ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL

HL Deb 19 December 1963 vol 254 cc418-45

4.12 p.m.

House again in Committee.

Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 [Appointment of justices' clerks and other officers]:

LORD DERWENT

The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that the principal chief clerk for the Inner London area, who is appointed by the committee of magistrates under Clause 15, is to assist the chief magistrate in the day-to-day administration of the magistrates' courts in the inner London Area, which the latter is to carry on under Clause 13(6). This is in accordance with the recommendation of the Aarvold Committee. The Aarvold Committee pointed out that the committee of magistrates could deal with only broad matters of principle, such as conditions of service and staff complements and individual cases of special importance. It recommended that the chief magistrate, and under him the principal chief clerk, should be responsible for day-to-day staff management, and for deciding the many questions which it would be impracticable or inappropriate to refer to the committee itself. The committee also thought that the principal chief clerk should be the channel of communication between the chief magistrate and the chief clerks of the integrated court service, and would convey decisions of the committee of magistrates to the chief clerks. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 12, line 43, at end insert— ("(3) The principal chief clerk shall assist the chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate to perform the latter's duty under section 13(6) of this Act of carrying on the day to day administration of the magistrates' courts in the inner London Area.")—(Lord Derwent.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 15, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD OGMORE

There is one point I wish to raise, and I think the appropriate time to raise it is now. I have had some consultation on this, and I have given the Lord Chancellor notice. I do not want to put it down as an Amendment, because what I should like is to get an assurance from the noble and learned Lord that the Government will carry out this portion of the Aarvold Report. The question arises under paragraphs 112 and 113 of that Report, and to refresh your Lordships' memory I will read them. Paragraph 112 says: We recommend that all the full-time staff of both the metropolitan magistrates' courts and the lay justices courts should be offered employment in the integrated service at salaries not less than those they are receiving at present. Paragraph 113 says: It has been represented to us, and we agree, that such an offer should be on a 'no detriment' basis. By this we mean the same basis as that specified in another connection in paragraph 40 of the Scheme of Conditions of Service agreed by the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Administrative, Professional, Technical and Clerical Services, which is repeated in substance in paragraph 28 of the Conditions of Service recommended by the National Joint Council for Justices' Clerks' Assistants. This reads as follows: 'Where an officer under his previously existing contract of service is receiving a higher salary or would progress to a higher salary than that applicable to the current grading of his post under this Scheme such higher salary or progressive higher salary shall be preserved in his case, otherwise the Scheme shall apply in its entirety.' We also accept the interpretation added to this paragraph which reads: 'Where a higher salary or a progressive higher salary under a former contract of service is preserved the officer is not entitled to any temporary benefit which may be afforded by the salary scale applicable under the Scheme to the grading of the post'. Those are the two paragraphs of the Aarvold Report in question. I understand that those London justices' clerks who are affected have taken the matter up with the Home Office, but I think it is desirable to have the views of the Lord Chancellor on this matter. I hope he will be able to give us an assurance that under the provisions of this Bill there will be no detriment in salary so far as applies to the officers concerned.

There is also the question of the word "may" in Clause 24(2) of the Bill. Those officers concerned would, of course, prefer this provision to be mandatory and not permissive, and that the word "may" should be "shall". The Lord Chancellor is well aware of the position as I have explained it, and it would be of great satisfaction to those concerned if he could give us an assurance on this point.

LORD DERWENT

Perhaps as this is partly a Home Office matter I may be allowed to answer the noble Lord. I have had the best legal advice on the word "may" from my noble and learned friend, who says that it is the proper use of the word "may" in a Bill of this kind. What the noble Lord was really saying was this, if I have understood him aright, although I was not quite clear. He was wondering why the provisions in this Bill about the protection of the interests of existing courts' staff were not as specific as the same sort of provision in the London Government Act.

I will tell the noble Lord why we have chosen the form of provision and words in this Bill. There are two reasons. The first is that we are dealing with a problem different from that dealt with by the London Government Act. Our task, although it relates to fewer people, is more complex, and we are dealing with one authority, the committee of magistrates, over whose decisions—and this is important—in respect of conditions of service the Secretary of State has complete control. He has power under Clause 15(5) to confirm, to modify, or to refuse to confirm, the determination made by the committee, and is not, as in the other case, dealing with an authority over whose decisions there is no comparable control. This task is rather more complex, because while under the local government reorganisation officers transferred at least continue to be governed by local government terms, we are concerned in the case of the integrated courts' staff with what will be for one or other element of the staff a radical change in terms, since the committee will have to decide whether the metropolitan or the lay conditions of service shall apply to the integrated courts' service.

Our second main reason for making only general provision for the protection of existing staff is that we are still considering, with a view to having fairly full consultations with the staff associations, how their interests can best be protected. All I can do at this stage is to say to the noble Lord that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is conscious of the need to ensure the protection of the interests of the existing staff, and will, after the series of consultations which have already started, be prepared to consider amending the Bill when it is possible to describe with precision what, if any, further protective provision is required. At the moment we think our powers are adequate because it is up to the Home Secretary to confirm the terms of service, and he is bearing this very much in mind. That is why we have had a comparatively general provision as to how this is to be looked after.

