HC Deb 15 October 1969 vol 788 cc460-1

Lords Amendment No. 17: In page 13, line 24, after "section" insert: (a) the references to a young person con cerned in the proceedings as to the person in respect of whom they are taken shall be construed as including references to any person who has attained the age of seventeen but not eighteen and against or in respect of whom the proceedings are taken and, in the case of proceedings under Part I of this Act, any other person in respect of whom those proceedings are taken; and (b) the references to a juvenile court shall, in relation to proceedings in pursuance of the provisions of sections 15 and 16 of this Act or on appeal from such proceedings, be construed as including a reference to any other magistrates' court or, as the case may be, the court in which the appeal is brought; and (c)

Mr. Elystan Morgan

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Speaker

It would be convenient, I think, to discuss at the same time Lords Amendments No. 18 and No. 20.

Mr. Elystan Morgan

Amendment No. 17 replaces subsection (4) which is proposed to be left out of Clause 15 by Amendment No. 20. This subsection was inserted through an Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Black-pool, North (Mr. Blaker) on Report and accepted by the Government. The Government appreciated at the time that some redrafting might be necessary to give a practical effect to this proposal.

Mr. Carlisle

This is a perfect example that, in drafting, any victory by the Opposition is usually short-lived. As the hon. Gentleman said, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Blaker) moved an Amendment to meet this same point on Report, which was accepted by the Government. However, they then decided to change it in another place. I am sure that they will say that their wording is better. It certainly seems more complicated.

My hon. Friend's Amendment had four lines and has been replaced with two Amendments with 29 lines between them. They seem to do the same thing, which was, rightly, to avoid the publicity which could not have been given to a case when a young person appeared before the court being given at a later stage merely because the probation officer made an application for that person to be discharged because he had done well. It is because we felt that publicity would be wrong in that situation that we moved the original Amendment, and we welcome this slightly longer, but nevertheless similar, Amendment of the Government.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Forward to