§ Quarter sessions boroughs with a population between 20,000 and 35,000
§ Bridgwater
§ Deal
§ Dover
§ Grantham
§ Hereford
§ King's Lynn
§ Newark
§ Penzance
§ Pontefract
§ Salisbury
§ Winchester
§ Windsor."—[The Attorney-General.]
§ 6.15 p.m.
§ Mr. C. WilliamsI should not like this occasion to pass without welcoming the fact that Torquay has been included in this list. It is the most distinguished name in that part of the list. May I also, as a West Country man with some Cornish connections, say how glad I am to see that Penzance has also been saved? It is one of the oldest boroughs in the country; in fact, Penzance was there long before the Saxons or anyone else came to this country, and is purely Celtic. I think every hon. Member would also join with me in saying that we are glad that Windsor is preserved as well. I wonder whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman has now made up the list of those places which will be cut out, and whether he can tell us if it can be published.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Fifth Schedule. —(MODIFICATIONS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT SUPERANNUATION ACT, 1937, IN RELATION TO JUSTICES' CLERKS AND THEIR STAFF.)
§
Amendment made: In page 59, line 30, at end, insert:
Provided that if, in the case of a justices' clerk who is a part time officer, it is not possible to determine on the said date whether he then becomes a contributory employee of the magistrates' qourts committee by virtue of any order of the Secretary of State under
2576
paragraph 1 of this Schedule (whether because his salary under section nineteen of this Act has not then been fixed or because the order gives him an option exercisable after that date or for similar reasons), the reference to be substituted in the said subsection (2) shall be a reference to the date on which it becomes possible to determine that question."—{The A ttorney-General.]
§ Seventh Schedule. —(REPEALS.)
§ Amendments made: In page 73, line 28, at end, insert:
| 41 & 42 Vict. c. cxciii. | The Ramsgate Improvement Act, 1878. | Sections eighteen and nineteen. |
§
In page 76, line 17, column 3, leave out "Sections eighteen to," and insert:
Section eighteen from the words 'and from' onwards, so far as relates to the court of quarter sessions for the county of Kent or any division thereof; sections nineteen and.
§ In page 77, line 3, column 3, leave out from beginning, to "the," in line 5.
§
In line 23, column 3 at end, insert:
and subsection (3) of that section from ' and where' onwards."—[The Attorney-General.]
§ 6.18 p.m.
§ Mr. EdeI beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I should like to express my thanks to the House for the help it has given in getting this Bill through in order that it may reach the Statute Book during the present Session. We have had a number of very interesting discussions during its passage. The discussion has not been exactly non-party, but perhaps was on inter-party lines, and views have been expressed in those circumstances with a freedom which has enabled the progress of the Bill to be followed with both interest and usefulness by those hon. Members who have participated in our deliberations.
We have been dealing with some very great and historic institutions, and the House has, as usual, shown itself to be very tender in regard to the maintenance of the historic traditions of the country where they still play a part in the useful administration of our affairs. We have dealt with those courts which handle the great majority of cases which arise in the country, and it really is astounding to consider the numbers of cases dealt with in magistrates' courts. One then realises how tremendous is the work that has been 2577 done by them. It is therefore very desirable that, from time to time, we should review both their composition and their working so as to ensure that they can rightfully claim the allegiance of the country and that the people shall be satisfied that real justice will be done in them. As a result of our efforts we have, I think, brought these affairs up to date, and I sincerely hope that in their administration in the country they will justify the care and attention which has been given to them in this House.
I particularly welcome the provisions by which the areas of petty sessional benches can, in future, be amended without the very cumbrous and almost unworkable procedure which has been followed in this country since 1828. Twice in my own experience I have tried to work it. Five magistrates have to present a petition that a certain area shall be altered, and then the whole of the areas of the county become open to amendment On both the occasions that I attempted to work it on behalf of a particular district, every other area in the county received consideration while that district was left untouched. However, I had the consolation of knowing that I had considerably improved the administration of justice elsewhere. It is a very good thing that we have been able to get rid of that archaic and cumbrous procedure and to substitute a method by which the magistrates actually concerned, through the magistrates' courts committee, will be able from time to time in future, and without that tremendous machinery being brought into operation, to arrange for the appropriate areas for the administration of justice in the country. I sincerely thank the House for the help they have given the Government in this matter.
