§ The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival)I beg to move amendment No. 1, in clause 72, page 44, line 41, leave out subsection (4).
The purpose of the amendment is to leave out a subsection inserted in the Bill in another place in order to avoid infringement of the privilege of the House of Commons. The Bill, as appears from its long title, is a consolidation Bill, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission. As I informed the House during the discussion of the money resolution last week, two of the recommendations made by the Law Commission propose changes in the existing law which, although unlikely to have any such effect in practice, could, in theory, increase a charge on the revenue. The House will recall that I identified those recommendations as those made in paragraphs 3 and 7 of the appendix to the report of the Law Commission, Cmnd. 7583. I offer to enlarge upon those recommendations if the House so wishes, but I assume that those who are interested will have read them in the interval. I shall not take 384 the time of the House on the matter, unless requested.
The recommendations were approved by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills and they are embodied in the Bill. Accordingly, in passing the Bill, the other place made a privilege amendment in the usual form. A money resolution authorising any increase in expenditure attributable to those recommendations has been passed. The time has now come to remove that subsection which was inserted only for the purposes that I have identified.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)We are grateful to the Solicitor-General for coming here to explain the position. The effect of the removal of the clause seems to be purely a matter of privilege, and some of the changes that the recommendations of the Law Commission might impose as a result of absorption into the consolidation measure will not be affected
On Second Reading I made the point that the amount of money payable to magistrates in the form of national insurance or social security charges should not be affected. The Solicitor-General will be interested to know that since I made my remarks I have received several letters from magistrates who claim that they are concerned at the sacrifices that ordinary working people have to make when appearing on the bench. I do not wish to stray too far down that path as I may be called out of order.
However, I emphasise that it is important for the Solicitor-General to come to the House to make clear the position on such legislation. It might be considered relatively unimportant and it is being dealt with late at night, but it covers a wide range of important judicial activity. If the Solicitor-General wishes to enlarge on his explanation, he will have a ready and eager reception.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralI make only this comment. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) used the phrase "relatively unimportant", and I suppose that in relation to some other measures this is relatively unimportant. However, that is not to say that it is not of considerable importance in itself, and I hope that I stressed that fact on Second Reading.
385 I assure the hon. Gentleman that those who have written to him have nothing to fear.
§ Mr. John Morris (Aberavon)The House is grateful for the Solicitor-General's explanation.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 72, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ The ChairmanWith permission, I will put the Question on the three schedules together.
§ Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
§ Bill reported, with an amendment; as amended, considered.
§ Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
§ Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with an amendment.