Criminal Justice Bill

HL Deb 01 July 1982 vol 432 cc399-437

8.5 p.m.

House again in Committee on Clause 29.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 66: Page 32, line 43, leave out ("and").

The noble Lord said: This is a purely drafting amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 67:

Page 33, line 6, at end insert (";and (c) in section 106(2) (provisions extending to Scotland) the following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph (e)— "(ee) section 100;".").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 67. Clause 29 amends Section 60 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 to give the Secretary of State a power to reduce, by order, the minimum period of imprisonment which must be served before a prisoner is eligible for parole. Section 60 of the 1967 Act extends to Scotland and it is intended that the amendment made to it by Clause 29 should also extend to Scotland. I shall be tabling an appropriate amendment to the extent clause in due course. Section 100 of the 1967 Act, which is amended by Clause 29 of the Bill to provide that orders made under the amended Section 60 are subject to affirmative resolution procedure, does not, however, currently extend to Scotland, and this amendment amends the extent section in the 1967 Act by adding Section 100 to the list of sections in the 1967 Act which apply to Scotland. We recently discussed similar provisions in the Bill in Clause 29 as they touch England, and I hope that the extension of the same principle to Scotland will commend itself to your Lordships.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 30 agreed to.

Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 67A: After Clause 30, insert the following new clause:

(" Minimum standards for penal establishments.

.—(1) No person detained in a prison, remand centre, detention centre or youth custody centre shall be required to share a cell with another person.

(2) Dormitories in prisons, remand centres, detention centres and youth custody centres shall provide a minimum of 60 square feet per person if inmates are confined in them for 10 hours or less per day, and a minimum of 80 square feet per person if inmates are confined in them for more than 10 hours per day.

(3) The Secretary of State shall make regulations prescribing standards with respect to air volume, ventilation, heating, floor space and window space in cells and dormitories, bathing facilities and sanitary facilities, to which prisons, remand centres, detention centres and youth custody centres shall conform.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 67A. There was a long and interesting debate on Amendment No. 21 on Tuesday of last week—only 20 amendments ago, but I have the feeling rather more hours than amendments ago. I do not want to repeat what was said then. That amendment covered the question of the laying down of minimum standards in penal establishments for juveniles. My amendment goes considerably further than that and would require the laying down of minimum standards for all penal establishments, whether for juveniles or adults.

I was not able to be here on Tuesday when this matter was discussed, but I read the debate in Hansard with great interest and in particular what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, had to say at column 1006 about the Government's intentions. To remind the Committee, he said that the Government did intend to produce some guidelines, but he stressed not by statute. He thought that they would take about 18 months to produce with a period after that for consultations to be held, and then presumably an even longer period in which the prison establishments would be brought up to those guidelines. Quite honestly, I do not think that anyone who took part in the debate, having considered the matter, would really feel that that proposal was an adequate response to the very widespread concern expressed by a number of noble Lords about the standards in our prisons. But, as I say, I do not want to go over that ground again in Committee, although I hope that we shall return to it at the next stage of the Bill.

However, I should like to ask the noble Lord a couple of questions arising out of that debate. First, most directly on my own amendment can he give the Committee an assurance that what he said at column 1006 on 22nd June applied not just to establishments for juveniles but to all penal establishments, as my amendment would? The second question is a little more complicated and it may be one about which the noble Lord would like to think and write to me; I do not necessarily expect an answer now. However, he said that he was thinking of something like the standard minimum rules to act as a target, but that this would be done by guidelines, presumably from the Home Office, and not by statute.

It seems to me that there are very strong arguments for having in this Bill a provision which would oblige the Government to produce these guidelines. This does not seem to me to be totally desirable, but perhaps there would not be a majority in this Committee for going further, as I would like to. The Government should publish them by statutory instrument; they would then be subject to debate in both Houses of Parliament, if they were statutory instruments subject to an affirmative resolution, as I believe they should be. Instead of the Home Office in 18 months' time simply promulgating some document which goes to prison governors—and which no doubt none of them will be given the resources actually to meet, as has been the unfortunate history in penal establishment up to now—we could at least have a debate in Parliament, see what the Government propose and whether the guidelines come up to the European standards which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, spent some time in discussing on the previous amendment.

So my second question is: would it be reasonable for the Government to meet the very widespread concern in the Committee by agreeing to a clause in the Bill which would oblige them to produce the guidelines as a statutory instrument which was subject to debate in both Houses, even if they remain simply guidelines? As I say, I do not think that this is a satisfactory answer, but it may be that at the next stage of the Bill the House will want to go further. I beg to move.

Baroness Masham of Ilton

There are many people outside your Lordships' Committee who feel that this is one of the most important amendments in the Bill. On Second Reading I spoke of the need for minimum standards. I have one reservation on subsection (1) of this amendment. Because of the internal problems within prisons, sometimes prisoners are locked up for as long as 23 hours a day. The lesser of the two evils might be to have companions should this be the case. In subsection (3) of the amendment I would have liked to add something about non-toxic mattresses and covers—should they burn? I, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, have a horror of fires in prisons. However, I know that the Home Office is researching into this problem, as I was told in reply to my last Starred Question. We must strive for better facilities in our penal institutions. I strongly support the principles of this amendment.

Lord Avebury

I should like to take up one point that arises out of the debate we had last week, which I think is equally important in relation to prisons, and so on, as it was to establishments where juveniles are detained. It is the question of minimum space, air volume, ventilation, heating and so on, such as is mentioned in subsection (3) of this amendment. What the noble Lord told the Committee last time was that we could not lay down any general standards because the fabric of the existing prisons varied enormously between one establishment and another and between one region and another. He said that this was why for the time being it was better to let the regions specify what minimum standards had to be adhered to within those regions, knowing the nature of the buildings with which they had to deal. I can very well understand that. I have to concede to the noble Lord that he was putting an insuperable objection to the Committee in the way of laying down any general guidelines such as we had in mind at that time.

What I would suggest is something far less onerous as regards the prison department; it is that as an aid towards the discussion of what the guidelines should ultimately be, the prison department should publish the regional standards, which the noble Lord says have to be observed by the principal medical officers when they are going round the prison certifying accommodation as fit, as they have to do under the Prison Rules.

In this way one would be able to see whether the prisons in a particular region conformed with objective standards, such as the European Minimum Rules, and whether they conform with the standards of ventilation, space, and so on that apply to people who are not in prison. I have in mind legislation such as the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act. We would then see much more clearly the difficulties in arriving at a common set of standards throughout the prison system, which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has probably quite reasonably emphasised during the previous discussion.

So in order that outside professional expertise can be brought to bear on this, and in order that we can see the size of the formidable task, which I have no doubt the prison system has to undertake, I would hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, as a result of this debate, might agree to publish the regional guidelines which he says exist.

8.15 p.m.

Baroness Trumpington

Obviously this amendment represents the ideal which everybody would like to see happen, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will not press this to a Division, because to vote against it would be voting against the ideal, and to vote for it would be voting for something which simply cannot take place. The other day I asked a question on slopping-out and I was told that it would be many years before that very unattractive practice would cease. So the noble Lord will put us in a very difficult position if he presses the amendment to a vote, because I for one do not believe in voting for things which are not practical.

Lord Auckland

I think that we are in somewhat of a difficulty here because I believe that a very important matter has been omitted from subsection (3), and that is prison workshops, where mattresses, postbags and all kinds of things are being made where one gets sacks and other materials. The ventilation in these places, particularly in the summer, can be quite appalling. I take the point of my noble friend Lady Trumpington. It will obviously take a great deal of time and rebuilding to bring these older establishments up to the standards which the amendment, I believe quite reasonably, requires. But I wonder whether my noble friend can say that in our newer prisons, such as Long Lartin—

Baroness Trumpington

And the six to be built.

Lord Auckland

And, as my noble friend says, the six to be built—every facility will be given for standards of the kind envisaged in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. This applies not only to the prisoners themselves, but to the prison officers and others who have the custody and the training of prisoners.

Baroness Wootton of Abinger

I should like to say a few words on the principle enunciated by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. She does not believe in voting for things that are not practical. All my life, which has been pretty long, I have lived on the presumption that politics is not the art of the possible; it is the art of making the impossible possible. On that basis I have seen an enormous number of reforms which were laughed out of court as Utopian when I was young.

Lord Elton

Arising out of the last reply, I must congratulate the noble Baroness on the success of her idealism. I was brought up to understand that: "I want" does not get. I think that my noble friend was probably brought up in the same tradition. Perhaps we have not made enough fuss from time to time.

If I may now turn to the issues before us, I am glad to take this opportunity to re-emphasise that the Government fully recognise the attractions of the arguments for setting standards for the prison system. That is why we decided that we should try to draw up a code of standards as a basis for discussion. This initiative, which I announced in the course of our previous debate, is a significant step forward; and I am glad to take this opportunity to assure the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that what we propose will cover the whole of the prison system. I believe he was afraid that it might be partial in its application.

The setting of standards is not in itself a panacea for the problems of the prison system, as your Lordships will appreciate, and I have already pointed out some of the practical difficulties. Of course, the setting of standards does not in itself produce the money to meet the standards. The efforts of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to allocate additional expenditure to the programme of prison building and redevelopment have rightly been widely recognised; but there will be continuing competition for resources, and commitments to additional public expenditure can in any case take a long time to turn into bricks and mortar, staff and facilities. But we do believe that it is important to make progress in this. Our first priority is to draw up a code of standards as a basis for discussion both inside and outside the prison system. Work on this sizeable task has already begun and it is our intention to make a draft available for comment early next year.

That being so, I would ask your Lordships not now to try to pre-empt the outcome of discussions which lie ahead by carrying into the Bill the detailed requirements which are embodied in the draft of the new clause. Indeed, I do not think that it is the noble Lord's intention to do so at this stage; but I can assure your Lordships that when the code of standards has been refined in the light of discussion my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will certainly wish to invite Parliament to give it full consideration and to express a view of how the work put into it should be carried out. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, will feel it right to withdraw his amendment in the light of these assurances.

If I may mention one other matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, she referred to the very distressing occurrence of cell fires and the de-sirablity of non-toxic mattresses. I did resasure her at the last stage that we were carrying out really surprisingly difficult tests in this surprisingly difficult task of finding suitable material. There was mention of the fire risk generally by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, at the last exchange and I regret not having then drawn your Lordships' attention to the very gallant conduct of the prison staff on a number of occasions when cell fires had been started by prisoners who had barricaded themselves in their cells. It has been very difficult to get in and by the time the doors are open the place is full of these highly toxic fumes and the result is that very often the prison officers themselves finish up in hospital. That, however, does not allay anybody's anxiety. It is merely a tribute that should be paid. It am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for his acceptance of the difficulties, which are real, about a general publication. I hope that he will be reassured by our proposal that the standards when they are arrived at shall be put before Parliament, and of course they will be national. The noble Lord shakes his head. I resume my seat regretfully.

