§ 5.7 p.m.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER)My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
§ Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ Clause 1 [Appointment of justices, oaths of office, etc]:
§
VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved to add to subsection (2)(a)
;but notwithstanding anything in the charters of the City or in section 10(1) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949 a commission of the peace may be issued for the City as a county of itself, and
§ The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I expect that some of your Lordships were surprised to see so many Amendments tabled in my name for this stage of the Bill. If there be any fears among your Lordships that this means that we are to have as heavy and as bitterly contested a Report stage as we did on the Theft Bill I should like to put those fears at rest immediately. These Amendments have been tabled to give effect to a compromise which, I am delighted to say, has been reached since the Committee stage; a compromise which I understand is as acceptable to the Government as it is to the City. Here I hope that your Lordships will permit me to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the part that he has played in reaching this compromise. I need not remind your Lordships of the occasions when we have had to speak on different sides or of the battles that we have fought in your Lordships' House. In view of the fact that we have had to fight so many battles in the past (and no doubt we shall fight many more in the future) it gives me particular pleasure on this occasion to be able to say that for once we are agreed.
846§ Your Lordships will remember that in Committee we discussed an Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, which sought to preserve the position of the Lord Mayor and aldermen of the City of London in relation to the administration of justice in the City. I think it true to say that if there had been a Division that Amendment would have been carried by a substantial majority. And if that had happened the Amendment would have gone to the House of Commons which had already considered and rejected a similar Amendment. It seemed to me before we had our Committee stage that the chances of another place changing their attitude were slight, and that although we might carry that Amendment in this House, the battle might ultimately be lost and the City would be the losers. That is why I tabled my Amendment in Committee, the Amendment which is now substantially embodied in Clause 1(2).
§ It went a long way to meet the views expressed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It made it possible for the Lord Mayor and aldermen to sit with lay justices. It provided for their being created justices by their ancient Charter. The point, and the only point, on which we parted completely on Committee stage was with regard to the last part of the Amendment I proposed—namely, the provision that the Lord Mayor should be ex officio chairman of the justices and that all the aldermen should be deputy chairmen. The argument put forward was that, if that were so, there would be no opportunity for a lay justice appointed to the City of London, no matter how well qualified or how experienced, ever to preside over a bench. I confess that I thought that there was force in that argument. It seemed to me that it would be most unfortunate if, on that narrow issue, a compromise which had been so nearly reached could not be achieved.
§ After Committee stage I was considering whether steps could be taken to meet that point, which I recognised had force in it, when the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, whose mind perhaps had been working in the same way as mine, in seeking to secure that an amicable solution could be reached, asked me to see him; and it is as a 847 result of our conversations that these Amendments have been tabled.
§ If I may explain their effect quite shortly, it is this. The Lord Mayor and aldermen of the City of London will continue to be ex officio justices of the City of London by virtue of their ancient Charter, a Charter to which, rightly, they attach considerable importance. But their position as justices will differ in no respects, other than those I have mentioned, from the position of ordinary justices. They will be subject to the same age limits and conditions with regard to the supplemental list and matters of that sort. They will sit with lay justices. The Lord Mayor will be ex officio chairman and will preside when he sits. If these Amendments I am about to move are carried, the Bill will provide that the Lord Mayor will continue to be the Chief Magistrate of the City. It is in that capacity that the Lord Mayor goes down to the Law Courts to be sworn in before the Lord Chief Justice.
§ With regard to the aldermen the Amendments provide that the senior aldermen—that is to say, those who have passed the chair—will, ex officio, be deputy chairmen, up to the number of eight. If there are more than eight, the others will not be ex officio deputy chairmen, and those who have most recently passed the chair will be the eight deputy chairmen. They will form about one-third of the total number of deputy chairmen. The others will be elected in the ordinary way. In this way there is ample provision for the election of lay justices to the office of deputy chairman. All those who are not ex officio justices are eligible in this way. I think that this is satisfactory.
§ May I now turn to what the Amendments do to this clause? They create a power to issue a commission of the peace for the City of London as if it were a county. That will enable the appointment of lay justices. It has one further' significance. Making a commission of peace for the county enables the justices, be they lay or ex officio, to attend at the City Quarter Sessions. If it were commission of the peace for a borough, that would not be possible.
