| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that I have already made the position clear, but if I was not clear enough, perhaps I can be this time. We shall not oppose the terms that the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, proposed--not the terms on the Order Paper, but the more restricted terms that he spoke to, which I referred to in my opening remarks as his compromise and his amended version of his proposals. I hope that that makes it clear that I am addressing the opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. In that sense, we shall not oppose him.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness has been helpful. If the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, moves his current amendment, the Government will vote against it, but if he puts forward his compromise--I am not sure that the whole House understands what that compromise is or how the House could agree it--the noble Baroness will support it. I think that that is the position. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, can now decide what he is going to do.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, if I was confused before, I am even more confused now. Perhaps confused is not the right word. I am in a dilemma. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, for saying that in certain circumstances he would refer the matter and the report back to the Liaison Committee and consider the appointment of a different kind of Select Committee. However, he also said that he saw no reason why the Liaison Committee should present me with a different solution. I assume that the noble Lord knows what he is talking about. He is the chairman of the Liaison Committee and is in contact with everybody connected with the committee.
In the course of the debate I have felt that, whatever my own feelings about the issue, the House wants the matter resolved now.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I do not think that I could have a clearer endorsement than that.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I should like to add one slight caveat. I hope that the noble Lord is talking about restricted terms of reference in such an inquiry. If that is clear, the matter will move much more swiftly.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, my amendment makes that clear. I now have a feeling of what the House wants. Although I know that whatever decision I take will be unpopular in some quarters, I feel that I must test the opinion of the House.
5.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 132; Not-Contents, 106.
Ackner, L.
Acton, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.
Anelay of St Johns, B.
Ashcroft, L.
Astor, V.
Attlee, E.
Barber of Tewkesbury, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.
Berkeley, L.
Biffen, L.
Blackburn, Bp.
Blaker, L.
Blatch, B.
Bledisloe, V.
Boardman, L.
Bowness, L.
Brett, L.
Brightman, L.
Brookeborough, V.
Brookman, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Bruce of Donington, L.
Buscombe, B.
Byford, B.
Caithness, E.
Carlisle of Bucklow, L.
Carnegy of Lour, B.
Chalfont, L. [Teller]
Clark of Kempston, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L.
Courtown, E.
Cranborne, V.
Crickhowell, L.
Cuckney, L.
Darcy de Knayth, B.
Davies of Coity, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Eccles of Moulton, B.
Eden of Winton, L.
Elis-Thomas, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Falkland, V.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Fitt, L.
Fookes, B.
Freyberg, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B.
Garel-Jones, L.
Geddes, L.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
Goschen, V.
Gray of Contin, L.
Hardy of Wath, L.
Henley, L.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.
Holderness, L.
Hooson, L.
Howe of Aberavon, L.
Howell of Guildford, L.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Jacobs, L.
Jenkins of Putney, L.
Jopling, L.
Judd, L.
Laird, L.
Lane, L.
Lane of Horsell, L.
Lincoln, Bp.
Lloyd of Berwick, L.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
Mar, C.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Marlesford, L.
Marsh, L.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Miller of Hendon, B.
Monson, L.
Morris of Manchester, L.
Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Noakes, B.
Northesk, E.
O'Cathain, B.
Oppenheim-Barnes, B.
Orme, L.
Park of Monmouth, B.
Pearson of Rannoch, L.
Peterborough, Bp.
Peyton of Yeovil, L.
Plumb, L.
Prior, L.
Puttnam, L.
Rawlings, B.
Renton, L.
Rix, L.
Roll of Ipsden, L.
Ryder of Wensum, L.
Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Seccombe, B.
Selborne, E.
Sharples, B.
Shore of Stepney, L.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Simon, V.
Skelmersdale, L.
Slim, V.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Strange, B.
Strathclyde, L.
Thatcher, B.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Trefgarne, L.
Trumpington, B.
Turnberg, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Vivian, L.
Waddington, L.
Warnock, B.
Weatherill, L.
Wilberforce, L.
Wilcox, B.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Wilson of Tillyorn, L.
Wright of Richmond, L.
Young, B. [Teller]
Addington, L.
Ahmed, L.
Alli, L.
Amos, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Avebury, L.
Bach, L.
Barnett, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Blackstone, B.
Blease, L.
Bradshaw, L.
Brennan, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.
Burlison, L.
Carter, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Cohen of Pimlico, B.
Colville of Culross, V. [Teller]
Cooke of Islandreagh, L.
Craig of Radley, L.
Crawley, B.
David, B.
Davies of Oldham, L.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Desai, L.
Dholakia, L.
Dubs, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L.
Fyfe of Fairfield, L.
Gale, B.
Gilbert, L.
Goodhart, L.
Goudie, B.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L.
Gregson, L.
Grenfell, L.
Harris of Haringey, L.
Harris of Richmond, B.
Harrison, L.
Haskel, L.
Hayman, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howells of St. Davids, B.
Hunt of Chesterton, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)
Islwyn, L.
Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)
King of West Bromwich, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Lipsey, L.
Lockwood, B.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L.
McNally, L.
Mallalieu, B.
Mason of Barnsley, L.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Merlyn-Rees, L.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Milner of Leeds, L.
Mitchell, L.
Molloy, L.
Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.
Patel of Blackburn, L.
Paul, L.
Peston, L.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Razzall, L.
Redesdale, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Richard, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Rogers of Riverside, L.
Roper, L.
Sainsbury of Turville, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Scott of Needham Market, B.
Serota, B.
Strabolgi, L.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Tenby, V.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Tomlinson, L.