Lord Avebury

I was really hoping that there could be some input from the professional expertise outside Parliament while the guidelines were still in the process of being formed, and that for this purpose if the regional guidelines which are now operative were published it would enable people to see how the prison system is coping with the task at present and to make more intelligent and constructive proposals about what should be in the final version.

Lord Elton

I do not think I shall be able to satisfy the noble Lord at this stage, but I will consider carefully what he has put before me.

Lord Melchett

That certainly is a useful assurance but it seems to me that there are two approaches which can be adopted to this problem. The first is that of successive Governments and which the Home Office has adopted over the years, which is to try to keep what is going on in prisons as secret as possible and not, for example, to publish the rules by which prison medical officers work, to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, drew attention in previous debates; and he has done so again tonight. That is to keep the lid on things, to keep the public in the dark and to wait until, as inevitably must happen, there are riots, deaths and fires and senior prison governors are driven to write letters to the newspapers, as the governor of Brixton Prison did recently which was quoted in an earlier debate. There is an alternative approach.

That first approach seems to me to guarantee that there will never be sufficient resources made available because the Home Office and Home Office Ministers never give themselves a public case on which to argue for extra resources, because they are keeping things secret and pretending that everything is all right. The alternative course is to be much more open about the problem and to say quite clearly the standards to which prison medical officers are required to work and to be quite clear about the extent to which the prisons are failing to meet those standards.

My preference at that stage would be to lay down clear guidelines, to refuse to allow prison staff to take people into prisons if they were in danger of breaking those guidelines and to restrict the power of the courts in sentencing people to prison to that extent. If prisons were unable to take any more people then they should not go. It seems to me that we are not justified in incarcerating people in conditions which everyone accepts are completely intolerable and inhuman and are certain to lead—there is no question about it—to the deaths, fires, riots and other things which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, and others have mentioned.

If we were to take that approach it would then be not for Government but for society to decide whether we were spending enough money on the penal system. Society would see the consequences of the sentencing policy of the courts and society could say to Government, "That is not good enough. Many people whom we think should be sent to prison are not being sent to prison by the courts. We want more money spent on the prisons." I suggest that it is more likely that society would say "You are still sending to prison many people who really need not go to prison and many people who were previously sent to prison are no longer going to prison but they never really needed to go anyway."

We all know from talking to any prison governor or governors of any other penal establishments that they will always admit that there are a certain percentage, in my experience varying between 10 and 60 per cent, of their inmates who should not be there and do not need to be there at all. I suspect that if minimum standards were set and the courts powers to send people to prison were curtailed everyone would end up a great deal happier than they are now, except perhaps the judges and that would cause me no great distress. Although I accept that the noble Lord has gone some way I really do not think the Government have gone nearly far enough to meet the very widespread disquiet on all sides of the House. It would be useful to study what the noble Lord has said both this evening and in previous debates and if he wants to add something more I will be happy to give way.

Lord Elton

I am grateful to the noble Lord. He referred to the governor of Brixton but I believe he meant the governor of Wormwood Scrubbs. If he looks in the record he might like to put that right. I feel that it is right to remind the noble Lord that it was my right honourable friend who appointed the inspectorate of prisons as an independent sector of the Home Office with the chief inspector publishing all these things; and the damaging criticisms which the noble Lord is frequently quoting are actually generated and publicised as a result of this. This is open government; so are the reports by the inspectorate on individual prisons which again cause cries of alarm. It is perfectly deliberate. We wish society to realise the problem. We wish to support society in spending more money but if one puts that into specific machinery, as the noble Lord says, the experience is that every pressure group wants 100 per cent, increase in money but no group is actually in charge of the total budget. That is not an easy way to finance Government because one finishes up with a very large minus quantity at the end of every year. Perhaps I am assisting to broaden the debate on this amendment, for which I apologise. I merely wanted to put the record straight on these two facts.

Lord Melchett

I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out the inadvertent slip I made in referring to the wrong prison governor who wrote to the press. It seems to me that there must be still a great deal of dissatisfaction about these issues. As was said in an earlier debate on this part of the Bill, on every amend- ment which might have led to an immediate and significant reduction in the prison population the Government have failed to meet the wishes expressed by noble Lords on all sides of the House, and when we come to discuss the question of conditions in prison very much the same has been the case.

My noble friend Lady Wootton suggested that if I lived to be 85 I might see some of the minimum standards that the Government intend to publish some time next year actually met. I feel she is being, as she always has been throughout her life, a great deal too optimistic. I very much hope, having considered what the Government have said on this aspect of the problem of prisons and on the question of reducing the prison population, we can come back and actually carry some amendments at the next stage. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 31 [Abolition of enhanced penalties on subsequent conviction of summary offences under Acts of Parliament]:

8.30 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne) moved Amendments Nos. 67B, 67C, 67D, and 67E:

Page 33, line 17, leave out ("of Parliament").

Page 33, line 19, after ("a") insert f" fine or").

Page 33, line 28, after ("a") insert ("fine or, as the case may be, a").

Page 33, line 34, after ("fine") insert ("or maximum fine").

The noble Lord said: These are essentially drafting or technical amendments. I should be happy to explain them in detail should the Committee wish, but in the meantime I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 32 [Abolition of enhanced penalties under subordinate instruments]:

Lord Trefgarne moved Amendments Nos. 67F, 67G, 67H, 67J and 67K:

Page 34, line 1, leave out ("of Parliament").

Page 34, line 5, after first ("a") insert ("fine or").

Page 34, line 12, leave out ("of Parliament").

Page 34, line 15, after ("a") insert ("fine or, as the case may be. a").

Page 34, line 21, after ("fine") insert ("or maximum fine").

The noble Lord said: As before, these are essentially drafting or technical amendments. Again, I shall be happy to explain them in detail if required.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 33 [The standard scale of fines for summary offences]:

Lord Trefgarne moved Amendments Nos. 67L and 67M:

Page 34, line 37, leave out ("at") and insert ("or maximum fine by reference to").

Page 34, line 41, leave out ("at") and insert ("or maximum fine by reference to").

The noble Lord said: I move these on the same basis as the previous amendments.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 33, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Baroness Trumpington

This clause, which introduces a standard scale of fines for summary offences, provides a convenient opportunity to raise a number of points on fines and fine enforcement. The fine is by far the most frequently used sentence in British courts; 50 per cent, of those convicted of indictable offences and 94 per cent, of those committing non-indictable offences are fined, and over £80 million is received from offenders in fines each year. However, one worrying development in recent years has been the growing proportion of those fined who end up in prison for default. Although it is still a small proportion of those fined, it now represents one quarter of all receptions of sentenced prisoners. I have the figures with me but, for the sake of speed, I will not give them.

The most comprehensive study of fines and fine enforcement in recent years was that recently carried out by the NACRO Working Party on Fine Default under the chairmanship of Lady Howe, which published a major report last year. This clause is in line with one proposal of the NACRO working party, which recommended a rationalisation of maximun fines, including a simple formula for summary offences. Other clauses of the Bill give effect to two further recommendations of the working party. First, Clause 42 makes it clear that, when a court orders a fine to be paid by instalments, it may fix a date for the offender's reappearance if payment has not been forthcoming. Secondly, Clause 52 was introduced into the Bill in another place when the Government accepted a new clause tabled by the Parliamentary All-Party Penal Affairs Group which reduces the periods of imprisonment which Crown courts can lay down to the same level as those which magistrates' courts can impose for failing to pay fines of similar amounts. In response to another new clause proposed by the group in another place, the Government agreed to implement another of the working party's recommendations—a pilot scheme to assess the value of using forms containing information about offenders' means at the time a fine is imposed. The Government therefore deserve much credit for their positive response to these recommendations. However, I wish to ask my noble friend Lord Elton about—

Lord Trefgarne: I shall be answering my noble friend.

Baroness Trumpington

A rose by any other name! I wish to ask my noble friend about the Government's attitude to two more of the NACRO working party's recommendations. First, the working party was concerned that fines should be more closely related to offenders' means, while taking into account the gravity of the offence. In particular, it is very important to try to ensure that unfair and unrealistic fines are not imposed on those with low incomes, because the best way of avoiding the imprisonment of fine defaulters is to ensure that the fine is paid—and an essential first step in achieving this is ensuring that the fine is within the offenders' means to pay. Courts do, of course, make allowance for offenders' financial circumstances in fixing the amount of a fine; but some other countries go to much greater lengths to relate fines to an offender's income. Again, I have examples but, for the sake of speed, will omit them.

The House of Commons Expenditure Committee, the Parliamentary All-Party Penal Affairs Group and the NACRO working party have all recommended that the Government should review the system of fines, including an examination of the possibility of introducing a day fine system. In 1980, in the White Paper, The Reduction of Pressure on the Prison System, the Government agreed to carry out such a review once they had rationalised maximum fines for summary offences. Since they have now done that by means of Clause 33, can the Minister announce a timetable for this review?

Secondly, the NACRO working party argued that, although committal to prison must remain as the sanction of last resort for fine default, all other means of enforcement should be fully considered first. It found that there were marked variations between courts in enforcement practice and that some methods of securing payment—-such as money payment supervision orders, distraint, attachment of earnings and civil process—are used very little. It therefore recommended that the present form which magistrates have to complete stating the reason for committal to prison should be changed to require the court to specify that it has considered every other enforcement option, each of which has either been tried or is not suitable, giving reasons in respect of each enforcement option. The working party recommended this because it was convinced from its own observations in court that on many occasions certain methods of enforcement are not even considered by courts. As a magistrate, I have a natural resistance to even a marginal increase in paperwork in the courts, but it would be well worth it if it helped to reduce the burden on local prisons by keeping out some of those unnecessarily imprisoned for fine default. I should welcome the Minister's comments on the points I have made, either now or by letter before Report.

Lord Trefgarne

As my noble friend said, the Bill incorporates some of the NACRO points she raised. I hope she will forgive me if I say that it might unduly detain the Committee if I gave a long disposition on the views of the Government on other NACRO recommendations. I am certainly willing to write to my noble friend and will see that that happens before the next stage of the Bill.

Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 34 [General increase of maximum fines for summary offences under Acts of Parliament]:

8.38 p.m.

