CRIMINAL LAW BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 19 April 1977 vol 382 cc11-29

2.51 p.m.

Read 3^a with the Amendments.

Clause 1 [The offence of conspiracy.]:

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 1: Page 2, line 5, leave out ("in relation to") and insert ("to commit").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it may be convenient, in moving this first Amendment, if I were also to invite your Lordships to consider Amendments Nos. 2 to 8, as they are all interlinked and interrelated. The main Amendment in this series, Amendment No. 2, adds a redrafted subsection to Clause 1 to replace the subsection which was removed from the Bill on the first day of the Report stage, with the Government's agreement. When we discussed this subsection on that occasion, I said that the Government were very ready to give further thought to the drafting of a new subsection in place of the existing one. In the light of comments made by noble Lords, I suggested a new draft which could be examined between Report stage and Third Reading.

The matter has been considered and discussed since then, and we have accepted several changes in the draft which were suggested by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. He has asked me to express his regret that, as he is sitting as a member of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, he cannot be with us this afternoon. We are very grateful to him and to the other noble Lords who have helped us with this difficult subsection.

I think that noble Lords will agree that the new draft is a considerable improvement on the Bill as introduced. As for the other Amendments, they are consequential on one of the improvement to the new subsection which was suggested by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, substituting the words "conspiracy to commit any offence" in place of "conspiracy in relation to any offence" in the various places where that phrase occurs. I beg to move.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

My Lords, I do not want to detain the House but, in the absence of my noble and learned friend on the Cross Benches, I should like to thank the Government for the trouble that they have taken. I think that the proposed Amendments are an improvement and justify the amount of time we took on this rather technical question, both on Committee and on Report stage.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for those kind words, and also for his assistance. I now observe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, wishes to speak and I will give way to him immediately, as I invariably do.

Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST

My Lords, I was only rising also to express appreciation. Many of us know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has taken a very great deal of trouble to produce words that are acceptable, as indeed these words are. We are all most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. In particular, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has asked me to say in your Lordships' Chamber, being unable to be present personally at this moment, though he hopes to be present later, that he also wishes to express gratitude to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and satisfaction at the result.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 2, line 5, at end insert— ("(1A) Where liability for any offence may be incurred without knowledge on the part of the person committing it of any particular fact or circumstance necessary for the commission of the offence, a person shall nevertheless not be guilty of conspiracy to commit that offence by virtue of subsection (1) above unless he and at least one other party to the agreement intend or know that that fact or circumstance shall or will exist at the time when the conduct constituting the offence is to take place")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2 which, as I said, has already been considered.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 [Exemptions .from liability for conspiracy]:

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendments Nos. 3 to 8:

Page 2, line 21, leave out ("in relation to") and insert ("to commit")

Page 2, line 24, leave out ("in relation to") and insert ("to commit")

Clause 3, page 2, line 39, leave out ("in relation to") and insert ("to commit").

Clause 4, page 4, line 9, leave out ("in relation to") and insert ("to commit")

Clause 4, page 4, line 18, leave out ("in relation to") and insert ("to commit")

Clause 4, page 4, line 26, leave out ("in relation to") and insert ("to commit").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if, with the leave of the House, I put Amendments Nos. 3 to 8 en bloc. These Amendments have already been discussed. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 5 [Abolitions, savings, transitional provisions, consequential amendment and repeals]:

Lord WIGODER moved Amendment No. 9: Page 4, line 32, leave out ("cheat and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, I beg to move Amendment No. 9 and speak to Amendment No. 10 at the same time. I raised this matter at the Report stage when I indicated that since the common law offence of cheating was abolished by the Theft Act 1968, it is now customary to indict for conspiracies to defraud simply as conspiracies to defraud and not as conspiracies to cheat and defraud. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, indicated on Report stage that he wished to look into this matter. I understand the results of his observations have been entirely favourable and, in those circumstances, I say no more about it, except that I beg to move the Amendment.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, when the noble Lord moved his Amendments at Report stage, we undertook to look carefully into them. We have done so and are satisfied that they will improve the Bill. Therefore, I suggest to the House that we agree to the noble Lord's Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord WIGODER moved Amendment No. 10: Page 4, line 35, leave out ("cheat and").