LORD OGMORE

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply and I feel that the Home Secretary, in conjunction with the various interests concerned, will arrive at a very satisfactory solution.

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 16 to 19 agreed to.

Clause 20 [Juries]:

4.22 p.m.

LORD DERWENT

The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that the costs of jurors at the five London quarter sessions, which under subsection (7) are payable out of the general fund of the Greater London Council, are to be chargeable only on the London boroughs and not on the City of London. The reason for this is that the City of London justices will not commit cases to the London courts of quarter sessions, since the original quarter sessions jurisdiction for the City will continue to be exercised by the Central Criminal Court, and the City quarter sessions will continue to exercise their appellate jurisdiction. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 18, line 15, at end insert— ("(8) Any sum falling to be defrayed by virtue of subsection (7) of this section out of the general fund of the Greater London Council in respect of jury service at the court of quarter sessions for a London commission area shall he chargeable only on the London boroughs.")—(Lord Derwent.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 21-30 agreed to.

LORD AIREDALE moved, after Clause 30, to insert the following new clause:

Chairman of County and District Council not to he Justice of the Peace ex officio

".Subsection (5) of section 3 of the Local Government Act 1933 (which provides that the chairman of a county council shall, by virtue of his office be a Justice of the Peace for the county) and subsection (5) of section 33 of the Local Government Act 1933 (which provides that a chairman of a district council shall, by virtue of his office be a Justice of the Peace for any county in which the district is wholly or partly situate) shall cease to have effect."

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 7 which stands in my name. I think I should at the outset explain that the general principles governing and surrounding this Amendment apply equally to the next Amendment, No. 8, which also stands in my name. Therefore, if I take a little time in moving this one I shall hope to be able to be short indeed in moving No. 8 I do not think that I should advise your Lordships to read this Amendment, but rather to read the sidenote of it, which I think puts the matter quite succinctly: Chairman of County and District Council not to be Justice of the Peace ex officio I think I should begin by reading to your Lordships an extract from the evidence of the County Councils Association to the Royal Commission on the Justices of the Peace, which sat under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord. Lord du Parcq, and which reported in 1948. The Royal Commission saw fit to print this extract in the main body of their Report: The Association entertain no doubt that, if any approach is to be made to the ideal that only the most suitable persons are appointed to the commission of the peace, then chairmen of county, borough, urban and rural district councils should cease to qualify for admission to the list merely by their assumption of these offices. The qualities which enable a chairman of a local authority to perform his duties with success are not of necessity those requisite for the office of justice of the peace, added to which there is the point that in many areas the office of chairman is a matter of rotation rather than of distinctive merit. In any event, if a chairman of a local authority is suitable for appointment as a justice of the peace, the ordinary procedure should suffice to ensure his consideration for that office. I am authorised to say that the County Councils Association to-day stand by that statement which they gave to the Royal Commission. And the Royal Commission say: "We agree with that statement."

In paragraph 156 of their Report the Royal Commission say: One of the arguments used against the retention of the local government ex officio justices is that they hold office such a relatively short period that they cannot gain sufficient experience of magisterial work to be useful as justices. Later in the same paragraph the Royal Commission, having considered some statistics with which I certainly shall not weary your Lordships, conclude: These figures are not precise, but they show quite clearly that an ex officio justice (who is not also a justice named in a commission) has little chance of gaining much experience in magisterial work. The Royal Commission, again in the chapter dealing with the summary of their main recommendations, say this: In appointing justices the paramount consideration is the person's fitness for the discharge of judicial duties. Finally, in paragraph 351 of their recommendations, they say: Chairmen of county councils and of urban and rural district councils should cease to be justices ex officio.

We could not have it more clearly stated than that by a Royal Commission. Perhaps it is not surprising that upon the strength of those recommendations the noble and learned Lord, Lord Merthyr, thought fit to move an Amendment in the Committee stage of the Justices of the Peace Bill, 1949, when it was in Committee before your Lordships, in identical terms with the Amendment which I am moving at this moment. In the course of moving it, the noble Lord said this [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 164, col. 1039]: If a man is thought to be the type who would make a good magistrate, there is nothing in the world to prevent his being appointed in the ordinary, proper way, and it is quite unnecessary to bring him in by the back door because he holds some other office. The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, speaking from his vast experience in these matters, agreed and said this [col. 1046]: If, as in many cases, they are excellent people of the kind that my noble friend"— he was referring to the then Lord Chancellor— wishes to retain upon the bench, by all means let the Lord Chancellor put them on the bench. Let them be magistrates like all the other magistrates. Let them avail themselves of the new system of training. Let them take their duties as seriously as the great majority of magistrates are now taking their duties. But let us on all accounts, so far as we can, keep politics off the benches, at any rate in this direct form of political election being the road to a place on the bench. Let us keep the judiciary and the Legislature separate. My Lords, the next speaker in that debate was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, then, of course, in office as Lord Chief Justice, who said [col. 1047]: I feel that the administration of justice will be helped to a very great extent if [...]he ex officio justices disappear. By all means, if they are men of judicial habit and of judicial thought, let them be put upon the bench by the Lord Chancellor in the ordinary way; but I submit that it is most undesirable that merely because they hold an elected position in local government they must necessarily be considered fitted to take part as justices of the peace. I hope the Committee will in this matter cordially support the Royal Commission Report, which think is of the greatest possible importance. Then Viscount Maugham, in a speech of only fourteen lines in all, said [col. 1049]; I should like to say, as I have had some experience as Lord Chancellor, that I agree with everything that has been said by the noble and learned Lord Chief Justice.

