CRIMINAL LAW BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 24 March 1977 vol 381 cc636-96

3.35 p.m.

Further considered on Report.

Schedule 5 [Alteration of penalties on summary conviction of certain offences triable either way]:

Lord GIFFORD moved Amendment No. 76A: Page 51, line 33, leave out ("3 months or £500, or both") and insert ("in the case of offences relating to cannabis or cannabis resin, £500; in the case of offences relating to other Class B drugs, 3 months or £500, or both.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. It is in the same terms as an Amendment that I moved at the Committee stage of the Bill, and its purpose is to remove from magistrates' courts the power to impose sentences of imprisonment on summary conviction of possessing cannabis or cannabis resin, cases of simple possession. When I moved the Amendment in Committee it attracted a considerable volume of support from all quarters of the Committee, and on re-reading the speeches and contributions of noble Lords and noble Baronesses it is clear that the basis of the support for my Amendment was that it was not an Amendment to legalise "pot". The power to impose fines, indeed substantial fines, for this offence remained. The penalties for supplying and importing cannabis were untouched. But the penalties for simple possession, on conviction in magistrates' courts, were to be reduced under the Amendment (to be monetary only fines) so as to correspond with contemporary attitudes and the state of contemporary knowledge about this drug.

Since many noble Lords are here today, perhaps I can put the case for the Amendment a little more fully than I did in Committee. The case is this. As a matter of scientific opinion, the evidence as it stands today, the corpus of research —and there has been much of it—is that the use of cannabis in moderate quantities does little or no harm to the user. That indeed was the conclusion to which the committee chaired by my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger came when it reported many years ago. It is the conclusion which, though in slightly different terms, but to the same effect, nearly every authoritative commission which has been set up around the world to consider cannabis has come to. Secondly, as a matter of social policy it is not healthy to retain as an imprisonable offence an activity which, for better or for worse, many thousands of people commit every day and in committing it think that they are doing no wrong. That does not mean that one legalises the substance; but it does give us pause to consider whether in fact it is wise to imprison people for having it.

Finally, as a matter of public spending, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich will have to take on board the argument that any fair and reasonable means of cutting down the prison population today is to be welcomed. As a matter, finally, of humanity, the fact that persons can be sent to prison for the simple possession of cannabis—that is, possession without any intent to supply it to others—is something which leads to human tragedy.

In London, certainly in my experience as a practising lawyer, benches of magistrates and stipendiary magistrates do not, as a whole—in fact, never in my personal experience—impose an immediate custodial sentence for the possession of cannabis; but there are certainly benches around the country which do. I was talking only last weekend to a friend who is a magistrate in a Border country town, and the state of knowledge there is very different. There is blind ignorance on the bench about cannabis. It is equated to heroin, it is considered a heinous crime for any young person to possess it. Undoubtedly people are being sent to prison who never should be there, and even if they succeed in getting out on appeal it does not do that much to relieve the tragedy. The figures that I have show that some 514 people were sent to prison for the possession of cannabis alone. That figure includes some sent by the Crown Courts, who would not be affected by my Amendment, but I do not know what the proportion is.

In Committee the experience in the United States of America, where eight States have passed similar legislation, and in Holland, was cited, and on the day after the last proceedings on Report stage of this Bill we read in the newspaper that Dr. Peter Bourne, the director designate of the White House Office of Drug Abuse Policy, is going to propose a similar change in the federal law of the United States. He is quoted as saying: We will continue to discourage marijuana use, but we feel criminal penalties that brand otherwise law-abiding people for life are neither an effective nor an appropriate deterrent. It is very much in the same spirit that I commend this Amendment to the House.

In reply on Committee stage, my noble friend Lord Harris did not seek very energetically, at any rate, to justify the imprisonment of people for the simple possession of cannabis. What he said was this: The Advisory Council"— that is, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs— in its observations last year recognised the anxiety felt about the use of custodial sentences for offences of possession of cannabis".— [Official Report, 10/2/77; col. 1350.] My noble friend did not say, and I hope he will say, what in fact is the advice of the Advisory Council about this matter. Later, he said: … I am not persuaded that the time is yet right to go wholly in the direction put forward by my noble friend"; that is to say, me. That was hardly a trenchant rebuttal by my noble friend of the case for this Amendment—indeed, it was virtually a concession of the justice of it—and I therefore hope that a still more acceptable reply will be forthcoming this afternoon.

About the only point that my noble friend made was that it was not a very tidy Amendment because it put cannabis, which is a Class B drug, into a separate class, in effect, for the purposes of this section. If it is not a tidy Amendment, I hope that in due course the Government can tidy it up. However, as I understand it, it achieves the purpose for which I put it forward; that is for this House to be able to say that it does not agree that people should be sent to terms of imprisonment on summary conviction for the simple possession of cannabis. My Lords, I beg to move.

3.42 p.m.

Lord AVEBURY

My Lords, perhaps I could make it clear that I personally much prefer the Amendment which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, to my Amendment which, just before the beginning of this debate, I decided not to move. When I put down my Amendment it was intended to be very much a second best alternative to the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, and I had not appreciated that it would come earlier on the Marshalled List, so that we could not take his first and mine afterwards. So what we have to do is to consider the proposition, which we have already had one look at in Committee, and then, if it does not commend itself to the House, we can return to the less effective and less satisfactory alternative at a subsequent stage of the Bill.

My Lords, if I can attempt to summarise the attitude of the Government when we debated this matter last time, we have the proposal in the Bill to reduce the penalties which are applicable under the Misuse of Drugs Act for the simple possession of cannabis (as well as, of course, of amphetamines) from six months to three months. The Government's opinion is that the existing penalties are too high and that they should be reduced, but they are not persuaded, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, told the Committee last time, that the occasion is yet right to go the whole way and to abolish all custodial sentences because, as he explained, and as the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has reminded us, the cannabis Working Group of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs is in the process of conducting a fresh review. It was not absolutely clear to me whether this review is a review of the evidence on the possible harm to health which might be done by cannabis, or a review of the effectiveness of the custodial penalties, which we are discussing on this Amendment, as a deterrent against the use of cannabis. The noble Lord promised some further information at the Report stage, though he could not undertake that the Government were likely to change their attitude, which is generally a circumlocution for a statement that the Government are not going to change their attitude. I hope I shall be proved wrong when we hear the Minister's reply later on.

The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, referred to experience elsewhere, and this is building up into an impressive body of evidence. The reduction in penalties which is already provided for in the Bill and which we are proposing should go a little further is part of a general process of decriminalisation which is taking place across the world and has been taking place steadily over the last 10 years. In a number of States of the United States, possession is no longer an offence; in Holland and Denmark, the police have not charged anyone with possession since, I believe, about 1973; while in Canada there is a Federal Decriminalisation Bill before Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, also mentioned the latest developments in the United States, which I shall come back to in a minute.

First, could I say something about the attitude of the police and the magistrates' courts in this country? This change in the climate of opinion which has led to a progressive reduction or abolition of penalties has also been reflected in the sentencing policy of the courts, and one may reasonably suspect the assiduity with which the police pursue people who may later on be charged with possession. The number of convictions for offences involving cannabis, of which between 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. have been for simple possession, reached a peak in 1973 and has declined in the years since then. It does not seem likely, my Lords, that the actual use of cannabis has been declining, so that was how I deduced that the police must have been making less of an effort than they had been making to catch people who were simply using cannabis and doing nothing else. At the same time, the proportion of those found guilty who received custodial sentences has declined slightly from 12 per cent. in 1973 to 10 per cent. in 1975; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out in Committee, only one first offender was sent to prison in 1974 and three in 1975.

There was reference to the attitude of JPs in a very interesting article in the Sunday Times recently. It mentioned a study which was undertaken within the Home Office and came up with some surprising answers about the opinion of magistrates. It showed that they believed, generally speaking, that simple possession was often no more serious than breaking a window worth less than £100. It was alleged by the author of this article, I am sure quite incorrectly, that the Home Office was alarmed by the liberality of the magistrates and had, therefore, suppressed this report. It would be interesting to know from the noble Lord, Lord Harris, whether such a report exists in the Home Office and whether there is any reason why we should not be informed about the attitude of the magistrates.

On the other hand, there is tremendous diversity of sentencing practice, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is aware. The report of the organisation "Release", entitled Diving off the Deep End, shows that some magistrates are still extremely old-fashioned in their attitudes, as the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has said. We see that, as a result of maintaining these custodial penalties, the whole career and life of a young person may be ruined if he happens to live in one part of the country; whereas he will, fortunately, suffer only a fine if he lives in another part of the country where the attitude of the magistrates is more sensible.

The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, also mentioned the economic aspects of this matter. I would seriously suggest, with the seriously overcrowded state of our prisons and the burdens they impose on public spending, that the onus should always rest on those who advocate the retention of short prison sentences for any offence whatsoever to prove that they are effective, rather than on those who are asking for a reduction or abolition to prove that that will maintain as effective a deterrent as exists at the moment.

Lord DENHAM

My Lords, the onus is surely on those who seek to change the law to prove the need to change.

Lord AVEBURY

My Lords, that is precisely what I am saying is not the case. If the prisons are overcrowded and large numbers of persons are being sent to prison for short periods—and the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, gave the figure: over 500 in 1975—it is up to noble Lords who advocate retention of custodial penalties to prove that sending those 500 young persons to prison for periods of up to six months was effective as a deterrent, rather than for us who support this Amendment to prove that if the custodial penalties are abolished we shall still have an effective deterrent. That is what I am arguing. Unfortunately, as R. G. Smart has argued in his paper Effects of legal restraint on the use of drugs: review of empirical studies, virtually nothing is known of the effects of variations in legal penalties; so there is no objective scientific evidence that I can lay before your Lordships on this subject.

I can only say that if, as claimed, 3.8 million people in the United Kingdom have tried cannabis at least once—and that figure comes from a survey carried out by the BBC in 1973; while other authorities have put the figure higher, at over 4 million—then, clearly, on the arithmetic, the chance of any individual being caught for possession is less than about 1 in 300. It is possible to argue, and I dare say that it will be argued, that if it was not for the custodial penalties, an even larger number would use cannabis. But if it is of paramount importance to stop the habit from growing and we were convinced that these custodial sentences were effective, then obviously it would be wrong for us to contemplate reducing the maximum length of sentences from six months to three months. Yet no one has argued that we should restore the original penalties provided for under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Still less ought we to draw attention—as did the noble Lord, Lord Harris—to the fact that magistrates are not sending first offenders to prison; because that will encourage people to think that they can get away with it and that they are not likely to be given a custodial sentence for the first offence, if that is the consideration that looms uppermost in the mind of the average person who tries this particular drug.

What we can be certain of, under the present law and with the reduced penalties in this Bill, is that a very substantial number of people are going to be labelled as criminals with the possible additional consequences to them of expulsion from the college or university that they attend, or loss of job opportunities if it happens a little later in their lives. We undermine the credibility of drug education by classifying cannabis with the amphetamines and we encourage disrespect for the law, particularly among young people, the vast majority of whom, as the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, said, see nothing whatsoever wrong in taking cannabis.

The scarce resources of police are diverted from the formidable task of combating real crime and detecting the uses of hard drugs and the pushers of all kinds of drugs. The courts are choked with many thousands of cases which ought not to be there at all and public expenditure is inflated by jailing over 500 of these people in the course of a year.

On the other hand, there are plenty of spine-chilling stories appearing in newspapers, such as the one by Ronald Butt in The Times recently, which appears to have been a re-hash (if I may use that term in the present context) of another article earlier in the Daily Telegraph; and that, in turn, I believe, was based on some papers delivered at a conference at Savannah, Georgia, as long ago as 1974 and published by the National Institute of Drug Abuse under the title The Pharmacology of Marijuana. In the article in the Daily Telegraph, which analysed the papers, although it did not give the source, it was said that scientists at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse have found that large doses of cannabis weaken the immune response system, damage the lungs to a greater extent than cigarettes, reduce the production of testosterone so that a pregnant girl who smokes marijuana heavily might give birth to a boy with under-developed or even non-existent genitals.