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 11: Page 5, line 5, leave out ("in issue") and insert ("charged").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment was suggested to us by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, during Report stage. I am grateful to him for making the suggestion which, in our view, represents an improvement on the original drafting.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendments Nos. 12 to 14:

Clause 7, page 7, line 11, leave out ("and had reasonable cause to believe").

Clause 9, page 8, line 24, leave out ("and had reasonable cause to believe").

Clause 10, page 9, line 10, leave out ("and had reasonable cause to believe").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. Perhaps I can also move Amendments Nos. 13 and 14. During the discussion of the Government Amendments to Clause 9 at the Report stage, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, raised points on the defence which are now to be found in Clause 9 (3). The noble and learned Lord and I have exchanged letters about this defence since the Report stage, and the Amendments to Clauses Nos. 7, 9 and 10 are the result of that correspondence. The noble and learned Lord pointed out, and the Government have accepted, that it is going too far to expect the defendant to satisfy an objective test, that is, that he had reasonable cause to believe something, as well as a subjective test, that is, that he had in fact believed it. The reasonableness or otherwise of the alleged belief will be a factor taken into account by the court in considering whether or not the defendant has proved a defence. We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for taking up this matter and I hope the House will agree to these Amendments.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

My Lords, I do not want to detain the House, but I think this is an important matter. The Government have accepted, as I have myself, that this is a case where the burden of proof is put on the defendant to establish the absence of the mental ingredient in crime. As drafted, a defendant would have to prove not only that notwithstanding that his mind was entirely innocent, it was also a reasonable mind. That is going too far, and I am grateful to the noble Lord and to the Government for having accepted my suggestion in the interests of personal rights.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

3.2 p.m.

Lord INGLEWOOD moved Amendment No. 15:

Before Clause 36, insert the following new clause:

Reciprocal arrangements regarding recognisances between England and Scotland

.—(1) Where a person charged with a summary offence appears or is brought before a court of summary jurisdiction in England or Scotland and such person has previously entered into a recognisance or bond or provided sureties to keep the peace or to be of good behaviour before any court of summary jurisdiction in England or Scotland, then a complaint may be laid before the court before which such person appears or is brought applying for an order to declare the recognisance or bond to be forfeited, and that court shall have power to declare the recognisance or bond to be forfeited and to order the payment of the whole or such part of such recognisance or bond as it shall think fit as if such recognisance or bond had been entered into or the sureties provided before that court.

(2) In this section, the expression "court of summary jurisdiction" has the same meaning as in the Summary Jurisdiction (Process) Act 1881.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 15 and I should like to say that Amendment No. 47 is purely consequential upon this one. The Amendment attempts to achieve greater uniformity and some fairness as between Scottish and English courts in a field where there is at present neither; some offender can appear in court in one or other country who has previously been hound over to keep the peace by a magistrates' court in England.

Perhaps I might explain why Amendment No. 15 appears on the Marshalled List for the first time on Third Reading. In fact, it was on the List at the Report stage but was covered up by some others. In my absence, when the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, so ably moved the Amendments dealing with the traffic offences, for which the Government showed great sympathy, I noticed that this point was not mentioned at all. It therefore seemed to me right to put it down again on the List, since no debate had been addressed to it. I also think it is tidier for this point to be moved as a separate Amendment.