By now your Lordships may be wondering what the Lord Chancellor of the day, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Jowitt, would have to say in reply, and I only hope that in quoting to your Lordships a few extracts from his speech I am doing justice to his argument, because, of course, that is what I wish to do. The noble and learned Viscount said [col. 1053]: But your Lordships, I think, have lost sight of one feature. It sometimes happens that during the time the mayor or chairman sits there ex officio it is discovered that he is very good. And this is a source from which we not infrequently get magistrates. A fellow comes along and is seen in action, and it is decided that he is well worth having. When his year comes to an end—I agree that it is often only a year—they tell me that the fellow has been very useful and proved himself, and I make him a magistrate. I get to know of his capabilities and his capacity solely because he is an ex officio. That point has not been mentioned but it is important. Of course, some of the ex officios are not fit to sit. Later down the same column the noble and learned Viscount says this: I do not think I should he prepared to say, from my own personal experiences, that I could lay down a priori that the ex officios are worse than the others.

Your Lordships can judge for yourselves the strength of that argument. But what I do not understand is this. If you are going to superimpose upon the ordinary system of selecting magistrates by appointments by the Lord Chancellor upon recommendation, why do you select in particular the chairmen of local authorities? There are surely dozens of groups of people from whom you could make selections who would reveal, some of them, excellent qualities as justices of the peace. You might say that all senior officers of the Armed Services upon retirement shall be ex officio justices for a limited period.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

Why?

LORD AIREDALE

You would very likely find that among them there would be revealed some excellent justices, as well as possibly some very poor ones. I am not suggesting that you should do that. I am saying you might just as well do that as appoint the chairmen of local authorities. You might do this with chartered accountants upon attaining the age of 45. You might say that recipients of the O.B.E. shall be given a trial period as justices of the peace to see how they get on. Why you should select chairmen of local authorities I fail to understand.

However, the noble and learned Viscount went on [col. 1053]: I feel, however, that there is a real point of substance in the fact that they are there for such a short time. To my mind that is a great difficulty. If we are successful, as I hope we shall he, in getting some scheme of training going, I should not feel justified in asking anybody who is to sit for only a year to undergo a course of training such as we contemplate for the others. We now have a course of training for justices, but it is not yet, I believe, compulsory. I understand that the Magistrates' Association are pressing to make it compulsory and that the Association are very sure that compulsory training for magistrates is going to come.

The noble and learned Viscount went on [col. 1054]: … if I had to look at it solely from the point of view of the administration of justice, I am not sure that I would not vote for the Amendment. But we must not lose sight of the other aspect—namely, the position of local government. And this is, I think, perhaps the part of this speech which the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, will be interested in, and this is the final excerpt from this speech which I desire to read, It continues the local government aspect. The noble and learned Viscount said [col. 1055]: We feel that at the present time we should not do something which would be regarded. rightly or wrongly, as a further blow against local government. and he concludes: I think this is typically a matter upon which your Lordships ought to decide and tell us what line you consider we ought to adopt. Your Lordships considered and divided: for the Amendment, 23; against it 24. And what your Lordships have to decide, I think, this afternoon is whether after these intervening years your Lordships think that the same decision should be come to, or whether the scale should not he tipped the other way. I do not think it can be said that the duties of magistrates have not become more complex in these intervening years. As a very rough yardstick of this I might perhaps mention Stone's Justices Manual. In 1950 the two volumes numbered, I think, nine pages short of 3,000, and the number has now in the 1963 edition reached 3,358 pages. There is the matter for your Lordships to decide. Is there still a proper place on the Benches for ex officio magistrates, untrained, exercising their functions for one year? I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 30, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Airedale.)

LORD SILKIN

Before the noble and learned Lord replies, I think I should like to say just one or two words on this. I suppose in strict logic it would be difficult to resist this. The only thing I would ask from a logical point of view is why the noble Lord does not go the whole hog and deal also with mayors and lord mayors, who are in exactly the same position

LORD AIREDALE

I deal with mayors in my next Amendment.

LORD SILKIN

No. The county boroughs and lord mayors of cities are not dealt with, and it would leave them in exactly the same position as ex officios. The noble Lord should also go one stage further and deal with the City of London, but he has not got the courage to do that. I really do not feel that there is any harm in the first citizen of an area being on the Bench ex officio. I think it is a good thing. I think it adds to the dignity of the authority. I am bound to say that the analogy of the Army or the chartered accountants organisation is quite irrelevant. This is a civic function which is being performed, and I think there is a lot to be said for the first citizen of the area being represented on the judicial body.

