REPEALS (Hansard, 9 July 1981)

§ The Solicitor-General
I beg to move amendment No. 35 in page 121, line 27, column 3, at end add— 'Section 52(2).'. The purpose of this amendment is to repeal section 52(2) of the County Courts Act 1959, which is obsolete. As it is obsolete, I think that I need say no more about it.

§ Sir Walter Clegg
My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has been helpful to us during the course of the Bill. It is largely a consolidation Bill, but it has put right some wrongs and it has, I hope, made the administration of justice more effective. My hon. and learned Friend promised us an administration of justice Bill in which we can put right the wrongs that this Bill does not put right. I hope that we shall have that Bill in the very near future.

§ Mr. Douglas-Mann
I echo what was said by the hon. Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg). There is much that is good in the Bill, and on the whole it represents an advance. It is a marginally better Bill now than it was when we first started to consider it in Committee.
I am a little concerned about schedule 3, which we have just been considering. The amendments to the County Courts Act 1959 appear to be paving the way for an increase in the extent to which the county courts can be used as a substitute for the High Court.
When the county courts were introduced, they were seen as the people's courts—courts where indifferent justice would be provided at a low cost. They have in many respects proved to be the courts in which those with limited means find that they get their justice, but only at considerable expense, because they are not able to recover the costs that they ought to be able to recover from the guilty defendent in any complex case.
I gather that this is an issue that will come before the House on the consideration of a statutory instrument, but to the extent that the Bill paves the way for an extension of the jurisdiction of the county court in major contested cases—and to the extent that the costs recoverable by a 682 successful party in the county court continue to be limited as they have been in the past—it will pave the way for a deprivation of justice rather than for an enhancement of it.

§ Mr. Lawrence
Some of us were concerned about clause 69, which originally required the judge to consider the probable length of a trial in relation to whether a jury could be sworn. We were therefore cheered to see that the Government were defeated in the House of Lords. But at this stage we should say "Thank you" to the Government, because they have not sought to restore the original clause and have accepted the will of the House of Lords, and also the substantial views that were expressed in this place on Second Reading. A sincere word of thanks is due and would, I think, be echoed by all those in the profession who were anxious about the original clause 69.
It is a shame that we were not able in the Bill to deal with another matter that had arisen at the time concerning inquests. Clause 44 is titled Extraordinary functions of judges of High Court and there was on the face of it an apparent opportunity to extend the functions of High Court judges to deal with coroners. It is a pity that the long title of the Bill did not allow that to be done. It means that once again we have to raise issues of that kind in another piece of legislation, when it would have been so much better all round if it could have been discussed, debated and perhaps passed in this Bill.
I congratulate the Government on having piloted the measure, which was contentious in parts, so successfully through the House. I hope that all the matters that have been raised in this short Third Reading debate can be more conveniently and expressly discussed soon in this place.

§ Mr. Archer
I am grateful for the atmosphere in which our debates have taken place. We have considered these matters on their merits. I think that we have improved the Bill in at least one important respect. I do not propose to make a lengthy Third Reading speech. I cannot wait to make my Second Reading speech when the Administration of Justice Bill comes before the House.

§ The Solicitor-General
No one should underestimate the importance of the changes that we have made. Those who were members of the Committee will know that I am wedded to improving the means of enforcing judgments. There is nothing worse than to have an efficient system of obtaining a judgment and nothing to follow it up. It is pointless, and it brings the procedure into disrepute. I am wedded to the idea that the Law Society and my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Sir W. Clegg) have been floating. I am not following them, because I have been in it from the start. I have been pursuing it for 10 years at least, and possibly 15 years. I hope that bringing building society deposits and national savings into the scope of the garnishee will actively assist many people.
I have referred to the Administration of Justice Bill on more than one occasion. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde did not really mean to say that I have promised a Bill. I am sure that everybody present knows that I cannot promise a Bill. However, I hope that it is apparent to the House that I wish to see such a Bill at an early date. There is much scope for continuing the 683 helpful co-operation which we have established during the passage of the Bill and further improving matters, especially with regard to the enforcement of judgments.