Binding over, in layman's language—and I am rather shy about talking on a legal point in this learned company—is a kind of suspended fine. As an illustration, may I ask your Lordships to assume that two lads create a disturbance outside a pub in the North of England on a Saturday evening. Both are charged and, where neither has a record, as like as not they will be bound over to keep the peace with a certain sum for recognisance. A year later they both do it again but in different places: one in England and the other a few miles away just over the Border in Scotland. The lad who does his further exuberant drinking in England is likely to lose all, or most, of his recognisance by estreat as well as incurring a further fine. His friend, who was wiser and did his drinking just North of the Border in Scotland will do better, because the Scottish court is most unlikely to pay any attention to the previous binding over. I am not sure that it has any power to do so.

The sole purpose of this Amendment is to give the Scottish court the power to consider the previous offence in the same way as an English court would consider such a binding over. It would then be in the position where it could require the estreat of part or all the recognisance in exactly the same way as the English court would do. It is a very simple point and I would submit that nobody could say it is not fair. I hope the Government will be able to accept it.

Lord CAMPBELL of CROY

My Lords, perhaps I might just say a word before the noble Lord replies. As my noble friend Lord Inglewood has stated, he could not be here on 10th March when these matters were discussed at the previous stage. On his behalf, as well as on my own, I moved and spoke to Amendments dealing with a related question. That was the question of the service of summonses in Northern Ireland for offences which are not punishable by imprisonment. Although this Amendment was on the Marshalled List, it was not dealt with at that time, and it is on a rattier different point from the point concerning Northern Ireland. Might I also say that, although my noble friend spoke of the associated Amendment as No. 47, I think he meant Amendment No. 20, which refers to Clause 47.

My noble friend has drawn attention to an anomaly, in that there is a difference in procedure North and South of the Border. It is a difficult administrative matter and I hope the Government will give it some thought. In Scotland we are proud of having Scots law and Scots procedure, but in important matters we have tried, as reforms have taken place, to adopt uniform procedures as far as we can over the whole country.

I should like to take this opportunity of asking the noble Lord, Lord Harris, whether he can give us a situation report about the question of the serving of summonses in Northern Ireland, because he was very sympathetic at that time and he recognised that there was a defect. Perhaps I might just remind the House of the position. There are very large numbers of vehicles coming from Northern Ireland and landing mostly at Stranraer. It is a traffic economically to be encouraged and it has increased a great deal recently. But the fact that a few irresponsible operators and drivers can commit traffic offences—for example, they can be driving vehicles which are dangerous and defective and can exceed speed limits, and yet do that with impunity because there is no way of bringing them to book—is causing more and more grievance. Also, of course, it affects the police and the public in the South-East of Scotland and in Cumbria in particular. These vehicles go all over the country, so this is a matter which affects every part of Britain as well. I know the Government are considering what can be done about this when this Bill reaches another place, and I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell us of the progress that has been made.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, dealing with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, as he said, we discussed this on the last occasion. It is a difficult matter, and certainly we are looking into it to see whether it will be possible to do something at a later stage of the Bill's progress through Parliament. I think I can say, without examining my words rather more carefully, that this almost certainly would have to be done in another place. I do not think I can give any further indication of our position on this than I did on the last occasion, save to repeat that we recognise there is a real problem here and we are anxious to do something about it.

Turning now to the point which is the subject of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, the situation is this. Although this Amendment seeks to establish reciprocal arrangements between England and Scotland regarding recognisances entered into before a court to keep the peace or to be of good behaviour, the powers of the courts in these countries to deal with situations involving breaches of the peace are fundamentally quite different. An English court may order a person who is before it, or whose case is before it, to enter into a recognisance or provide sureties to keep the peace and/or be of good behaviour for a specified period, without that person necessarily having been convicted of a criminal offence. That is the law in England. A person who refuses to comply with such an order of "binding over" can be committed to prison, and a person who is subsequently held to have breached an order may he ordered to forfeit all or part of his recognisance and may be imprisoned if he fails to do so. That, I repeat, is the situation in England and Wales.