But there is one other point—namely, that, in practice, being a magistrate involves not only sitting on the bench but signing documents for all kinds of people who are in difficulty. I remember in the old days one of the big tasks was to sign statutory declarations for people who had lost their pawn tickets, and all sorts of documents of that kind. It is a great convenience to know that you can go to the Town Hall and find the mayor, who as a rule is in a position to sign documents of this kind. This is not a matter of outstanding importance; it does not affect the administration of justice greatly. In practice, I doubt whether the mayor or the chairman attends much in court—he has much too much work to do—and I think this little bit of dignity that you give to the chairman of a district council is all to the good. If we have a Division upon this, I shall be one of the 24 and support the clause as it stands.

4.42 p.m.

LORD MILVERTON

Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, one gets the idea that there is a superficial case for these two Amendments, which are closely allied, but I would point out that the Royal Commission's recommendations and their views also contain something which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has omitted to mention. If I may be allowed to do so, as these clauses are so closely bound up together, I would refer particularly to the second Amendment, which is No. 8, and direct attention to that in relation to the whole question.

After examining the whole position, the Royal Commission took the view that special considerations should be applied to the mayor. Their views and recommendations on this point were contained in paragraphs 158, 159 and 160 of their Report. Following the Royal Commission's recommendation, Section 2 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949, made these provisions. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to state them, because they are relevant to what is being proposed to-day. First of all, in view of the fact that they said the mayor deserved special consideration, they provided that a mayor of a borough should not be a justice of the peace for the borough ex officio during, the year next after he has ceased to be a mayor; secondly, that where a borough has no separate commission of the peace the mayor should be justice of the peace for the county but not for the borough; and thirdly, that where the borough has a separate commission of the peace the mayor should be a justice of the peace for the borough but not for the county.

The effect of Lord Airedale's new clause—that the mayor of a borough should not be a justice of the peace for a county—would be to deprive the mayor of a borough not having a separate commission of the peace from being a justice of the peace ex officio during his term of office for the county in which the borough is situated. This goes a good deal beyond the recommendations of the Royal Commission, and creates an artificial and, I suggest, unnecessary differentiation between the mayors of non-county boroughs, depending quite fortuitously on whether or not the borough has a separate commission of the peace.

As the Royal Commission pointed out in their Report, the office of mayor is the symbol of the corporate character of the borough. The duties of a justice in maintaining order are o[...]der historically than his duties of adjudication, and mayors have had for centuries the special responsibility for the keeping of the peace in the boroughs; that responsibility is ultimately dependent on his position as a justice. In those circumstances, and with those words of the Royal Commission, the position of any mayor as a magistrate should. I suggest, not be interfered with unless overwhelming arguments can be adduced in favour of the change, those being arguments which were not brought to the notice of the Royal Commission who went so thoroughly into the whole question of justices ex officio. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will not accept these Amendments.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for reminding your Lordships of a good deal of what was said in the course of the debates in your Lordships' House in 1949. I listened to him with some anxiety lest he was going to quote something that I had said on these points during the passage of the Bill in another place. The anxiety is owing to the fact that I simply have not had time to look up what I did say. I am sure that I said something upon this measure, and whatever I said then—I hope it agrees with what I am going to say to-day—expressed my sincere conviction at that time; and what I am going to say to-day expresses my sincere conviction to-day.

One can make a fairly strong theoretical case for the Amendments moved by the noble Lord. He put the argument most persuasively. In fact, of course—I shall not spend much time upon it—as my noble friend behind me has just pointed out, his Amendments do not accord with the recommendations of the Royal Commission. They recommended—and to this extent he is in agreement—that the chairmen of county councils and urban and rural district councils should cease to be justices ex officio.

LORD AIREDALE

May I interrupt to say that that is precisely the object of this Amendment. The mayors come into my next Amendment, and I have not really outlined my arguments upon that.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am sorry to hear that, because I thought the noble Lord had and that we were really discussing them both together, although, of course, the Motion has to be put separately. But may I pray in aid, in my argument on his first Amendment, the fact that the second Amendment in the noble Lord's name asks your Lordships to go contrary to the recommendation of the Royal Commission, which was that the mayor of a borough without a separate commission of the peace should continue to be a justice ex officio of the county in which the borough is situated. Of course, the Amendment of the noble Lord does not deal at all with the mayor of a borough with a separate commission of the peace.

As I say, in my view a pretty persuasive argument could be advanced in support of the noble Lord's two new clauses; and the noble Lord was persuasive. But I feel one ought to be extremely careful before making changes of this sort in a relationship between the magistracy and the local authorities which has continued for many and many a year. I am not by any means convinced that there might not be serious disadvantages for both local authorities and the magistrates if there were a complete separation between the two. The theoretical case is, I think, a powerful one. But since 1949, and indeed before it, what evidence is there that the appointment of these particular ex officio justices has led to a lower standard in the administration of justice than would otherwise have been the case? Since I have held my present office I have seen no evidence of that. But what I have seen is that on a number of occasions these individuals, who have, by the process of becoming chairmen of local authorities, become ex officio magistrates, have found it most interesting work, and they have been ready, willing and keen to carry on with it after their term of office. Indeed, we have secured through this some very useful recruits to the bench of magistrates.

