PENALTIES FOR DRUNKENNESS BILL (Hansard, 10 July 1962)

§ LORD WESTWOOD
My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill. It is a Private Member's Bill, and was introduced in another place by the Member for Tynemouth, Dame Irene Ward. It seems appropriate that I should do so, as the honourable lady and I were appointed as Justices of the Peace on the same day, and for the same bench in the City and County of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in 1949. When this Bill was introduced in another place and debated there, it had the support of all political Parties, so I shall not detain your Lordships for long over this small, but nevertheless important, Bill, and I shall endeavour, as briefly as I can, to explain the main points in it.
Clause 1 of the Bill is the operative and virtually the only clause in the Bill, and it sets out to increase the existing maximum penalties for certain forms of 236 drunkenness. The existing penalties have been laid down in Acts which, as you will see from subsection (2), go back as far as the Refreshment Act, 1860, which is over 100 years ago, and the Licensing Act, 1872, which is now 90 years old. Reference is also made to other Acts of various dates, the most recent being the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1959, although that was only a consolidating measure, and there was no discussion on penalties at that time.
The existing penalties for drunkenness under Section 12 of the Licensing Act, 1872, which this Bill seeks to amend, are as follows. The penalty for being drunk on any highway or other public place, whether a building or not, or in licensed premises, is 10s. for the first offence, 20s. for a second conviction within 12 months, and on a third or subsequent conviction within the same period of 12 months the fine is 40s. The penalties for being drunk and disorderly, or guilty of riotous or disorderly behaviour, are 40s., or imprisonment not exceeding one month. But here I would say that the provisions of Section 12 of the Licensing Act, 1872, do not apply to any persons who are drunk and in charge of a motor car. Provisions for them are dealt with under the Road Traffic Acts, and the relevant sections in those Acts provide that the person liable to be charged with an offence under them shall not be liable to be charged under Section 12 of the Licensing Act, 1872, or the equivalent Scottish Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, asked a Question in your Lordships' House on June 6 last. He asked Her Majesty's Government [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 241 (No. 91), col. 597]: whether they are satisfied that the current maximum fines prescribed in the Statutes … are in all cases adequate, having regard to the fall in the value of money since they were enacted". The noble Lord was informed by the Government that they agreed that there is a case for the revision of some fines in the light of present-day monetary values, and it is for this very reason that this Bill has been introduced. The new penalties as laid down in the Bill are: for simple drunkenness, a fine not exceeding £5; and for being drunk and disorderly, the maximum fine is increased to £10, or imprisonment not 237 exceeding one month. I would hasten to assure your Lordships that these increases in the penalties for drunkenness are not due to any increase in drunkenness, or any fear that there would be a sudden increase in drunkenness. It is simply that the value of money and the deterrent effect of these fines of 10s. and up to 40s. have become very small with the passage of time. But I would not hazard a guess what the accurate measurement of the decrease in the value of money has been since the year 1860.
It is my firm belief that this Bill will be welcomed by the courts of summary jurisdiction, and it will certainly be welcomed by the police, who have a great deal of trouble with drunk and disorderly people. I can give an example. If a person who is drunk is arrested on a Saturday afternoon, it is usual for that person to be housed in a cell for two nights, obtain up to five meals, and when he or she appears before the magistrates on the Monday morning, he or she is fined the paltry sum of 10s. Consultations have taken place with the Home Office, and it has been agreed that the suggested new penalties are reasonable, and are up to date and in line with present-day standards. I commend this Bill to your Lordships, and I ask that you give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.

§ LORD STONHAM
My Lords, again I would thank the noble Lord for the very lucid and careful way that he has explained this Bill. I am always very dubious about the value of deterrents, and although I do not in any way oppose this Bill, which I am quite prepared to accept as necessary, I very much doubt that, with the kind of people the noble Lord has mainly in mind, it will deter them very much from getting drunk. Having regard to the fact that the penalties for drunkenness were fixed when whisky was 3s. 6d. a bottle but it is now ten times the price, I think it is quite justifiable to step up the penalties somewhat, and the figures here of £5, or £10, or imprisonment not exceeding one month, are nothing to quarrel with.
238 My difficulty, however, and I have no doubt it is his difficulty as a magistrate—and these increased penalties, I hope, will throw up this difficulty even more—is that the kind of man or woman who continually comes before the magistrates and is fined 10s. and told not to come again, as the noble Lord said, is eventually sent to prison for a week, two weeks, or even a month. They are cleaned up, perhaps given a new suit of clothes, and sent out again. They pawn their clothes and come before the magistrates again well and truly drunk. I do not think that these enlarged fines are going to deter them, although the noble Lord may well say that that is not an argument against the Bill, and he is quite right. It is an argument, perhaps, in favour of providing the magistrates with different forms of treatment to which they can send persistent drunkards. Perhaps the increase of penalties in this Bill may throw that up more distinctly, and eventually we shall have a different way of treating persistent drunkards, other than sending them to general local prisons, where they are a great nuisance to prison officers and are mixed up with all kinds of criminals, at considerable expense to the State and with no permanent benefit to themselves. Apart from that, we welcome this Bill and will not oppose it.

EARL BATHURST
My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Westwood on moving the Second Reading of this Bill and on giving an admirable explanation to its purpose and its scope. As he said, the Bill seeks simply to increase the penalties for drunkeness under the existing law of England and Wales and Scotland and to bring them into line with the present-day value of money. I think that that is a purpose with which most of your Lordships would concur. I shall be brief, especially at this late hour and with the scarcity of noble Lords in the House.
The Home Office are making a comprehensive review of all the smaller maximum fines, with a view to the possible introduction of legislation to bring them into line with the present-day value of money, as my noble friend has suggested. It is a large task. It is not possible just to multiply the old fines, some 239 of which go back hundreds of years, by a factor representing the change in the value of money. Some offences may have changed considerably in importance, and some of the heavier fines may be quite inappropriate.
The honourable lady who represents Tynemouth in another place decided, with the vigour for which she is noted, that fines for drunkeness might well be dealt with on their own in a short Bill, which is before your Lordships to-night under my noble friend's name. In its relatively narrow compass, it is comprehensive in its treatment of penalties for the several offences of drunkenness, which my noble friend has mentioned. We welcome the Bill, and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking my noble friend Lord Westwood, in particular, for his part in bringing this small but useful measure before your Lordships' House. I commend the Bill to your Lordships.

§ LORD WESTWOOD
My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and also my noble friend Lord Bathurst for their support. I would now ask your Lordships to accord this Bill a Second Reading.