In Scotland, on the other hand, a court has the power to require a person convicted of an offence—not a person not convicted as can he the case in England and Wales—to find "caution", which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, will be able to confirm is pronounced "cay-shun ", for good behaviour for a period. This latter procedure is seldom used, but if used would involve the deposit with the court of a sum of money which can, if the person concerned is subsequently found not to have been of good behaviour, and if the court thinks fit, be ordered to be forfeited.

In the case of both the Scottish "caution" and the "bind over" in England and Wales, enforcement is a matter for the originating court. We are not aware that this limitation has given rise to any difficulties. I shall certainly arrange that the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, are considered further. But I must make it clear that at the moment the Government are not persuaded that there is a practical need for a provision along the lines provided for in this Amendment. Certainly, if the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, would like to come forward with any evidence of particular difficulties which have arisen, we will look at it. But I repeat that at the moment we are not persuaded that there is a real difficulty here.

Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS

My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that if my noble friend's new clause was accepted by the House it could not be applied? I ask that because, on the face of it, my noble friend's point was so clear, and carried With it so much fairness, that it may well be an experiment which we ought to try. But if the noble Lord is saying that there are reasons which he can show which mean that if we passed this new clause it could not be applied, then we should be wasting our time. However, if he cannot say that, and says that if we accepted this clause and it became part of the Statute it could be applied, then I should like a little more enthusiasm on the part of the noble Lord as regards looking at it in future.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, I hope that I evidence enthusiasm when propositions are put before us, when it is argued that there is a real difficulty. I certainly recognise that there may have been difficulties. All I am saying is that the Government are not aware of any that have arisen. What I have also said is that we are talking about two totally different systems, which could not be dealt with in this Amendment.

Lord INGLEWOOD

My Lords, I found the reply of the noble Lord discouraging, because he put all his emphasis on the historic arguments—that the two systems of law were different. I had never made any attempt to disguise that fact. What I was trying to submit was that there is a real problem here which I hoped could be greatly reduced, if not by an Amendment with these very words then by something similar. The noble Lord has invited me to produce evidence and I will try to do so. He will surely not believe that I dreamed this up in the night all by myself, without drawing on the experience of people who know more than I do. I cannot press the Amendment now, but before I beg leave to withdraw it I must say that I think it is a pity that directions on drinking should go out from this House to the effect that, if you are bound over in England and want to have further exuberant evenings, you are well advised to do your drinking North of the Border where it will be less risky than in your own home town. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 38 [Power to make rules as to furnishing of information by prosecutor in proceedings .for offence triable either way]:

3.15 p.m.

Lord WIGODER moved Amendment No. 16: Page 28, line 37, leave out from ("make") to ("provision") in line 38.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, may 1, with your Lordships' leave, speak also to Amendment No. 18. These are Amendments to Clause 38, which clause was inserted in the Bill on Report, after a great deal of debate at various stages of the progress of the Bill. The clause was designed to give effect to the recommendation of the James Committee, which think was supported by every responsible body concerned with the administration of the criminal law, that it was highly desirable when a defendant was being dealt with summarily at a magistrates' court, that he should have advance notice of the nature of the evidence to be given against him. That was felt to he desirable not only because it was fair, but because it might save very substantial expense in various directions. In particular, it might obviate the necessity for a defendant to ask for adjournments or, on occasion, to elect to go for trail simply in order to discover what was the nature of the case.

When Clause 38 was inserted at Report stage, there was given to the Magistrates' Courts Rules Committee a power to make rules involving the disclosure of evidence to a defendant at a magistrates' court, but it was limited to cases which were triable either way. The purpose of this Amendment and of Amendment No. 18 is to remove that limitation, and to give the Rules Committee power to make orders in relation to all offences that are dealt with summarily at magistrates' courts.

