§ 5.46 p.m.
§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MESTONMy Lords, at the outset I want to make it clear that the Bill applies to the whole country and not only to the City of Birmingham. I say that advisedly because the constitutional position is that a Public Bill must apply to the whole country and not merely to one place. However, there is no good in skirmishing around the point. We all know of the rather unsatisfactory state of affairs which exists in Birmingham at the present time, and this Bill does in fact remedy that confusing state of affairs. How that has arisen requires a little explanation, and I hope that your Lordships will not be tired with this reiteration of sections and subsections of various Acts of Parliament.
Section 168 (1) of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, provided that the Recorder of Birmingham might in his discretion order a second court of Quarter Sessions to be formed. Any such order required a resolution of the council, 330 which resolution might continue in force for twelve months. I ask your Lordships to keep in mind that the resolution of the council was originally required. Some seventy-two years later there was passed a Private Act—namely, the Birmingham Corporation Act, 1954. Section 61 of that Private Act amended Section 168 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, in its application to the city of Birmingham so as to make the resolution of the council unnecessary, thus enabling the Recorder of his own motion to form a second court of Quarter Sessions whenever it appeared to him necessary to do so.
The next stage in the proceedings was when Section 15 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1956, amended Section 168 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, so as to enable local authorities to authorise the formation of further courts of Quarter Sessions, being the second court permitted by the Act of 1882. Unfortunately, when Section 15 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1956, was passed, the special provisions contained in Section 61 of the Binning-ham Corporation Act, 1954, were overlooked. The result is that the provisions of Section 15 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1956, are of no avail to the city of Birmingham, which puts it beyond its powers to pass the necessary resolution.
Now this is the point: as a result of the confusing situation which arose because of all this legislation, not more than two courts of Quarter Sessions can sit simultaneously at Birmingham. Subsection (1) of Clause 1 of the present Bill proposes the addition of a new subsection —subsection (6)—to Section 15 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1956, the effect of which is to preserve the right of the Recorder of Birmingham, and of any other borough which may obtain or have obtained legislation corresponding to the Birmingham Corporation Act, 1954, to form a second court of Quarter Sessions without the authority of a resolution of the council; and—and this is the important point—to enable a third court, and any further court that may be required, to be formed if the council pass a resolution to that effect.
Subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill deals with the remuneration of the I Assistant Recorder. Here again, as a result of failing to repeal the relevant 331 provisions of the Birmingham Corporation Act, 1954, the position in Birmingham is different from that elsewhere: and so the present Bill brings the whole matter into line by providing that in Birmingham, as elsewhere, the approval of the Lord Chancellor will be needed for fixing the remuneration of the Assistant Recorder.
As to the necessity for this Bill, as your Lordships know, Birmingham is a large city, with a population of over one million. I am not suggesting that it has a worse criminal record than any other city, but there is inevitably a certain amount of crime in Birmingham; and at the present moment the Recorder of Birmingham can appoint only one assistant court to help him during sessions. He cannot appoint more than one court. He may, in fact, want two or three courts to assist him, but he cannot do more than appoint one assistant. Now I understand that the result is that a number of prisoners who ought to be tried at a certain session are sometimes not tried at that session owing to lack of judicial time. If a prisoner is on bail, then of course he continues to be on bail; but if a person is in custody, he continues to remain in custody for a longer period than is either necessary or desirable. My Lords, that is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs, and what this Bill does is simply to enable the Recorder of Birmingham to appoint one, two, three, or as many courts as he likes, to assist him in his work. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
§ Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Meston.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for producing this Bill and putting it before your Lordships. I have a certain responsibility, in that I introduced the Act of 1956 into this House, and I must admit that I did not remember that provision in the Birmingham Corporation Private Act. However, if I were to remember and carry in my mind the provisions of every Private Act of every corporation, I should be even more insufferable to your Lordships than I am at present. None the less, I am grateful to the noble Lord for promoting this Bill. It will be of the greatest value to the administration of 332 justice that the city should be able to have the further courts it requires. I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.