§ 6.23 p.m.
§ Mr. Manningham-BullerI am sure the House will appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said. This is a Bill which crowns the efforts of one committee and one commission—Lord Roche's Committee and the Royal Commission presided over by Lord du Parcq. I have not inquired to see how long that committee and that commission took in their deliberations, but I am sure that we all owe a great debt to those who gave up their time on that work. Then this Bill, largely based upon that work, was introduced into the other place. I am 2578 sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me in saying that it was subjected to a most careful and constructive criticism in the other place, with the result that it came here considerably improved.
I must say that I think that we in this House have not wasted any time in our consideration of this Bill and that our efforts, too, have led to its improvement. That is really how Parliament should work. We have fully considered the position of unqualified assistants to justices' clerks. It was worthy of full consideration, and now a solution has been found which should deal with the matter satisfactorily. I think this House was right to reduce the ceiling with regard to the retention of the commissions of the peace, and I am, of course, glad that discretion has been given to the Lord Chancellor to preserve certain recorderships. At the same time, I do not think that we have wasted any Parliamentary time by devoting so much time to the consideration of this important Measure, for it is important.
I must not, of course, discuss the Bill's omissions as otherwise I shall be out of Order; but people may look at this Bill and still find themselves very ignorant about advisory committees and how magistrates happen to be appointed. I hope that under this Bill we shall get that improved administration and organisation which is the desire of all of us, and I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary and the right hon. and learned Attorney-General for the careful consideration they have given on this Bill to all the questions raised from this side of the House and to thank them for meeting us in so many respects for improving the contents of this Measure.
§ 6.25 p.m.
§ Mr. E. L. Mallalieu (Brigg)It is very agreeable to be able to endorse what has been said by the right hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller). I am sure that hon. Members in all parts of the House can endorse what he said because, in a sense, he was patting us on the back and saying that we had improved the Bill. With great respect, I agree with him that i: t has been improved. It was a big and important Bill to start with, and it seems that one of its great merits was that while it did not hesitate to sweep away certain 2579 inefficient devices and outworn machinery, it also did not hesitate to keep in being things which were picturesque and had a long history behind them, and which were proved to be still of utility today. I think that is shown especially in the retention of the power by the Lord Chancellor to retain certain recorderships. A discretion is now left with the Lord Chancellor to retain certain recorderships of proved utility.
It seems to me that there we have flexibility. There has been no worship of rigidity and uniformity for their own sake, though we on this side of the House are often accused of wanting both those things for their own sake. My right hon. Friend has led this side of the House in saying, and carried the House with him in saying, that rigidity or uniformity is not to be desired for its own sake. Flexibility is very often the thing which is desired, and it has been kept in this Bill.
It has been said that this is a nonparty Measure. That, of course, is true in the sense that it has not given rise to controversy along party lines. Even when there has been a difference of opinion it has not been along party lines. But I submit that it should be claimed from this side of the House that this Bill is entirely in keeping with the principles of the party which is behind the Government. It has never been the principle of this party to do away with things merely because they are traditional or picturesque, though very often that is said.
Indeed, it was said to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Brigadier Thorp), who referred to some remarks of mine as though they were sneering about tradition. I am very sorry that they should have appeared to him to be sneering because that was certainly not my intention. It is the principle of this party that if there is anything that is worth keeping by reason of its usefulness, something which is picturesque and which has a long history behind it, we do not hesitate to keep it. But we do show great courage in the matter of sweeping away those things which have lost their utility and have merely become a burden.