Uddin, B.
Walmsley, B.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
Whitaker, B.
Whitty, L.
Wigoder, L. [Teller]
Wilkins, B.
Williams of Crosby, B.
Williams of Mostyn, L.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): My Lords, does the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, wish to move his Motion.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: No, my Lords.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.--(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Serota) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Offences leading to penalties on the spot]:
Lord Phillips of Sudbury moved Amendment No. 1:
- Page 2, leave out lines 18 to 32.
The noble Lord said: This amendment falls within the group which deals with the question of penalties imposed by a bobby on the beat in exchange for cash as an alternative to taking the offence to a court.
This is a very important Bill. I am sure that all Members of the Committee will support the parts of it which will effectively--by that, I mean both economically in terms of police time and fairly--reduce public "yobbism", which, by all accounts, is currently a considerable drawback to life in these islands.
While we are doing all that we can, as, I hope, we usually do, to give a fair wind to the measures which we consider to be in the public interest, we on these Benches are aware that the opportunity to debate this Bill is perhaps the only constructive outcome of the foot and mouth disease. The Bill would not have seen the light of day had the election been called as intended.
I confess that we have a certain misgiving about seeking to press through a Bill of this size and consequence in the time available to it. Although we shall be co-operative, I say on behalf of my noble friend Lord McNally that we retain an open mind as
to whether it is right that all the measures, some of them of huge importance, should be allowed to pass in the time available.In proceeding with this group of amendments, our real concern with regard to this innovation is that it may be another bright idea which bites the dust when exposed to the harsh operational realities of policing. As we sit in this gilded Chamber, it is easy to underestimate how intensely difficult it is for the police to do their work on the beat on a Saturday night in a lively town centre where a great deal is going on.
First, behind these amendments lies a concern about the steady backdoor creation, if I may express it that way, of a new hybrid category of offences which are part criminal and part civil. They are part criminal in that the penalties and the nature of those penalties are commonly understood as being associated with criminality. They are also part criminal in the sense that they are pursued through magistrates' courts and by the police. Yet, they are part civil in that the measure concerned requires not the normal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt but proof on the civil test. That is true of the proposals in Clause 1.
Yet, of course, there has been no debate about the development of this hybrid category. We had it in the Football (Offences and Disorder) Bill and I believe that it may have arisen first in the anti-social behaviour orders under the Protection from Harassment Act. However, we, at least, on these Benches are not at all happy with this hybrid category, and that is at the root of our concerns.
Secondly, we put forward these amendments out of a sense of the practicalities of policing. In the words of the Law Society--the committee of the Law Society that examined the Bill is comprised of extremely experienced, hard-nosed practitioners--is it right that a police constable should make a judgment, often under pressure, on a series of different offences, each of which will have different elements that must be proved? Such a situation is clearly amenable to serious misjudgment or abuse.
If cases in relation to which penalties are sought to be imposed proceed to court, come before the Crown Prosecution Service and have to comply with the normal criminal test of being beyond reasonable doubt, there will be a considerable fallout in the number of such cases that are taken forward. It does not take a magician to realise that having two tests--a lower and a higher test--will involve a considerable fallout in the number of cases that are pushed to court. It will soon be known on the streets that it is not a bad idea to refuse to pay a fixed penalty because there is a much better chance of the whole case being chucked out if the CPS gets its teeth into the matter. We need to address that problem, and I hope that these constructive amendments would do so.
We are trying to knock out from the cases that are scheduled as being susceptible to on-the-spot fines those that are complicated, whether as to evidence or as to law. Complexity as to law involves complexity with regard to the necessary element of intent that goes with some of the scheduled offences that my
amendment would strike out. I refer, for example, to threatening, abusive or insulting words or disorderly behaviour within hearing or sight, and so on. Much law is involved in a Section 5 Public Order Act prosecution. We believe that it is too much to ask a policeman on the beat on the night in question to form an objective and cool view of a critical situation.We also believe that when cases are pressed forward inappropriately, that will be the fault not of the relevant policeman but of the circumstances and complexities that are involved. Far from helping the process, that would create much extra paperwork and frustration and it would in the end be counterproductive.
Many young men--the provisions will mainly involve young men--will no doubt pay up on the relevant occasion and be done. Many of those who will be inclined to do so are, I suspect--others tell me that this will be so--likely to be the sort of people from whom it would be extremely difficult to extract the fine that they had agreed to pay. They will then be pitched into an interminable bureaucratic maze at the end of which, in the extreme case of default, young men will go to our already overcrowded prisons. I see that the Minister is--how should I put it?--facially gesticulating. I ask him to ponder carefully whether our attempt to simplify matters would actually complicate them. The last thing in the world that we want is to send yet more young, feckless men to our prisons because of their failure to pay fines.
Finally, I turn to the concern that many outside organisations, such as Liberty and the Law Society, have expressed; namely, that the provision will tend, in too many cases, to allow the police to pick on those who are already socially maladept or socially vulnerable. We all know that such people can become socially obnoxious with drink inside them. It is all too likely that the unemployed, the illiterate and the excluded will be--how should I put this?--the most frequent objects of police activity under Clause 1. There will be a temptation for hard-pressed policemen to pick off what they might regard as the easier targets.
The long and the short of my argument is that we have severe doubts about the practicality of the proposal but that we are perfectly content to allow the Government to give it a go. However, in doing so, we suggest that we should simplify the list of offences. That would prevent us from running into the complications that I have endeavoured to explain. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): I point out to the Committee that if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page