One cannot enter into a detailed discussion of the research work on this occasion, but I must say one word about alarmist reports such as these which have appeared, not entirely coincidentally, I suggest, just at the moment when we are discussing the reduction of penalties, and which are calculated, perhaps, to influence those who have taken hitherto a rather cautious line on the matter. As to immune response, the U.S. Department of Education and Welfare report to Congress in 1975 reviewed the evidence and concluded: While a number of investigators have published findings that suggest that marijuana may interfere with cell-mediated immunity, other investigators have not found such evidence … the clinical significance of the positive findings remains in considerable doubt. The evidence on lung damage is equally inconclusive, showing merely that all forms of smoke inhibited the action of lung cells against bacteria.

The NIDA Report that I mentioned contained one paper on the depression of plasma testosterone with high levels of marijuana administration. That concerned 13 males who were in-patients at the time—and there was no control group. The decrease in testosterone plasma levels was found not to be dose-related and it has been conceded since that the variations experienced in that study could have been within the normal limits found in the general population. There are no grounds whatsoever for the assertion in the Daily Telegraph that if a mother takes heavy doses of cannabis her male child could have underdeveloped or missing genitals. This is an example of irresponsible journalism which I was surprised to find in an otherwise reputable newspaper like the Daily Telegraph. The latest annual report of the NIDA, issued last month, concluded, generally speaking, that while the long-term health factors of marijuana are still unclear, the short-term effects do not appear to be as severe as was once feared. Dr. Peter G. Bourne—whom the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has already mentioned —who is Director-Designate of the White House's Office of Drug Abuse Policy, says: While marijuana intoxication seems to carry with it the same hazards as alcohol with respect to the operation of automobiles, it is not physically addicting and in infrequent or moderate use probably does not pose an immediate substantial health hazard to the individual. In the light of present knowledge, the White House has now decided that the federal law should not provide for imprisonment in cases of simple possession. Fines rather than gaol sentences have proved effective and appropriate approach in many States, says Dr. Bourne. That is equally true on this side of the Atlantic. I hope that your Lordships will follow the example which is being set in the United States and now abolish imprisonment for this offence.

4.2 p.m.

Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER

My Lords, I should like to begin by making one or two observations. The Amendment moved by the noble Lord opposite stands in the names of noble Lords who are members of every principal political Party in this House. I assure your Lordships that this is not due to any secret pact of which you have not yet been informed. Those names were there long before there was any risk of that.

My second general observation is that the British never do anything by wholes, they always do it by halves. We appreciate that my noble friend the Minister has altered the present law on Report stage of this Bill, so as to reduce the maximum sentence that the magistrates' courts may impose for simple possession from six months to three months. He has taken one little tiny step, and we should like him to take one little tiny step more.

This is an extremely moderate Amendment. It proposes to deal only with summary convictions so that the more serious cases can still be dealt with on indictment. It proposes merely to add the next step which would clear the really important aspect—the prison stigma—about which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and my noble friend Lord Gifford have spoken so eloquently. That is a stigma which can be extremely serious whether one goes to prison for one month, six months or a year. It is the fact of imprisonment which is damaging to a person's future, even with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.

We are not objecting to the fine; we are not objecting to the fine being increased, and we are quite happy that if people want their indulgences, they should pay for them. For that reason, we are concentrating entirely on sending people—and they are mostly young people—to prison for possessing, not for trafficking, any quantity, be it only an ounce or two, of this particular article.

We are told that the numbers who go to prison are fairly large, but I think I am right in saying that the greater part are not affected by this Amendment; they are people who go to prison on indictment by judgment of the Crown Court. If it is a fact that only a small handful of magistrates are sending to prison a small number of people for this offence, why is it worth keeping the power to imprison at all? It has really become obsolete. As has been shown by my noble friend, it is obsolete nearly over the whole world now. Over the Western World movement has been very strong towards abolishing imprisonment for simple possession.

It is also said to be administratively untidy because if this Amendment is accepted cannabis will be in a class apart. Drugs are classified as follows: Class A, which are the most dangerous, and include heroin; Class B, which include cannabis; and Class C, which include many drugs that we do not talk about because most of us have never heard of them. They do not get into the popular drug mythology. If we were to accept this Amendment, it takes cannabis out of any one of the three classes and treats it as a separate article. If it is a separate article, my Lords, why should it not be so treated? If it is not as dangerous a drug as those listed in Class A, and not as innocuous as those listed in Class C—though Class C carries heavier penalties than those for which we are asking—and certainly quite as innocuous as its "mates" in Class B, why should it not be taken out and treated as an article by itself? In any case, is it right that an argument from administrative convenience should weigh against what may be the career possibilities, even for a small number of young people? Administrative problems can be solved: where there is a will, there is a way. For that reason, I hope we will not put administrative convenience in front of the importance of doing away altogether with the prison stigma for possessing this substance.

4.6 p.m.

Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE

My Lords, very briefly, I should like to tell your Lordships why I have added my name to this Amendment. There are two reasons. First, as an individual I deplore and would never condone the use of drugs. Secondly, as a magistrate I would never, either for the first offence or any other offence, send a user of cannabis to prison. If I felt that the user of cannabis required a greater penalty than I was able to impose, I would send that person to the Crown Court. I would not impose a prison sentence because I do not see what good it would do. I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, has told us.

Perhaps I may tell one small story which illustrated the situation to me. Last week, I saw a barrister in the street who had appeared before me many times. I asked him for his views on this Amendment. He said, "You remember Tom Brown whom you saw 18 months ago, the 16-year-old smoker of cannabis, do you not?" I pretended to remember. The barrister said, "I saw him in the street and I said 'Tom, are you back on the cannabis?' He said, 'What! After all that that old bag on the bench told me!'" My Lords, if people like me, who are old bags, can frighten the life out of youngsters regarding the use of cannabis or any other drug, I feel that it is better for the defendant and it is also cheaper for the Government. I urge the Government to let us have this Amendment. I do not think it is right to send people—they are usually young—to prison for this offence.

4.8 p.m.

Lord JANNER

My Lords, I have listened with considerable interest to the debates on this subject. I have come to the conclusion that an Amendment of this sort is something which ought to be supported. The general opinion which prevails, not only in this country but throughout other parts of the civilised world, is that the smoking of cannabis by youngsters—and sometimes by older people—is something after the nature of the smoking of a "fag" in the WC by a youngster who is trying to see what it tastes like. I have come to the conclusion that we ought not to have any prison sentences at all regarding this offence; but here is a modification which I hope the Government will accept.

The very idea that imprisonment can be inflicted on a person who has indulged in this practice places him in an extremely serious position. It has been said already that his character is affected, and can be affected, not only by the fact that he has been sent to prison, but by the fact that he has committed an offence for which he is imprisonable. For example, such a person who wishes to travel abroad may very well be prevented from obtaining a visa for one country or another. I do not know whether that would apply to America at the present time. The fact that a prison sentence can be imposed is in itself something which stands against an individual for the whole of his life. I know of a case of a student who, quite recently, although he was not sent to prison, was accused of this offence. His studies were such as would have taken him to the States. I was myself doubtful in that case whether a conviction would not prevent a visa being granted and I made an appeal to the bench, asking for a conditional discharge, because I felt—and I think many people would feel the same—that an offence of this description (where only a small amount of cannabis was involved, incidentally) could stand against a person for the rest of his career.

I believe that a person who smokes very heavily is in a very much worse position—but I shall not pursue that since my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder says that he smokes heavily! I am not at all sure, my Lords, that smoking does not do very much more damage than in cases where cannabis is used to a small extent. I have often said in this House that I think, in the main, that magistrates in this country exercise their duties in a very reasonable and proper way; but the stigma of a conviction exists, although the offence is not in itself serious or as serious as it might be if the prosecution wanted to take it elsewhere. I think the penalty of imprisonment for an offence of that description, as a possibility even though not a probability, is something which ought not to remain on the Statute Book.

There has been a very considerable change of opinion with regard to the effects of cannabis and, if nothing else, I hope the change of opinion, which now results in the fact that most people regard this offence—in its proper light, I think—as not being one which would justify anything in the nature of imprisonment, in the modified form in which the Amendment stands, will induce my noble friend to accept it and perhaps at a later stage persuade him to introduce a measure himself, whereby the whole thing can be resolved.

Lord BOYD-CARPENTER

My Lords, I hope that the speeches to which the House has listened have not convinced the Minister that there is unanimity of view over this Amendment. I, for one, am extremely unhappy about it, for one basic, simple reason. One of the noble Lords who supported the Amendment said with truth today that many young people did not regard the possession of this drug as a serious matter. That is undoubtedly true; but surely in such a situation this is the wrong moment for Parliament to enact this Amendment and for the State is to treat this as a less serious offence than hitherto. I do not think we can get away from the fact that if an offence which has been punishable by imprisonment has the custodial penalty taken away from it, society is indicating that it regards the offence as less serious than it used to do. I would suggest that is so. The noble Lord says that it does, and no doubt he feels that to be true. I very much doubt, with respect, whether he is any more competent than I or others of your Lordships to determine what society thinks generally. Whether he is right or wrong, the issue before us is whether this House wants to indicate to the public, and above all to the young people about whom we have heard, that this offence is now regarded by society as less serious than it used to be.

I agree with my noble friend Lady Macleod that it is not often necessary to impose imprisonment. Indeed, I might say that if, throughout the country, there were benches equipped with such formidable characters as herself, it might never be—because, as she has told us, her tongue proved a more than sufficient deterrent to a repetition of the offence. Alas, my Lords! not all the benches are so magnificently equipped! But it is surely important, as those who are concerned with the administration of justice, or, as in my own case, who were so concerned many years ago, must be aware, where one is handling the sort of case in regard to which one is not necessarily going to send offenders to prison, to be able to say with truth: "We have found you guilty of an offence which is punishable by imprisonment, but we are not going to send you to prison in this case, for the following reasons" and then deal with the prisoner more leniently. Take away the penalty of imprisonment, and you take away a great deal of the deterrent power behind the bench. I do not know how this House will decide the question but I suggest, with very great respect, that at this moment, with so many young people susceptible to the temptations of this drug and the blandishments of those who push it, if this House were to say, "Very well, this is not now a very serious offence; we will scrub 'the penalty of imprisonment", we should bear a very serious responsibility indeed. If there should be a vote, my vote will be given against the Amendment.

Lord GORDON-WALKER

My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has said, it seems to me logical that he ought to be against the clause as it stands, because it reduces the custodial sentence from six months to three months; which indicates that this House and the Government regard the offence as less serious than they used to in the past.

Lord BOYD-CARPENTER

My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me? We are not debating that matter. At the moment we are debating this Amendment.

Lord GORDON-WALKER

Yes, my Lords, I quite agree; but I take it that the noble Lord is prepared to swallow the reduction from six months to three months, despite what he says about the danger of indicating that the House regards this offence as less serious than it was.

Lord BOYD-CARPENTER

Perhaps, my Lords, in the words of Lord Oxford and Asquith, the noble Lord will "wait and see."

Lord GORDON-WALKER

My Lords, I am always prepared to do that as regards the speeches of the noble Lord. I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Harris one question. If, as seems very probable, the proof of the damage done by smoking tobacco is greater than the proof of the damage done by smoking small amounts of cannabis, should we not in logic make it an imprisonable offence to be found in possession of tobacco? If he says, quite rightly, that you cannot do that because it is quite unenforceable, then I would ask: Is it not equally impossible to enforce the law as it stands? All the figures and all the experience show that masses of young people smoke this material and are never caught. Therefore, this is an unenforceable law against the people it is aimed at.

4.20 p.m.

