§ 2.56 p.m.
§ Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone asked Her Majesty's Government:
§ What is their policy towards Law Commission Report No. 177(A Criminal Code for England and Wales with draft Bill and commentary attached).
The Minister of State, Home Office (Earl Ferrers)My Lords, the Law Commission's report has only recently been presented to Parliament. The Government are at present studying its proposals.
§ Lord Hailsham of Saint MaryleboneMy Lords, there being no contentious party political content in this report, does my noble friend recognise that it is probably the most ambitious and comprehensive set of suggestions on law reform to which the Law Commission has yet given birth? Does he agree that it is quite beyond the power of any individual Peer to pilot a Bill through Parliament containing the draft Bill? Will he therefore ask his colleagues, perhaps in conjunction with my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, that the Government should give this important project a reasonable degree of priority, even if it costs one or two of the more contentious proposals which they have in mind?
Earl FerrersMy Lords, I accept entirely that the proposals of the Law Commission are not party politically controversial. That does not mean to say that they are not controversial. I agree with my noble and learned friend that this is a very comprehensive work. I think that it took the Law Commission eight years to ruminate and decide on its conclusion. I think that it is not too long to suggest that the Government should have more than one month to make up their own mind. I can assure my noble and learned friend that it is not completely plain sailing. There are some quite controversial suggestions in the report and that is why we want to make certain that what we propose is as nearly right as it can be.
§ Lord MishconMy Lords, will the Minister agree that this is a monumental report, consisting as it does of a report, a draft Bill of a most comprehensive nature, and very full commentaries on the draft Bill? Is it not a matter for very great congratulation, whatever the Government's thinking, to Mr. Justice Beldam, his fellow commissioners and all those who assisted him? Will not the Government agree that the aim of the report and the Bill—namely, to make criminal law more accessible, comprehensible, consistent and certain—is a consummation devoutly to be wished?
Earl FerrersMy Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, knows, I speak as one who is a non-lawyer. If the attributes that the Law Commission sought to achieve were to come about, I for one—and, I am 9 sure, many others—would be greatly indebted to it. The noble Lord is perfectly right. It is a monumental document and it was a monumental task. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that the congratulations of all of us on all sides of the House should go to the Law Commission and all who took part in what it did not only on its results, but on the work that it put in in order to achieve it.
§ Baroness PhillipsMy Lords, is the Minister aware that I am sure that the Opposition would be delighted to co-operate and make life easier for him if he were to withdraw the Water and Electricity Bills in favour of this Bill?
Earl FerrersMy Lords, I intended to commend the noble Baroness on her remarkably sound advice and on the fact that she intended to co-operate. I should like to suggest that she continue in that happy frame and that she might pass the advice on to her Front Bench. However, as her advice was qualified by suggesting that we remove two of the most important Bills, I should ask her to think again to make sure that her advice is quite as she expected it to be.
§ Lord Hailsham of Saint MaryleboneMy Lords, perhaps I may put this as a question to my noble friend: is it not the case that, if we are ever to have a criminal code at all—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said, is devoutly to be wished—there is absolutely no way in which a code can be introduced into Parliament which will not give rise to quite considerable discussion? Will my noble friend consider that one option is to put forward the draft Bill on behalf of the Government without tying them to the exact proposals contained in it and see what comes of parliamentary debate? Perhaps I may just ask him this: is it not an ideal proposal to be brought forward in this House?
Earl FerrersMy Lords, that may well be so, but I am quite sure that, if my noble and learned friend takes his mind back to the days when he used to practise, he would never have divulged his views without having first read the brief. All we suggest is that the Government should have time to consider the Law Commission's proposals before they make up their mind.