HC Deb 07 April 1971 vol 815 cc588-96

Amendments made: No. 65, in page 87, column 3, leave out line 25 to 32 and insert 'Section 21'.

No. 66, in page 88, column 3, leave out lines 23 to 26 and insert: In section 1 the words from the last 'and' in proviso (a) to 'the indictments Act 1915'.

No. 67, in page 93, line 4, column 3, at end insert: 'In section 5, in subsections (3) and (4), the words "and giving evidence"'.

No. 68, in page 96, line 15, column 3, at beginning insert: 'In section 3 the definition beginning "The expression 'quarter sessions'"'.

No. 69, in line 27, at end insert:

10 & 11 Vict. C. 89. The Town Police Clauses Act 1847. In section 3 the definition beginning "The expression 'quarter sessions'".

—[The Attorney-General.]

The Attorney-General

I beg to move Amendment No. 70, in page 101, line 36, column 3, at end insert: In Schedule 3. in Part I, the words 'Official Referee to the Supreme Court'. Amendment No. 71 is consequential to it. They are both consequential to the provisions of Clause 25, which provides that no further official referees are appointed and that their functions are to be exercised by circuit judges.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 71, in page 101, line 38, column 3, at end insert: 'and in column 2 of that Schedule paragraphs 2(ii) and 4(iii)'.

No. 72, in page 105, line 3, column 3, after '1', insert: 'the entry beginning "Judge appointed for a district" and'

No. 73, in page 108, line 2, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 7 and insert: 'In section 2(2), the proviso. Sections 3 to 10'.

No. 74, in page 109, line 3, column 3, leave out 'Section 23' and insert: 'Subsections (1) and (2) of Section 23'.

No. 75, in page 110, line 23, column 3, at beginning insert: 'In section 1(3) the words "of the Queen's Bench Division" and paragraph (a)'.—(The Attorney-General.]

The Attorney-General

I beg to move Amendment No. 76, in page 110, line 40, column 3, leave out 'and paragraph (b)'.

This Amendment is also to remove from the Schedule the repeal of paragraph (b) of the Superannuation Act, 1967.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 77, in page 112, line 16, column 3, at end insert—Section 45(1).—[The Attorney-General.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington)

One of the primary objects of the Bill is to speed up the process of criminal trials, and I believe that it will help to achieve that purpose.

It must be said straight away that long delays in bringing criminal cases to trial have been a disgrace to the administration of justice in this country. It is an injustice to the defendants who have to wait for perhaps several months until charges against them have been brought and disposed of and to the prosecution because witnesses who were available and well able to remember the facts of an individual case may not be able to remember so clearly when the case finally comes to be tried many months later. Consequently the process of the administration of justice has been weakened by these delays.

We should not forget that only 28 to 35 per cent. of all criminal cases are cleared up. The Bill applies to courts which deal with something less than 5 per cent. of all cases brought to court, the rest being dealt with by magistrates' courts. Consequently, we are talking about crimes dealt with in these courts amounting to between 1 and 2 per cent. of the total. Therefore, this is a modest measure of reform in some ways, but perhaps a significant and welcome one in others.

I am particularly glad to see the extent of the repeals. There are 25 pages out of 112 which deal with repeals of other legislation. That must be a good thing.

I should like to refer briefly to Clause 12 which deals with the right of audience of solicitors. That now applies to what appears to be the Lord Chancellor's formula, based on granting him absolute discretion to decide what right of audience solicitors may in future have before Crown courts.

I submit that a case has been made for the Lord Chancellor to exercise his powers under this Clause where there is an existing right of audience of solicitors in certain courts. Similarly, a case has been made where there is a temporary shortage of counsel. But I suggest that no case has been made for a permanent restriction on the present exclusive right of audience possessed by the Bar.

I suggest that when the time comes to apply Clause 12, particularly subsection (3), it will be necessary to bear in mind that any permanent change in this respect which deprives the Bar of its present exclusive right will upset the balance which exists between the two branches of the legal profession. That balance exists because barristers have an exclusive right of audience in the superior courts and solicitors have an exclusive right of direct access to the public. Justice and the public interest are best served in this way. But, judging by what was said in another place, I fear that the Lord Chancellor has already been brainwashed into accepting a permanent restriction and, therefore, a weakening of the Bar in this respect.

It would appear that the Lord Chief Justice, among others, persuaded the Lord Chancellor that Crown courts should be open to solicitors for the purposes of committals for sentence and appeals from magistrates' courts, and that from the phraseology then used by the Lord Chief Justice he at least thought that solicitors might even be allowed audience progressively, and ultimately even in the highest courts.

To speak thus is wholly to misunderstand the nature of the difference between barristers and solicitors, which is one of function and not of status. These two classes of case which it has been suggested should now provide an increased sphere of audience for solicitors in Crown courts cover about 25 per cent. of all cases now dealt with by the criminal Bar. That, at any rate, is the estimate of the Bar Council.

That is a very serious matter for young barristers beginning their careers. It may be all very well for certain judges, especially those nearing the end of their professional time, and for some senior members of the Bar, Queen's Counsel, to say that this will not be a threat to the Bar, but young barristers will, with the loss of this class of work, be deprived of this start in their professional lives.

My object in speaking in this way is to express the hope that the Lord Chancellor listens to the wiser words, if I may say so, of his predecessor on this point, and pauses in applying Clause 12 before he capitulates to the solicitors' lobby.

