who would treat them more generously as the dog is treated: that a first bite is not too important. It seems to me that to extend the present benefit, which already applies to those under 21, to those over 21 is only logical. The first offence can be committed equally at the age of 20 or 80. I beg to support the Bill.

3.41 p.m.

LORD CHESHAM

My Lords, I find myself in the happy position in this matter that I agree completely with almost every word that has been said by everyone; consequently I am happy to be able to add my voice to that of my noble friend Lord Templewood in commending the Bill to your Lordships. It is not a spectacular Bill; it is limited in scope and in purpose, and it will solve none of the problems of penal reform which were before your Lordships last month. However, it is a useful measure which, in particular, implements one of the recommendations made by the Home Secretary's Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders in their Report Alternatives to Short Terms of Imprisonment.

I should not like it to be thought that I stand here as an advocate, so to speak, of undue leniency in these matters. We are all aware of the gravity of the situation, and certainly I should not agree with this measure if I thought that in any way it implied a decrease of gravity of the punishment that would overtake those who commit various forms of misdemeanour and crime.

As my noble friend Lord Templewood said—and this is the main reason why I am glad to support the Bill—the Bill does not seek to deprive magistrates' courts of their power to send first offenders to prison. It only requires them before doing so to consider fully whether any of the other courses available to them would be appropriate and, if they decide that imprisonment is the only proper sentence, to formulate their reasons. In no way is the Bill intended to prevent magistrates' courts from sending first offenders to prison in those cases (and this also was agreed by the Advisory Council) where imprisonment is the only possible sentence; cases, for instance, of frauds perpetrated over a long period, or of flagrant breaches of trust. The effect of the Bill is to obviate sentences of imprisonment which are unnecessary.

I think, too, that there are other reasons for supporting the Bill. Some of these have already been referred to and. therefore, I can be brief in dealing with them. We have to remember that, except in exceptional circumstances where the offender is convicted of a series of offences of which at least two are indictable, a magistrates' court cannot impose a term of imprisonment of more than six months, and a large proportion of the sentences imposed are in fact of three months or less. The Advisory Council analysed the people who went to prison in 1954 with sentences of six months or less. Roughly, 90 per cent. of them had been sent there by magistrates' courts: about half of the total had sentences of three months or less, while a quarter had five weeks or less.

Some mention has been made of the subject of the value of going to prison at all. I think it would be true to say that most of us regard a prison sentence certainly in the light of a deterrent, and most of us regard it also as an opportunity for reform, which is possibly as important as the deterrent aspect. I should agree with my noble friend Lord Templewood on this subject. As has been pointed out, a short sentence will probably have no reformative value, because it is too short for anything effective to be done, and if it is to be a deterrent the sting is likely to be taken out of that for the future.

I think it is right, as the noble Lord, Lord Winster, mentioned, that there is certainly reason to think that imprisonment is not generally necessary to ensure that a first offender keeps out of trouble from then on. A large proportion of adult first offenders do not come before the courts again; and there is reason to think that that proportion does not vary greatly, no matter what sort of punishment or penalty they have received. I think that suggests, as the noble Lord said, that for the majority the shock and shame of having to go before the court at all is really the major part of both punishment and deterrent. If, then, a case can be made, as it has been, for thinking that the importance of a prison sentence may be of doubtful value in certain cases, I believe we should be entitled to consider also the question of relative costs. Imprisonment is an expensive process. It costs £6 11s. a week to keep a man in prison. While it is not possible to produce the comparative figures of what it costs for a man to be on probation for a week, it cannot be anything like that; and, of course, the cost of imposing a fine is very small.

My noble friend Lord Templewood mentioned the overcrowded state of the prisons, and I should like to say a word or two on that subject. It is true that while the number of prisoners who go to prison with a sentence of six months or less is fairly large, the amount of space they occupy is relatively small. The figures for 1954 are that the daily average of those serving sentences of less than six months was 1,900, compared with the total daily average population of prisoners of 19,000. But short-term prisoners impose some strain on the administration of local prisons because of their rapid turnover. I think it would be fair to take up the point to this extent: that in view of the present overcrowding any measure that will result in a reduction of unnecessary sentences is desirable. I would agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, that we cannot expect a decrease of anything like 60 per cent., and I do not think I should like to hazard any form of estimate, or guess by how many the number of sentences of imprisonment might be reduced. In many parts of the country, in fact, the Bill will merely give the force of law to what is already the practice of the justices. But if it does no more than bring to the attention of justices everywhere the importance of considering with the greatest care all the information available to them about a first offender before they take the serious step of sending him to prison, it will have served a useful purpose. I am happy to commend it to your Lordships.