May I say at once that one would not expect the Rules Committee to give such orders at once on such a wide scale; one would expect it to proceed in stages. It may well be that it would wish to proceed first in relation to offences triable either way; perhaps to cases where a defendant was legally represented, and perhaps to cases where a defendant requested that that information should be given. But one would hope that in due course the power would be extended to cover all summary offences, and not merely offences which were triable either way. The result would be that a defendant at a magistrates' court would then have the same rights as a defendant who went for trial; and, indeed, the same rights as a motorist who, at the present moment, gets something in the way of a notice of the facts in a statement of the evidence which is given against him.

In those circumstances, it would appear to be unfortunate if we were now to legislate to prevent the Rules Committee from ever making any such orders without the need for further legislation. While expecting, as I would, that the Rules Committee would proceed slowly and carefully, and would no doubt begin by dealing with offences triable either way, I hope it would be thought proper that the general power should be given to it, in recognition of the fact that there are a very large number of cases triable summarily only, where it is of crucial importance to a defendant that he should know the nature of the case against him before he goes into court. My Lords, I beg to move.

3.19 p.m.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, we have already had a number of fairly protracted debates on this important matter, and I do not propose on this occasion to go through all the arguments yet again. Briefly, the stage which we have reached is that Clause 38 of the Bill now contains a power to make rules providing for advance disclosure of the prosecution case in relation to an offence which is triable either way. In fact, this is a fairly significant change which has been agreed by the Government and by the House, as a result of the discussions which we have had. What the noble Lord is now asking us to do is to go two stages further: first, by seeking to ensure that there will be no delay in making rules once the economic situation improves sufficiently to allow this to be done and, secondly, by seeking to extend the rule-making power to include all criminal offences, including purely summary offences. Indeed, the noble Lord made that point absolutely clear in his speech this afternoon.

During the debate that we had on the Report stage the noble Lord gave notice of his intention to put down either these or similar Amendments. I am glad that these Amendments recognise the financial implications which a formal scheme of advance disclosure involves and that the noble Lord is making no effort to impose a rigid timetable which, for the reasons I set out during our discussion on the Report stage, the Government would find wholly unacceptable in the present economic situation. However, although finance is, as I indicated then, the principal difficulty, it is not the only obstacle in the way of making rules. As I said on Report, no acceptable, ready-made scheme of advance disclosure exists at present. This is a matter on which we shall need to have the fullest consultations with all the interested bodies and organisations in order to devise the shape which rules might take. The present position is that there are already informal arrangements for disclosure to the defence of the general outlines of the prosecution case, but these undoubtedly vary in different parts of the country. Indeed, that point was touched on by a number of those who spoke during our previous debates.

The issue is, therefore, not so much one of principle but of what are the practical considerations. All I would say on the matter today is that we gladly undertake to open discussions before the Summer Recess with those concerned. In other words, we shall not wait for the Bill to finalise its passage through Parliament; we shall open the discussions before the Summer Recess with those concerned, including representatives of the police and prosecuting solicitors, with a view to devising a workable procedure, even though we shall not be in a position for some time to implement any proposal involving substantial additional expenditure. These discussions will also cover the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, that there should be some clarification of the ethics of professional prosecution conduct as regards indication of the nature of the prosecution case generally.

The other effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would be to extend the rule-making power to include all criminal cases, including those which are triable only summarily. This would indeed be a very great enlargement. I have already said that extending this provision even to the 400,000 or so cases triable either way would involve, according to our calculations, additional expenditure in the region of £4 million a year. However, if we were to go further, as the noble Lord invites us to do, we should be accepting—for the future admittedly—much greater cost implications than would be the position so far as the Bill as now drafted is concerned.

In addition, we are not persuaded that there is any real need for such a system, with all the cost implications which would be involved, bearing in mind that in the great majority of summary offences the case is dealt with on the first hearing and that where there is a plea of not guilty and the defence wish to elaborate their case—for example, to contend that pos- sibly there is mistaken identity—the matter could always be taken care of by asking the court for an adjournment. The situation is rather different where there is the possibility of exercising an option to be tried at the Crown Court and the defence requires advance information in order to decide how to exercise the option. This point has been made by a number of people, including, I am quite sure, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder.

