§ 7.5 p.m.
§ LORD HUGHESMy Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales that they, having been informed of the purport of the Road Traffic Bill, have consented to place their prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected on behalf of the Crown, the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH)My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
LORD JANNERMy Lords, I must apologise to the House for intervening at this time. I think that the House will appreciate—
§ LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICHMy Lords, I hope my noble friend will forgive me, but I think it might be a good idea at this time if I moved the Privilege Amendment. I beg to move the Privilege Amendment.
On Question, Bill read 3a, an Amendment (privilege) made.
§ LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICHMy Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
LORD JANNERMy Lords, as the House is aware I am deeply concerned about the effects of certain clauses of this Bill in relation to powers which are exercisable at the present time by magistrates to prevent crime. I would again say at this late stage in this House that it would he a grave error to pass certain measures which would deprive the magistrates of this country of the right to be able to exercise their judgment, and to impose certain sentences which they consider appropriate to deal with these motoring offences. I realise—and the magistrates themselves realise—that it is important to refrain so far as possible from sending people to prison if it can be avoided. But as one can see from speeches which have been made here, it is perfectly clear that by removing the powers of imprisonment certain results will follow which were probably not contemplated at the time the Bill was introduced. Various custodial possibilities are being taken away in relation to attendance centres, detention centres, and so on. I shall not go through the whole story again, because it has been very carefully voiced in this House. Magistrates feel the whole object of their jurisdiction would be seriously impaired in relation to the kind of offences to which the Bill refers, and would make their task practically impossible, particularly in the juvenile court.
Let me give one illustration. The removal of the power of imprisonment would not enable the court, as I see it, as the magistrates see it and as the justices' clerks see it, to issue a warrant for a person to appear in court in respect of an offence with which he had been charged. What the position would be with regard to the endorsing of licences in such circumstances is open to question 1714 because the licence would not be before the court. One could not compel an accused person to bring his licence to court. I do not want at this stage to call upon the Government to make long statements or to give explanations, but this is a point which has to be carefully considered between now and the Bill's next stage in another place.
I ought to explain to your Lordships that, unfortunately, I was out of the country during the debate at the previous stage of the Bill in this House. I want to thank my noble friends who spoke in the debates on the Committee stage and the Report stage for having done so and for the admirable way in which they presented the case. I would have been prepared to remain until the early hours of the morning, when the Committee stage was on the Order Paper, but I did not think that that would be courteous to the House; nor would it have been appropriate for me to insist upon the matter going further that evening. Unfortunately, after that I had to leave the country on an important matter and I hope the House will appreciate that it was not out of any discourtesy to the House that I was not here.
The Bill will now proceed to another place. I feel that the magistrates do such splendid work and are so experienced in the work that they carry out that we cannot afford (it would be quite wrong) to disregard their views. We should only act if we are thoroughly satisfied that the contentions that they are bringing forward are unreasonable; and if there is a question of doubt at all in so far as their view is concerned, the balance should be put in their favour. They are people who do not want to impose harsh sentences. But it would be silly of us to take away from them their feeling that they are doing something to cure and remedy a position and ensure that there will be no repetition of the offences concerned.
Of course, the effect of fines being raised is sheer nonsense. It does not matter a hoot (if I may use the expression) to a man who has plenty of money whether he has to pay a fine of £20 or of £100. The person who cannot afford to pay could never be called upon to pay. I do not know how on earth we should be able to get money from a person who had been fined heavily but was not in a position to pay because his means were 1715 not sufficient. So, in fact, when we look at the effect of the Bill we really must see that the magistrates are justified in feeling that the object for which they undertake their duties is being frustrated.
I hope that even at this late hour—and I believe, reading some of the statements made by the Government, that they have gone a little way towards considering possible Amendments in the other place—an opportunity will be given for the magistrates and for the justices' clerks to have further consultations with the Government. I hope that the magistrates will be received in a proper way (I am not suggesting they were received in any improper way before) and that proper regard will be given to their views. They want to be of use to the country, and they actually are of considerable use to the country. I hope that when this request is answered, as I hope it will be, and these meetings take place, careful consideration and a positive reaction will be accorded to the views of the Magistrates' Association and the justices clerks' organisation. I hope that Amendments will be produced—perhaps by the Government themselves—to comply with the proposals of the magistrates and the justices' clerks. Indeed, I hope that the right which has been spoken about here quite a lot—the right of any person who is charged to apply for trial by jury—will be retained. I personally consider that that is a right of considerable importance, and certainly it should not be altered before we consider the Report which is forthcoming in respect of this issue.
