§ 3.7 p.m.
§ LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the substantial rise in recent years in the number of individuals committed to prison under county court orders, they will consider the appointment of social workers to provide county court judges with social inquiry reports, to undertake means inquiries and to offer such other advice and information as the courts may require.]
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, while the number of committal orders made in the county courts in 1963 increased, the number of those actually committed to prison fell slightly. It is, I fear, the case that a considerable number of debtors do not comply with a court order until a committal order is made. Before making a committal order, the county court judge must be satisfied that the debtor has, or has had since the date of the judgment, the means to pay. I do not think that the reports of social workers or their advice would assist in the discharge of this judicial duty. It is only after hearing evidence in court, usually from the creditor or his agents and from the debtor, that the judge decides. I know and welcome the fact that in some areas probation officers, despite the heavy burden of their ordinary work, voluntarily help persons and families in financial difficulties with advice and guidance. While I recognise the importance of this work, I do not think it would be practicable to impose a duty to do this on all probation officers having regard to their other obligations.
§ LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELLMy Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, for his reply. Would he not agree that in fact, although in the last year the number of persons committed to prison may have fallen slightly, in the past ten years the number has increased tenfold and there is here a serious social problem? Would he not agree that it could well be an advantage, both to the debtors and to the courts, if the same sort of facilities as are available in magistrates' courts, in cases of maintenance orders and things of that sort, were available in county courts? Further, would it not be possible to employ retired probation officers or such people for this work, without in any way putting a heavier load on the existing service?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, with regard to the first question, it is true that the number of persons committed to prison has increased over the last ten years, but the number of judgment summons has also increased; in fact, the percentage has not varied substantially. In regard to the second question, I do not think you can compare the functions of the magistrates in relation to maintenance orders and things of that sort, with the functions of the judge with regard to the collection of debts. As to the third question, I do not think myself, as the judge depends upon evidence given in public before he makes his order, that it would be possible to institute a system such as the noble Lord has suggested. What is really required—and voluntary effort can do a great deal towards it—is assistance for the families, and guidance and advice when these families have got into financial difficulties.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARKMy Lords, as has been indicated, a reason for the large increase in the number of those in prison at the moment is the increase in the number of those sentenced for debt. Could the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor indicate, first, whether Her Majesty's Government have any intention of instituting an inquiry as to the reason for this serious increase in the number of those imprisoned for debt; and, secondly, whether any study into the ethics and expediency of imprisonment for debt could be implemented?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I do not agree with the right reverend Prelate in his preliminary statement. They are not, in fact, sentenced for debt. If they are committed to prison they are committed for contempt, for disobedience of an order made by the court after the court has been satisfied that the debtor has, or has had, the means to comply with the court order. With regard to the second question put by the right reverend Prelate, and the third, the answer is, No. I think it is necessary to keep the sanction of a committal order to ensure payment of debts by recalcitrant debtors. As I pointed out in my original Answer, I fear it is the case that a substantial number of debtors at the present time do not pay until a committal order has been made.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARKMy Lords, with respect, I do not feel that my question has been answered. It was this: have Her Majesty's Government any intention of instituting an inquiry as to the reason for this serious increase?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I would reply, first of all, that I do not think this question arises out of the original Question at all. But the answer to the question is, I repeat, No. The reason for the increase is quite obvious—namely, that people against whom orders have been made have not chosen to comply with them, although they have the means to do so.