For these reasons, it seems to the Government that there is no need for this great widening of the rule-making power and I advise the House not to accept the Amendment. As I have indicated, we have gone a substantial distance towards meeting the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and others during our discussion of this matter. All I would say to the House is that it seems to me to be going far too far at a time like this to write into a Statute a provision of the kind which now appears on the Marshalled List, which would carry with it very substantial cost implications when it was introduced. We have gone as far as we think it is right to go, taking into account the fact that some of the more serious offences will now be dealt with under this new procedure when it is brought into operation, and I hope very much that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

3.26 p.m.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

My Lords, may I intervene at this stage. I am a little disappointed with the result of what the noble Lord has just said, although I would be the first to welcome the tone in which he said it. I think that the noble Lord's undertaking to examine the matter with the interested bodies is very valuable. Also, I think that the new Clause 38 which the noble Lord introduced at an earlier stage and which now stands in the Bill is very valuable. Therefore, I do not want to use harsh language about anything that the noble Lord has said today, but may I tell him why it is that I do not, on the whole, accept his argument.

This is a very important matter. When we started out on the Bill, we all started out with certain preconceptions, some of which have turned out to be wrong. Many people began by thinking that a magistrates' tribunal was, on the whole, less favourable to defendants than a jury. This has proved, rather surprisingly, to be not borne out by statistics. Indeed, those of us who have held the office which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has held know how very careful we are to choose magistrates who have wide social experience, who are well balanced as between members of the same Bench and who take their duties as judges very conscientiously. Therefore, both the lay magistrates in this House and those of us who have professional experience in the matter rose to defend the lay magistracy against this general charge.

However, it emerged that there are three points—and there has been no dispute about this from any quarter of the House, not even from the Government—at which a defendant in summary proceedings is at a disadvantage compared with a defendant on an indictment. The first, and the one with which we are primarily concerned, is the question of prior disclosure of the nature of the prosecution case. This is not dealt with by the possibility of an adjournment; at least, in my experience it is not. To begin with, it is usually quite a small case. The defendant would have to go to the trouble and expense of coming again, perhaps with the case part heard. There would be the difficulty of reassembling the same Bench, if it is a lay Bench, and of remembering what the evidence was on the previous occasion, and inconvenience would be caused to all concerned. Incidentally, there would be a very natural reluctance on the part of the Bench to grant an adjournment in the exercise of their discretion. These points do not meet the case that we have made, and I personally attach a great deal of importance to this matter.

At one time I was contemplating the hideous prospect of making a speech on Third Reading about some of the inadequacies which have come to light during the course of consideration of the Bill. I think that this is the most important point that we can put right. The Government have quite rightly said that it will cost money. I have accepted that, and so has the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. Therefore, instead of trying to impose upon the Government either a timetable or an obligation even to do anything, we have accepted—indeed, originally I think we even suggested—that it should be dealt with by a rule-making power. The result is that what is proposed, either in the Bill as it stands or in the form of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, will not cost a penny until the Government operate it. So the cost point has disappeared.

I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that questions of summary trial raise at least one different point of principle to questions of charges which may be tried either way because, as he rightly pointed out to the House—and it was a perfectly fair point as far as it went—when offences are triable either way you have to exercise an option at the outset as to whether you are going to be tried by a jury or tried by the Bench, and unless you know what the case is about you may not be able to exercise the option at all. Therefore, I absolutely accept from him that it is a perfectly valid point that it may be desired to bring this into practice in stages—first the hybrid offence (if I may still call it that) and summary cases later. It may well be that even after the lapse of a long period there are many summary cases in which you do not find it necessary to give prior disclosure and in some of the cases there may be quite a different type of scheme available to that which is made compulsory in the end for the hybrid cases. I quite concede that.