That being the case, one has to weigh against it the possible disadvantages in some instances. But the noble Lord was not able to support his case by giving any instances where carrying on with the present practice had led to things occurring which should not have occurred. I feel that, although in theory a case can be made out for the changes proposed by the noble Lord, it would not be right to accept either of his Amendments (I am dealing with both, for although he now says that he has not fully argued the second, I have considered it carefully) in the absence of cogent evidence that the continuation of the present practice is doing real damage to the administration of justice. For those reasons, I would invite your Lordships to reject this Amendment and to take the same course if, in the light of what I have said, the noble Lord still desires to present further arguments with regard to it.

LORD AIREDALE

I am very much obliged to all the noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, for saying that there was a superficial case in what I had put forward. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, called it a theoretical case. I think that the Division in 1949 of 24 to 23 votes shows that your Lordships, in those days at any rate, thought there was something rather more than a superficial case.

As to my next Amendment, concerning the mayors, which I propose to move shortly, I shall explain to your Lordships that that Amendment goes a little way beyond the recommendations of the Royal Commission. But I should not like your Lordships to think that the subject matter of this Amendment, which deals with the chairmen of local authorities, does not follow precisely the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission with regard to these local government officers. I shall not press this Amendment to a Division this afternoon. I think it would be proper for me to remind your Lordships that if any of your Lordships thinks that the Amendment should not be withdrawn, it is open to him, when the Question is put "Is it your Lordships' pleasure that this Amendment be withdrawn?", to indicate your displeasure. So, with that reservation, I now ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.53 p.m.

LORD AIREDALE moved, after Clause 30 to insert the following new clause:

"Mayor of Borough not to be Justice of the Peace for a County.

. Subsection (8) of section 18 of the Local Government Act 1933 (which provides that the Mayor of a non-county borough shall during his term of office be a Justice of the Peace for the county in which the borough is situate) shall cease to have effect."

The noble Lord said: I promised in moving the last Amendment that I should be short in moving this one. I can now be brief, because the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, has really made my speech for me. I need only point out that this Amendment goes a little further than the recommendation of the Royal Commission who stated: The special position of the mayor does not require that the mayor of a borough with a separate commission should be a justice of the peace,". And in the next paragraph the Commissioners' Report said: If the borough has no separate commission for the peace the mayor should be a county justice ex officio, and if there is a separate commission he should be a borough justice ex officio and a county justice ex officio,". My Amendment, as I say, goes further. It removes mayors as ex officio county justices whether the non-county borough has its own separate commission of the peace or not. That is the difference between the principle behind my Amendment and the recommendation of the Royal Commission. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 30 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Airedale.)

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

I wish to say only a few words on this Amendment. The arguments both for and against appear to be the same as those on the preceding Amendment. My noble friend Lord Silkin pointed out that neither of the Amendments dealt with the position of the mayor or lord mayor of a county borough or a city. I think the noble Lord might have told us why he is going to leave the mayors and lord mayors of county boroughs and cities in a position whereby they can remain on the bench, whereas mayors of non-county boroughs or chairmen of county and county district councils cannot. It seems to me to be illogical.

LORD BURDEN

I should like to say a word or two in regard to the second new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. I welcome the speech of my noble friend Lord Silkin on this point, and the position on this particular Amendment was admirably put by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton. As was pointed out, the Act of 1949 carries out the recommendations of the Royal Commission in regard to this particular aspect of ex officio members of a bench; and, so far as I know, no arguments were submitted to the Royal Commission to justify a change in the position. The Act did away with the twelve months after the year of office. I also welcome the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who put the position admirably for those of us who have our roots very deep in local government, because we know what this means for local government. I hope that the same procedure as was adopted on the other new clause will be adopted on this one—unless the noble Lord withdraws it without any qualification.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It would be discourteous of me not to say a word to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in reply to his examination of precisely what this new clause does. It does not accord with the recommendation of the Royal Commission, as he has made clear; and, for the reasons I advanced—perhaps not too prematurely—on the last discussion in regard to the last new clause, I feel that I ought to advise your Lordships to press the noble Lord to follow the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Burden, and withdraw this particular proposal. I feel confident that there will be no objection to that course.

LORD AIREDALE

I am again grateful to the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I should be sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Burden, at any time, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 31 [Chairmanship of bench of magistrates]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is a drafting Amendment, designed to dispose of a doubt raised by the County Councils Association who fear that the clause as at present drafted might exclude from election as chairman (and from voting at such an election) a person who is a justice, both ex officio and by reason of his name being on the commission of the peace. The Amendment makes it clear that no one who is a justice by virtue of having his name on the commission is excluded. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 25, line 16, after ("not") insert ("by reason only of his being a justice of the peace by virtue of that office)".—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Schedule 1.—[The Central Criminal Court]:

LORD SILKIN moved to add to paragraph 2:

"Greater London Council

Chairman of the Greater London Council Vice-Chairman of the Greater London Council".

The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, I beg to move this Amendment. The part of Schedule 1 which we seek to amend deals with the ex officio judges of the Central Criminal Court. Under the Schedule they are the Lord Mayor of the City, the Aldermen of the City, and various other judicial officers. We seek to add to those mentioned the Chairman of the Greater London Council and the Vice-Chairman of the Greater London Council. We discussed this matter at some length on Second Reading, and I have some hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may see his way to meeting us on this Amendment.