Lord Trefgarne moved Amendments Nos. 67N, 67P, 67Q, 67R, 67S, 67T, 67U, 67V, 67W, 67X, 67Y, 67Z, 67ZA and 67ZB:

Page 35, line 11, after second ("a") insert ("fine or").

Page 35, line 12, leave out ("of a specified amount").

Page 35, line 16, leave out ("by any enactment passed").

Page 35, line 20, leave out from beginning to ("in") in line 21 and insert ("on conviction of a summary offence for a fine or maximum fine").

Page 35, line 22, after ("that") insert ("fine or").

Page 35, line 23, leave out ("specified amount") and insert ("fine or maximum fine for the offence").

Page 35, line 25, leave out ("specifies different amounts") and insert ("provides for different fines or maximum fines").

Page 35, line 31, leave out ("maximum fine not exceeding a specified amount") and insert ("fine or maximum fine").

Page 35, line 34, leave out ("specified amount less than £1,000 mentioned in") and insert ("fine or maximum fine for an offence under").

Page 35, line 36, leave out first ("on") and insert ("at").

Page 35, line 41, after ("amount") insert ("of the fine or maximum fine").

Page 35, line 43, after ("amount") insert ("of the fine or maximum fine").

Page 36, line 1, leave out ("specified amount") and insert ("amount of the fine or maximum fine").

Page 36, line 2, after ("the") insert ("fine or").

The noble Lord said: These amendments are straightforward. They are essentially drafting and technical, and I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 35 [Special cases]:

Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 68: Page 36, line 24, leave out subsection (3).

The noble Lord said: The effect of this amendment is to delete Schedule 4 from the Bill. At present, Schedule 4 lists penalities which would be unaffected by the general uprating provisions of this part of the Bill, because, for example they were increased in the Criminal Law Act 1977 but they are nevertheless considered to merit special increases.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 35, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Elwyn-Jones

Will the noble Lord give an explanation of the rationale of the enormous increases proposed? Obviously it is more than inflationary. Is it a case of a second look? I am glancing, for instance, at page 59 and the reference to the Town Police Clauses Act. For offences of demanding as a fare more than the prescribed amount it is proposed to increase the fine from £10 to £200. There is also a reference to offences of obstruction, et cetera. There are tremendous increases in the fines. I am not questioning the need for them at the moment, but is the rationale inflation, plus? What does the plus represent?

Lord Trefgarne

So far as I know, in the main, the rationale is inflation only. Perhaps I can inquire into the question of whether there is any further rationale and let the noble and learned Lord know.

Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Maximum fines to remain at their present level]:

8.41 p.m.

Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 69:

Page 57, line 24, leave out ("(as amended by clause 36 of the Bill)").

The noble Lord said: This, too, is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Maximum fines to be increased by more than the general increase.]:

Lord Trefgarne moved Amendments Nos. 70 to 74:

Page 59, leave out lines 9 to 11.

Page 59, line 13, at end inset—

("Offences under section 45 (plying for hire without a licence).

Section 45

£20 (or £ 50 for further offence).

£ 500.")

Page 59, line 14, leave out ("£200") and insert ("£50")

Page 59, line 15, at end insert—

("Offences under section 55 (demanding more than the legal fare).

Section 55

£25

£200.")

Page 59, line 17, at end insert—

("LONDON HACKNEY CARRIAGE ACT 1853 (c.33) Offences under section 17 (demanding or taking more than the legal fare etc.).	Section 17	£10	£200
METROPOLITAN PUBLIC CARRIAGE ACT 1869 (c.115) Offences under section 7 (use of unlicensed carriage).	Section 7	£20 (or £50 for further offence).	£500.")

The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 70 to 74 en bloc. These amendments are correcting drafting or technical errors. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Melchett moved Amendment No. 75:

Page 59, line 22, at end insert—

("PROTECTION OF ANIMALS ACT 1977 (c. 27) Offences under section 8 (selling poisoned grain or placing on any land any matter rendered poisonous)").

Section 8

£25

£500

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 75, and, if I may, I should like to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 137A, which makes a similar change to the Protection of Animals Act 1912, which is the Act which applies to Scotland, although if the noble Lord would prefer it, since I think that another Minister is dealing with the Scottish schedule, I should be quite happy for someone else to reply to the latter amendment when we come to it. But the same arguments apply to both amendments.

The fines referred to in the amendments apply when somebody is prosecuted for placing poisonous matter on ground with a view to killing normally highly protected and very rare, birds of prey and on occasions protected mammals. This is a very serious problem and one that has increased at an enormous rate. Between 1966 and 1973 the average number of occurrences known to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds was about 10 a year. In the period from 1974 to 1978 that had risen to an average of 51 a year, and since then, in 1979 the figure was 83, in 1980, 103, and in 1981, 128 instances. It looks as though the current spring season will prove to have been worse still.

A number of very rare and highly protected birds of prey are affected, and prosecutions can be taken under a number of Acts, in particular the Protection of Birds Act, which will be amended by the Wildlife and Countryside Act to provide a maximum fine of £1,000. Prosecutions can also be taken under two Protection of Animals Acts, where the maximum fine is £25, and it is felt by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the RSPB that the very low average fines that are usually imposed for these offences—an average of £48 in the last three years— is due to the very low minimum fines available under the Protection of Animal Acts, despite the substantial increases that there have been in fines in the Protection of Birds Acts and the Wildlife and Countryside Act.

The RSPB has advised me that the deliberate poisoning of birds of prey is one of the most serious problems that it is facing, and it has drawn attention to it in its excellent publication Silent Spring, which makes a number of recommendations to which the Government recently responded. Therefore, I hope that given the very great concern expressed by the two royal societies, the Government will be able to accept the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

As an ex-president of the RSPB I should like to support the amendment.

Lord Trefgarne

Against such an onslaught what can I do, other than accept the amendment? I am happy to do so.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 75A not moved.]

Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 76:

Page 59, line 25, at end insert—

("CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS ACT 1933 (c. 12) Offences under section 39(2) (newspaper reports identifying juveniles in court proceedings).	Section 39(2)	£500	£1,000.
Offences under section 49(2) (newspaper reports identifying juveniles in juvenile courts).	Section 49(2)	£500	£1,000.
PUBLIC HEALTH ACT 1936 (c.49) Offences under section 143(5) (offences against ewgulations concerning prevention, etc. of infectious diseases).	Section 143(5)	£100	£1,000.")

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment, or, conceivably, my noble friend Lord Elton has. In any case, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 77:

Page 60, line 7, at end insert—

("FIRE SERVICES ACT 1947 (c.41) Offences under section 14(5) (improper use of fire hydrant).	Section 14(5)	£25	£50.
Offences under section 30(2) (obstructing a member of a fire brigade).	Section 30(2)	£ 50	£200.")

The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 70. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 78:

Page 60, line 15, at end insert—

("Offences under section 52(4) (demanding stallage, etc. in excess of that for the time being authorized).	Section 52(4)	£25	£50.
Offences under section 57(1) (refusing to weigh articles sold at markets).	Section 57(1)	£25	£50."

The noble Lord said: As in previous cases, this amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendments Nos. 78A and 78B:

Page 60, line 25, at end insert—

("HOUSING ACT 1957 (c.56) Offences under section 16(6) (using or permitting the use of premises in contravention of an undertaking).

Section 16(1)

£50

£1,000").

Page 60, line 25, at end insert—

("HOUSING ACT 1957 (c.56) Offences under section 22(4) (occupying or permitting occupation of premises in contravention of a demolition order).

Section 22(4)

£50

£1,000").

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 78A and 78B en bloc. Since I think that the Government will be in sympathy with the amendments, I shall not speak in detail on them.

Lord Elton

The effect of the first amendment is to increase the maximum fine that can be imposed for a breach of an undertaking that a house which is unfit for human habitation will not be used for specified purposes—usually that it will not be lived in. The effect of the second amendment is to increase the maximum fine for entering into occupation of an unfit house subject to a demolition, order or permitting such occupation.

The original maximum fine of £20 and £5 a day for these offences was increased by the Criminal Law Act 1977 to £50 and £5 a day. While we should prefer to see a full review of housing penalties, including this one, rather than single out individual fines for special treatment, in the light—I was going to say of the arguments put forward in the Committee, but that would be slightly misleading, since they were not advanced. But in the light of the arguments that we anticipated would be put forward here, and which were put forward in another place—which l think absolves me from apology—we are prepared to accept that the maximum substantive fine for these oflences should be increased. I hope that noble Lords will accept the amendment.

Baroness Macleod of Borve

Before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether it includes squatting? Is it about squatting?

Lord Elton

That is another issue.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

8.48 p.m.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 79:

Page 60, line 25, at end insert—

("HOUSING ACT 1957 (c. 56) Offences under section 27(1) (Permitting unfit premises to be used in contravention of a Closing Order).

Section 27(1)

£100 and £20 per day following conviction.

£l,000and£50 per day following conviction.")

The noble Baroness said: I shall here give the reasons for the amendment which I would have given in respect of the last two amendments, had I not thought that they were so apparent. Strangely enough, I considered that the other two amendments that have already been accepted were consequential on this amendment. For that reason, I put them forward as Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 to Schedule 4. But because it is proposed that Schedule 4 should be deleted, the amendments were resubmitted and have since been accepted by the Government as Amendments Nos. 78A and 78B.

Amendment No. 79 is very important, I consider, because it covers premises in respect of which there is a closing order. In particular, it is important in relation to fire certificates, arising from which is one of the main reasons why closing orders are imposed on houses in multiple occupation. In recent years, there have been a number of deaths, in particular in Inner London where houses in multiple occupation have been in use when they should have not been in use, since adequate means of escape could not be provided. Therefore, I think it particularly important that in such instances the penalty should be such as really to deter people from using the premises.

At present the penalty is low. A noble Lord opposite asked about the question of penalties. At present the penalty is so low that a landlord can very rapidly recover in rent a sum far in excess of the penalty. The new penalty proposed might appear to be very great, but it is after all a maximum penalty, rather than a compulsory penalty to be imposed on all occasions. It would make quite a difference and good landlords would be very pleased to see the last two amendments that were accepted by the Government as well as this amendment. It is only the bad landlords who are trying to exploit people and who have people living in dangerous conditions.

Under Amendment No. 79, if there is a closing order on a property, an initial fine can be imposed followed by another fine each day. If there is merely a single fine, that is the end of the matter and the landlord can continue to re-let the property. In extremely unscrupulous cases a closing order can be sought to gain vacant possession and then the property can be re-let because up until now the penalty was slight. Under the amendment, the penalty would be quite a deterrent and would be effective. I beg to move.