3.52 p.m.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I want to say one word on this Bill because I took part for the first time (I am a probationer myself) in our last debate on prisons. On that occasion I made a strong point of the fact that it was desirable to concentrate even more on keeping as many people as possible out of prison than on what was the main topic of the debate, the provision of more prisons. I thought there were a great many people who were sentenced to prison who need not have been, and, of course, I would include first offenders as chief among them. Therefore, I welcome the Bill.

There are some words here which attracted my attention, and that is that magistrates should not commit people to prison unless the court is of opinion that no other method of dealing with them is appropriate. There are very few alternative methods of dealing with people. One case which came before the courts the other day, about which we all read, was of a person who was alleged to have driven into a boy with a car. One feels that society ought to mark its disapproval of an action of that kind, and the woman in question was sentenced to prison. If there had been some other method of dealing with that case, I myself should have preferred it. But what is the alternative method of dealing with a case of that kind? A heavy fine? In most cases the fine is limited by Statute, and the normal fine is inadequate. I do not know that anything can be done on the matter by this Bill; it is a question of general revision of our penal laws. But there are cases where a much more stringent alternative would be suitable. For instance, a much heavier fine, a period of having to report daily, or something of that kind, would be much more appropriate than imprisonment.

I thought I would make that point, because in many cases there is no satisfactory alternative to mark the disapproval of society. That is one of the justifications for sentencing people to prison—to mark the disapproval of society. Of course, with a great many people that is an important influence—not so much the imprisonment itself, but the fact that society has expressed its disapproval of their action by some definite means. As I say, I do not think anything can be done about it in this Bill. I support the Bill, but we have to do a lot more thinking before we can regard our method of dealing with offences and crimes as really satisfactory.

3.55 p.m.

VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD

My Lords, the Bill has received such a favourable reception that I have scarcely anything to answer. But let me, in a sentence or two, say a word first of all about what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has just said. I agree with him that a great many of our sentences might well need to be revised, but that is a much wider issue than the issue of this Bill. All that this Bill attempts to do is to draw the attention of magistrates to the alternatives as they exist to-day, and to ask them to take them into account. The case which the noble Lord quoted just now was a very bad case. My own view, for what it is worth, is that the sentence of imprisonment was perfectly justified, and I am glad to see that there has been no interference with it.

Apart from the particular case, I think one of the merits of this Bill is that it leaves a latitude to the magistrates. I am an old member and former Chairman of the Magistrates' Association—I see the present Chairman to-day on the Wool-sack—and both he and I have noticed with great interest and satisfaction the increasing attention that magistrates all over the country are taking in their duties. It has been most remarkable since the end of the last war—progress that is, I believe, mainly due to the work of the Magistrates' Association. But whether that be the case or not, 99 benches out of 100 are taking far greater interest in these questions than they did in my early days. When I was still at Oxford I was made a magistrate of the County of Norfolk. Everything was cut and dried, and there were none of these consultations about alternative penalties, and so on. The merit of the Bill is that it leaves this judgment to the magistrates. I believe that by doing that it will tend to raise their standards. It will make them think, and when they come to think we shall not see that kind of disparity between one sentence and another that we have seen in the cases I have quoted this afternoon.

I must not trespass upon the patience of the House, particularly when your Lordships have given the Bill such a favourable reception. Let me say, in conclusion, that the wider question of deterrence raised by the noble Lord. Lord Chesham, is a terribly complicated one, and I am not going to attempt to say anything at all about it. The longer I have been interested in these penal questions, the more inscrutable many of them seem to be and the greater the danger of generalising about this or that particular phase or this or that detail. But I am sure that none of these problems need be raised by this Bill. It is a small step, but it is a step in the right direction.

On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.