§ Most of what I have said is covered by Amendment No. 10 to Schedule 1, but I thought it right to give your Lordships 848 a brief summary of what this compromise achieves, and to commend it to your Lordships. I hope that it will be accepted and speedily passed into the Bill. I do not think that it is necessary for me to say anything more on Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4, and perhaps they can be taken together. I beg to move the first Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 22, at end insert the said words.—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
§ 5.16 p.m.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I agree that all the Amendments which stand in the name of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, can be discussed together. As he made clear, they cover three points: first, whether the Lord Mayor and aldermen of the City of London should be justices ex officio or be appointed by the Advisory Committee secondly, the Lord Mayor's title as a justice, and, thirdly, the question of deputy chairmen.
I have made it plain throughout that in the Government's view anybody appointed to a judicial office should be chosen on his merits and not because he holds some other office. On the other hand, I have always been realistic about this. On the Second Reading of the Bill I said:
I cannot conceive of a state of affairs in which any advisory committee for the City of London would not include among its recommendations for appointment all the aldermen of the City of London."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29/4/68, col. 931.]When the noble and learned Viscount moved his Amendment on Committee stage on this point I said that, while I preferred that they should be appointed on their merits, had this been the only point in the Amendment I would have accepted it. Therefore, I accept it now. The second question is whether the Lord Mayor should be chairman of the justices, with the title of Chief Magistrate. We know that the City are interested in titles and ceremony, and that does no harm at all and there is no reason why I should object to that.Let me now come to the question of deputy chairmen. As the House will remember, the original Amendment would have provided that the Lord Mayor and aldermen had a monopoly of the deputy chairmanships. For two courts, 849 sitting six days a week, one would only allow 75 justices; and, sitting in threes, this means about 25 deputy chairmen. There are 26 aldermen. As I pointed out, it could not be right that an alderman who was selected only yesterday should perform the difficult task of taking the chair if there was another experienced justice who could be deputy chairman. I might also have added that it would have made it impossible for me to get people to be justices in the City, because most, though perhaps not all, hope that if they sit regularly and do well, the day will come, after years, when they will be appointed deputy chairmen, and I could not ask people to sit in the City of London, alone of anywhere in the country, knowing that, however long they sat, and however well they did, they would never become deputy chairman.
It is now suggested that the Lord Mayor and the eight ex-Lord Mayors should be deputy chairmen. I believe that there are just over twenty aldermen who sit, because some of them are too infirm to do so. I am not sure that eight ought not to be six: eight will give them a little more than perhaps their fair proportion. But, in substance, it means that the aldermen will have their fair proportion—and perhaps a bit more—while the other justices will in substance have their proportions. I feel that this is a happy compromise, which I can recommend my noble friends to accept and which I hope will be welcome in all quarters of the House. I was quite sincere when I saw a deputation of the aldermen and told them I was quite sure that they would like sitting with other justices. I am equally sure now that after two or three months the aldermen will say: "What mugs we were to get up that enormous campaign! How much more interesting it is to be able to talk over the cases with people who have had other experience than it was when we used to sit in great grandeur entirely on our own!" I hope that it will so prove.
I should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, who has done so much to achieve this compromise. I am sure that the whole House is grateful to him for it. It is always better to agree things if one can, and, as I have said, the association between the Lord Chancellor and the City of London 850 is, after all, a very long one. As the House knows, my distinguished predecessors have included three Saints and one woman. In particular, if may mention St. Swithin, the allegation that he "mucked about" the weather I indignantly deny; but when hi: was appointed Chancellor in 827 he put a tax on the City of London, and of course they did not like that. So in this long history of association we have at times had our ups and downs. On the whole, however, the relationship between the Chancellor and the City has been cordial, and I hope that this compromise accepted to-day will lead to a long continuation of that cordial relationship.
§ LORD AIREDALEMy Lords, I cannot think that the aldermen will ever think of themselves as having been "mugs" for having got up a campaign, because if they had not done so I feel sure that this happy compromise would never have been worked out.