Lord RITCHIE-CALDER

My Lords, I did not mean to intervene on this matter, but I have been induced to do so by the last intervention but one. I think this is one of those situations in which your Lordships will have either to condone or refuse to condone absolute legal hypocrisy—because this is hypocrisy. As my noble friend Lord Janner said, I am a heavy smoker. I am in possession of a dangerous drug. I drink a dangerous drug called alcohol. Why on earth should we go on pretending? The younger generation realise what cannabis really is. It is quite inoffensive, and I would defend it on chemical and pharmaceutical grounds, in the sense that it is much less offensive than what I indulge in. Why are the younger generation being forced into a situation where you are making illegal something which I maintain, pharmaceutically, is not maintainable as a dangerous drug? What you are doing is creating a false sense in younger people by making them potential criminals. I am very heavily fined as a drug addict. I pay very heavy taxation on my tobacco. We are in fact, using the fines as a taxation on cannabis.

I have more experience of the United States than I have of this country, but there you have a complete exposure of this. By making cannabis and these other drugs go under the counter, the youngsters have been driven into the hands of the drug pushers. Then, when they cannot find any kick in cannabis, they turn to harder drugs. We cannot go on pretending that this is something for which we are not responsible. We have to take a position on this. I think it is far better that we in this House should be frank. I am not trying to modify the present situation, except in supporting the theme of my noble friend Lord Gifford, but I say that we are creating an entirely false, hypocritical situation for "the old bags on the Bench".

Lord HUNT

My Lords—

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

Let us get on with it.

The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich)

My Lords, tempting though it is to get up at the urging of the noble and learned Lord, I did not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, if he wanted to speak. I was going to sum up my views on this matter, but if the noble Lord wishes to address the House I feel that he should be given the opportunity.

Lord HUNT

My Lords, I shall be extremely brief and I am most grateful to the Minister who has given way to me. Having listened with great interest to the whole of this discussion, and having had no intention at all of intervening, I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that if other noble Lords were disposed to follow him into the Lobby against this Amendment, they would be in grave danger of imposing elderly value judgments on what the great majority of young people feel, and on what has not been proven to be a dangerous practice. I shall certainly vote for this Amendment.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, as has been made clear by those who have spoken in this debate, the central purpose of this Amendment is to remove the possibility of imprisonment being imposed by a court of summary jurisdiction on conviction of an offence of unlawful possession of cannabis or cannabis resin. The Amendment which my noble friend Lord Gifford has moved would remove that possibility entirely. The Amendment not moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ave-bury, would have removed it only for the first two offences.

There was, indeed, as my noble friend Lord Gifford rightly said at the beginning of his speech, a notable unanimity of view on this subject when we discussed it during the Committee stage. I was certainly impressed by the strength of feeling on this matter, and I undertook that we would look at it, without giving any guarantee that we would change our position. I also asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to discuss the position in the light of that debate, and arrangements were made for a special meeting of the Cannabis Working Group of the Advisory Council to be held, but there has not as yet been an opportunity for the Working Group to report to the full Advisory Council. We have approached the matter sympathetically, in view of the opinions expressed in the last debate. But I have, nevertheless, to say to the House that we oppose this Amendment for two unconnected reasons.

The first reason is technical but, none the less, I think it is decisive in itself. If one looks at the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, on which our present system of controls rests, it is evident that the scheme of the Act is to establish three classes of drugs, A, B and C, into which all controlled drugs should fit.

Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER

My Lords, will my noble friend give way? Is it the case that the Home Office cannot count to more than three?

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, that is an interesting intervention by my noble friend. I would not say that I hope she will be persuaded by the argument which I am about to put to the House, but I think that she will be even better informed after I have finished this passage of my speech. As I have indicated, the Bill sets out, in a Schedule, a carefully devised system of penalties for all the various offences, the penalties being systematically graded from Class A drugs—the most serious—to Class C. If the penalties applying to a particular drug are thought to be too severe, the remedy is to transfer that drug to the next lower class and the Act makes provision for this to be done, as my noble friend is certainly aware, by Order in Council.

I am not saying, of course, that the penalties laid down for the various classes cannot be altered; indeed, the Bill provides, as my noble friend Lord Gordon-Walker has pointed out, for various alterations which have given rise to the Amendments which we are discussing today. But if the penalties in the Schedule are altered, the alterations should surely apply to all drugs in a particular class. That is the scheme of the 1971 Act—

Several noble Lords

My Lords—

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, I urge the House to listen to the arguments. If people would like to intervene I will gladly give way. But it seems far more sensible to listen to the arguments, and then I will gladly give way to anybody who wishes to rise. As I was saying, that is the scheme of the 1971 Act and so the object sought to be achieved by this Amendment, if it is accepted in principle, should be achieved in a different way which would conform to the carefully devised framework of the 1971 Act.

The passage of this Amendment would have a quite remarkable effect. Possession of cannabis, which is a Class B drug, would not be an imprisonable offence in any circumstances whatever on summary conviction. But possession of a Class C drug, which is a less serious matter and is so recognised in the Act which is the central peice of legislation dealing with drug abuse, would continue to be an imprisonable offence on summary conviction. With great respect to those who have spoken in this debate, that seems to he a wholly anomalous and indefensible position. If it is argued that the less serious drugs should be taken away from the area of imprisonment, it seems to me that the least serious drugs are the ones to which there should clearly be amendments. Though this point was touched on in the last debate that we had on this matter, it is interesting that no one has seen fit to put down an Amendment to deal with that point.

The second objection to this Amendment is even more fundamental; that is, the extremely confused situation which has arisen since we last discussed this matter during the Committee stage, as a result of legal proceedings in the case of Regina v. Goodchild. This deals with the point which was put to me by noble friends Lord Gordon-Walker and Lord Ritchie-Calder, about the possession of tobacco. Whatever may be one's view of tobacco, the fact is that this judgment which we have had in the last few weeks deals with the general question of cannabis, and it seems to me, for reasons which I will outline, that this is a powerful argument in itself. I would ask for the indulgence of the House when I try to sketch out what has become an exceptionally complex matter.

As I have pointed out, the 1971 Act established cannabis and cannabis resin as Class B drugs and defined "cannabis" as, … the flowering or fruiting tops of any plant of the genus cannabis from which the resin has not been extracted. The Act nowhere referred to cannabis leaf, and the position with regard to possession of leaf has hitherto been a matter of uncertainty. I must ask your Lordships to bear in mind that a substance known as cannabinol, which the layman might perhaps be allowed to describe as the essential ingredient of cannabis, is classed in the Misuse of Drugs Act as a Class A drug, together with its closely associated derivatives. The cannabis plant of course contains cannabinol and the Act makes it clear that cannabinol is a Class A drug only when it is not contained in the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant or in resin extracted from the plant. Cannabinol is also contained in the cannabis leaf and it follows logically that if the leaf is not within the Class B definition of cannabis and cannabis resin then it is not within the exemption attached to the definition of cannabinol as a Class A drug. A Class A drug would be untouched by the Amendment which we are discussing at the moment.

This background is necessary to an understanding of the position which arises from the Goodchild case. On 13th January 1977, the Court of Appeal set aside the Portsmouth Crown Court's convictions of Mr. Kevin Goodchild of possessing cannabis, and possessing cannabis with intent to supply it to another, on the grounds that the cannabis leaf material produced in evidence was not "cannabis" as defined in the Act. On 3rd March, the Portsmouth Crown Court, by leave of the Court of Appeal, dealt with two charges against Mr. Goodchild which had been left on the file at his previous appearance, for being in possession of a cannabinol derivative, and being in possession of a cannabinol derivative with intent to supply it to another. The prosecution case was that the cannabinol derivative was contained in the cannabis leaf material produced in evidence. The Crown Court convicted on both charges. The effect of these judgments is to rule that, although cannabis leaf itself is not a drug controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, persons found with leaf material in their possession are, in fact, liable to prosecution for the more serious offence of possessing a Class A drug which is contained in the leaf.

Your Lordships will recognise that these developments have a substantial effect on the whole law relating to the control of cannabis. It will clearly be some time before the legal proceedings are concluded, since I understand that an appeal may eventually be made to your Lordships' House. I am not sure that we shall need to wait until that stage has passed before we can reach a conclusion on the matters raised in the Amendment which we are discussing, but certainly there has not been time for us to look into the implications of the Goodchild decision if it should be upheld on appeal, and we must necessarily advise against deciding one particular issue without clearly seeing how it relates to the other and larger questions which have now arisen in the courts. Clearly we shall wish to have the advice of the Advisory Council on the whole question of the control of the cannabis group of drugs before we decide how to proceed.

I can give your Lordships a specific assurance that the Government will give the most serious attention to the views that have been expressed, but I cannot give—and I must make this absolutely clear—any explicit commitment today, for the reasons I have indicated, to any particular course of action. I must make it clear that in our view my noble friend's Amendment in any event goes too far in proposing to remove the possibility of imprisonment not only for a first or second offence—that was the issue dealt with in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, which has not been moved—but for any number of offences on summary conviction. However, the Government will seriously look into the possibility of meeting the point so far as first offenders are concerned.

Before I sit down, I should like to deal with one particular point which was touched on by a number of those who spoke—that is, the recently proclaimed position of the new Administration in the United States. I cannot claim to have any detailed knowledge of the drug situation in the United States, although on a previous occasion I spent some time discussing these matters with the drug administration and the various enforcement agencies in the United States. All I would say, with very great respect, to those concerned is that, although it is certainly important to take into account the position which has been adopted by the new Administration, it is only right for us to bear in mind that that position relates to a country with a totally different drug situation from the one which exists in this country.

4.35 p.m.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

My Lords, I was not anxious to take part in the debate until after the Minister had spoken. One of my reasons was that I was very much concerned with what the noble Lord was going to say about the case of Goodchild. I agree about its important connotation in relation to this Amendment, and I am quite clear in my own mind that, if it is desirable to make a change in the law, the Government must make up their mind now. They cannot delay making up their mind in view of the decision.

What parts of the cannabis plant are going to be liable to prosecution for what? The combined effect of the decision of the Court of Appeal—that leaf does not count—and the decision, I think, of the Crown Court, or perhaps it was the Court of Appeal as well, that the derivative which is in leaves does count and counts more seriously, is something which cannot stand for a moment. That must be plain, I think, to everybody who has taken part in the debate. I am glad to know that the Government are going to do something about the problem, because it does not brook delay. I do not think that we can handle the problem until it is dealt with one way or the other.

The Minister was good enough to say that he would take into account what had been said. I hope, therefore, that what I say will also be taken into account because I take a very different view about the merits of this matter—though not about its technicalities with which I do not propose to deal to any great extent, now that I have dealt with Goodchild— from the view that the majority of the Members of this House have so far taken.

The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, said—and, as one would expect, it is factually correct—that this is not an Amendment to legalise cannabis. However, I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, and I must submit to the House, that although it is factually correct it is a wholly misleading statement. Hardly an argument was presented either by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, or the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, or any of the subsequent speakers, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, which was not an argument for legalising cannabis.

It is not tolerable to go tottering along step by step. Sooner or later, the country has got to make up its mind about cannabis. It is no good saying, "We are going to remove the penalty of imprisonment but we are going to allow a £500 fine". The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder says it is hypocrisy to keep the law as it is. Well, it is still greater hypocrisy to do that. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, says "Oh well, a fine is only in the nature of a tax". But it is not in the nature of a tax. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, pays his tax; but so does everybody else who smokes and so does everybody else who drinks. It does not depend upon the police finding the noble Lord in possession of a pipe with dottle inside it and the other disgusting ingredients of his horrible habit. The noble Lord pays the tax like everybody else, so there is no relation between the payment of a tax and the payment of a fine. This is, quite frankly, nonsense. I will give way in a moment to the noble Baroness, but I really must deal with one point at a time. I repeat that there is no relation between a tax and a fine for those who happen to get caught, so let us get that clearly out of our mind and let us call it hypocrisy—because that is what it is.

Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is arguing that if the penalties for certain actions are reduced, inevitably it is a step on the road to legalising the action. The noble and learned Lord is also arguing, if I understand him rightly, that it is a nonsense if a fine is imposed without a corresponding alternative sentence of imprisonment. Is the noble and learned Lord unaware that there are a great many actions which are punishable only by a fine, and that all we are suggesting is that this should be another of them? Many motoring offences fall into that category.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

My Lords, of course I am aware of that, but what the noble Baroness has not yet appreciated and what, if she had waited just a little longer, she would have heard me say is that every argument that has been adduced, including her own, for reducing the penalty of imprisonment is equally applicable to the abolition of the offence altogether.

Let us take them now, as I was proposing to do before I was interrupted. As a matter of scientific opinion, the use of cannabis in moderate quantities does little or no harm to the user. That was the first argument adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. Of course, if it does little or no harm to the user, then one does not want to fine people for doing to themselves what does to them no harm. As a matter of social policy—and this is his second argument—it is not desirable to retain as imprisonable an activity which some thousands of people do every day, and think they do no wrong. Of course it is also quite unpardonable, if in fact it does no harm, to punish them by a fine. But the idea that when they think they are doing no harm, and thousands of people do it every day and there is no harm in it, that you ought to go on fining them but not imprisoning them, is ludicrous, hypocritical nonsense. Therefore, when the noble Lord, Lord Avebury —and this is the third argument—refers to the decriminalisation of cannabis across the world, what he is proposing is not to decriminalise cannabis but to alter the penalties; to keep it criminal but to do something else about it. This is really not facing the issue and it is not intellectually honest.

Then the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, who interrupted me, said that the noble Lord has taken a little step on the way by reducing the penalty from six months to three months, and she just wants him to totter along the way another little step. But what is the end of the journey? That is the point. There is not an argument which has been presented in this case which has been used for the abolition of imprisonment which could not equally well be used for the abolition of the fine. What this country has to do is to make up its mind about cannabis, and you do not get any further on the way by making it more ridiculous even than it is, or continuing to keep it ridiculous, if it be ridiculous.

There is one thing that I would honestly say to the supporters of this Amendment. They have a certain intellectual arrogance, if they will forgive me for saying so, about their certainty that it does no harm. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Gifford (will he forgive me?) was arrogant enough to speak about the blind ignorance of those who take an opposite point of view. There has not been, on the part of any one of the advocates of this Amendment, any recognition of the fact that cannabis has been known to civilisation for 2,500 years. It appears first in the works of Herodotus. It is true that former methods of inhalation were primitive; they did it in a tent without a pipe. But the results were what they are now. In large quantities it led to certain aberrations of human behaviour and this is what leads people to be interested in it. It may do them no harm, but it was not for nothing that the Assassins of the Middle Ages, the servants of Sheikh Aljebal—the Old Man of the Mountains—gave their name to assassination because they took hashish. That is where the word comes from.

Some of us served during the war in the Middle East. We saw the population of Egypt which used the drug habitually; we know of course that they took it as a pain-killer against the evils of bilharzia. But the idea that the results and the general effects of the drug are not known is about as silly as to say that we do not know the general effects of alcohol. Alcohol has been known for approximately the same time, since Dionysus introduced it into the Near East—whoever Dionysus may have been. People do know broadly what it does.

Lord AVEBURY

My Lords, may I—

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

In a moment, Yes. My Lords, at the moment we do not know anything like all we would like to know about the effects of alcohol, but certain preliminary conclusions are still possible; and they are also possible with regard to hashish.

Lord AVEBURY

My Lords, what the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, and I both said, if the noble and learned Lord had listened a little more closely, was that the short-term effects of smoking marijuana, or ingesting cannabis in some other form, are well-known; Dr. Peter Bourne and the other experts cited have produced a great many statements on the subject. What is not known, and what no one has ever claimed, is whether there are any long-term ill effects on human health as a result of the regular ingestion of cannabis.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

My Lords, the noble Lord has just anticipated my next point. It is, of course, true that the short-term effects are well-known and they are not always altogether agreeable. They lead to various deviant forms of behaviour, of which the least serious is self-neglect. I quite agree with him that all the long-term effects are not known; that seems to me to be an argument against changing the law at this time in the direction of legislation, even if we are not reaching that point. That is where the argument seems to lead; not in the direction in which the noble Lord is seeking to make it.

The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, whose other point I hope I have dealt with to the satisfaction of the House, says, "What about tobacco? What about alcohol?" What he does not seem to realise is that we have in very wide general use in this country two drugs of dependence —I am not allowed to say "addiction", because that word is now said to be inaccurate—namely, tobacco and alcohol. Why are we deliberately going to encourage the use of a third? Is it because alcohol and tobacco have proved such an enormous success in this country? When I was Minister for Science, 15 or 20 years ago, it only gradually began to dawn on smokers that they were running the risk of cancer of the lung. Before that it was not even suspected that this might be the case. We have at last discovered the long-term effects of smoking. Supposing we had lived in the reign of James I when the horrible substance was first brought into this country from America—which is the source of so many evils—do you suppose for an instance that James I would have been the only person to speak out against the disgusting habit of smoking? Of course he would not. It would have been made a hangable offence and the habit would never have spread into the West through England.

So I cannot see that the fact that, because we have two drugs of dependence, both of which are responsible for a great deal of crime or illness, or, in the case of alcohol, both—I must add as a pendant that, although I am not a smoker, I am a fairly consistent drinker, otherwise somebody else will point it out—it is therefore admissible to add a third, the results of which are not yet known, by the admission of those who advocate the change?

Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER

My Lords, that is not what the Amendment proposes. It does not propose to add a third drug to those which it is permissible to hold.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

My Lords, it proposes to "go soft" on it. But, if the noble Baroness will forgive me, at this particular moment I was not dealing with her arguments, from which I have passed, but with the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder. It was precisely his argument which I was demolishing—at least I hope so!—because that was precisely the argument that he was advancing; that is, that because he was a smoker and chose to pay the tax, other people should be allowed to smoke cannabis and pay what he was pleased to regard as a tax.

Lord RITCHIE-CALDER

My Lords, I would remind the noble and learned Lord, again historically, that tobacco was first introduced as a cure for syphillis, to which I am not prone.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

My Lords, that may be so, but I do not think it succeeded in stamping it out. The noble Lord is becoming frivolous. I hope that my own frivolity will be divined as having a serious purpose. I shall vote against this Amendment and I shall invite anyone who has been persuaded by my arguments to do the same.

Lord BOOTHBY

My Lords, I would just say that I agree with every word the noble and learned Lord has said. This country must make up its mind about cannabis: whether or not to make its possession legal. I myself have smoked cannabis, and to my great disappointment I found that it had absolutely no effect whatsoever. I have also smoked cigarettes in large quantities and drunk alcohol in large quantities, and I am absolutely convinced that both of these have an extremely deleterious effect on everybody. I think there is a greater argument in favour of prohibiting alcohol and cigarette smoking than there is cannabis, but I shall continue to smoke heavily and to drink heavily.

4.52 p.m.

Lord GIFFORD

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord spent a great deal of time addressing himself to an argument which was not before the House; that is to say, whether cannabis should or should not be legalised. Among those who have spoken in favour of this Amendment, there are no doubt differing views as to exactly how seriously one should treat possession of this drug in the scale of morality or criminality. The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, said in strong terms that she would not condone use of this drug at all. Lady Wootton's position is rather different, putting it in line with minor motoring offences which need to be curbed but not persecuted or visited with imprisonment.

My Lords, that is not the argument before this House. With great respect to the noble and learned Lord, there is every difference in the world, particularly if you are the person in the dock, between being sentenced to prison for the possession of cannabis and being fined. Whatever may be the verdict of this House on the question which it is not being asked to vote upon—that is to say, legalisation—I should have hoped that a great many noble Lords and noble Ladies who might have reservations about legalisation would appreciate that in today's conditions it is not right, at any rate for the ordinary case of possession of small quantities, for somebody to be put into gaol. If that appears to smack of compromise, then so be it. I certainly do not think that my own mind is sufficiently clear or informed to recommend or propose to the House an Amendment to legalise this drug. I certainly do not think so. It is not before the House, and I hope the House will address itself to the Amendment which is before it.

On the Amendment which is actually before the House, I listened with great care to the reply of my noble friend Lord Harris, and so far as I could detect he did not seek to put to this House any argument of principle at all against it. He put forward two arguments and they were not arguments of principle. The first was that the Amendment created an untidy situation, in that it took cannabis, a Class B drug, out of the categories of offences for which one could be sent to prison, and yet retained imprisonment for Class C drugs. How illogical, he said.

My Lords, the principle of this is clear, and I hope that noble Lords will not be swayed in their voting by my noble friend's and the Home Office's need to have tidy categories. If the categories of drugs as a result of this Amendment being carried appear untidy, then the Government have all sorts of opportunities here and in another place to tidy them up. If my noble friend had undertaken in clear terms to remove cannabis into Class C, and to take away the three months' imprisoment which is at present in the Bill for Class C, then I should have been happy to withdraw my Amendment. He specifically said that he gave no explicit commitment to take any amending action to take account of this Amendment except to consider it.

The second argument he used was this: we cannot pass this Amendment because we are all in a terribly tizzy over the case of Goodchild. We do not know where we stand and therefore this House should not pass this Amendment. My Lords, with respect, the issue before this House does not have anything to do with the confusion. It may be that if this House votes to put cannabis and cannabis resin into a class of offences which should not have prison visited upon them, then in due course, when the leaves and stalks and cannibinol arguments have all concluded, it may be necessary to put those objects and substances into the same category. That does not arise now. The issue before the House is clear, and if there is a vote in favour in due course, the Government can take tidying action if they choose.

There is only one other point, which I had not made in proposing this Amendment, but it is an important one and it was touched on by my noble friend Lady Wootton. It is this. There may be noble Lords—I am not one of them—who can conceive of circumstances where someone ought to be sent to prison for possession of this drug. My Lords, if you can conceive of no such circumstances, then it is easy; you support the Amendment. But some noble Lords may conceive of circumstances, if there is a large quantity or persistent offending or something of that kind. In this Bill a very useful procedure will come into being whereby the courts, according to Clause 20, will consider on "triable either way offences", which this is, whether the circumstances make the offence one of serious character; whether the punishment which a magistrates' court would have power of inflict for it would be adequate; and any other circumstances which appear to the court to make it more suitable for the offence to be tried in one way rather than the other. For those who wish that for exceptionally serious cases of possession, or repeated or flagrant abuses of the law, there should be imprisonment threatened or imposed, then under this new procedure those cases can be sent by the bench up to the Crown Court. What the proposers of this Amendment are asking for is something quite simple and very modest, and we can see, if it is passed, how it works; that is to say, that benches of magistrates on

summary conviction, where the majority of young people come, should not have power to impose a sentence of imprisonment.

4.57 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 76A) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 77; Not-Contents, 83.

CONTENTS
Aberdeen and Temair, M.	Douglass of Cleveland, L.	Monson, L.
Airedale, L.	Emmett of Amberley, B.	Murray of Gravesend, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Fairfax of Cameron, L.	Noel-Buxton, L.
Amherst, E.	Fisher of Camden, L.	Pannell, L.
Ampthill, L.	Foot, L.	Phillips, B.
Amulree, L.	Gaitskell, B.	Platt, L.
Annan, L.	Gardiner, L.	Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Arbuthnott, V.	Garner, L.	Rankeillour, L.
Avebury, L. [Teller.]	Gifford, L. [Teller.]	Ritchie-Calder, L.
Banks, L.	Gladwyn, L.	Roberthall, L.
Barrington, V.	Gordon-Walker, L.	Sainsbury, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Hale, L.	Seear, B.
Boyd of Handsworth, L.	Houghton of Sowerby, L.	Sempill, Ly.
Brimelow, L.	Hunt, L.	Shepherd, L.
Brockway, L.	Hylton-Foster, B.	Sligo, M.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Ilchester, E.	Spens, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.	Janner, L.	Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Byers, L.	Kagan, L.	Teviot, L.
Caithness, E.	Leatherland, L.	Thurlow, L.
Castle, L.	Lee of Asheridge, B.	Vivian, L.
Clancarty, E.	Listowel, E.	Wigg, L.
Clwyd, L.	Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.	Wigoder, L.
Collison, L.	Loudoun, C.	Willis, L.
Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.	Lovell-Davis, L.	Wootton of Abinger, B.
Craigavon, V.	Lyons of Brighton, L.	Wynne-Jones, L.
Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.	Macleod of Borve, B.