Baroness Birk

We on these Benches would very much like to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness. The effect of what she explained to us so clearly when she moved the amendment has been a source of great concern, and this point was raised several times during the discussions on the various Housing Bills that have been before us during this period. With her, I hope that the Government will accept something in the nature of a fine which is very much more realistic than what is in existence at present.

Lord Elton

I think I ought perhaps, under these circumstances, to try to explain the background to Section 27 of the Housing Act 1957. If the owner of a house which is unfit for human habitation, and which the local authority are satisfied cannot be made fit at reasonable cost, is not prepared to carry out the necessary renovation works, then the local authority can make an order under Part II of the Housing Act 1957 requiring him to demolish the property or, in certain circumstances, make a closing order. A closing order can approve the use of the property for some purpose other than as a dwelling, and it is an offence knowingly to use the house in contravention of the order, or knowingly to permit such use.

Furthermore, under Schedule 24 to the Housing Act 1980 local authorities can deal with houses in multiple occupation which do not possess adequate means of escape from fire, which is a matter which closely concerns my noble friend. Where the means of escape would be adequate if part of the house was not used for human habitation, the authority can make a closing order in respect of that part. The enforcement and other consequential provisions in Part II of the 1957 Act are applied to such closing orders for part of a house in multiple occupation. The fines for contravention of a closing order referred to in the amendment therefore also apply here.

A closing order is only one of several provisions in successive Housing Acts which may be used where houses in multiple occupation lack adequate means of escape from fire. Under Schedule 24 to the Housing Act 1980, the maximum initial penalty for breach of an undertaking not to use part of a house in multiple occupation if means of escape are inadequate is currently £ 50. Under Section 65(1) of the Housing Act 1964, as amended by Schedule 23 to the Housing Act 1980, the maximum penalty for failure to comply with a local authority notice to execute works (which can include means of escape from fire) is £ 500. Under Section 61(2) of the Housing Act 1969, as amended by Schedule 23 to the Housing Act 1980, there is also a £ 500 maximum penalty for failure to comply with a continuing obligation to execute works.

The Government are not persuaded that the present evidence warrants a special increase in these other penalties, and to single out the closing order offence for a disproportionate increase would lead to a serious inconsistency. Nonetheless, the Government recognise that the present maximum penalty under Section 27(1) dates back to the Criminal Justice Act 1972, when it was increased as a special measure. The Bill therefore puts the penalty on the scale used for the Criminal Law Act 1977, and the effect is to double the initial penalty to £200. In view of this, I hope my noble friend will not feel it necessary to press this amendment.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

I am really not at all convinced that the amount that my noble friend the Minister has quoted is sufficient. I appreciate that in my amendment I am perhaps asking too much when I ask for so much per day, as I have noticed that the Government do not seem to like these "per day" amounts. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister would look at this matter again, and perhaps I could bring forward a further amendment at Report stage. If he is willing to look at this again, I would withdraw my amendment at this stage.

Lord Elton

I think it will require my noble friend to look at it again as well, and I do not encourage her too much to expect a meeting of minds; but I shall certainly be prepared to consider what she has said before the next stage.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment at this stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendments Nos. 80and 80A:

Page 60, line 25, at end insert—

("LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1962 (c. 50) Offences under section 4 (failure to provide a Rent Book or prescribed information in a Rent Book).

Section 4(3)

£50 on first conviction £100 subsequent conviction.

£500.")

Page 60, line 25, line 25, at end insert—

("LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1962 (c. 50) Offences under section 4 (failure to provide a rent book or prescribed information in a rent book).

Section 4(3)

£50 (or £100 for further offence).

£ 500").

The noble Baroness said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 80, and at the same time the almost identical Amendment No. 80A.

Lord Elton

Perhaps I may suggest to my noble friend that it would be better if she moved Amendment No. 80A and did not move No. 80. I think that was the plan.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

So far as I can see, the only difference is that one uses capital letters for "rent book" and the other uses small, but perhaps I am missing some other subtlety that exists. I am quite happy not to move Amendment No. 80 but to move Amendment No. 80A. I think No. 80A is quite self-explanatory, and really should not require my going into it at this stage. I believe that everyone would support this amendment.

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)

Then Amendment No. 80 is not moved.

[Amendment No. 80 not moved.]

Lord Elwyn-Jones

I hope the Committee has noted this remarkable proposal, which I agree with, which will cause a sensation in my old constituency of West Ham. Hereafter, if this is approved, failure to provide a rent book runs the risk of a fine of £500. Jolly good!

Lord Elton

I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord for explaining the effects of the Bill. If I may, I will explain to the noble Baroness the effects of the difference between Amendment No. 80 and Amendment No. 80A in joined-up writing, because I cannot do it "off the cuff". But we are happy, nonetheless, to accept Amendment No. 80A, with its capital letters.

On Question, Amendment No. 80A agreed to.

Lord Trefgarne moved Amendments Nos. 81 to 84:

Page 60, line 32, at end insert—

("AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURE ACT 1964 (c. 28) Offences under section 15(1) (obstruction)	Section 20(1)	£40	£200.
Offences under Part III (other than section15(1)) (offences relating to grading of produce).	Section 20(2)	£100 (or £250 for further offence).	£1,000.")

Page 61, line 10, column 3, leave out ("£10") and insert ("£20")

Page 61, line 36, at end insert—

("TRANSPORT ACT 1968 (c. 73) Offences under section 97(1) (tachograph offences).	Section 97(1)	£200	£500.
Offences under section 97A(1) (tachograph offences relating to record sheets and notices).	Section97A(1)	£200	£500.
Offences under section 97A(2) (employers' failure to secure return of record sheet).	Section 97A(2)>	£200	£500.")

Page 62, line 27, at end insert—

("RENT ACT 1977 (c. 42) Offences under section 151(4) (failure of agent to comply with notice requiring information about landlord).

Section 151(4)

£25

£500.")

The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 81 to 84 en bloc. They are consequential on Amendment No. 70. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 85 and 86 not moved.]

Schedule 4 [Special Increases of maximum fines]:

The Chairman of Committees

The Question is that Schedule 4 be the fourth schedule to the Bill? Do you want Schedule 4?

Lord Trefgarne

Yes.

The Chairman of Committees

I thought you wanted to leave out Schedule 4, but never mind. Schedule 4 agreed to.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 36 [General increase of maximum fines under subordinate instruments]:

Lord Trefgarne moved Amendments Nos. 86A, 86B. 86C, 86D, 86E, 86F, 86G, 86H, 86J, 86K and 86L:

Page 37, line 1, leave out ("maximum fine of a specified amount") and insert ("fine or maximum fine")

Page 37, line 6, leave out ("amount specified in") and insert ("fine or maximum fine to which a person may be made liable by virtue of")

Page 37, line 7, leave out ("by any enactment passed")

Page 37, line 11, leave out ("maximum fine of a specified amount") and insert ("fine or maximum fine")

Page 37, line 13, after ("that") insert ("fine or")

Page 37, line 14, leave out ("specified amount") and insert ("fine or maximum fine to which a person may be made liable by virtue of the enactment")

Page 37, line 16, after ("different") insert ("fines or")

Page 37, line 18, after ("those") insert ("fines or")

Page 37, line 22, leave out ("not exceeding a specified amount") and insert ("or maximum fine")

Page 37,line 25 leave out from ("below") to first ("the") in line 28 and insert ("the fine or maximum fine to which a person may be made liable by virtue of an enactment to which this section applies shall be increased to the amount at").

Page 38, line 2, leave out ("to be taken to be the") and insert ("the fine or").

The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, may I move Amendments Nos. 86A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J, K and L en bloc. They are essentially technical or drafting amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 87: After Clause 36, insert the following new clause:

("Orders relating to spread of pests.

.The following subsections shall be substituted for section 3(4) of the Plant Health Act 1967 control of spread of pests in Great Britain)— (4) An order made by a competent authority under this section may provide that a person guilty of an offence against the order shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £ 1,000. (4A) An order so made for preventing the spread in Great Britain of the Colorado beetle (Leptinotarsa decem-lineata (Say)) may provide that a person guilty of an offence against the order relating to the keeping of living specimens of the beetle (in any stage of existence), or to the distribution in any manner of such specimens, shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for not more than three months, as well as, or as an alternative to, a fine.".").

The noble Lord said: Again on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move Amendment No. 87. Your Lordships will scarcely need to be reminded of the trouble that can be caused for horticultural growers by the spread of pests. Section 3 of the Plant Health Act 1967 enables orders by certain authorities, including the Secretary of State for Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland, to be made to help prevent the spread of pests. These orders can, for example, direct the destruction of infected crops. The penalty for offences against such orders is at present £ 100, and £ 200 on a second or subsequent summary conviction. These would rise to a single penalty of £ 500 with the abolition of enhanced penalties provided by Clause 32 of the Bill, and the general up-rating of fines in enabling legislation in Clause 36.

A fine of £ 500 is regarded as insufficient. It is sometimes difficult to persuade horticultural growers that they should meet the statutory requirements of plant health legislation when to do so would involve them in losses of many thousands of pounds and not to do so would incur comparatively mild penalties; and the neglect of plant health requirements can lead to very heavy losses indeed to their fellow growers. We regard £ 1,000 as a more adequate deterrent, and I therefore hope that your Lordships will accept this amendment—which, in effect, is death to the Colorado beetle, I am told. I beg to move.

Lord Elystan-Morgan

We on these Benches are deeply disappointed that the Minister has not seen fit to describe the Colorado beetle according to its Latin classification term. Having said that, we are too deeply committed to the campaign to eradicate the Colorado beetle and to take a realistic account of the roar of inflation. We commend this amendment totally.

Baroness Phillips

I am in favour of the amendment, but I am a little confused because it speaks of the keeping of specimens, which seems to imply that one keeps the beetle as a pet. Perhaps that is a slip of phraseology. It is oddly phrased. It refers to the keeping of a living specimen of this beetle. What one sought to do, I thought, was to destroy it rather than keep a living specimen.

Lord Trefgarne

At the risk of incurring the displeasure of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, whose interests in this matter are well known, I would say that, in this particular context, keeping of these objectionable pests is the thing that we object to.

Lord Elwyn-Jones

In fairness to my noble friend Lord Melchett, I do not think his enthusiasm extends to keeping Colorado beetles.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 37 [Byelaws relating to the burning of straw or rubble]:

9.2 p.m.

Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 88: Page 38, line 18, leave out ("to (c)") and insert ("and (b)").