I could of course repeat very many of the strong arguments that have been used. I do not want to do that. I think that everyobdy here has heard or read them time after time. I am quite sure that the Government in their heart of hearts know very well that they are dealing on these issues with responsible people, and they are responsible people themselves. These people (I hope I shall be forgiven for saying this, but I believe I am entitled to) are very much more experienced than are Ministers—I say that without any disrespect—unless the Ministers themselves have been magistrates for a considerable time. It is really necessary to give effect to their views in a matter of this kind, where experience counts for so much.
§ 7.19 p.m.
§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTONMy Lords, I shall detain your Lordships for only one or two minutes. I do not want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Janner, in his arguments. I know that he passionately and sincerely feels the strength of them. There are one or two noble Lords on this side of the House who are magistrates who feel as the noble Lord does. I know that friends on this side, learned and right honourable, when in Government took the same view as the noble Lord the Minister and his Government on this point. It is a matter of sincere principles in what we are trying to do. We want to keep the prison population down just as noble Lords opposite want to. That has been argued with regard to our Bill last year; it has been argued on this Bill this year. However, I am speaking merely to thank the noble Lords. Lord Harris of Greenwich. Lord Garnsworthy and also Lord Wells-Pestell who helped on this Bill.
I hope that on this Bill we shall not have a repetition of what happened to our old friend, the Conservation of Seals Bill. I was given my first important task on the Front Bench in Opposition of looking after the Conservation of Seals Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, as Leader of the Party and Leader of the Government, added lustre to it by dealing with it for the Government. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook introduced it. For three years running it was introduced and for three years running it got lost. After three years I got to know the subject fairly well. This is the second time round for the Road Traffic Bill. It has a useful purpose to perform and I hope that something called "an election" will not interfere to disturb the natural, calm passage of the Bill through another place.
My Lords, with those words, may I thank the noble Lords for their helpfulness. We have had a very good debate and the points at issue have been well debated. Even the noble Lord, Lord Janner, would agree, I think, that all the points have been discussed. He will not, I know, agree with all that has been said. However, I think it is agreed that this is a useful Bill. I hope that it will go through, but if it does not, we shall meet again and we shall be able to repeat our phrases.
§ 7.22 p.m.
§ LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICHMy Lords, may I deal first with the points raised by my noble friend Lord Janner. I am sure that the House is sorry that we were deprived of his guidance during the discussion of the issues which he has raised this evening. I know how strongly my noble friend feels about this particular issue. However, I may be able to reassure him on one point, although I suspect not on the other. The Government will always be prepared to talk to the Magistrates' Association or the Justices' Clerks Society on this or any other issue. I share his view entirely that they are an important and responsible group of people with substantial experience of the administration of the criminal law. On the other hand, the Government, like their predecessors, are determined to reduce substantially the number of people who, in our judgment, are sent to prison unnecessarily for offences under the Road Traffic Act.
We will be prepared to talk to the Magistrates' Association and the Justices' Clerks Society, but nobody should have any misunderstanding about this point. Our position was made clear by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor during the debate which we had 48 hours ago, and it would only be misleading these two important groups of people if I suggested that on the central question of principle there was any likelihood that the Government would move their position. On the other hand, on peripheral questions dealing with the endorsement of licences and matters of the sort raised by my noble friend Lady Wootton, we shall be prepared to look at the matter again, either with these two bodies or with others.
Apart from that, may I thank the noble Lord who has just sat down. Like the noble Lord, I hope that we shall soon see this Bill on the Statute Book. I say that without any political overtones; I think that is the safest way of putting it. I thank him and his noble friend Lord Aberdare for the helpful and constructive role which they have both played during the passage of this Bill. I thank particularly my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I do that 1718 with particular feeling, because on the two issues upon which he addressed your Lordships he managed to persuade the majority of your Lordships that the Government were right. Next, may I thank my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell, and, thirdly and particularly, my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy, who has carried the bulk of the work on this Bill as spokesman for the Department of the Environment. It is not only a question of speaking in this House but also of carrying out a substantial amount of correspondence with a number of your Lordships upon all the particular matters and issues raised in the debate.
LORD JANNERMy Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I want him to realise that what I have been saying does not mean that I do not agree with many Parts of the Bill. On the contrary, I think that the Bill is a very good Bill. However, I do not want this to be the rotten apple in the barrel.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.