NOT-CONTENTS
Alport, L.	Greene of Harrow Weald, L.	Penrhyn, L.
Amherst of Hackney, L.	Greenway, L.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Amory, V.	Haigh, E.	Porritt, L.
Auckland, L.	Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.	Reigate, L.
Aylestone, L.		Rochdale, V.
Balfour of Inchrye, L.	Hanworth, V.	Rochester, L.
Barnby, L.	Harris of Greenwich, L.	Sackville, L.
Belstead, L.	Hawke, L.	St. Aldwyn, E.
Berkeley, B.	Henley, L.	St. Davids, V.
Boothby, L.	Home of the Hirsel, L.	Saint Oswald, L.
Boyd-Carpenter, L.	Hornsby-Smith, B.	Sandys, L.
Campbell of Croy, L.	Killearn, L.	Segal, L.
Carr of Hadley, L.	Lauderdale, E.	Somers, L.
Clitheroe, L.	Long, V.	Stamp, L.
Colville of Culross, V.	Luke, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Cottesloe, L.	Lyell, L.	Strathclyde, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	McCluskey, L.	Swaythling, L.
Darling of Hillsborough, L.	Mancroft, L.	Trefgarne,L.
de Clifford, L.	Mansfield, E.	Vickers, B.
Denham, L.	Mar, C.	Wakefield of Kendal, L.
Drumalbyn, L.	Maybray-King, L.	Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.]
Ebbisham, L.	Monck, V.
Elliot of Harwood, B.	Morris, L.	Ward of North Tyneside, B.
Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.	Ward of Witley, V.
Faithfull, B.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.	Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]
Falkland, V.	Northchurch, B.	Westbury, L.
Fraser of Kilmorack, L.	Nugent of Guildford, L.	Young, B.
George-Brown, L.	O'Hagan, L.
Glenkinglas, L.	Oram, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

5.7 p.m.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 77B Page 52, line 28, leave out ("and dangerous, driving generally)") and insert ("driving)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the acceptance of Amendment No. 39A Page 53, line 5, at end insert—

("METROPOLITAN POLICE ACT 1839 (c. 47) Offences under section 54 (miscellaneous offences in thoroughfares, including, furious driving, obstructing a thoroughfare and discharging firearms).

Section 54 (as amended by Schedule 3 to the Criminal Justice Act 1967).

£20.

£50.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with this Amendment I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 78A and 78B. All three Amendments arise as a result of my work as a magistrate. The offences involved are dealt with only in a magistrates' court and occur only in densely populated areas. They are brought under Section 54, miscellaneous offences in thoroughfares, including furious driving, obstructing a thoroughfare and discharging firearms, of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839.

I want to ask the Government to increase the fines for obstructing a thoroughfare, although such legislation would have to include furious driving and discharging firearms. In densely populated areas, when clubs, cinemas, dance halls, ice rinks and the like close late at night, great numbers of young people spill over on to the roads, perhaps 100 or 150 at a time. When the police ask them to move on some will not, although some do. Those who stand their ground are brought to court under the Metropolitan Police Act 1839. That Act was amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1967, but the maximum penalty for such an offence is still only £20. The majority of those who cause this nuisance, not only to the police but to the surrounding neighbourhoods in populated areas, are young people who, on the whole, have a great deal of money and who go out of court laughing when they have to pay only £20. Indeed, some courts will not charge the maximum, which is £20. Probably that would be charged only on second or third conviction.

I am asking the Government to increase the maximum fine to £50. I can assure Page 53, line 11, at end insert—

("LICENSING ACT 1872 (c. 94) Offences under the first paragraph of section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872 (drunkenness in a highway or other public place).

First paragraph of section 12 (as amended by section 1(2)(a) of the Penalties for Drunkenness Act 1962).

£5.

£20.")

abolishing offences of dangerous driving. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 6 [Increase of fines for certain summary offences]:

Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE moved Amendment No. 78:

noble Lords that this Act is used a great deal by the police because of the nuisance that these young people cause in their own neighbourhood, and indeed to the police in general. Obstructing the thoroughfare so that other people cannot pass along it is one of the troubles. I think it was on Monday that I had 15 such cases, and not all of the accused were fined the maximum because not all of them had previous convictions. But for those who had two or three previous convictions the fine is still a maximum of £20. I now ask the Government to put it up to £50. I beg to move.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, the Government would suggest to the House that we accept this Amendment.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell me the difference between furious driving and reckless driving?

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, it is a question I would not dare to be frivolous about in the presence of the noble and learned Lord. It is a question which certainly would preoccupy the Legislature in 1839, when this matter was discussed. I shall look into that particular point with pleasure.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.12 p.m.

Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE moved Amendment No. 78A:

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a similar Amendment but it deals with people who are drunk. In my area, and I am sure in other heavily populated areas, an increasing number of people seem to he able to afford to get drunk. I am worried at this time by the increasing number of young people who are getting drunk and coming before the benches. Of course we all know of the older person who comes up time after time, and very often the sentence then is a pound, or one day. But, by the amount of the fine, I want to be able to try to deter some of the young people from getting drunk very often indeed. Sometimes they come before the bench once or twice a month.

I hope that the Government will give me this increase in fine from £5 to £20. I do not think that that is really sufficient, but who is to know what will deter young people from doing this? It would certainly help the magistrates a great deal if we could have the maximum fine of £20. I beg to move.

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

My Lords, this Amendment gives rise to a little more discussion about the legislative history. In 1872 Parliament provided for two offences. One was being drunk in a highway, a public place, and in licensed premises, and for that the maximum fine at that time was ten shillings. I do not know what a tot of gin or a pint of beer then cost, but I should think that the penalty was certainly commensurate with a very cheap drink in a pub. There was another offence then created or, for all I know, perpetuated, which was, when drunk, being riotous or disorderly in the highway or a public place, and for that the maximum fine was £2. Then, 90 years later, by an Act passed in 1962, the two penalties were increased respectively to £5 and to £10.

In the Criminal Justice Act 1967, by Section 91, at any rate the second one was proposed for an increase to £50—that is, when drunk, being riotous or disorderly in the highway. The trouble is that it has never been brought into force. The penalty is therefore still £10. The reason for this is the most laudable one that Parliament at the time thought that it also ought to pay attention to the other penalty that was provided, for being, when drunk, riotous or disorderly in the highway; namely, a maximum term of one month's imprisonment.

The view was then taken, and indeed expressed in the Statute, that the provisions in this section should not be brought into force until provision had been made for an alternative form of treatment for those who would otherwise go to prison for one month. With that I have great sympathy because I am doubtful whether imprisonment for one month is likely to do any good at all for people who, when drunk, are riotous or disorderly in the highway.

This had the backing of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker, when he was Lord Chief Justice, because he said when a case of this sort came before him on 20th June 1968: The idea underlying these enactments was that there should no longer be imprisonment for drunks, but that suitable accommodation should be provided for their treatment. Needless to say, the provisions have not yet come into force because suitable accommodation has not been found". It is not supposed to be any criticism of noble Lords opposite, but suitable accommodation has still not been found, and nine years have gone by and the penalty has still not been increased.

This Amendment does nothing, I regret, about the imprisonment or the suitable alternative accommodation, because no doubt that is still not available for reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, hardly need describe to the House in view of some of the recent debates that we have had. However, the fine has not been increased either. As I understand it, the Amendment increases both these fines, notwithstanding that there is power in the Government, by Statutory Instrument if they want to, to increase the fine for the second offence to £50, but they are fettered in doing so until suitable accommodation alternative to prison is found.

I would suggest that nine years later Parliament might now say that both fines ought to be increased, and we will leave the Government to abolish the imprisonment when eventually, if ever, they find suitable alternative accommodation. To that extent, therefore, I would suggest that the powers given them in the 1967 Act should be superseded and we should now act to increase the penalties.

Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE

My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I make the point that possibly my noble friend was speaking to Amendment No. 78B? I was trying to move Amendment No. 78A, which concerns only drunks.

5.18 p.m.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I was going to try to deal with both matters at the same time. I will deal with them both if I may, but I will gladly deal with the other Amendment separately if the noble Baroness wishes. Frankly, the argument is the same, as I think the noble Baroness will discover after I have produced the argument.

As the noble Viscount has just said, this Amendment and the one after it have to be considered in the light of the fact that we have already on the Statute Book but, as the noble Viscount rightly said, not yet in force, a provision, Section 91 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, for increasing the fine for being drunk and disorderly to £50. This section also provided for the repeal of those provisions which allowed a penalty of imprisonment for this offence and similar offences in local legislation. Section 91 has not yet been brought into force because it has proved difficult to provide the alternative accommodation for the care and treatment of those found drunk and disorderly which the 1967 Act requires as a prerequisite. The provision of these facilities is the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Although much has been done to provide facilities for alcoholics both within the National Health Service and by providing resources for voluntary organisations and local authorities, we are nevertheless a very long way from being able to say that adequate facilities exist throughout the country for dealing with habitual drunken offenders. For once it is not simply a question of the money although the money not having been available is an important point. There are in fact a number of other difficulties in the way of providing facilities for a group of people, many of whom are disruptive and reluctant to receive any help.

As the noble Viscount will be aware, there have been a number of hostels and, as he will also no doubt be aware, the first experimental detoxification centre was opened in Leeds in May of last year and another is soon to be opened in Manchester, and other proposals are being considered. But these are expensive facilities and would be quite ineffective without adequate back-up facilities to ensure that the inebriate offender can be kept out of trouble once his stay in the detoxification centre is over.

I agree entirely with what the noble Viscount has just said. I am quite sure that our long-term aim must be to keep drunks out of prison. That being so, we should have to consider very carefully any measure which might have the reverse effect and I fear that a simple raising of the fine level might be just such a measure. To take the figures for 1975, the number of people in prison for drunkenness offences in that year was quite small, but 2,333 male offenders and 86 female offenders were in prison for non-payment of fines for drunkenness offences, and these periods ranged from a few days up to six months, the most common period being between one and two weeks. As the noble Viscount who speaks with long experience of dealing with the Prison Service, said, littering up our prisons with offenders of this sort in the conditions which we now face in the prison system is in no way an appropriate method of dealing with them.

Any increase in the level of fines imposed would almost inevitably have the effect of increasing the risk that many of these offenders would be unable to pay their fines and, in consequence, there would be a greater use of imprisonment for habitual drunken offenders who defaulted on fines. This is a difficult problem when dealing with the category of socially inadequate alcoholics whom we want to keep out of prison wherever possible.

There is undoubtedly at the other end of the scale—this was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve—the young offender who drinks with his friends and perhaps becomes drunk after a party or after a football match. The greatest incidence of findings of guilt for offences of drunkenness is in the 18 to 21 year old age group, where it is nearly 1,400 findings of guilt per 100,000 of the male population against an average figure for all ages, as far as males are concerned, of 523 per 100,000—virtually three times as high. One can appreciate that a fine of £10 for being drunk and disorderly might have little effect on offenders in this age group, who are often not short of money. There is therefore a problem here in that we are discussing two groups; the younger offender who in many cases has resources, and the older offender who in many cases does not have resources—and, unless one is very careful, that is the person who will start going to prison, quite possibly, for significantly longer periods if the level of fines was increased.