The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to move Amendment No. 88 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 89, 90, 91 and 92 in general. I hope that the great majority of noble Lords, if not all, will support the intention behind these amendments. Perhaps my noble friend on the Front Bench may have different views on how to achieve the same objective, which is sensible straw burning. These amendments deal with the control of straw and stubble burning. I must declare an interest. I burn about 800 acres of straw each year on my Oxford farm while crying out for straw for my stock on my Welsh one. Sadly, I have to admit to committing in the past some of the crimes that my amendment is intended to punish. I am therefore in the fortunate position of being a sinner who has repented.

I hope your Lordships will accept that, despite our sometimes apparent isolation from our urban cousins, we care and worry about and respect the views and problems of those who do not farm or own land— and not just in respect of straw burning. I also appreciate only too well the view that straw should not be burned when the livestock Industry want it in the West. The answer to it is a combination of cost or carriage and husbandry techniques.

It may be that a few, (I am sure it is a few) noble Lords will not appreciate the vital importance of straw burning to the cereal grower. I will try to sum up a technique which has taken years to perfect and is essential to the cereal grower particularly on heavy soils in the South and East of England—as essential to them as the horse was to agriculture in past centuries. First, there is the crop husbandry reason for a good burn. Straw is cellulose rather than humus and is of no use, and it is a hindrance from the point of view of fertility and disease, particularly on the heavy, and difficult soils of the South-East where most cereals are grown. It has a detrimental effect on these soils if ploughed in. It requires more fossil fuel and fossil fertilisers if such a process is adopted.

Burning straw drastically cuts down the work of the preparation of soil for another crop, not only in time (and time is the essence of good husbandry) but in fuel. Who wants agriculture to use more fuel? Vitally important, too, is a good burn tied with minimal cultivation for these difficult soils—soils classified as 4 and 5 and not even cultivated in the 1930s and which, because of this technique, now yields up to three tonnes to the acre of wheat. This is a success story that I am proud to be associated with.

Secondly, and more important perhaps, there is a surplus of between 3 million and 6 million tonnes of straw each year. The great majority is concentrated in the South and East, furthest from the livestock-rearing West. Even though new outlets are being found for this straw, there will always be a surplus; and if it is not burned, I do not know what will be done with it. I am sure that your Lordships are quite capable of imagining some of the Machiavellian ideas of disposing of surplus straw. I have thought of a few myself. I will not bore your Lordships any longer for fear of the Chief Whip. I hope that I have convinced your Lordships at the moment that there is no alternative to a good burn on many of our southern and eastern cereal farms.

I return to the purpose of my amendment. I believe that for many reasons, safety and conservation being two of them, burning should be done carefully. Over a period of years, the NFU have produced a code of practice for straw burning which has been regularly improved and updated. This code of practice, a copy of which I have placed in the Library, has been used as a by-law by many local authorities. The maximum fine was increased from £20 to £200 in 1977 and now, in this Bill, is raised to £500. Unfortunately, the way the amendment was drafted in another place means that this increase in fines will have to be applied for by each local authority and in order to standardise the fine throughout the country and ease the burden on local authorities, my amendment will mean that every local authority with a by-law will have its maximum fine automatically increased to £ 500.

This amendment repeats, and is precedented by, the way in which the fines in the Criminal Law Act 1977 were increased from £20 to £200. I think this was introduced by noble Lords opposite, including no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Melchett. I can see no reason whatsoever why, because a farm straddles two or more local authorities, the maximum fine for breaking the law should be different. My Amendments Nos. 88, 89 and 92 deal with this. I believe that the Association of County Councils support this amendment. I hope that the Committee will give these modest amendments support and approval. If the Committee does so, I shall try to encourage it a little later to support a rather more hawkish punishment as suggested in my Amendments Nos. 90 and 91. I beg to move.

Lord Trefgarne

Perhaps I may preface my brief remarks by making it clear to your Lordships that Clause 37 as it now stands in the Bill resulted from an exception we agreed in another place to make to the Bill's general provisions on fines in the light of representations made to Ministers by the National Farmers' Union and the Association of County Councils. We are now asked to go even further and I make no complaint about that. I merely wish the Committee to know that Clause 37 was inserted in the Bill in response to the anxieties of those concerned who wish to see more effective control exercised in the burning of straw and stubble. The burning of straw and stubble is a necessary and indeed desirable activity in the interests of good husbandry but we must encourage more effective control. As regards the proposal that the maxi- mum fine provided by Clause 37 should be applied directly to the by-laws themselves, perhaps I may explain the policy of the Bill as regards penalties in subordinate legislation generally.

The purpose of the Bill is to provide the means whereby maximum penalties in Acts of Parliament may regularly be up-dated. Until this Bill, it was necessary to await a place in the parliamentary programme in order to achieve increases in maxima and then on a piecemeal basis. As a result, given that parliamentary time is at a premium, the substantial majority of maxima in our Acts are lamentably out of true with current values. This Bill concentrates on putting that right. But it does not attempt to apply its provisions to penalties in subordinate legislation, which of course includes by-laws. There are three reasons for that approach. First, the methods by which penalties are provided in subordinate legislation are so varied that any broad measure which attempted to affect them would need to be extremely complex and would be uncertain in its effect. Secondly, subordinate legislation is often subject to statutory procedures for consultation, et cetera, and overriding those procedures would not be welcomed in all quarters. Finally, although the re-making of subordinate legislation may be a tiresome task, it makes much less significant calls on the legislative programme and it is therefore considerably easier to revise the relevant penalty and other provisions from time to time than it is to amend primary legislation.

It is for those reasons that none of the Bill's provisions affect penalties specified in subordinate instruments. I am however mindful of the observations which I have heard in the past and I think again earlier on this evening that it would be a great help to local authorities if we were able to concede an exception in this instance. I am conscious too that an exception was made in the Criminal Law Act 1977 and that it should therefore be relatively simple to adopt the same approach here. I should therefore like to have the opportunity to consider the wider implications further and in particular in the light of what my noble friend has said. If my noble friend will therefore agree to withdraw his amendment, I shall see what can be done to apply a new maximum of £500 directed to the by-laws themselves at the next stage of the Bill.

Lord Elystan-Morgan

As one who had the privilege for some years of representing a country constituency, and as a countryman and who revels in his agricultural forebears, it gives me great pleasure to support the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, and to do so not only on behalf of myself but on behalf of all my noble friends on these Benches behind me.

I am intrigued somewhat by what the Minister says about the difficulties in relation to subordinate legislation. It seems to me on the face of it that Clause 36 of the Bill, which deals with increasing the maximum fines under subordinate legislation, most certainly has endorsed the generality of that principle. The question of whether the maximum should be £500 or £1,000 is really a matter of principle; but I understand from the National Farmers' Union—which are greatly to be commended for the pioneering initiative that they have shown in this matter in putting their own agricultural house in order—that since 1978 the maximum penalty by statute for the pollution of a water course is £ 1,000. It would seem broadly, comparing one with the other, that there is a very strong case why the same maxima should apply to the two offences.

Lord Monson

I should like to support this amendment warmly and at the same time to speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 88A and to 89A, 90A (which are consequential upon Amendment No. 88A) and which we think go some way towards improving it. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, for supporting us in advance, as it were. The sum of £500 is a great improvement on the existing maximum but the National Farmers' Union believe that the proposed maximum of £500 is inadequate, and others including, let it be noted, the Association of County Councils, have arrived independently at the same conclusion. The reasons are that con-tiavening the bye-laws can be very profitable to a very small minority of unscrupulous farmers. Secondly, of course, the fines which are actually imposed by magistrates are nearly always a great deal less than the maximum. Therefore if the maximum were £500, the average fine imposed might be £100 and if the maximum were £1,000 one would be more likely to see a fine imposed in normal circumstances of £200 or so.

I think it is right to emphasise that this is not the usual business of a pressure group urging favourable treatment for its own members. On the contrary, the National Farmers' Union is urging stricter discipline on its members for the good of the community as a whole. When I asked a Starred Question on this subject on 5th May, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, replied that £1,000 was the maximum fine that magistrates could impose and that one must be careful not to lessen the deterrent effects of a maximum sentence. Initially, I found that argument not perhaps totally convincing but at any rate reasonable. However, in this Bill we notice that on no less than 28 occasions the maximum fine for various offences is raised to £1,000. In the amendments we have just dealt with, on another three occasions the maximum fines are raised to £1,000. If amendment 139 is accepted in due course, that will bring the number of occasions on which the maximum fine is raised to £1000 to 32.

Earlier this evening we dealt with the Report Stage of the Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill, containing provision for a maximum fine payable on summary conviction of £10,000. It could be argued, and I believe it has been argued, that generally speaking where the maximum is £1,000 criminal intent is involved. But I notice that one occasion where a maximum fine of £1,000 is now permissible is where a dealer sells a car with inadequate reflectors. This is, of course, a serious offence which can lead to a traffic accident, but so can irresponsible stubble burning. Serious traffic accidents have been caused by that. Again, in one clause the maximum fine for offences under the Forestry Act 1967 is now raised to £1000. No criminal intent is involved, and I do not think anyone would seriously think that failure to comply with an order to fell trees, or felling trees illegally, is a more heinous crime than irresponsible and possibly dangerous stubble burning.

This is one of the very few occasions which deals with a totally non-party matter. I believe very few people can seriously object to this amendment; there are only two lots of people who would be glad if it were rejected. The first group are a small minority of "black sheep" among farmers, for whom greed comes before their duty to their neighbours or to the community at large. The second group of people are those one might call romantic fanatics—mainly townspeople—who would dearly like farming practices to revert to the state they were in 50 years ago, for aesthetic reasons. They would dearly love public disquiet and anger about stubble burning to mount, so that they could eventually abolish the practice altogether. 1 believe that the amendment we propose really conforms to the path of moderation, and I urge your Lordships to accept it.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

As a long-time member of the National Farmers' Union, I can do no less than support this amendment.

Viscount Massereene and Ferrard

I support this amendment. For a big grain farmer, it is very difficult to know what to do with surplus straw. I am all against burning because it destroys the insect life and so on. I have often thought that with oat and barley straw, particularly, if the Government would offer a subsidy for transport from the east to the west, to the hills where all the cattle are, it would be a great help to the big grain farmers. That may not be strictly relevant to the matter of fines, but I have often thought that the Government ought really to help the big grain farmers regarding transport, and it would also help the cattle farmers on the hills in the west.

