Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 53:


Page 108, line 2, after ("stipendiary"") insert ("magistrate"").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 53 I should like to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 54. These are technical amendments. It has always been the intention of the Government that until the creation of the Greater London magistrates' courts authority existing arrangements for London should be preserved. There are transitional provisions in the Bill which give the senior district judge (chief magistrate) and other district judges

16 Mar 1999 : Column 682

(magistrates' courts) the right to representation on the Inner London Magistrates' Courts Committee pending the creation of the Greater London magistrates' courts authority. Additional provisions are needed as a result of the Government's proposal to commence changes to the stipendiary Bench by order. These amendments preserve the rights of representation on the Inner London Magistrates' Courts Committee by reference to the current judicial titles. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 54:


Page 108, line 4, at end insert--
("(6) This paragraph has effect subject to paragraph 28A.
28A.--(1) If section 55 of this Act has not come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, paragraph 28 shall apply as follows until that section comes into force.
(2) The subsection (3) treated as substituted by sub-paragraph (2)(c) of that paragraph shall have effect as if--
(a) for "Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate)" there were substituted "chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate", and
(b) for "District Judges (Magistrates' Courts)" (in both places) there were substituted "metropolitan stipendiary magistrates".
(3) Sub-paragraph (5) of that paragraph shall have effect as if paragraph (a) read--
"(a) after the words "chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate" there were inserted "(if he is a member)", and".").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 11 [Repeals and revocations]:

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 55:


Page 111, line 33, at end insert--
("1933 c. 12.The Children and YoungPersons Act 1933.In section 36, the proviso.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 56 to 67:


Page 111, column 3, leave out line 42.
Page 112, line 32, at end insert--
("31 & 32 Vict.c. 72.The Promissory Oaths Act 1868.In the Second Part of the Schedule, the words"for counties and boroughs".")

Page 112, line 44, at end insert--
("14 & 15 Geo.6 c. 65.The Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951.In Part II of Schedule 2, paragraph 5(b) and, in paragraph 6(b), in the third column, the words from "and where" to the end.")

Page 112, line 44, at end insert--
("7 & 8 Eliz.2c. 7.The Manoeuvres Act 1958.In section 9, the definition of "petty sessions area".")

16 Mar 1999 : Column 683


Page 112, column 3, leave out line 45 and insert--
("In section 2, in subsection (1), the words from ", within" to the end and subsection (2A).")

Page 113, line 5, at end insert--
("1969 c. 54.The Children and Young Persons Act 1969.In section 70(1), in the definition of "petty sessions area", the words "has the same meaning as in the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, except that" and the word "it".")

Page 113, line 22, at end insert--
("In Schedule 7, paragraphs 27 and 85.
1980 c. 66.The Highways Act 1980.In section 329(1), the definition of "petty sessions area".")

Page 113, line 28, at end insert--
("1988 c. 52.The Road Traffic Act 1988.In section 192(1), the definition of "petty sessions area".
1988 c. 53.The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.In section 34C(2), the definition of "petty sessions area".
In section 89(1), the definition of "petty sessions area", apart from the word "and" at the end.")

Page 113, column 3, leave out line 44 and insert ("2(1), (3) and (7) and 5.").
Page 113, line 47, column 3, leave out from ("Schedule,") to end of line 50 and insert ("paragraph 7.").
Page 114, line 17, column 3, after (""above,"") insert (", the words "or to county justices" and the words "or justices for the City"").
Page 116, line 32, at end insert--
("(3A) Enforcement of community orders

ChapterShort titleExtent of repeal
1991 c. 53.The Criminal Justice Act 1991.In Schedule 2, paragraph 7(6) and, in paragraph 8A--
in sub-paragraph (3), the words "and the probation order was made by a magistrates' court",
sub-paragraphs (4) and (5), and
in sub-paragraph (6), in the words treated as substituted in section 1A(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, the words "or (5)".
1998 c. 37.The Crime and Disorder Act 1998.In Schedule 4, paragraphs 3 and 7(1).")

On Question, amendments agreed to.

16 Mar 1999 : Column 684

In the Title:

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 68:


Line 7, leave out ("the reporting of").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords,


    "The daintiest last, to make the end most sweet".
Nevertheless, I wish to ask a question. It relates to the Title. The amendment proposes to leave out "the reporting of". Line 7 will then read,


    "to make provision about court proceedings".
I hope that I have that right. However, so far as I can see, in so far as the Long Title is meant to refer to important provisions, that provision about reporting refers to paragraph 17 of Schedule 10 which has not been affected by any amendment.

I am not sure that we are not engaging in some backsliding. A few years ago we used to have Long Titles which dribbled on sometimes for pages. I am sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is no longer in his place. He presided over a great improvement: he benevolently allowed us to reduce a Long Title of a page and a quarter to 12 lines. I am not sure that it is necessary to refer to the provision about the reporting, but if it is, it is wrong.

I have only just told my noble and learned friend that I should refer to this matter. I shall be content if he says that he would like to consider the matter before the Bill goes to another place.

7.30 p.m.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, this is a quite remarkable change of stance by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. Throughout the course of the Bill he has chided me for sanctioning surplusage--excessive statutory language. But now he chides me about the abbreviation of statutory language.

Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I shall be more than content if my noble and learned friend would remove the whole phrase.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, but the noble and learned Lord chides me about removing three words from the statute. I shall undertake to take advice on the point and write to him.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

An amendment (privilege) made.

The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

Moved, That the Bill do now pass.--(The Lord Chancellor.)

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, this has been an important and seriously controversial Bill. I congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the vigour and forcefulness with which he has piloted the Bill through your Lordships' House. I also wish to thank

16 Mar 1999 : Column 685

him for the considerable degree of flexibility he has shown, particularly by accepting the great majority of the proposals of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in respect of requiring the exercise of his own powers to be made by statutory instrument rather than simply by direction.

I greatly welcome the fact that the noble and learned Lord acceded to the proposal of my noble friend Lord Meston to remove CFAs from matrimonial cases. I also welcome the fact that he has introduced many minor improvements to the Bill. Indeed, I think that the total number of government amendments during Report and Third Reading stages must be well over 150.

However, the Bill seems to me in many ways a leap in the dark. A number of important questions remain to be answered. Will the community legal service receive adequate funds to do its job? Shall we keep a sufficient network of publicly funded legal services provided by firms all over the country? Will CFAs work effectively outside the limited field of road accidents and industrial injuries? I am not optimistic as to the answers to those questions. I hope that time will prove me wrong.

The members of the Liberal Democrat Lawyers Association have a custom of drinking a toast at our annual dinner to the Legal Aid Act. I doubt whether in future we shall drink a toast to the Access to Justice Act. However, now that we are sending the Bill on its way to another place, I wish it well.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page