One way out of increasing the incidence of imprisonment for default might be to revise the existing scale, which was laid down in the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and which limits the term of imprisonment which may be given for default according to the amount of fine imposed. There are a number of complications about proceeding in this way and it is difficult to be sure what effect it would have but it would certainly have a bearing on the extent to which an increase in fine levels might lead to an increase in imprisonment for default.

To sum up, we would wish, before deciding on any change, to look more carefully at the whole question of the penalties for drunkenness, whether simple public drunkenness or being drunk and disorderly, in the light of the policy laid down by the 1967 Act, the possible need to strengthen deterrents against youthful drunkenness—and I agree with Lady Macloed that this is a very important point—while not thwarting the widespread desire to keep alcoholics out of prison and the possible effect of a change in the tariff which links the levels of fine with periods of imprisonment in default. It is by no means easy to work out the right package in view of the various factors I have mentioned. However, if Lady Macleod will agree to withdraw her Amendment, I assure her that the Government will look extremely carefully at this whole problem. We are entirely seized of it.

Page 53, line 11, at end insert—

("Offences under the second paragraph of section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872 (drunkenness and disorderly behaviour and drunkenness while in charge of vehicle or in possession of loaded firearm).

Second paragraph of section 12 (as amended by section 1(2)(b) of the Penalties for Drunkenness Act 1962).

£10.

£30.")

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

My Lords, I may be in danger of having muddled the matter by having spoken to Amendments Nos. 78A and 78B together. I was in no way wishing to suggest that the noble Lord should answer both of them at once and, as only No. 78A is before the House, I hope that he will be prepared to look at that one separately, despite the fact that both of us spoke to the two together.

Lord AIREDALE

My Lords, has official blessing already been given to the expression "detoxification centre"? Cannot we think of a happier phrase? One does not become intoxificated, so why does one have to be detoxificated?

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

That is a shrewd question, to which I am wholly incapable of giving an answer, my Lords. I will however look into it. It is, I am happy to say, a matter for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, and I shall take great pleasure in drawing his attention to what the noble Lord has said.

Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE

My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 78A and I was anxious to speak to No. 78B separately because it deals with a completely different subject. It would be enormously helpful if the noble Lord would persuade his right honourable friend to examine this matter, because £5 is not sufficient in the estimation of the magistrates. I assure the House that if the fines were increased to £20, that would be the maximum and that maximum would not necessarily be imposed. When I say that it would be £1 or one day for older people unable to pay the fine, I am sure that I say that on behalf of all magistrates. However, with the assurance the noble Lord has given, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.28 p.m.

Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE moved Amendment No. 78B:

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, although the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has in part replied to this Amendment, I was anxious to speak to it separately from No. 78A. I table it because we have the anomalous situation where the 1967 Act empowered the fine to go up to £50, but that increase was never implemented because it was said at that time that the Secretary of State did not think there were sufficient facilities to deal with those who were drunk and disorderly. I appreciate that Lord Harris has dealt with this point in considerable detail.

Magistrates do not often think of recommending that offenders should be dried out, so to speak, or be sent to Alcoholics Anonymous establishments. What I thought was in the mind of the Secretary of State was that there were not enough police cells to accommodate them overnight. However, since 1967 a great many new police stations have been built and one would presume—this is certainly the case in my area—that there would be many more rooms in which the drunk and disorderly could be accommodated overnight. I hope Lord Harris will still feel that he can refer this matter to the Secretary of State and, if he would say that he sees the 1967 provision being implemented in the foreseeable future, I would willingly withdraw the Amendment. In any event, would he care to give his view on the subject?

Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS

My Lords, I listened with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said when replying to the last Amendment. Was he indicating to the

Page 53, line 22, at end insert—

("PROTECTION OF ANIMALS ACT 1934 (1934 c. 21) Offences under section 1(1) (permitting to take place any public performance involving suffering to horses and bulls).

section 2.

£100.

£500.")

Page 54, line 14, at end insert—

("CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (ANIMALS) ACT 1937 (1937 c. 59) Offences under section 1(1) (scenes involving infliction of pain or terror on animals).

section 1(3).

£100.

£500.")

Page 56, line 9, at end insert—

("DOCKING AND NICKING OF HORSES ACT 1949 (1949 c. 70) Offences under section 1(1) (prohibition of docking or nicking of horses).	section 1(3).	£25.	£200.
Offences under section 2(3)(a) (importatBion of docked or nicked horses).	section 2(3).	£25.	£200.
Offences under section 2(4) (making false statement to obtain licence).	section 2(4).	£25.	£200.")

Page 56, line 36, at end insert—

("COCKFIGHTING Act 1952 (1952 c. 59) Offences under section 1(1) (possession of instrument or appliance in connection with fighting of any fowl).

section 1(1).

£25.

£200.")

House that he and his right honourable friend would be able to do something about this matter within the context of this Bill, since there is now some prospect of its coming before another place, or was he simply putting off the matter for indefinite consideration? I think that it would help us to know before we decide what to do about this whether we are likely to have a change in the legislation under this Bill.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, two issues arise. The first was raised by the noble Baroness when she moved the Amendment and I apologise to her for the fact that I telescoped into one speech the arguments regarding both Amendments. As the noble Baroness will recognise, there are a number of interrelated questions here in terms of the two Amendments. What I said was—and I repeat it—that certainly my right honourable friend is anxious to look at the matter carefully in the context of the Bill. That is our desire. But, as I have indicated, there are some quite complicated problems in getting this rather complicated tariff of periods of imprisonment as related to particular levels of monetary fines right. That is the point that we shall be considering during the passage of the Bill.

Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE

My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has said—and I thank him for it—I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.33 p.m.

Lord DE CLIFFORD moved Amendments Nos. 79A, 79B, 79C, 79D, 79E, 79F and 79G:

Page 56, line 36, at end insert—

("DOGS(PROTECTION OF LIVESTOCK) ACT 1953 (1953 C. 28) Offences under section 1(1) (worrying of livestock on agricultural land).	section 1(6)(a.)	£10.	£50.
Offences under section 1(1) (worrying of livestock on agricultural land).	Section 1(6)(b).	£50.	£100.")

Page 57, line 10, at end insert—

("PESTS ACT 1954 (1954 c. 68) Offences under section 8 (using or permitting use, selling or offering for sale or possessing any unlawful spring trap).	Section 8(2).	£20 for a first offence, and £50 for a second or subsequent offence.	£100. £200.
Offences under section 9 (using a spring trap in an unlawful manner).	section 9(2).	£20 for a first offence, and £50 for a second or subsequent offence).	£100. £200.
Offences under section 12 (using or permitting use of a rabbit infected with myxomatosis).	section 12.	£20 for a first offence, and £50 for a second or subsequent offence.	£100. £200.")

Page 57, line 27, at end insert—

("ANIMALS (CRUEL POISONS) ACT 1962 (1962 c. 26) Offences under section 1 (use of a prohibited poison for destroying any animal).

section 1(b).

£50.

£500.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to move Amendments Nos. 79A to 79G en bloc and to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 88A. These eight Amendments all relate to animal welfare offences. It seemed to a number of us that it would be desirable to bring them more into the level of the offences in recent Statutes. None of these Statutes is less than six years old. There is one Amendment—Amendment No. 79E—which does not come up to this. This deals with the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, which makes it an offence to worry livestock. Under more recent legislation —the Animal Act, 1971—there are further penalties which can be applied for where the owner of the animals which have been worried or destroyed can sue the owner of the dog. In view of this, it was considered undesirable to raise the penalties under the 1953 Act to the level of the others. I beg to move.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, as he has pointed out, the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, has put down these Amendments to increase the summary maximum fines for various offences of cruelty to animals. Like him, should I be permitted to do so, I should like to deal with all the Amendments at the same time. I should say, first, that I accept in principle the case for increases in the maximum fines for the various offences which he has identified. In the form in which the Amendments were originally put down, we should have been unable to accept them because they did not describe the nature of the offences that were being treated. However, at the end of last week, the noble Lord tabled a revised set of Amendments which goes some way towards meeting this drafting objection, though I fear that they do not go quite far enough.

Perhaps I should say now, again in relation to all the Amendments which the noble Lord has put before the House, that, in addition to the general reservation about the way in which the Amendments are phrased, I should like some time to consider the extent of the proposed increases. This applies particularly to those where a higher penalty is proposed for second or subsequent conviction. This is a refinement of the penalty structure which we do not consider to be appropriate in most cases. It is generally preferable to provide an adequate maximum fine for any offence and to allow magistrates to use their discretion within that overall maximum to impose a fine of the right amount. When doing this, they will of course take into consideration any previous convictions for similar offences. If the noble Lord will accept my assurance that we are happy with his general approach but that we want to consider his proposals in more detail, perhaps he will agree to withdraw his Amendments for the moment. I shall then consider his proposals with my right honourable friend and arrange for appropriate Amendments to be tabled if at all possible at the next stage of the Bill's progress.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

My Lords, may I, before my noble friend accedes—as I hope he will—to that request, say how glad I was to hear the Minister say that he does not like this business about a maximum for the first offence then other amounts for the second and subsequent offences. It leads to a nonsense. Take the offences in the present category:£20 is specified for the first offence of using or permitting the use of an unlawful spring trap and £100 for the first offence of using a spring trap in an unlawful manner. If I use an unlawful spring trap and then use a spring trap in an unlawful manner, I shall have committed two first offences. If, on the other hand, I use an unlawful trap twice, I have committed a first and a second offence. Years ago, we had this sort of nonsense in driving offences but, happily, I was able to get rid of it about 15 years ago when my noble friend the present Lord Marples was Minister for Transport,

Page 58, line 23, at end insert—

("HOUSING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1966 (s. 49) Offences under section 110(1)(a) and (b) failure to comply with notice requiring execution of works where committed in respect of a notice served under section 107 (provision of means of escape from fire).

section 110(1)(a)and(b).

£100.

£500.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee stage, the House accepted an Amendment to increase to £500 the maximum fine for offences involving the provision of fire escapes under the Housing Act 1964. This Amendment provides that the same increase shall apply

Page 58, line 23, at end insert—

("ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1967 (c. 76) Offences under section 13(4) (contravention of provisions as to use of special roads).

Section 13(4) (as amended by Part II of Schedule 5 to the Road Traffic Act 1974).

£100.

£500.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment fulfils my commitment to consider the Amendment put down at the Committee stage by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. It increases the maximum fine which may be imposed under Section 13(4) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 for breaches of motorway regulations from £100 to £500. I beg to move.

Page 60, line 34, at end insert—

("CONSERVATION OF WILD CREATURES AND WILD PLANTS ACT 1975 (c. 48) Any offence under the Act.

Section 11(1).

£100.

£500.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as you can see, this Amendment is designed to raise the maximum penalty for offences under the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act from £100 to £500. This is not a very old Act, and even in the present situation inflation has not raised prices quite that high, but there may be a feeling that the original penalty was pitched too low. This is an extremely important Act and the offences under it are very serious. They may not always necessarily be seen so by the less thinking members of the public, but offences under

and I hope now to join forces with the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in the same endeavour.

Lord DE CLIFFORD

My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham have said, I am very happy to accept the assurance of the noble Lord and to withdraw the Amendments.

Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.

5.38 p.m.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 86A:

to the equivalent offence in Scotland. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 87:

The Earl of MANSFIELD

My Lord, perhaps I should say that I am obliged to the noble Lord.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.40 p.m.

Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 88B:

the Act can have real danger to the survival of rare species in this country.