Lord Melchett

May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, whether he plans to have a separate discussion on Amendment No. 90?—because if he does, and he is nodding, I will restrict myself now to saying that I very strongly agree with the proposal that the fine should be £1,000 rather than £500. Given the general agreement among those who have spoken on this point, I hope that the Government will be able to take that on board in moving amendments at the next stage.

Lord Chelwood

I shall be very brief indeed. I just want to apologise to my noble friend Lord Stanley because I was not in my place when he began his speech. This is a subject in which I take a great interest. I, too, greatly appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has said, that he will look at this between now and Report stage. I do not want to duplicate anything that has been said, but I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that, from the nature conservation point of view, this is a very serious problem indeed, with something between one-third and one-half of the straw and stubble in this country which is not wanted being burned every year. The scale is a very big one indeed, and the damage to trees, hedgerows and wildlife habitats is very large.

Every year nature reserves, SSSIs and areas of outstanding natural beauty are burned through wantonness, carelessness, or thoughtlessness, and that is why the National Farmers' Union and the CLA are so anxious that the penalty should fit the crime; certainly, at the moment it does not. I feel that £500 is not enough and I hope if we cannot go beyond that at Report stage, that when the penalties that magistrates can impose are put up right across the board the fine will go up to £1,000, which I would not at all regard as too high. To prove my first point, last year four important nature reserves were badly damaged by straw and stubble burning at Martin Down on Salisbury Plain in Wiltshire, Pewsey Down in Wiltshire, Aston Rowant in Oxfordshire and Old Winchester Hill in Hampshire. I think that I have said enough to show that this is a very serious problem, and I look forward to Report stage when I hope that my point will be largely met.

9.21 p.m.

Lord Trefgarne

I wonder whether I may address myself to the question of the penalties, which is the thrust of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and his colleagues. I would remind your Lordships that we are dealing here with offences made under by-laws for good rule and government, which local authorities are empowered to make under Section 235 of the Local Government Act 1972. Such by-laws are, of course, intended generally to deal with relatively minor local regulatory matters and the general maximum fine for the offences they contain is accordingly £50. An exception was made in relation to certain by-laws by the Criminal Law Act 1977, and the maximum fine for straw and stubble burning was thereby increased to £200. That was to reflect the particular problems created by uncontrolled burning. We have agreed to make a further exception, by increasing the maximum available to £ 500, which is the next step on the standard scale of fines established by Clause 33 of the Bill. Amendment 88A and its consequential 89A now seek to double that figure by taking it to the top step of the scale.

As your Lordships will know, £1,000 is the maximum fine that is normally available to magistrates for the most serious offences dealt with summarily. Offences connected with straw and stubble burning are surely not so serious that they require the heaviest financial penalty generally applicable in the magistrates' courts. It is important that we should preserve a sense of proportion in fixing maxima—an objective which this Bill serves by securing a consistent approach to fines for the vast range of summary offences—and we should not give this one undue prominence which will distort the structure.

I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will not press his amendment to the extent that he proposes. I have accepted that we should, exceptionally, increase the penalty to £500 through the medium of this Bill, which I shall seek to do at the next stage. But I hope that my noble friend will feel that that is adequate and that that, indeed, will satisfy other Lords as well.

Lord Melchett

I hope that the Government will have another look at this and will not close their minds to the possibility of increasing the fine to £1,000, because it seems to me that what the noble Lord has just said may be a little out of date, if I may say so with respect. To give one example, in the Wildlife and Countryside Act, admittedly against the Government's initial instincts, the fines which were available on summary conviction for the destruction of a single rare bird or a single rare bird's egg were increased to £1,000. An uncontrolled stubble fire might well have the effect, as the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, has said, of destroying the habitat and the birds or eggs of a large number of rare species. It does not seem that it would be getting the scale of things out of proportion, or distorting the balance and all the other fine sounding things which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said, to put this fine up to £1,000. Of course, the noble Lord is not able to commit himself this evening, but I hope that he will look at this in the light of fines for very similar, if not, on occasion, less serious, problems which occur in the countryside and which have been agreed by Parliament very recently indeed.

Baroness Macleod of Borve

I was driving along the A.1 last Autumn. A very bad farmer had lit his stubble on a wind which was obviously travelling very fast. It came right across the A.I and caused a 15 car pile-up, because nobody could see through the smoke which was caused by the stubble. On that occasion, I felt that £1,000 was not enough.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

May I ask my noble friend the Minister what the objection to this amendment is?

Lord Trefgarne

With respect to my noble friend, I did recite some of the difficulties over the amendment which had occurred to me. I am not sure whether my noble friend was in his place at that time.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

I was.

Lord Trefgarne

Having said that, I do not want to appear to be inflexible. I have given an undertaking that we shall introduce amendments at the next stage with a view to increasing the penalty to £500. In the light of the views which have been expressed this evening, I shall consider the matter further to see whether there is any more that we can do. However, I do not wish to give to your Lordships a categoric undertaking that we can do so.

Lord Monson

I am delighted to have support from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the noble, Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve. To reinforce that, may I put it again to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who rightly says that we should keep a sense of proportion, that he must be aware that in the Bill a maximum fine of £1,000 is imposed for felling trees which should not be felled or for not felling trees which should be felled. I do not think that this is a worse crime than burning stubble irresponsibly and causing a serious traffic pile-up such as the one which the noble Baroness has just described.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

May I thank all noble Lords for their tremendous support for the amendment. I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, for his very helpful and very kind remarks about farmers trying to regulate their own matters. But he would say that, because he has the great privilege of being connected with the most beautiful island in this country, bar none. I should like to thank him seriously for his help. May I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for his help. As I understand it, he will try to table amendments to this Amendment, No. 88, at Report. If not, I shall try again. In the meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 88.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Monson had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 88A: Page 38, line 25, leave out ("£500") and insert ("£1,000").

The noble Lord said: In view of the undertaking given by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, I do not propose to move this amendment.

[Amendment No. 88A not moved.]

[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]

[Amendment No. 89A not moved.]

9.28 p.m.

Lord Stanley of Alderley moved Amendment No. 90:

Page 38, line 25, at end insert— ("(4AA) Byelaws to which this subsection applies may further provide that where persons contravening the byelaws shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500 in the case of a first offence, then in the case of a person convicted of a second or subsequent offence under this section the court shall have power to disqualify that person from causing, permitting or suffering to be burned on land in his occupation or under his control any straw or stubble for a period not exceeding 3 years, and if any person who is so disqualified, by an order under this section without reasonable excuse causes, permits or suffers to be burned on land in his occupation or under his control any straw or stubble he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £1,000.").

The noble Lord said: This was the amendment I referred to in my original speech. It is slightly more hawkish in its approach. Its effect would be that should a farmer continue to contravene the by-law regarding straw burning it would be open to the Bench to ban him from burning straw for a period of up to three years. There may be some technical reason why the Government do not wish to accept the amendment, but if, as I hope, your Lordships believe that this is a punishment to fit the crime, as recommended by my noble friend Lord Elton at Second Reading, it must be possible for such technical matters to be subject to your Lordships' will. I can assure your Lordships that, as a dedicated burner of straw, the threat of such a ban really would put the fear of God into me. To support my view, I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that it was he who said at Second Reading that courts must have available to them a wide range of non-custodial sentences. This view was supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, at Second Reading, as well as the penalty having a deterrent effect. With such distinguished members of your Lordships' House from opposite sides supporting me, how can my amendment be wrong? I beg to move.

The Chairman of Committees

As an amendment to this amendment, I call Amendment No. 90A.

[Amendment No. 90A not moved.]

Lord Melchett

If I may say a word about Amendment No. 90, I would like to support strongly the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. I should declare an interest—and perhaps I should have done this sooner—because I myself am a farmer who also burns some straw, although not quite the same quantity as the noble Lord opposite because we try to bale and chop as much straw as possible.

The first thing I want to say in general terms is that I believe the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, considerably overstated the case for straw burning. Indeed, I feel it is something of an insult to the horse to suggest that straw burning is as vital to agriculture as the horse was some years ago. I think that the National Farmers' Union and others who are concerned need to look not only at the question of irresponsible burning but also at the quantity of straw now being burned and whether there really is a need—a serious agricultural need—to burn as much straw as happened last summer.

I was out on the Wash in a boat last summer and when I looked back across the coast of Norfolk the haze of smoke during August which hovered over the county continually for at least 30 days was certainly as bad as the clouds of smog which one used to see from an airplane hanging over the west of London in the days before we had the air cleaned up. The pollution that has been caused to the countryside by the quantity of straw being burned—let alone the problems which a number of noble Lords have mentioned involving the misuse of burning, road accidents, hedges and wild life being destroyed—is a very serious problem.

My noble friend Lord Elystan-Morgan suggested that these amendments represented the National Farmers' Union putting its house in order. It would be fairer to say it is an attempt to put the union's house in order because there is no doubt that the problems last summer caused by straw burning were a great deal worse than they have been in previous years. We have yet to see an improvement in the scale and nature of the problem, despite the commendable efforts which I agree have been made by a number of people, including the NFU with its straw burning code. It seems to me that the problem is sufficiently serious to justify the sort of penalty which the noble Lord is proposing in this amendment.

I also agree with the noble Lord that even if the fine was raised to £1,000 it would still be in the economic interests of a fairly large number of farmers—certainly large cereal farmers in East Anglia—to burn straw and risk penalties being imposed on them year after year, because the cost of using alternative measures might seem to them to be higher than the risk of being fined. It is an unfortunate but generally accepted fact that magistrates' courts in the countryside are not that willing to impose high fines (certainly not fines anywhere near the maximum) on people such as farmers who appear before them for doing something about which many magistrates may feel that there but for the grace of God go they, if not one of their neighbours or a friend who is a farmer. I believe this would be a very useful addition to the penalties which are available in respect of something which is becoming a serious public problem and one which is arousing almost as much feeling as the many other issues which concerned not only the general public but also your Lordships' House for much of last year. I hope that the Government will be able to support the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and will see that this amendment is in the Bill.

Lord Trefgarne

While the Government have a certain amount of sympathy for the arguments put forward in connection with this amendment, I fear that we cannot accept it. It is important to remember that we are dealing with a penalty for a breach of a by-law. As your Lordships will know, by-law offences are at the bottom of the scale of offences and the simple penalties for their contravention are correspondingly low. The great majority attract a maximum fine of £50 or less. In some cases where public health or safety are involved—and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, referred to these earlier— a fine of up to £1,000 may be imposed, and the Government accept that the straw and stubble burning by-law which may be made under Section 235 of the Local Government Act 1972, requires a relatively high penalty. But I know of no by-law which carries a penalty of disqualification. 1 must say that I am not persuaded of the need in this case.

