HL Deb 19 May 1970 vol 310 cc1013-4

[Nos. 25 and 26]

Clause 21, page 18, line 19, after "or" insert" in the case of an offence specified in subsection (3A) below

Clause 21, page 18, line 22, at end insert— (3A) The offences referred to above in the case of which a judge may impose imprisonment are—

  1. (a) an offence under subsection (2)(c) or (d), if committed by the debtor;
  2. (b) an offence under subsection (2)(e) or (f), whether committed by the debtor or any other person."

4.51 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, if no noble Lord objects, I will move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 25 and 26. Clause 21(3) provides that where a person commits an offence under subsection (2) in relation to proceedings in the High Court or a county court he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £25, or he may be ordered by the High Court or the county court judge to pay a fine not exceeding £25 or to be imprisoned for not more than 14 days. The effect of the Amendments is generally to confine the sanction of imprisonment to offences by the debtor, but it would also enable an employer to be imprisoned for offences involving recklessness or dishonesty. I can go into the details if any noble Lord would like to hear them. There was a good deal of discussion about the employers' position below, and the eventual agreement was that prison should apply only if there were offences involving recklessness or dishonesty, and not mere carelessness or negligence. My Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS

My Lords, I am sorry to prolong these proceedings by commenting on so many of these points, but this is another of some importance. It was a question of getting the balance right, particularly on the employer's side, where I think as the matter was originally suggested he was going to be open to a prison sentence for a rather wide and unfortunate range of offences. Now the prison penalty has been restricted, as the noble and learned Lord said, and I should consider the clause to be quite unobjectionable. I imagine that prison for offences of this kind is going to be an extremely rare sentence in any event, very much a last resort; and if an employer has been reckless or dishonest I should think that usually a substantial fine would be sufficient. But I agree that the prison sanction should perhaps be there for the very rare case where it is necessary.

On Question, Motion agreed to.