§ Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to consolidate certain enactments relating to justices of the peace (including stipendiary magistrates), justices' clerks and the administrative and financial arrangements for magistrates' courts, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in the payment of grants under that Act, in so far as any such expenditure is attributable to provisions of that Act which—
§ Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)I presumed that we would have an opportunity to debate the money resolution.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)Order. I have first to put the Question. The Question is as on the Order Paper.
§ Mr. PrescottIt is difficult to debate a money resolution without hearing what that resolution means. It may be written on the Order Paper, but that does not explain which parts and sections the resolution deals with. I have been advised by the various Officers of the House that the Bill has financial implications for social security and occupation pensions. The Financial Secretary should be here to explain that.
§ Mr. John Morris (Aberavon)My hon. Friend should allow the Solicitor-General to explain the money resolution. Perhaps following that he could catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye.
§ Mr. PrescottI am grateful to my right hon, and learned Friend, but I thought that I was going to lose the opportunity to speak in the interval between the motion being moved and the Question being put. If one does not move quickly in the House, my experience is that one cries afterwards. I invite the 1441 Solicitor-General to explain the money resolution.
§ The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival)If the hon. Gentleman will speak to the money resolution I shall do my best to answer any questions that he raises. The resolution speaks for itself. That is what is asked of the House, and the House will pass that resolution.
§ Mr. PrescottI am in some difficulty because, like any hon. Member, I take advice from the Public Bill Office about such measures. The reason for this money resolution—the Bill has come from the House of Lords—is that money resolutions must be dealt with by this House. However, when we get that resolution we do not find a satisfactory explanation of its meaning. That may be a laughing matter to some hon. Members, but it is important that the House should explain fully how, and in what measure, moneys are to be paid to clerks of the court. I can raise points as a layman, but this is not a satisfactory way to deal with money resolutions.
I hope that I shall have the leave of the House to speak again if I am wrong, but the money resolution provides an opportunity for extra payments to be made to the clerks of the court with regard to social security legislation and social security pensions that allow for extra payments to be made in cases of occupational pensions. In those cases where an arrangement has been made about pensions greater than the minimum required by the State one can opt out of that arrangement. Apparently clerks to the justices have to be dealt with in that way. That is the reason for the money resolution. If remuneration is increased for those people, will their responsibilities also increase? In clause 27 some of those duties are spelt out.
Not many of my constituents have read the measure. However, I have received a petition from 2,000 people, although they were not aware of the Committee on which the Solicitor-General served. Those 2,000 people were concerned about the activities of magistrates and the advice that they receive from their clerks. My constituents are particularly concerned about considerable debts which they owe to the electricity board and what happens when the 1442 board approaches magistrates to ask them to sign a warrant to enable it to enter people's houses to cut off electricity supplies. If a magistrate signs the warrant without satisfying himself that it is justified, my constituents may find that their electricity is cut off. They demand that the advice given to magistrates should be much more valid than it is at present and that they be given a right of defence against such warrants. Magistrates should question whether the warrants are justified. I hope that the Solicitor-General will advise magistrates to be much more careful about signing warrants and more critical in their approach.
The matter has caused great concern to a number of my local councillors, including Norman Kendrew, Ron Garniss, Nellie Stephenson, Mrs. Giblin and others, who drafted the petition. I hope that the Solicitor-General can give them some comfort and hope for change.
§ Mr. John Morris (Aberavon)I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). The name of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury is traditionally appended to a money resolution, but he is not expected to be here to explain the resolution. That is a matter for the Minister in charge of the Bill. When an hon. Member asks for an explanation of a money resolution, it is incumbent upon the Minister in charge of the Bill to rise immediately to explain it. If he does not do so he is not doing his duty to the House, and it may mean that he does not understand the resolution.
As a matter of courtesy, and for future reference, the Solicitor-General should know what is the tradition of the House when such motions are moved.
§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)I wish to raise a matter that comes under the financial facilities for the Bill and is covered on page 9 of the Law Commission's report, where it points out that the Justices of the Peace Act 1949 has not been amended and kept up to date in relation to the social security legislation now in force.
I hope that the Solicitor-General will be able to assure us that payments under the money resolution will enable all 1443 necessary national insurance and social security benefits to be paid, where applicable, to justices of the peace.
It is important that magistrates should not be out of pocket when they are losing wages and dependent upon expenses being paid. That affects particularly the men and women who work by hand or brain and sit on the magistrates' bench, even though their jobs do not provide for continuous payments of wages or salaries while they are on the bench.
If, as the Law Commission report suggests, there is some inconsistency in national insurance payments, such people could be in difficulty. I hope that the Solicitor-General will assure us that the money resolution will ensure that full payments will be made so that the magistrates bench contains a proper cross-section of society and there is every opportunity for those with a wage-earning job to go on the bench without any loss of their earnings or insurance position.
§ The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival)I am sappy to have the chance to comment on what has been said. I think that it is regrettable that the right hon, and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) had to be a little nasty about what happened. I was about to get to my feet when he rose to his. According to the usual courtesies of the House I remained seated even though I was anxious to answer straight away the questions that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) put to me. I have a good relationship with him, he having been my opponent in Southport on one occasion.
§ Mr. John MorrisI tried to give the hon, and learned Gentleman an opportunity to do his duty to the House in the course of my intervention in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). Whenever a money resolution is tabled it is the Minister's duty—and it is incumbent upon him so to do—to proffer an explanation when it is requested by the House.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralThe right hon, and learned Gentleman must take it from me that I do not need him to tell me what is incumbent upon me as the holder 1444 of my office. He has had his say, so perhaps he will have the courtesy to allow me to say my piece.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, had his bit of fun about warrants. Life is dull without a bit of fun, but he did put two serious queries about the effect of the money resolution. There are some who would regard it as sensible—perhaps not the right hon, and learned Member for Aberavon, but that does not worry me unduly—for me to deal with precise points that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East wants to hear about, rather than with points that no one wants to hear about. The hon. Gentleman made his points, and I assure him that they will receive attention. If there is anything that should be added to what I am not going to say, that will be done. The hon. Gentleman put his requests to me courteously and specifically.
The reason why there is a money resolution—it would not have been very difficult for right hon, and hon. Members to have worked it out if they had looked before they came into the Chamber—is that two of the recommendations, which I shall spell out for the right hon, and learned Member for Aberavon—
§ Mr. John MorrisFor the House.
§ The Solicitor-GeneralI do not think that other hon. Members need an explanation of the recommendations that are in the Law Commission's report quite so much as does the right hon, and learned Gentleman.
Though it is unlikely that in practice the recommendations will make any difference to expenditure, in theory they might. All that the money resolution does is this. Having given a Second Reading to a Bill that contains proposals that might result in increased expenditure, the House must, to give effect to the Bill, pass the money resolution authorising it. It does not authorise anything else, which answers the question of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer). The only increased expenditure that can be paid under this money resolution is such increased expenditure as might result from either of those recommendations. That is the extent of the effect of this money resolution.
§ Question put and agreed to.
1445
§
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to consolidate certain enactments relating to justices of the peace (including stipendiary magistrates), justices' clerks and the administrative and financial arrangements for magistrates' courts, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State in the payment of grants under that Act, in so far as any such expenditure is attributable to provisions of that Act which—