In the first place, as I have said, it would be out of step with other by-law penalties, and in particular with other by-laws made under Section 235, for which a fine is the only available penalty. Secondly, as drafted, the clause would enable, not require, local authorities, to add this penalty clause to the existing one. The effect of this might be an unacceptable variation in penalties for the same offence in different parts of the country. Thirdly, and perhaps most significantly, to prevent someone from burning straw and stubble altogether would conflict with the aim of the by-law, which is not to prohibit burning by particular classes of people but to ensure that it may be carried out safely by anyone. Burning straw and stubble is not against the general law of the land. It is not a nuisance or a danger everywhere. That is why it is controlled on a local basis by means of by-laws.

Lord Melchett

If the noble Lord will not mind giving way for a moment, driving is in exactly the same category, but that does not prevent the law prohibiting people from driving for periods if they repeatedly break the law.

Lord Trefgarne

That is, if I may say so, rather a different matter, but if the noble Lord will allow me to finish perhaps he will take a different view. As I said, that is why it is controlled on a local basis by means of by-laws. But by-laws are a peculiar form of instrument; they are normally valid only if, among other things, they are impartial and treat everyone equally. So the current by-law creates a general ban on straw and stubble burning except where certain conditions are met. Turning this about, the effect is that anyone may burn so long as they meet those conditions. The effect of the amendment would be to disqualify certain people from burning straw and stubble even if in future they were to meet every single condition imposed.

I admit that the people concerned may not be very deserving of our sympathy, but to introduce a power to disqualify farmers who after the chastening experience of a second conviction are fully prepared to abide by the rules for burning would be a very serious step. I do not believe we should be justified in taking that step, at least until we can assess the effect of the considerably higher maximum fine the Bill will make available, and of the other measures which my noble friend Lord Ferrers, the National Farmers' Union and the Association of County Councils are instituting to counter the problem.

In the light of what I have said, I hope the Committee will feel that the right way to proceed is as we charted, in accordance with the amendments proposed by my noble friend earlier, and that these amendments will not be pressed.

Lord Stanley of Alderley

I think I am going to agree with no one. First of all, there is the noble Lord, Lord Melchett; I knew our friendship would not last very long, and it has not. I have not overstated my case, and the reason I have not overstated my case is that he does not know what it is like to farm on grade 4 or 5 land; he farms in the land of Goshen and he can do what he likes and get away with it.

I cannot entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Trefgarne over banning. In fact there is a precedent, as he may know, in the Protection of Animals Act 1954, where, if you are consistently cruel to an animal, you can be banned from keeping an animal, after the second conviction, I am told by my noble friend. However, I do take the point of my noble friend that the Government intend to see what effect the present regulations are going to have, and they have not ruled out forever if this is necessary taking steps to implement it. With that, I feel I shall have to withdraw this amendment, disagreeing with practically everybody. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 not moved.]

Clause 37 agreed to.

Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 93: After Clause 37, insert the following new clause:

("By-laws for British Airports Authority aerodromes.

.The following subsections shall be substituted for section 9(3) of the Airports Authority Act 1975 (by virtue of which the maximum fine that byelaws made by the British Airports Authority in respect of aerodromes owned or managed by it may specify for a contravention of the byelaws is £ 100)— (3) Any person contravening any byelaws made under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding such amount as, subject to subsection (3A) below, may be specified by the byelaws in relation to the contravention. (3A) The maximum fines that byelaws may specify by virtue of subsection (3) above are fines of an amount at level 4 on the standard scale or of a lower amount.".").

The noble Lord said: This amendment gives effect to an undertaking which my honourable friend gave after debate on the Bill in another place. Its effect is to increase from £100 to £500 the maximum penalty generally available for offences created by civil airport by-laws. I understand that one of the important effects of this particular increase will relate to the so-called "taxi touts" one finds around our airports. I hope your Lordships will consider this to be appropriate. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

9.40 p.m.

Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 94: After Clause 37, insert the following new clause:

(" Byelaws for other aerodromes.

. In section 40 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982—

1. (a) the following subsections shall be substituted for sub section (1) (fines for contravention of byelaws relating to areodromes of Secretary of State, Civil Aviation Authority, local authorities and other persons)—
• "(1) Any person contravening any byelaws made under sections 27, 29, 32 or 33 above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding such amonut as, subject to subsection (1A) below, may be specified by the byelaws in question in relation to the contravention.
• (1A) The maximum fines that byelaws may specify by virtue of subsection (1) above are fines of an amount at level 4 on the standard scale or of a lower amount."; and
2. (b) the following subsection shall be added after subsection (2)—
• " (3) For the purposes of subsection (1 A) above, in its application to byelaws made under section 29 above—
1. (a) section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (the standard scale of fines for summary offences); and
2. (b) an order under section 143 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 which alters the sum specified in section 33(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982,

shall extend to Northern Ireland.".").

The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential upon the previous one. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 38 [Conversion of references to amounts to references to level on scale]:

Lord Trefgarne moved Amendments Nos. 94A, 94B, 94C, 94D and 94E:

Page 38, line 34, leave out from ("liable") to ("or") in line 36 and insert ("to a fine or maximum fine on conviction of a summary offence")

Page 38, line 38, leave out from ("liable") to ("and") in line 41 and insert ("to a fine or maximum fine on conviction of a summary offence (whether or not created by the instrument)")

Page 38, line 42, leave out ("specified amount is equal to") and insert ("amount of the fine or maximum fine for the offence is, whether by virtue of this Part of this Act or not,")

Page 39, leave out lines 1 to 3 and insert ("a reference to the level in the first column of the standard scale corresponding to that amount shall be substituted for the reference in the enactment to the amount of the fine or maximum fine.")

Page 39, line 3, at end insert— ("(1A) Where a relevant enactment confers a power such as is mentioned in subsection (l)(a)(ii) above, the power shall be construed as a power to make a person liable to a fine or, as the case may be, a maximum fine not exceeding the amount corresponding to the level on the standard scale to which the enactment refers by virtue of subsection (1) above or not exceeding a lesser amount.").

The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 94A, 94B, 94C, 94D and 94E en bloc. They are technical and consequential amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 39 and 40 agreed to.

Schedule 6 agreed to.

Clause 41 [Fines for certain offences under Merchant Shipping Acts and Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971]:

Lord Trefgarne moved Amendments Nos. 95, 96 and 97:

Page 40, line 33, after ("1971") insert—

1. ("(a)")

Page 40, line 36, after first ("£1,000") insert ("or

1. (b) confers power by subordinate instrument to make a person liable to a fine not exceeding £1,000 on summary conviction of an offence triable either summarily or on indictment,")

Page 40, line 37, at end insert— ("(2) In section 20 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 (prevention of pollution from ships etc.)—

1. (a) the following paragraphs shall be substituted for paragraph(f) of subsection (3)—
• "(f) that a contravention of a provision made by or under the Order shall be an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum and on conviction on indictment by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years and a fine;
• (fa) that any such contravention shall be an offence punishable only on summary conviction by a maximum fine of an amount not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or such less amount as is prescribed by the Order;"
2. (b) in the words following paragraph (g), "neither paragraph (f) nor paragraph (fa)"shall be substituted for" paragraph (f)";
3. (c) the following subsection shall be inserted after subsection (3)—
• "(3A) Section 55 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (construction of references to "statutory maximum") shall have effect for the purposes of paragraph (f) of the preceding subsection as if that paragraph were contained in that Act."; an
4. (d) the following subsection shall be added after sub section (6)—
• "(7) For the purposes of subsection (3)(fa) of this section—
1. (a) section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (the standard scale of fines for summary offences); and
2. (b) an order under section 143 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 which alters the sums specified in section 33(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982, shall extend to Northern Ireland.".

(3) In section 21 of that Act (safety and health on ships)— (a) in subsection (6)—

1. (i) the following paragraphs shall be substituted for paragraph (b)—
• "(b) that a contravention of the regulations shall be an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum and on conviction on indictment by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years and a fine;
• (ba) that any such contravention shall be an offence punishable only on summary conviction by a maximum fine of an amount not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or such less amount as is prescribed by the regulations,"; and
2. (ii) the following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph (c)—
• "(c) (hat, notwithstanding anything in paragraph (b) or (ba) of this section, a person convicted summarily of an offence under the regulations of a kind which is stated by the regulations to correspond to an offence which is triable cither summarily or on indictment under an enactment specified in the regulations which authorises or authorised a fine on summary conviction of a maximum amount 431 exceeding the statutory maximum shall be liable to a fine not exceeding that maximum amount."; and
3. (b) the following subsections shall be added after that subsection—
• "(7) Section 55 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (construction of references to "statutory maximum") shall have effect for the purposes of paragraphs (b) and (c) of the preceding subsection as if those paragraphs were contained in that Act.
4. (8) For the purposes of subsection (6)(ba) above—
1. (a) section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 (the standard scale of fines for summary offences); and
2. (b) an order under section 143 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 which alters the sums specified in section 33(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982,

shall extend to Northern Ireland.".

(4) The paragraphs substituted for section 20(3)(f) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979 by subsection (2) above, together with the words substituted by paragraph (b) of that subsection, and the paragraphs substituted for section 21(6)(b) and (c) of that Act by subsection (3) above shall be deemed always to have had effect.

(5) The substituted paragraphs mentioned in subsection (4) above shall be deemed to have had effect in relation to the period before the commencement of this section—

1. (a) with a reference to"£1,000" in place of each reference to "the statutory maximum"; and
2. (b) with "fine not exceeding £1,000" in place of "maximum fine of an amount not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale" in each place where that phrase occurs.").

The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to move Amendments 95, 96 and 97 en bloc. Amendments Nos. 95 and 96 are drafting amendments. Amendment No. 97 may look a little daunting but its effect is, in fact, quite simple. Two of the powers to prescribe penalties in the subordinate legislation to which I earlier referred do not clearly permit different maxima to be applied to offences according to their relative gravity. A recent interpretation of the provisions of Sections 20 and 21, which are concerned respectively with the control of oil pollution and regulations on health and safety on ships, is that all offences must be made triable either way with two years' imprisonment on indictment. Many of the offences concerned will not be of the more serious kind—they may, for example, consist simply of failing to maintain correct records. We therefore need to ensure that the flexibility commonly conveyed in powers to prescribe maxima in subordinate instruments is available in these powers. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Trefgarne moved Amendment No. 98: After Clause 41, insert the following new clause:

(" Fines for offences against regulations relating to wireless telegraphy apparatus on foreign ships and aircraft.