It is not suggested that the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Greater London Council will actually act as members of the court, any more than the Lord Mayor and the Aldermen do. I recognise, and for the purpose of this Amendment I am not going to challenge, the position of the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London in the court in their own area. But, after all, their position is ceremonial; it is a matter of status and dignity; and I should have thought that, at a time when we are setting up the Greater London Council, with jurisdiction over a very large area, and with a population of 8 or 9 million, it would be right to confer upon the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of that great authority, as it is going to be, at least the same amount of dignity, prestige and status as is given to the Lord Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London.

The Greater London Council will be incurring a share of the expenditure in running the Central Criminal Court. There was some argument as to what proportion. Whatever that proportion is, I think it has been added to by the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord to Clause 20, so that some additional expenditure will be incurred. But the fact is that the Greater London Council will be contributing towards the cost of the administration of justice at the Central Criminal Court.

Finally, the Central Criminal Court, although it is situated in the City of London, will have jurisdiction over the whole of Greater London, and it seems right that the chief citizens of the Greater London area over whom this court will have jurisdiction should be recognised in an ex officio capacity as members of the court. I think it would be a gracious thing to do. It would give great satisfaction to the Greater London Council when it is set up. I should like to see the Deputy Chairman of the Council added as well, but we do not know whether the Greater London Council will, in fact, appoint a Deputy Chairman, although the London County Council has one. The Deputy Chairman is usually a member of the Opposition and, as I imagine that the first Greater London Council will be a Labour Council, the Deputy Chairman would therefore be a member of the other side and we should have no objection to adding him as an ex officio member. But it depends upon the Council whether it has a Deputy Chairman.

I feel that the words in the Amendment would add to the status and dignity of the Greater London Council. And since the Council will contribute to the expense of this court, whose jurisdiction extends over the whole of the area, it is right that representatives of the Council should be on the court. For these reason I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will see his way to meeting us on this matter.

Amendment moved—

Page 29, line 16, at end insert—

("Greater London Council

Chairman of the Greater London Council

Vice-Chairman of the Greater London Council").—(Lord Silkin.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, but I am afraid I cannot meet him with regard to this matter. Our last two discussions have been upon the question of the abolition of those who, ex officio, engaged in the administration of justice, and the noble Lord and I agreed to resist attempts to abolish. Now the noble Lord is seeking to enlarge the number of those who would be entitled ex officio to exercise judicial functions—and they are very high judicial functions. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 1, which this Amendment seeks to amend, reads as follows: The ex officio judges shall be the holders of the following offices"— and then they are set out. Some might argue that it is an anomaly for this Bill to name the Lord Mayor of the City and the Aldermen of the City in that paragraph. But their association with what is now the Central Criminal Court is of very considerable antiquity. They never sit, but I think it would be a great break with tradition to sever the link between the City and the Central Criminal Court. Therefore, although it is an anomaly, I should not myself be in favour of eliminating the Lord Mayor and Aldermen from paragraph 2.

LORD SILKIN

May I interrupt the noble Lord? I hope he understands that I was not proposing to eliminate them: I was proposing merely to add the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the new Council.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I appreciate that. But I was going on to say that retaining ex officio officers, who have been there for many years, is quite a different thing from adding new ones. Your Lordships will bear in mind that the Chairman of the London County Council is not and never has been an ex officio judge of the Central Criminal Court; nor has his Deputy; nor has the Vice-Chairman. That is what we are being asked to do and I should be very much against it. It would be creating an anomaly.

The argument is put forward on the basis that they never would exercise judicial functions. But I am against putting them into the paragraph when it is quite novel and when they will never, so it is said, exercise judicial functions. It is argued that one should do this to enhance the dignity, prestige and status of the Greater London Council. I do not believe that the Greater London Council, with all its responsibilities, duties and authority, will really have its dignity enhanced by inserting the names of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to this Bill.

Then it is argued that they ought to have their names included because, after all, the Greater London Council will pay something towards the expenses of the Central Criminal Court. I dealt with the expense that the City is incurring in relation to that in the course of my Second Reading speech, and I have down a later Amendment (I think it is the next Amendment) which seeks to define with precision the liability of the Greater London Council to contribute to the expenses of the Central Criminal Court. Your Lordships will see that that is confined to, The remuneration and expenses of the clerk and other officers of the Court, and any expenses incurred in the provision and maintenance of office machinery and stationery for the office of the clerk of the Court". That is the contribution which is now being made by the London County Council. I do not myself think that the argument based either on expenditure or on status is well-founded; and while, in a way, it is difficult for me to resist this Amendment, realising, as I do, the likelihood of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Greater London Council being members of a Party which supports the Government, I none the less feel sure it would be wrong in principle, and I ask your Lordships to reject the Amendment.

LORD SHEPHERD

What has politics got to do with it?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord did not hear the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who assumed that only the Deputy Chairman would be a member of the Party supporting the Government. The noble Lord missed that slight interchange. There is nothing serious about it.