I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has any figures about prosecutions brought under this Act. If he has I should very much like to hear them, but I have not been able to find any, and it is possible that there have not been any prosecutions. This Act is designed to deter as much as possible. The penalties are designed to deter as well as to punish, and these are very serious offences indeed. I am quite clear from what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said about the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, that this Amendment is irregularly drafted, and it may be that the proposed new penalty is not appropriate. But I should be most grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Harris, would indicate whether there is a higher level than £100 which he world be prepared to accept as an Amendment, possibly at a later stage. I beg to move.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, the proposal to amend this maximum fine is in fact quite sweeping. It is not a simple increase from £100 to £500, since the fine which may be imposed upon conviction of an offence under the Act may be imposed in respect of each of the creatures or plants involved in the offence. I should like to take just one example here. If the Amendment were accepted a man who uprooted five ghost orchids would be liable to a maximum fine of £2,500. Of course I do not for a moment want to suggest that the offences in the Act are not very serious. The harm that may be done by an anti-social collector who, for his own ends, threatens the survival in this country of wild creatures and protected plants which are listed in

Page 60, line 34, at end insert—

("SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES ACT 1975 (c. 51) Offences against any provision of the Act not specified in the Table in Part I of Schedule 4.	Schedule 4.	£50 for a first offence and £100 for a second or subsequent offence.	£500.
Offences under section 1 (fishing with certain instruments for salmon, trout or freshwater fish and possessing certain instruments for fishing for such fish) if not acting with another.	Schedule 4.	£50 for a first offence and £100 for second or subsequent offence.	£500.
Offences under section 19(2) (fishing for salmon during the annual close season or weekly close time).	Schedule 4.	£100 for a first offence and £200 for a second or subsequent offence.	£500.
Offences under section 19(4) (fishing for trout during the annual close season or weekly close time).	Schedule 4.	£100 for a first offence and £200 for a second or subsequent offence.	£500.
Offences under section 19(6) (fishing for freshwater fish during the annual close season for freshwater fish and fishing for eels by means of a rod and line during that season).	Schedule 4.	£100 for a first offence and £200 for a second or subsequent offence.	£500.
Offences under section 19(7) (fishing for rainbow trout during the annual close season for rainbow trout and fishing for eels by means a rod and line during that season).	Schedule 4.	£100 for a first offence and £200 for a second or subsequent offence.	£500.
Offences under section 21 (prohibition on use of certain devices at certain times).	Schedule 4.	£100 for a first offence and £200 for a second or subsequent offence.	£500.
Offences under section 27 (fishing for fish otherwise than under the authority of a licence and possessing an un-licensed instrument with intent to use it for fishing) if not acting with another.	Schedule 4.	£50 for a first offence and £100 for a second or subsequent offence.	£500.')

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment has been tabled with three objectives in mind. First, and most importantly, it is intended to remove what will become an anomalous position in the law as a result of this Bill. We have to look at the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975. I must say that when I speak over this Box to various Home Office

the Schedules to the Act is certainly not to be taken lightly; that I concede at once.

However, I am anxious that the penalty increases that we are affecting in the Bill should not in general get out of proportion, and because of the effect of the particular penalty structure of this Act I am loathe to advise the House to accept the Amendment. However, I say to the noble Lord that if he will withdraw the Amendment I will gladly consider, in consultation with my colleagues who have responsibility for administering the Act, whether an increase to £200 would be fitting. Of course £200 is the intermediate point on the new structure of maxi mum summary fines which we are introducing in the Bill, and I think that that is probably more appropriate. I hope that this meets the noble Lord's point.

Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said, and following that assurance r gladly beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 89:

Ministers and Lords-in-Waiting, I nearly always seem to be talking about field sports, in which I certainly do not indulge and I rather suspect that they do not, either. Nevertheless, we must consider the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, and more particularly Sections 1 and 27 of it. We have the effect that if a person is acting alone when he commits various offences under that Act he is liable to summary trial, but if he acts in concert with others he is liable at present to either summary trial or trial on indictment.

Let us take an example—I was going to say a homely example. If somebody takes from a river no less than 20 salmon with a gaff, at the moment he would be subject to a maximum fine of £50 if it was a first offence, and £100 if it was a subsequent offence; and it does not matter whether he takes one, or 20, or any other number of salmon. If, on the other hand, somebody was acting in concert with another and he took only one salmon, which might be considered a lesser offence, then under Clause 28(2) of this particular Bill he would now be liable to a maximum fine of no less than £1,000 because that is the effect of an offence which is to be triable each way.

So this might be considered to be an anomalous situation, and the Amendment has been drafted to try to rectify this. The second purpose of the Amendment is to bring the maximum fines into line with those for similar offences connected with the protection of animals and birds. An illustration might be the Protection of Animals Act, or the Protection of Birds Act, or indeed the Deer Act. Thirdly, bearing in mind what the Home Office like, the Amendment is aimed at removing a difference of approach in relation to first and subsequent offences. I beg to move.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, the noble Earl is so persuasive that I would recommend that the House accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 7 [New section to be substituted for s. 20 of Coroners (Amendment) Act 1926]:

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendments Nos. 89A and 89B: Page 63, line 23, leave out ("or dangerous") Page 63, line 31, leave out ("or dangerous").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these Amendments are consequential on the acceptance of the Amendment abolishing offences of dangerous driving. I beg to move these Amendments en bloc.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 8 [Amendments of Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975]:

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendments Nos. 90, 91 and 92: Page 64, line 19, at end insert— (".—(1) In section 284(b), for "£100" there shall be substituted "£200". (2) In section 284(c), for "£100" there shall be substituted "£200". .—(1) In section 289(a), for "£150" there shall be substituted "the prescribed sum (within the meaning of section 289B below)". (2) In section 289(b) for "£150" there shall be substituted "the prescribed sum (within the meaning of section 289B below)".") Page 67, line 44, leave out ("or"). line 49, at end insert— ("; or (c) the maximum amount of caution which an accused may be ordained to find under section 284(c) above.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these Government Amendments were discussed with Amendment No. 62. I beg to move these Amendments en bloc.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 93: Page 68, line 6, leave out ("proviso (b) to section 46(7) of") and insert ("Schedule 11 to").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. It relates to Scotland and is consequential upon the transitional provisions relating to the coming into force of the penalty provisions in the Bill, which are set out in Schedule 11.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 94: Page 68, line 8, leave out ("completed") and insert ("committed").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. It is a drafting Amendment. It is the Scottish equivalent of the Amendments that I moved to Clauses 42 and 43.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 95: Page 68, leave out line 11 and insert— ("5. For section 394(b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph— (b) to substitute for imprisonment a fine which in the case of an offence triable either summarily or on indictment shall not exceed the prescribed sum (within the meaning of section 289B above), and in the case of an offence triable only summarily shall not exceed £200 (in either case, with or without caution for good behaviour, not exceeding the amount and the period competent under this Part of this Act):".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. It is a consequential Amendment for Scotland to the Amendments made at Committee stage for England and Wales in Clause 32(2), relating to fines which can be imposed in substitution for a term of imprisonment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 9 [Minor and consequential Amendments]:

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 96: Page 71, leave out lines 4 and 5.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment was discussed with Amendment No. 60. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 96C: Page 71, line 31, at end insert—

("PRISON ACT 1952 (c. 52)

1. In section 45, as amended by Schedule 4 to the Criminal Justice Act 1961 (release of persons sentenced to Borstal training), substitute "one year" for "two years"—

1. (a) in subsection (3) (where those words give the period of supervision after release);
2. (b) in the first place where they occur in subsection (4) (where they give the period of liability to recall); and
3. (c) wherever they occur in the proviso to subsection (4).

2. Paragraph 1 above shall not apply in relation to a person sentenced to Borstal training whose original release from a Borstal institution occurred before the coming into force of this paragraph.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these Amendments are those which I foreshadowed in the Committee stage of the Bill, when I explained that while, in our view, we must for the present retain the existing custodial system for young offenders, we would do our best to improve its performance. I said that we had been examining the provisions on supervision of young offenders on release with a view to concentrating the very limited resources we have available. This was something which the Probation and After-Care Service had been advocating, and I promised that if our examination showed it to be desirable we would bring forward Amendments at a later stage of the Bill's progress. Accordingly, we have done so.

The first of these Amendments—I should like to speak to this group, all of which relate to the Prison Act—would reduce the period of supervision on release from borstal from two years to one. A borstal sentence, as your Lordships will know, is an indeterminate sentence of between six months and two years in custody, followed by supervision in the community. This supervision is seen as an integral part of the treatment provided for in the sentence of the court. The statutory period of post-borstal supervision has stood at two years since 1961, although the Secretary of State has power to terminate it in individual cases at any time.

My Lords, there are in our view a number of reasons why a shorter period is now appropriate. They are, first, that probation officers now concentrate their efforts on helping trainees in the first few months after release, which is in fact the period which evidence shows that such supervision is most necessary and also most effective. Then, too, the closer links between the Prison Service and the Probation Service, and the concept of "through care" which has been developed in recent years, mean that relationships with the supervising officer are established while the trainee is still in custody, thus reducing the time he needs to readjust to life under supervision in the community.

There is, of course, another side to this coin. There are certain conditions attached to borstal supervision, and those who fail to comply with them can be recalled to borstal by the Secretary of State and detained for a further period. This order is often made, in fact, in lieu of what might be another custodial sentence. However, the majority of such orders are made in the first 12 months after release, as are almost all recall orders, and the courts have available to them other appropriate sentences for those who have been out of borstal for more than 12 months.

The remaining Amendments in this group relate to those who are sentenced to imprisonment when aged at least 17 and under 21. Instead of being released on remission after serving two-thirds of their sentence, those who are serving eighteen months or more and have not been granted parole are released on licence until the end of their sentence. This licence can be revoked at any time by the Secretary of State, or by a court on conviction for a further offence, and the person concerned is then returned to prison. Those in the same age group who are sentenced to imprisonment for less than 18 months are subject to 12 months' supevision on release.

In the case of these young prisoners, we are seeking not so much to shorten the period of supervision as to confine it to the younger age group for whom it was intended. Your Lordships will appreciate that if someone receives a sentence of some years at the age of 20 they will be very much an adult by the time they are released. Certainly, with the current pressure on accommodation in young prisoner centres, they will have been reclassified as adult prisoners and will have served the majority of their sentences in adult prisons without any of the benefits we seek to provide for younger offenders. There is therefore understandable resentment on their part when, having served their sentence as adults, they are subjected to young prisoners' licences on release. Moreover, I am advised by the Probation Service that compulsory supervision of this category of offender is rarely effective.

We therefore propose, by this Amendment, to release without licence those who are aged 22 on discharge, and to terminate the licences of those released earlier on their 22nd birthday if the licence has not previously expired. Similar arrangements will be made for those serving shorter sentences released to supervision. In choosing this particular age we are influenced by the desirability of providing a reasonable period of supervision for those who are still aged under 21 at the time of release. I have spoken about young prisoners who are released in the normal course without being granted parole. It is clearly right that those who are released on parole under Section 60(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 should be treated no less favourably, and the Amendments provide that their licences shall expire no later than if they had been released in the normal way.

My Lords, these Amendments do not apply to Scotland. Borstal supervision in Scotland is already limited to one year; and, as I have indicated, that is what we are now proposing should apply to England and Wales. The supervision arrangements for other young offenders in Scotland are under review, and it is not proposed to make any legislative changes regarding supervision in Scotland in this Bill. I therefore commend these Amendments to your Lordships. They are desired by the Probation Service, and are also favoured by governors. They should result in more concentrated attention being given to newly-released young offenders at a time when they need most help. My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 96C.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.56 p.m.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 97: Page 75, line 23, at end insert—

("HOUSING ACT 1964 (c. 56)

In section 65, after subsection (1) (penalty for failure to comply with notice requiring execution of works under Part II of Housing Act 1961) insert— (1A) In the case of an offence under subsection (1) above committed in respect of a notice served under section 16 of the Act of 1961, that subsection shall have effect with the substitution of the words "£500" for the words "one hundred pounds" in paragraphs (a) and (b).".