. In section 6 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949—

1. (a) in subsection (2), for the words from "such", in the second place where it occurs, to "regulations", in the fourth place where it occurs, there shall be substituted the words" a maximum fine for each offence of an amount not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or of a lesser amount"; and
2. (b) the following subsection shall be added after subsection (3)—

• "(4) For the purposes of subsection (2) of this section—

1. (a) section 33 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982(the standard scale of fines for summary offences); and
2. (b) an order under section 143 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 which alters the sums specified in section 33(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982,

shall extend to Northern Ireland.".").

The noble Lord said: This amendment increases from £100 to level 5 on the standard scale, now standing at £1,000, the maximum fine available for the summary offences against regulations made under Section 6(2) of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. These regulations enable control to be exercised over the use of apparatus on foreign ships and aircraft within the United Kingdom's territorial jurisdiction. The present maximum has remained at £100 since 1949 and would be increased to only £200 by Clause 36 of the Bill. A more appropriate reflection of the potential gravity of the offences concerned would be £1,000, and I hope therefore, that your Lordships will agree to the amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No.[99 not moved.]

Clause 42 agreed to.

9.45 p.m.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge moved Amendment No. 100: After Clause 42, insert the following new clause:

("Courts to be able to make an attachment of earnings order at the time a fine is imposed with the consent of the offender.

.In section 46 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967—

1. (a) in subsection (1) the words "that the offender has defaulted in the payment of that sum and" shall be omitted; and
2. (b) after subsection (1), there shall be inserted the following subsection—
• "(1A) A court shall not make an attachment o earnings order under subsection (1) above unless the offender has defaulted in payment of the sum or consents to the making of the order.".").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 100. We come back to the delinquency side of the Bill having been dealing with agriculture and oil and other things. This is a question of what to do about people who are fined, with the knowledge that the use of the fine is increasingly being used and, on the whole, is something like 50 per cent, effective as opposed to all other forms of sanction which are about 70 per cent, to 80 per cent, effective. Many of us for many years have had a strong wish to see the attachment of earnings order added to the system of fines. We have failed to get this established so far over maintenance orders. It is the Parliamentary All-Party Penal Affairs Group which is making this new proposition and I speak for the noble Baroness who is not present. As things are now, a court cannot impose an attachment of earnings order until the offender has defaulted in payment. We are simply suggesting that the court, with the offender's agreement, can attach his earnings without waiting for him to default. It is rather an obvious situation. It means that a man who is fined and is prepared to pay his fine but is short of money to pay it as a whole, can accept an attachment of earnings of one-tenth of the fine for 10 weeks, or whatever it may be, when the fine is imposed. The fine will then be paid without any difficulties.

It seems to me very foolish that the court should have to wait until the man has defaulted before it can impose an attachment of earnings order. The situation seems to me to be as simple as that. I do not think that I need add anything to it. I beg to move.

Baroness Birk

I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and standing in my name. It seems to me to be a very sensible and practical way of dealing with this very often difficult situation of fining people and getting them to pay the fines. In 1978 the House of Commons Expenditure Committee in its report, The Reduction of Pressure on the Prison System, said: One of the main ways of reducing the pressure on prisoners would be to fine more offenders, especially young adult offenders, who are in regular employment. When you sit as a magistrate and have it in mind to fine an offender, one of the difficulties that arises is when the person cannot pay immediately. Very often they offer to pay a very low and unacceptable amount weekly. You then have to try to find some means of increasing it so that it will not go on for years, and of setting down an amount that he is able to pay. An attachment of earnings order seems to be the most sensible way of doing it.

As I think the noble Lord has said, in the other place the Minister argued that because we do not immediately do it on maintenance orders—at least only when a person has defaulted—it therefore should not be done in this way. In reply to that, I would say that by making it necessary to get the consent of the offender, the point is covered where an offender is concerned that his employer will react against this and that he may be in danger of losing his job. In fact, it is a way in which life can be made much easier for the offender, because it is all worked out for him. The money is taken away and paid regularly. He may be given one month or two months in which to pay; the total mounts up and up, and when he comes back to court very often nothing has been paid at all.

As we know, the stage is sometimes reached when fine defaulters end up in prison, which, again, is something we are trying to avoid. I think that there is a very strong case for this because of the effect on the courts—it would make their action very much more effective—and also because it is very much more helpful to offenders. There are many people who find it extraordinarily difficult to manage their income and monetary affairs, and this would take care of that. I hope that the Government will accept this amendment.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

May I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he could perhaps think about this amendment. I speak on this occasion in practical terms as a recorder. Is the problem that this could contravene the Truck Acts? Is there some legal problem that has inhibited my noble friend from giving free consideration to this?—because if there is not, then it seems to me there is much to be said for it.

Lord Avebury

To me, too, there is much to be said for it, and I am glad to have the powerful reinforcement of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I believe that if there had been any technical objection following publication of the group's report, we would have heard about it from the Ministers in the Home Office, and many others who would have the opportunity of studying the proposals. The evidence is fairly conclusive—and some of it comes from the Home Office itself—that we need to increase the effectiveness of fines enforcement; and it has to be done in the early stages, if possible before default has occurred. The Home Office in its research pamphlet No. 46 on fines in magistrates' courts, published in 1978, shows that action to enforce payment had to be taken in nearly half of the sample of over 3,000 offenders who had been fined or ordered to pay other sums, such as compensation or costs.

It seems to me to be a very big problem that the courts in imposing fines have to come back to an offender again because he does not keep up the payments. Therefore, one of the conclusions which we drew is that there must be scope for a much wider use of attachment of earnings orders. In the study I am talking about, the courts made an attachment of earnings order in only 25 cases, and in those cases they had a success rate of over 90 per cent, in getting some payment out of offenders. That was a far higher proportion than under any other method of enforcement used, so I feel that the arguments in favour of an amendment such as this are absolutely conclusive and I hope, like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that the Minister will accept it as it stands.

Lord Elton

There is one reason why I find the universal support for this amendment a little puzzling. That is that it purports to amend the Criminal Justice Act, 1967. As I understand it, that Act was repealed in 1970, so to that extent the amendment is seeking to alter something that does not exist.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

The amendment is wrongly drafted, but what the amendment is trying to do is as clear as a bell and I hope that the noble Lord will take the point.

Lord Elton

I have no intention of shrugging off the principle to which the noble Lord's amendment addresses itself, but he must allow me to smack my lips a little when I detect my skilled adversaries in the position of having made an error—I agree without malice and perhaps a little self-congratulation. The amendment of my noble friend or, in her absence, of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, should be addressed to the Attachment of Earnings Order 1971. If one examines that, one sees that the courts have powers which are very close to the power which this clause seeks to give to them. Where default has occurred in payment of a fine it is open to the person to whom the payment has to be made— in this instance it would be the clerk to the justices— to apply to the court for the making of an attachment of earnings order and in addition, whether or not default has occurred, the person ordered to make a payment by the court may at any time apply for an attachment of earnings order to be made in his case.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

May we get this absolutely clear? I am fully aware that if the offender applies he can get it. Is the noble Lord saying that the clerk to whom he would have to pay it can demand it without the offender applying? That is the point I am not clear about.

Lord Elton

I am sorry if I am slower than the noble Lord would wish. I am almost there in meeting this point. There would appear to be no reason at all why a person who has been fined should not make such an application at the time of conviction, if he wishes to do so. The slight difference which the present new clause would introduce would be to give the court the power to make such an order without the application on the offender's behalf, but only still with his consent.

There is a very narrow difference of approach here. It must be very small because if a court at the time of conviction wishes to suggest to an offender—who can always refuse, even under the amendment—that an attachment of earnings order might be made in his case, there is no reason why it should not do so and thus invite an application from him. It seems, therefore, that the position is already very much what the noble Lord wants it to be; the court can invite the defendant to apply for an attachment of earnings order at the time of conviction, and it is open to him to consent or not to consent. That is exactly the position the amendment wishes to bring about.

Baroness Birk

If that is so—and it appears to be unknown to many of us, including even those who sit in court and practice the law, and therefore it is obscure —it seems important that it should be written into the legislation. It is late and we are probably all rather tired, but I want to be clear about this. Is the Minister saying that the court can do what the amendment suggests? In other words, can a court say, "We should like to make an attachment of earnings order in your case, We think that would be the most satisfactory course. We just need your consent"? Is that what the Minister is saying can now be done? Is it as clear as that?

Lord Elton

The court would not say, "We need your consent", but, "Would you please ask us to do it': Then we will do it". There is a difference of semantics.

Baroness Birk

With respect, that is ridiculous.

Lord Elton

Does the noble Baroness wish to intervene?

Baroness Birk

That puts the court in an unnecessarily silly position. It means that the court must say," If you will ask us, we will do it". If the position is as the Minister has described, why can it not be the other way round—it is important for the sake of the authority of the court—for the court to have the power to make the decision? I should find it most embarrassing to sit as chairman of my court and say, "If you ask us to do it, we will", especially as so many defendants are un-represented, anyway.

Lord Elton

I hope we shall not get embarrassed by semantics, and of course I am always ready to be corrected by my noble and learned friend—

Baroness Birk

It is not just semantics.

Lord Elton

—who has demonstrated that this is not a procedure which is often either known about or practised.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

The problem is that not all lawyers, judges and recorders know the law. Off and on, as a deputy recorder or recorder, I have sat for 18 years, and until I heard the Committee debate this matter I did not realise that the substance of the amendment was something that happened. It has never happened in my court. I go along with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in saying that if it is the law, let somebody tell us and we can get on with it.

Lord Elton

I am advised that the court can say, "We are going to make an order for you. You will have to pay a fine. It is probably beyond your means. Do you want, or do you not want, an attachment of earnings order"? What noble Lords opposite would say is, "We are now in a position to offer you an attachment of earnings order. Will you take it"? I cannot actually see the difference, but I absolutely accept that it is not satisfactory if it is not known. I am, therefore, prepared to take advice about the best way of getting it made known, whether by an amendment along these lines or by some other means, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, will be satisfied with that.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

I am very satisfied with that. There is a subtle difference between the two and I think our way, from the point of view of what we are all trying to achieve, would be more effective. I hope the Minister will conclude that an amendment in this direction would be correct and, if he does not, we will move an amendment on Report. In the meantime, I am grateful for the noble Lord's comments.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

I thank my noble friend for his open-mindedness on the matter.

Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge

On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 43 agreed to.

10 p.m.

The Earl of Longford moved Amendment No. 101: After Clause 43, insert the following new clause:

("Right to compensation.