I should like to congratulate the Government on this Measure. It is a landmark, but it is not a Measure which should be regarded entirely in isolation, 2580 It is one of a great series of legal reforms which have been introduced by the present Government, and another occasion upon which a crying legal need has been met, and that by the Labour Government. I think that we on this side are entitled to take great credit for it. There is the Criminal Justice Act, of which, of course, we are now gathering the first fruits in the courts, and the Legal Aid Bill which, for the first time, is bringing in—
§ Mr. Manningham-BullerOn a point of Order. Is it in Order, Mr. Speaker, on the Third Reading of this Bill to discuss the Legal Aid Bill, because, if it is, I should like to have said something about it?
§ Mr. MallalieuI would not think of discussing the provisions of that Bill, but surely it is in Order to relate the provisions of this Bill, as I was intending to do, to other Measures. It is merely a link in a chain—a whole series of legal reforms. I was trying to relate the provisions of this Bill to that series to show how they have brought justice very much within reach of every man in the Kingdom, no matter how humble he may be.
There was a time when those who administered justice in this country were drawn from a very restricted class. By reason of their economic situation they were supposed to have education, and many of them had. Now, of course, that choice has been widened, and this Bill makes a very handsome contribution to the sweeping away of yet another class barrier, in that it is widening still further the choice from which those who are to hold judicial office can be drawn, and that by reason of the provision that is being made for the technical instruction, if one may put it that way, of those who are to hold judicial office as justices of the peace.
§ Mr. Pannell (Leeds, West)Elevation without pay.
§ Mr. MallalieuI think I had better not go into that question. I was saying that this Bill is widening the choice from which those who are to hold judicial office can be drawn, and I am certain that they will hold it with the credit to the benches upon which they sit.
2581 Perhaps I might also mention my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General who have been principally concerned with the passage of this Bill through the House. The Home Secretary has devoted many years of his life to the study and practice of the administration of justice, and he is entitled to all the satisfaction he must feel at the present time for the great part which he has played in these reforms. As for the Attorney-General, who has with such patience and courtesy dealt with all the points that have arisen in our discussions, whether he has been prosecuting Albania at The Hague or prosecuting Haig at the Lewes Assizes, whether he has been probing into the intricacies and tortuosities of "spivdom" at Church House, or merely doing his duty in this House, he has done the whole thing with what I can only describe as almost monotonous brilliance to which we have become accustomed in this House.
This is the 38th Parliament of the reign, and it is drawing to a close. Hon. Members opposite are very fond of pointing out that the next Parliament may be of a different political complexion. I do not know whether that is so, but I feel certain that this Bill shows that the vitality of the party which has a majority in this House has not diminished by one degree, and that that vitality will bring it back in the next Parliament to a position of control, secure in the esteem of the nation.
§ 6.33 p.m.
§ Mr, MarloweI believe it is possible to ascertain the cost of printing an hon. Member's speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and I hope that the hon. Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) will remember to bring that particular cost into account in his election expenses. He has informed the House, what I am sure will be of great interest to the public, that this Parliament is drawing to a close, and he has thereby belied the Lord President of the Council who has been trying hard to pretend that we are going to meet again on 24th January.
The hon. Gentleman has brought in a number of matters which have nothing whatsoever to do with this Bill, but were entirely directed to securing his return at the next Election. I am glad that he expressed himself as being in favour of 2582 the flexibility which occurs in this Bill. He has certainly been very flexible himself. He is now commending the Clause which was introduced into this Bill on the Report stage by the Attorney-General, relating to the saving of some recorderships. That Clause sprang from one initiated by this side of the House which, the hon. Member for Brigg strenuously opposed. He has now shown himself so flexible that he opposed it on the Committee stage and supported it wholeheartedly on the Report stage.
§ Mr. MallalieuIs it not a fact that the Clause as produced by the hon. and learned Member for Brighton (Mr. Marlowe) and his hon. Friends was of quite a different nature and far wider in its extent; and does not the Amendment introduced by the Government show how flexible in its mind this Government is and always has been?