LORD SHEPHERD

No.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is the Amendment which defines the precise liability of the Greater London Council to contribute to the expenses of the Central Criminal Court, instead of leaving it, as in the present paragraph 16, at large. The new formula is based, broadly speaking, on the present division of financial responsibility between local authorities and the Corporation of the City. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 30, line 45, leave out paragraph 16 and insert— ("16. The remuneration and expenses of the clerk and other officers of the Court, and any expenses incurred in the provision and maintenance of office machinery and stationery for the office of the clerk of the Court, shall be defrayed by the Greater London Council.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

Just one sentence. This, of course, is in flat contradiction to the attitude of the Lord Chancellor on the last Amendment, moved by my noble friend. This is imposing a charge on the Greater London Council, and at the same time it is, on the last decision, denying any representation to the Greater London Council. The Lord Chancellor ought to have dropped this Amendment and, as the City is going to have all the representation, let the City pay. This is monstrous. It is what led to the American Revolution.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I hope it will not have such serious consequences. But, in fact, the London County Council now pay for the stationery, the maintenance of office machinery and the remuneration and expenses of the clerk and other officers of the court, and it is only right that the Greater London Council should follow the good example set by the London County Council in this respect.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Superannuation of Chairmen, etc., who have been Stipendiary Magistrates]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is a drafting Amendment, to make it quite clear that the amount which the contributing authority will have to pay to the Greater London Council in respect of the superannuation of its stipendiary magistrate who has been promoted will he the superannuation he would have earned at the date of the promotion if he had then retired in circumstances entitling him to superannuation. I hope I have made that clear. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 32, line 9, leave out from ("had") to ("on") in line 10 and insert ("on ceasing to hold his last office of stipendiary magistrate retired from that office")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Adaptation, Amendment and Modification of Enactments]:

LORD DERWENT

Paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 adapts references to Bow Street Magistrates' Court in enactments relating to extradition and other matters. These enactments require certain unusual types of cases to be heard only at Bow Street. The advantage is that uniformity of procedure can be assured. Paragraph 3 as at present drafted would allow such cases to be heard at any magistrates' court—of which there may be more than one—in the petty sessional division in which the chief magistrate sits. The pur- pose of this Amendment is to ensure that such cases are heard by a Metropolitan stipendiary magistrate sitting in the same court as the chief magistrate—namely, the present Bow Street or any court which might succeed it. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 32. line 41, leave out ("for the same petty sessional division") and insert ("in the same court-house ")—(Lord Derwent.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.15 p.m.

LORD DERWENT

Paragraph 20(2) of this Schedule applies Section 112 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, to courts held by Metropolitan stipendiary magistrates. The effect of this is that the clerks of those courts, which have hitherto been governed by separate enactments, are enabled to charge the same fees as those charged in magistrates' courts elsewhere. At present the fees charged at the magistrates' courts in the City of London are prescribed under a local Act power. The City have asked that they, too, should be brought into line with the rest of the country so far as magistrates' courts' fees are concerned, and this Amendment achieves that purpose by applying Section 112 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, to magistrates' courts held at either of the Justices' Rooms of the City. There is a consequential Amendment, No. 29, which I will move later. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 36, line 7, leave out ("courts held by metropolitan stipendiary magistrates") and insert ("magistrates' courts held by metropolitan magistrates or held at either of the justice rooms of the City").—(Lord Derwent.)

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

I should like to congratulate the Minister of State, Home Office, on having been rescued by the Lord Chancellor from the judicial obscurity—indeed, expulsion—which was formerly imposed upon the Home Office, in the sense that they were not fit to have anything to do with courts of law. I think the Minister of State, Home Office, is to be congratulated that the Lord Chancellor has evidently repented of the slur which he cast on the Home Office, and is now very grateful at having the assistance, the able assistance, of the Minister of State, Home Office.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment effects verbal amendments of the County Courts Act, 1959, consequential on the provisions of Clause 5(2), which increases from 80 to 90 the number of county court judges and increases from two to three the number of judges who may be assigned to a county court district in Greater London. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 36, line 43, it end insert—

("THE COUNTY COURTS ACT 1959

22A.—(1) In section 4(1) for the word 'eighty' there shall be substituted the word 'ninety'.

(2) In section 4(4) for the words there shall be two judges for a district' there shall be substituted the words for a district wholly or partly situated in Greater London there shall be two or three judges (whichever is specified in the direction) and for any district not so situated there shall be two judges '.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DERWENT

The effect of this Amendment is that any chief clerk—and not just the senior chief clerk—of an Inner London petty sessional division may act as clerk to the betting licensing authority for the division. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 37, line 19, leave out paragraph 26 and insert— ("26. In paragraph 2 of Schedule 1, in paragraph (a) of the definition of 'clerk to the appropriate authority', the reference to the magistrates' court committee shall include a reference to the committee of magistrates.")—(Lord Derwent.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 4 [Transitional Provisions]:

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 38, fine 8, leave out ("North-west London") and insert ("Middlesex")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DERWENT

If I may, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 together, as they both deal with the same point. Under Clause 8, subsection (8), the clerk of the peace for a London commission area is to be, by virtue of his office, clerk of the standing joint committee for that area. These Amendments are drafting Amendments to make it clear that the "caretaker" clerk for a London commission area is to act as clerk of the standing joint committee for the area until the clerk of the peace for the area is appointed—that is, in the interim period. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 38, line 39, after first ("The") insert ("acting")—(Lord Derwent.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DERWENT

