HL Deb 26 June 1962 vol 241 cc923-6

8.9 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)

House in Committee accordingly.

[THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 8 agreed to.

Clause 9 [Short title, saving, commencement and extent]:

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "which is contained in" and to insert "made by or under". The noble Baroness said: This Amendment arises out of some comments which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, made on the Second Reading of this Bill. The noble Lord said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 241 (No. 88), col. 271]: It is also important that, whereas in some cases it is obligatory on the part of the local authorities to permit searches and inspections of documents to be made, in other cases it is quite optional. What the legal profession is concerned about is that it should not be an arbitrary act on the part of local authorities as to whether or not they refuse to permit inspection.

This Amendment has been drafted in order to meet the anxiety of the Law Society, for which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was the spokesman on Second Reading.

The Amendment secures that any searcher or legal inquirer who already has a right of access to a statutory instrument shall have that right preserved. Right of access is preserved to any document that is required and is available, and to which people already have a right of access. Further, this protection extends to the Rules of the Supreme Court; that is to say, any court of law, including the House of Lords sitting in its judicial capacity, as well as to regulations made under Act of Parliament. Therefore, the clause is, in effect, a non-interference clause, leaving the decision as to whether or not a document called for is a privileged document to the dis- cretion of the judge, where it already belongs.

The practical effect of this legislation will be that more documents deposited, let us say, by a private individual will be available to searchers and others, but that there will be no change in the right of access to any document or record where the right already exists. This covers, of course, local authority documents and records as well. I hope that this Amendment, and the assurance that I have given to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and through him to the legal authorities, will satisfy them. The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford has an Amendment down on the Paper, which my Amendment really covers, because my Amendment is couched in wider terms than his, and I hope mine may meet the requirements for which he is asking. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 40, leave out "which is contained in") and insert "made by or under").—(Baroness Elliot of Harwood.)

VISCOUNT BRENTFORD

I should like, first of all, to express my appreciation to my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood for having taken the initiative in introducing this Amendment. I think your Lordships will appreciate that everyone who has spoken upon any step since this Bill first came to birth is strongly in favour of the principle which it contains. We want to help it in every way we can. But as my noble friend was indicating just now, there is one particular aspect which has caused us a certain amount of anxiety; that is the provision in Clause 9, as printed, under which the right of people to have access to, and to take copies of, documents are without prejudice to any provision … contained in any other Act of Parliament—"other", of course, meaning other than in this measure. It seemed to us that that was insufficiently comprehensive, and the point was taken by my noble friend, who has very kindly sought to meet it by the introduction of the Amendment she is now moving.

If the Amendment fulfils all that she claims for it, I shall be perfectly happy, and I have no doubt that everybody else will be perfectly happy. But quite candidly, I am by no means sure that it does. I should like to congratulate my noble friend on the skill with which she has sought in her drafting to meet the particular point; and in parenthesis may I say that if she is out of a job at any time, and would like to come to my office as a professional draftsman, I should be delighted to accord her an interview. But she did claim very definitely that her Amendment was wider than mine.

If I may, with your Lordships' consent, and in order to save time, make a brief reference to my Amendment, which in the circumstances I may well not move, I would point out that her Amendment, the one which we are discussing, deals with those provisions which are "made by or under" any Act of Parliament. I must confess that I am not quite certain what in fact a provision which is made "under" an Act of Parliament really means, and how one would so define it. I appreciate that it is obviously intended to cover delegated legislation of all sorts. My noble friend claims that it does, in fact, cover the Judges' Rules. That is a very important point, that it should do so. But I am not quite convinced that my noble friend is quite correct in saying that. The way in which I seek to achieve the same abject must, I think, be wider, because my Amendment provides that … nothing in this Act shall prejudice or affect any duty or obligation whether arising under any such Act or Measure or otherwise. … I do not believe one could get anything wider than that. I shall be very grateful if the noble Baroness will reconsider the question of there being some merit in my Amendment, even though her Amendment has the supreme advantage of brevity and of being much shorter than mine.

I have not stressed the importance of eliminating any possibility of ambiguity, because I think your Lordships are already seized of that; it was brought out in the Second Reading debate. But, so far as I can see (and of course I am also speaking upon the advice of those who are much more learned than I am in these matters), the Amendment which we are now discussing leaves open certain ambiguities which I know it is the wish to my noble friend to avoid. If my noble friend would allow an opportunity before the next stage of the Bill for reconsideration of the exact phraseology I should be very grateful, and certainly in those circumstances I should not move the Amendment which stands in my name.

BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD

I hasten at once to disclaim any expertise on drafting legal Amendments which would compare with that of the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, but this particular Amendment has been considered by very high authorities, and I am told that it does cover all the points which the noble Lord has raised. On the other hand, of course, there is absolutely no reason why, if this Amendment is accepted, we should not, between now and Report stage, discuss further with the Law Society and the legal interests whether they are completely satisfied. It is my intention and (as this is a Private Member's Bill) the intention of the mover in another place, that this point which has been raised should be adequately and properly covered. I would therefore give the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, the assurance that if the Committee will accept my Amendment to-day, which I think covers all the points the Law Society require, then if, between now and Report stage, it should be revealed that in fact they are not satisfied, we can put forward another form of words on Report stage. But I hope very much that the discussion between the Law Society and the noble Viscount and myself may reveal that the width of the drafting of this Amendment may indeed be greater than his, and that the greater will therefore contain the less. I would also say that I shall be happy further to discuss the matter at a later stage in the Bill.

Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with an Amendment.