§ Mr. MarloweThe hon. Gentleman is wise in saying that our Clause was wider. Therefore it was more flexible. The hon. Gentleman is lending himself to the support of a more rigid provision and at the same time is trying to claim that it is flexible.
I shall not take up further time of the House with the inconsistencies of the hon. Member for Brigg, but I feel called upon to take up a few minutes in view of the fact that an Amendment to which I had committed myself to give support has not been called on the Report stage because of the rules of Order. The Home Secretary will remember that when we discussed this matter in Committee I referred to a problem which occurred in Becon-tree. That arises under Clause 16 of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said on that occasion that he agreed there was a problem which required attention. His words were:
I recognise that there is a difficulty to be met here, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman will arrange to see me about this-between now and the Report stage, I will see whether there is something we can do to meet the narrower point. I am sure he now agrees that any arrangement of this sort must be for contiguous boroughs. On that understanding I hope he will consent to withdraw his Amend ment so that we can get on."—[OFFICIAI REPORT, 7th December, 1949; Vol. 470, c 1923.]On that understanding I consented to withdraw my Amendment. In due course a meeting took place between the parties 2583 interested. I do not think I am saying anything that I am not entitled to say in this matter. In fact, I believe that the right hon. Gentleman indicates his assent that. that meeting was arranged between those interested in this area, in which I am not interested at all except that the matter was brought to my notice and I was asked to represent their interests in the House.
Mr. SpeakerThe hon. and learned Member is talking about an area which is not in the Bill He cannot refer to it because it is out of Order.
Mr. Marlowe-I was addressing myself not to an area which is not in the Bill but to a problem which is covered by the Bill in Clause 16—the creation of magistrates' courts for the areas which are referred to in that Clause. It is not possible to criticise the selection of Amendments, but I only wish that it had been possible to deal with the matter, which I understand was ruled out of Order on the assumption that it involved an increased charge, whereas the whole purpose of the Amendment was to save expense by aggregating the boroughs together.
Mr. SpeakerIt was ruled out of Order not because it would necessarily involve a charge but that it might possibly involve a charge. That put it out of Order on the Report stage.
§ Mr. MarloweI had hoped that I "would do the Government a great service by placing an economy measure before them. If the matter remains out of Order I cannot pursue it further.
There are two other points to which I wish to refer. It has been said with some justice by the hon. Member for Brigg that this Bill is part of a line of legislation improving the administration of justice in this country, but I can assure the hon. Member that that process started a long time before the present Government came into office. True, it is part of a process of improving the administration of justice, although not in the way which the hon. Member suggested. He prayed in aid 2584 that it was another implementation of the processes which include the Legal Aid Act. He omitted to remind the House that most of the beneficial provisions of the Legal Aid Act have been postponed owing to the Government having got the country's finances into such a state that they can no longer afford to implement those provisions. That is a part of the story which the hon. Member should have included.
Certainly, as has been said, this Bill has been greatly improved in its passage through the House. It has become all the more improved by reason of the fact that it includes a paragraph, which the right hon. Gentleman has accepted, and which has made a very considerable difference in the case of the borough of Hove. It therefore makes the Bill so much more a better Bill. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having brought that improvement into the Bill, but of course it still remains a Bill of many compromises and it would be idle to pretend that in many respects it is wholly satisfactory. It has become a Bill of many compromises mainly because of the Government's programme, which has compelled the Government to push the Bill through rather more quickly than would have been the case had it followed the normal course.
I think it was the Government's programme which made it necessary for this Bill to be taken in Committee on the Floor of the House rather than upstairs. Had the Committee stage been taken upstairs I think there would have been many greater improvements. As the right hon. Gentleman said, however, it is a Bill which effects many improvements which have required attention for a considerable time. It puts into effect some of the recommendations of the Roche Committee and of the du Parcq Commission and, so far as it achieves those purposes, it is, I think, a Bill which we should all welcome.