10.42 p.m.

Sir Elwyn Jones

A good deal of water has flowed down the Thames since Lord Gardiner first conceived of the idea of appointing Lord Beeching to head the great Commission whose Report is the foundation of this Bill. The Measure gives effect to recommendations which achieve a revolution in the structure of our courts and in the administration of justice in the High Court.

It is a matter for congratulation that the immense work that must have gone on—both, if I may say so, under the previous, and under the present Administration—should have culminated so quickly in the Bill receiving its Third Reading. I hope it may be proper for me to congratulate those who have been concerned in the Departments of the Lord Chancellor, the Law Officers and the Home Secretary on the enormous amount of work which must have been involved in fulfilling this task in time.

I shall not be tempted to examine the contents of the Bill now, but perhaps I may be permitted to add one further note of congratulation: I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General will take no umbrage if I do so. I want to congratulate the Under-Secretary on the outstanding work he has put in at every stage of the Bill through this House. It is a most happy thing that these last stages here should come on a day on which the Under-Secretary has taken silk—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I can only hope that he will very quickly retire to a highly lucrative practice as a result of the decision of the electorate! We sincerely congratulate him, and wish him success in his future.

10.45 p.m.

The Attorney-General

I wish to join the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) in congratulating my hon. and now learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State on his tremendous work on this Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will be run very close indeed if my hon. and learned Friend decides to leave the Government—which will go on for ever—to seek work in other pastures.

To go back to the beginning of the story, I wish also to pay tribute to the former Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner, and also to the former Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South, for their hard work on this legislation in a previous Parliament. If ever there was a Bill which was the result of joint efforts on both sides of the House, working together through two Parliaments, this is it. Its purpose is of the greatest importance: namely, the proper and best administration of justice.

I wish to thank all those right hon. and hon. Members who contributed to the hard work in Committee—and I regret that I was unable to be present there all the time—and who made constructive speeches on Second Reading debates both in this Parliament and the previous one. It can be said that there are people who take decisions and people who do the work, and certainly much outstanding work has been done by members of the Lord Chancellor's Department, the Law Officers' Department and the Home Office. Without their devotion to the task, we would not have this Bill before us today.

I commend the Bill to the House since I feel it will be a landmark in the arministration of justice.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Clinton Davis

I do not propose to detain the House for long but I, too, wish to add my tribute to those which have already been paid to the work of the Under-Secretary of State. As a solicitor, I fear that in the immediate future I shall be denied the opportunity of briefing him as a silk, though I sincerely hope that that opportunity will not be long delayed. I am not, of course, hoping that he personally will lose office.

I feel that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) would have been wiser not to have resurrected the argument about solicitors' rights of audience. The rights of audience which have been recognised in principle have been arrived at as a result of long discussion. There can be no doubt that if the Lord Chancellor were to take the hon. Member's remarks as a guiding light—and I am sure he will not—it would constitute a breach of the undertaking he gave to another place, which was underlined during the Committee stage.

Members of the solicitors' profession, having seen recognition of the principle of the right of audience, will now wish to see how the Lord Chancellor will implement those principles. The same applies to the matter of eligibility to the Bench. The Law Society and solicitors throughout the country will be watching how the Lord Chancellor implements these principles which have been so hard-fought.

Nobody can doubt the value of the Beeching Report which is now enshrined in this Bill. The vast amount of criminal work undertaken by magistrates' courts is now a proper subject for inquiry. They are the front line of criminal justice, but they are subject to all sorts of inconveniences. There are frequent adjournments, and matrimonial proceedings are dealt with in the atmosphere of a criminal court. There is a host of matters deserving consideration, not least the disquieting information, disclosed in the latest edition of the Criminal Law Review, of many cases in which considerations of bail are not given adequate treatment. I hope that the precedent of the Beeching Report will be followed here.

I also hope that the inordinate delays in criminal trials in London in particular will to a large extent be erased when the Bill is law. This experience is not felt throughout the country, but those who practise in London become increasingly irritated by these delays. But much more important is the effect on the unfortunate accused and on the witnesses, whose memory has to be taxed after so long a period.

I was very grateful for the concessions made by the Under-Secretary to some of my Amendments. I only hope that on other occasions he will follow that very wise precept.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. David Lane (Cambridge)

As a brief intruder into this debate, and a barrister who has never practised, I welcome this modernisation of a vital part of our national life and join in the congratulations to my right hon. and hon. and learned Friends on the speed with which this reform has been carried through Parliament.

On administration and accommodation, which are partly covered by Clause 28, I should like to say a word on behalf of Cambridge. I strongly support the representations of the Cambridge City Council and local practitioners to the Lord Chancellor and the circuit administrator that there should be a second tier court and not a third tier court at Cambridge.

There are strong reasons for this, which are not merely historical or sentimental. Cambridge is the centre of a large geographical area, increasingly important as such, and there is already substantial criminal business there. Without a second tier court, there will be extra inconvenience and expense to many people, practitioners and others, who would have to travel much further afield. I hope that these arguments will be carefully and sympathetically considered before decisions are made. With this special plea, I am glad to support the Third Reading.

Mr. Speaker

I have my doubts about whether all that the hon. Gentleman said was in order, but, without prejudice to the congratulatory undertones to the Under-Secretary, I will now put the Question.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.