§ 2.50 p.m.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether in the light of the Second Report from the Commons Home Affairs Committee (H.C. 559), they will now introduce legislation to repeal Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead)My Lords, the Government accept the need for a change in the law, but wish to take account of the Law Commission's forthcoming report on the law of attempt, as well as the Select Committee's report and the public response to these reports, before deciding how best to reform the law while ensuring adequate protection for the public.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, can the Minister say, first, on what date the report of the Law Commission was laid before Ministers and why it has not yet been published, when it was already in print on 5th June when another place debated this matter? Will he accept the Home Secretary's assertion made in that place that it would not lead to widespread criticism of this law merely to repeal it and then in substance to re-enact it under another name? Will he also accept that the existence of the Law Commission does not absolve Parliament from its duty of repealing obsolete and archaic legislation? And, finally, can the Minister say what observations or recommendations were in the report of the Law Commission that were not ventilated in your Lordships' House when this matter was debated on 14th December 1978?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, I am afraid I cannot say on what date the report of the Law Commission was laid before Ministers—in fact, it was submitted to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—but I understand that it is to be published on Thursday of next week. Anything which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will have said in another place—indeed anything that my right honourable friend has said anywhere—of course I agree with. I am afraid it was rather at that point that I lost track of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, 1118 in his last two supplementary questions and perhaps he could repeat them.
Lord INGLEWOODMy Lords, will my noble friend agree that this emotional issue can easily be exaggerated and that it does not seem quite so simple to men out on the street who are responsible for enforcing the law and preventing crime, just to repeal these provisions without something being worked out which will in fact give them the necessary powers to do their job? Before the Government come to a decision, can we be sure that they will consult with those who have this responsibility, not just with the representatives of the most senior grades of the police service but with all ranks, and not least those who may find themselves out alone in the dark, carrying this heavy responsibility?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his intervention and I take the point which he makes, that this is a matter which is of concern to those who are responsible for enforcing the law. But so that there shall be no misunderstanding, may I repeat what I said in my original Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—that the Government accept the need for a change in the law but what we are saying is that this area of the law, including that of attempted theft, must be looked at as a whole to ensure that there are no unwanted gaps in the law or in the police powers to enforce it. I should like to give my noble friend an assurance that certainly the Home Office is anxious to learn the views of anyone who is interested in this matter, not least magistrates, the police, bodies concerned with race relations, including the Commission for Racial Equality and the legal profession, and, of course, Members of both Houses of Parliament.
§ Lord ELWYN-JONESMy Lords, is it not the case, as the House of Commons committee found, that the majority of police forces in this country are able to operate effectively without the use of the powers under the Vagrancy Act?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, that is the case.
§ Lord WIGODERMy Lords, has the noble Lord any figures—and if not, 1119 would he consider obtaining the figures—to check the impression that my friends at the Bar have, which is that in recent months the courts have regarded the present section of the Vagrancy Act as being so archaic and so susceptible to abuse that in fact convictions are becoming very much less frequent?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, I have figures for charges but not for convictions which have been secured. I will send those to the noble Lord.
§ Lord AVEBURYMy Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will be kind enough, when he does that, to let me have the figures also. If I may repeat my former questions, as the noble Lord invited me to do, will he agree that the existence of bodies such as the Law Commission or the Criminal Law Revision Committee does not absolve Parliament from its responsibility to deal promptly with archaic and obsolete laws such as the Vagrancy Act 1824; and will he tell the House what aspects of the Vagrancy Act 1824 were dealt with in the report of the Law Commission and were not debated in your Lordships' House when I introduced a Bill to repeal Section 4 on 14th December 1824—I mean 14th December 1978? Furthermore, may I ask the noble Lord whether he has not already had views from many of the bodies that he mentioned, including the Commission for Racial Equality, which has expressed itself fairly forthrightly on the subject?
§ Lord BELSTEADMy Lords, I will certainly copy anything which I send to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and send it to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. It is always a pleasure to correspond with the noble Lord. I do it quite often. If the noble Lord will now bring himself up to 1980, I think if he glances at paragraph 37(b) of the report of the Select Committee he will find the answer he is seeking.