The point about this is that all we are doing, and all that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, is doing, is to give a facility to the Government to take this action without coming back to Parliament for legislative authorisation, except in the form of a Statutory Instrument. That is to say, the rule-making power will be exercised by the Rules Committee. Having got to a certain stage in my life I can never remember the exact status of the Rules Committee, but I am fairly clear that it is organised by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and it is quite unlikely to make any rules unless the Lord Chancellor says that it is in order for it to do so. The Lord Chancellor will not be allowed to do that by his Cabinet colleagues unless the Home Office is satisfied that the time has come to do it.

I am bound to say that my experience of the Home Office from outside has been that it does not fall over itself with premature and hasty legislation of this kind. So we are not pressing the Government to err on the side of precipitancy; we are giving them complete control of the situation. All we arc doing is to say that we should let the Government have this power, and although I do not want to push them into any kind of straitjacket in the matter, I am persuaded in my heart that this is a valuable addition to the Bill and that the Government ought to accept it, and ought to accept it now.

Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON

My Lords, it is not always that I find myself in agreement with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, but on this occasion I do. As various noble Lords have said, this subject has been debated quite a lot, but I find myself unconvinced both as to the difficulties and as to the expense. When a summons is issued somebody has decided that that summons shall be issued. In order to make that decision something has been put before the policeman, the inspector or whoever it is who makes that decision, and what is put before the person who decides is the evidence available. Why in the world should there not be an extra copy of that evidence attached to the summons if it is issued? It does not seem expensive, it does not seem difficult. It is merely making available to the defendant that which has already been made available to the man who decides to prosecute. What is the difficulty in that?

The cost of an extra copy is surely not very great, but I believe that if the evidence were available for the defence there would be far more pleas of guilty because in many cases, if the defendant knew what the evidence was, it would not be worth contesting it, and in that direction I believe there would be a saving which would probably counterbalance any additional expense. I wish the Home Office and the Government would see whether this could be done in that very simple way.

Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE

My Lords, I should like to support my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and other members of this House who are in support of the point of view which has been put forward by very distinguished people. I do not wish to be impolite, but I like to speak my mind and 1 intend to speak it. I will put it in general terms. I sometimes wonder whether the Home Office, speaking through their Ministers—who may be very good Ministers and do what they are asked to do by the Home Secretary—know nearly enough about the administration of the law in detail in magistrates' courts, and so on. It may be a little rash, but I should like to ask the noble Lord who is dealing with this question on the Government Front Bench whether he has ever been a magistrate?

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

Yes, my Lords.

Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE

My Lords, I am delighted to know that, but he must have been overruled by the hierarchy in the Home Office. I have never thought much of the Home Office, whether under the present Government or even my own Government, and their position seems to me to be quite ridiculous, when an Amendment of this kind is being discussed by very distinguished members of the legal profession who know all the facts. I was a magistrate until the years put me out of action. I could not help that—one cannot stop age—but I can still say what I think.

I agree about the expense, and naturally we should wish to support the Government when they have to deal with matters of expense, but some of the Ministers in the present Government tell us that we are going to be through all our difficulties before very long. I should like to know whether, when we are through our difficulties, the appropriate Minister (whoever he may be at the time, although I suppose the noble Lord cannot speak for another Government) would put the whole matter in order without very much delay. We could then have a Bill embodying the kind of alterations which we think are necessary and that could be put forward very quickly so that justice is done. I do not think it is being done at the moment.

I do not like the answer that was given. Although I enjoy being in this Chamber, what really annoys me is that we never seem to divide. I am all in favour of dividing. Personally, I would not give way on all these matters. The advantage of being in another place is that one can divide far more often. I am greatly disturbed at the answer which was given and I should love to divide the House, but I should first like to hear what promise the noble Lord can give that the situation will be put right and that it will have priority in being put right. If he or any of his friends have to argue with the Cabinet, then let them do that, but let the Cabinet occasionally pay attention to what is said by distinguished people who know more than they do.