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) ACT 1966 (c. 49)

In section 110, after subsection (1) (penalty for failure to comply with notice requiring execution of works) insert— (1A) In the case of an offence under subsection (1) above committed in respect of a notice served under section 107 of this Act, that subsection shall have effect with the substitution of the words "£500" for the words "one hundred pounds" in paragraphs (a) and (b).".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment consequential on the increase in the maximum fine for failing to comply with a notice requiring execution of works under the Housing Act 1961, which was introduced in Schedule 6 during the Committee stage. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 98: Page 75, line 40, at end insert— (". In section 78A (exceeding a speed limit imposed by or under certain enactments), in subsection (3)—

1. (a) in paragraph (a), after "Act" insert ", except section 13(4);" and
2. (b) in paragraph (c), after "1960" insert "(except section 13(4) of this Act).".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I explained when moving the Amendment to Schedule 6 to increase the maximum fine for breaches of motorway regulations, this Amendment is moved to clarify the existing position on speeding on motorways. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 99:

Page 77, line 3, at end insert—

("3. After section 44 insert as section 44A—

"Power of Magistrates' Courts to fix day for appearance of offender at means inquiry, etc.

44A.—(1) Where under section 63(1) of the Act 1952 a magistrates' court allows time for payment of a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction of the court ("the adjudged sum"), the court may on that or any subsequent occasion fix a day on which, if any part of that sum remains unpaid on that day, the offender must appear in person before the court for either or both of the following purposes, namely—

1. (a) to enable an inquiry into his means to be made under section 44 of this Act;
2. (b) to enable a hearing required by subsection (6) of the said section 44 to be held.

(2) Except as provided in subsection (3) of this section, the power to fix a day under this section shall be exercisable only in the presence of the offender.

(3) Where a day has been fixed under this section, the court may fix a later day in substitution for the day previously fixed, and may do so—

1. (a) when composed of a single justice; and
2. (b) whether the offender is present or not.

(4) Subject to subsection (5) of this section, if on the day fixed under this section—

1. (a) any part of the adjudged sum remains unpaid; and
2. (b) the offender fails to appear in person before the court,

the court may issue a warrant to arrest him and bring him before the court; and subsections (4) and (5) of section 70 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 (execution of warrant for securing appearance of offender at means inquiry) shall apply in relation to a warrant issued under this section.

(5) Where under subsection (3) above a later day has in the absence of the offender been fixed in substitution for a day previously fixed under this section, the court shall not issue a warrant under this section unless it is proved to the satisfaction of the court, on oath or in such other manner as may be prescribed, that notice in writing of the substituted day was served on the offender not less than what appears to the court to be a reasonable time before that day.".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment which I should like to move is brought forward in accordance with an undertaking which I gave in Committee to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, when he moved an Amendment with broadly the same aim but in which we saw certain technical difficulties. The purpose of the Amendment is to enable a magistrates' court which has allowed a person time to pay a fine to fix, in advance, a date on which he must appear before the court if, by then, any part of the fine remains unpaid. At present, the procedure in these circumstances is that the court must wait until a default has actually occurred. It then has to issue a summons to bring the defaulter before the court for a means inquiry. This can obviously be time-consuming for the court and the police, and of course it involves extra work. If a summons is issued and the defaulter fails to appear, the court then has to issue a warrant and the police have to go and arrest him.

Under the alternative procedure which this Amendment is introducing, these steps can be cut out where the defendant is present in court when the fine is imposed. It empowers the court to tell the defendant that they are allowing him time to pay but that, if he defaults, he will have to come back to the court on a date which the court will then specify to explain why he has defaulted. If he fails both to pay up and also to attend the court, he will be liable to arrest. The Government believe that this will be a useful addition to the magistrates' existing enforcement powers and that, by cutting out some of the steps which have to be gone through at the moment, it will afford some small measure of relief to the courts. I commend it to your Lordships, and beg to move.

6 p.m.

The Earl of MANSFIELD

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the Government, for tabling this Amendment in this form. I think it will provide no little gratification to the Magistrates' Association and to Benches up and down the country. A great deal of time and effort which could better be spent in other directions has to be spent in trying to get people who are fined to pay up, and a great deal of quite unnecessary expense is incurred in trying to relieve the citizen of what he ought to be prepared to pay without such pressure being exerted upon him.

People fail to take seriously what a magistrates' court says in relation to a fine, particularly if they do not know the form, if I may so put it. This will enable a court, if it is convinced that it is a proper way in which to go about its duty, in effect to say to a defendant: "Pay up or else!"—and this can be done at the time the fine is imposed. I think this is an excellent improvement to the armoury of the magistrates. Perhaps I may say, and not frivolously, that for some reason the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, is not in his place this afternoon; and I hope that the noble Lord, Harris, will tell him about this and that the Government eventually, if they see fit, will extend this sort of provision to Scotland.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 99B:

Page 77, line 3, at end insert— ("3.—(1) Section 60 (release on licence of persons serving determinate sentences) shall be amended as follows. (2) In subsection (3) (which by virtue of paragraph (b) provides for the release on licence of a person serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term of eighteen months or more who was under the age of twenty-one when the sentence was passed), at the end add— Provided that in England and Wales a person within paragraph (b) of this subsection shall not be released on licence by virtue of this subsection after he has attained the age of twenty-two.". (3) After subsection (5) insert— (5A) A licence granted to any person under this section in England and Wales shall, unless previously revoked under section 62 of this Act, remain in force until a date specified in the licence, being—

1. (a) in the case of a licence granted to a person in respect of whom an extended sentence certificate was issued when 692 sentence was passed on him, the date of the expiration of the sentence;
2. (b) in the case of a licence granted under subsection (1) of this section to a person who was under the age of twenty-one when sentence was passed on him and is released on licence before attaining the age of twenty-two—
1. (i) if the date on which he attains the age of twenty-two is earlier than the remission date, the remission date;
2. (ii) if the date on which he attains the age of twenty-two is not earlier than the remission date, the date on which he attains the age of twenty-two or the date of the expiration of the sentence, whichever is the earlier;
3. (c) in the case of a licence granted by virtue of subsection (3)(b) of this section to a person who was under the age of twenty-one when sentence was passed on him, the date on which he attains the age of twenty-two or the date of the expiration of the sentence, whichever is the earlier;
4. (d) in a case not within any of the preceding paragraphs, the remission date.

In this subsection "the remission date", in relation to a person released on licence under this section, means the date on which he could have been discharged from prison on remission of part of his sentence under the prison rules, if, after the date of his release on licence, he had not forfeited remission of any part of the sentence under the rules.". (4) In subsection (6) (duration of licence), after "this section" insert "in Scotland" and, in paragraph (a), omit the words from "to a person" where they first occur to "or". (5) Omit subsection (8)(d). (6) The preceding provisions of this paragraph shall not apply in relation to a licence granted before the coming into force of this paragraph. 4.—(1) Section 63 (supervision of young, short-term prisoners after release) shall be amended as follows. (2) In subsection (1), for "shall be subject after his release from prison" substitute "shall, if released from prison before he has attained the age of twenty-two, be subject after his release". (3) After subsection (1) insert— (1A) A person who is under supervision as aforesaid by virtue of subsection (1) above at the time when he attains the age of twenty-two shall cease to be under supervision at that time, and accordingly, in their application to a person by virtue of that subsection, the provisions of the said Schedule 1 shall apply with the further modification that references to the period of twelve months from the date of his release shall be read as references to that period or the period from the date of his release to the date on which he attains the age of twenty-two, whichever is the shorten". (4) In subsection (2), for "the foregoing subsection" substitute "subsection (1) of this section". (5) The preceding provisions of this paragraph shall not apply in relation to a person whose period of supervision under Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice Act 1961 began before the coming into force of this paragraph.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 100: Page 82, line 18, at end insert—

("HEALTH AND SAFETY AT WORK ETC. ACT 1974 (c. 37)

In section 15(6)(d) (power to restrict punishments which can be imposed in respect of certain offences) after "punishments" insert "(other than the maximum fine on conviction on indictment)".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment which I move as a result of Amendment No. 61 having been accepted by the House.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 10 [Repeals]:

Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST moved Amendment No. 100C: Page 84, line 56, column 3, leave out ("Section") and insert ("Sections 3 and")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon the acceptance by the House of the Amendment to repeal Section 3 of the Act of 1961. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 100A: Page 84, line 56, column 3, at end insert ("Section 11(2).")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 100A, which is consequential upon Amendment No. 99B.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 100D: Page 85, line 41, column 3, at end insert— ("In section 60, in subsection (6)(a), the word from "to a person" where they first occur to "or" and subsection (8)(d).")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment which is consequential upon Amendment No. 99B dealing with young prisoners' licences.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 100B: Page 86, line 42, column 3, leave out from beginning to third ("in") in line 43 and insert— ("In Part I of Schedule 4:— in the entry relating to section 1, in column 2, the words "or dangerous in the entry relating to section 2, in column 2, the words "and dangerous" and "generally"; in the entry relating to section 17, in column 2, the words "and dangerous". In Part IV of Schedule 4,")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 39A dealing with dangerous driving. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 101:

Page 87, line 50, in column 3, at beginning insert—("In Part II of Schedule 5, the entry relating to section 13(4)")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon the Amendment to insert in Schedule 6 an increased penalty for motorway offences. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 101A: Page 87, line 51, column 3, at end insert ("and, in the entry relating to section 17, in the second column, the words "and dangerous".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon the acceptance of an Amendment abolishing offences of dangerous driving. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 102: Page 87, line 56, at end insert— ("1975 c. 20. District Courts (Scotland) Act 1975. Section 3(3).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 102, which was discussed earlier with Amendment No. 62.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 103: Page 88, line 5, column 3, at end insert ("and, in paragraph 38, the words "in paragraph (a)".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 103. This Amendment makes a minor drafting correction to the Bail Act 1976. The short point is that the Bail Act altered a reference in paragraph (a) of Section 8(2) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 to correspond with the new terminology. The draftsman overlooked that a similar correction would be required elsewhere in Section 8 of the 1968 Act. This can be cured simply by the removal of the reference to paragraph (a); and that is what the Amendment does.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 104: After Schedule 10, insert the following new schedule:

Section 46

"SCHEDULE 11

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

1. A provision contained in any of sections 14 to 26, 33 and 34 above or in Schedule 8 to this Act, and any related amendment or repeal provided for in Schedule 9 or 10 to this Act, shall not apply in relation to proceedings commenced before the coming into force of that provision.

2. In its application to an offence committed before the coming into force of section 23 above, section 29 above shall have effect as if, in paragraph (a), for "£500" there were substituted "£400".

3.—(1) This paragraph applies to any provision of this Act which relates to the punishment by way of fine or imprisonment which may be imposed on summary conviction of offences mentioned in Schedule 1 or 2 to this Act or in Schedule 7A to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.

(2) A provision to which this paragraph applies shall have effect in relation to an offence for which proceedings are commenced after the material time even if that offence was committed before that time; but in the case of an offence committed before the material time, such a provision shall not render a person liable on summary conviction to any punishment greater than that to which he would have been liable on conviction on indictment if at the time of his conviction that provision had not yet come into force.

(3) In relation to a provision to which this paragraph applies "the material time", means the time when that provision conies into force.

4. Except as provided in paragraph 3 above a provision of this Act (other than section 29) which relates to the punishment by way of fine or imprisonment for any offence shall not affect the punishment for an offence committed before that provision conies into force."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Schedule was described when the Amendment to Clause 46, which introduces this Schedule, was moved.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE moved Amendment No. 105: In the Title, line 16, after ("amend") insert "section 10 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956,").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. This was rendered necessary by an Amendment which was not accepted earlier but which was accepted in principle (but not yet drafted by the Government) as a result of my case of Whitehouse which I explained to the House.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH

My Lords, it may be to the convenience of the House if I deal with both of these matters at the next stage of the Bill, if that is convenient to the noble and learned Lord.

Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE

My Lords, if it is more convenient to the noble Lord and he will draft a suitable Amendment in the substance of the matter, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 106: Line 19, after ("about") insert ("road traffic").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment which extends the Long Title to cover the abolition of offences of dangerous driving.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.