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 38, line 41, leave out ("committee is appointed") and insert ("peace is appointed for that area").—(Lord Derwent.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DERWENT

May I speak to Amendments No. 20 and 21 together? They are drafting Amendments and make it clear that the juvenile court panel and the chairman of juvenile courts for the Inner London area act also for the City, as provided by Clause 12(1) of the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 7, after first ("area") insert ("and the City").—(Lord Dement.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DERWENT

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 40, line 7, after second ("area") insert ("and the City").—(Lord Dement.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DERWENT had given Notice of an Amendment to add to paragraph 9: (4) A member of a juvenile court panel for one or more petty sessional divisions of a county adjoining Greater London appointed under arrangements mentioned in paragraph 8 of this Schedule shall hold office until 30th October 1967.

The noble Lord said: I do not intend to move this Amendment at this stage. I will explain why. After considerable research it has been found that October has 31 days. I will move the Amendment in the correct form on the Report stage, as well as another Amendment in a different part of the Bill which also seems to have got October wrong.

LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH

Who found out? Was it the Lord Chancellor or the Home Office?

LORD DERWENT

This is a drafting Amendment necessary because the person appointed to supervise the juvenile courts for the Inner London area and the City will not necessarily be a senior chief clerk but may be a chief clerk. Clause 15(1) says that if more than one chief clerk is appointed to the juvenile courts the committee of magistrates is to designate one of them the senior chief clerk. I beg to move.

Amendment moved — Page 41, line 7, leave out ("senior").—(Lord Derwent.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DERWENT

This is a drafting Amendment to make it clear that paragraph 10(2) of this Schedule which relates to the caretaker clerk for new petty sessional divisions applies not only to the new petty sessional division in Greater London but also those in the fringe counties.

Amendment moved— Page 41, line 17, after ("6") insert ("or 8").—(Lord Derwent.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 5 [Repeals]:

5.24 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

If I may, I will deal with Amendments 25 and 27 together. They are both Amendments making a repeal in the local Acts relating to the parish of Merthyr Tidvil and the borough of Salford, the repeal being a provision no longer necessary because the requirement is now covered in general terms by Clause 28(1) of this Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 48, line 13, at end insert—

("6 & 7 Vict. c. xliv.	An Act to provide for the more effectual execution of the office of a justice of the peace within the parish of Merthyr Tidvil and certain adjoining parishes.	In section 5 the words from 'but such person' to 'qualification'")
	—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DERWENT

The Bill as drafted at present has partial repeal of Section 7 of the Vestries Act, 1850. This Amendment deletes that partial repeal because the Vestries Act is to be repealed by an Order made under Section 84 of the London Government Act, 1963. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 48, leave out lines 18 and 19.—(Lord Derwent.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 48, line 26, at end insert —

(41 & 42 Vict. c. lv.	The Manchester Division and BoroughofSalford (Stipendiary Justices) Act 1878.	Section 7.")
	—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DERWENT

This is a drafting Amendment to give the correct Short Title of the Metropolitan Police Courts (Holidays) Act, 1897. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 52, after ("Metropolitan") insert ("Police").—(Lord Dement.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DERWENT

This is consequential on Amendment 14 to which the Committee has already agreed. I beg to move.

Amendment moved

Page 49, line 33, at end insert—

("1 Edw. 8 & 1. Geo. 6. C. xlv.	The City of London (various Powers) Act 1937.	section 36.")
	—(The Lord Derwent.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DERWENT

This Amendment deletes the repeal of Sections 397 and 398 of the Middlesex County Council Act, 1944. These sections were repealed by the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949. I beg to move.

Amendment moved — Page 49, line 46, column 3, leave out ("Sections 397 and 398").—(Lord Dement.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DERWENT

This is a drafting Amendment to do away with the definition which is replaced by Schedule 3, paragraph 4, on page 32. I beg to move.

Amendment moved —

Page 49, line 49, at end insert —

"11 & 12 Geo. 6. c. 26.	The Local Government Act 1948.	Section 121(9)")
	—(Lord Derwent.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DERWENT

This is quite a simple Amendment, but not so easy to explain. The Amendment repeals subsections (10) and (11) of Section 11 of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1949, which refer to orders made under subsection (9) of Section 11. In other words, subsections (10) and (11) of Section 11 of the Justices of the Peace Act are consequential to subsection (9) which is repealed in the Bill. So this Amendment is consequential to that repeal of subsection (9). I beg to move.

Amendment moved — Page 50, line 7, at end insert ("to (11)").— (Lord Derwent.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DERWENT

This is consequential to Amendment No. 14, to which the Committee has agreed. I beg to move.

Amendment moved — Page 50, line 35, leave out from ("and")to end of line 37 and insert "(9)").—(Lord Derwent.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DERWENT

This Amendment repeals paragraph 19 of Schedule 2 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1963, which interprets existing provisions relating to buildings and land for the Metropolitan stipendiary courts. The repeal is consequential on Clause 17 of this Bill, which supersedes these provisions. I beg to move.

Amendment moved — Page 51, line 44, at end insert ("in Schedule 2, paragraph 19").—(Lord Derwent.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to. Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.