§ LORD LEATHERLANDMy Lords, in view of the discussion we had yesterday, when it was drawn to the attention of the House that certain noble Lords had made long speeches, I hereby declare on my own behalf that I now introduce the era of shorter speeches. But on the Second Reading of this Bill I did speak at some length, mainly against the propositions that were advanced by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. I think the line that I took on that occasion was that it was not right that the City aldermen should sit alone; it was not right that the City Corporation should have the monopoly of local government administration, should have a monopoly of the administration of justice by monopolising the bench, and should also have a virtual monopoly of the control of the police inside their area. I think that was rather too authoritarian for our liking. But these negotiations that have proceeded between the two sides have, I think, produced a happy solution to what was a very difficult and delicate question.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 23, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 2.—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
851§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 38, leave out from ("is") to ("mayor") in line 39.—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 8, leave out subsection (8).—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 2 [Age for transfer of justice to supplemental list, or for retirement of stipendiary magistrate]:
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORmoved, in subsection (4), to leave out "a petty sessional division of justices" and insert "the justices in a petty sessions area". The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that at the Committee stage of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, moved an Amendment the effect of which was to provide that instead of a chairman being put on the supplemental list on the day on which he reached the age of retirement, he should continue in office until the end of the year. This looked administratively convenient, though it meant that the chairman, on average, will not retire until he reaches retiring age plus six months. It seemed to me that there were some things to be said for this proposal and some against, and I left it to the Committee to decide; and the Committee, as the speeches tended to show, assisted by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, decided that it should be accepted. So I accepted the Amendment.
There are, however, two small technical defects in it, on which I have communicated with the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, and he has been good enough to agree. The first is that the Amendment as put forward by the noble Lord referred to "petty sessional divisions". Of course, that would apply only in the counties, and this Amendment provides instead for the words, "the justices in a petty sessions area". If it is convenient for me to mention the second point at the same time, I would point out that under the Bill, as amended, the chairman's office would come to an end on Decem- 852 ber 31. That would give rise to the difficulty that it would automatically happen at the first moment of December 31, and there would not be a chairman left at all for that particular day. There are, in addition, other technical difficulties. It is to meet them that it is proposed to leave out the date and insert instead:
expiration or sooner determination of the term for which he holds office on that date".That cures those technical defects. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 31, leave out from ("of") and insert ("the justices in a pretty sessions area").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ LORD SWAYTHLINGMy Lords, I did not have the opportunity at the Committee stage to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for accepting the Amendment. Therefore I should like to do so now and to express my gratitude to him for making this Amendment, and the next one to subsection (4) of Clause 2, which I am sure your Lordships will accept.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I have dealt with Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 35, leave out from ("the") to end and insert ("expiration or sooner determination of the term for which he holds office on that date").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 5 [Justices' clerks]:
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORmoved, in subsection (3), to leave out "on questions of law" and insert "about law, practice or procedure on questions". The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment and Amendment No. 8 are two Amendments intended to meet criticisms of the wording of this clause which were first raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, on the Second Reading of the Bill; and we had some further discussion about it on the Committee stage. Unless any Member of your Lordships' House wishes me to deal with the matter in detail, I do not think I need do so. It is a question of wording. My main concern has been to see that whatever wording 853 was put forward received the approval of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and of the Magistrates Clerks' Society. The form of words now proposed has the approval of both. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 12, leave out ("on questions of law") and insert ("about law, practice or procedure on questions").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I have already covered this Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 17, leave out from ("bring") to end of line 18, and insert ("to the attention of the justices or justice any point of law, practice or procedure that is or may be involved in any question so arising; but the enactment of this subsection shall not be taken as defining or in any respect limiting the powers and duties belonging to a justice's clerk or the matters on which justices may obtain assistance from their clerk.").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 7 [Commencement, and power to provide for transitional matters]:
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, this Amendment is simply an Amendment to make it possible to bring in on an appointed day the Schedule which is the subject of Amendment No. 10, as there is power to do in relation to the other Schedules. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 41, after ("1") insert ("Justices of the Peace in the City of London)").—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 5.30 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE rose to move, after Schedule 1, to insert the following new Schedule:
§ Justices of the Peace in the City of London
§ 1. The persons holding office as justice of the peace for the City of London shall constitute a single body of justices, without distinction between those holding office by virtue of the charter and those appointed by the commission of the peace, and the powers and jurisdiction of the Lord Mayor and aldermen as justices by virtue of the charter shall be the same in all respects as those of justices appointed by the commission.
854§ 2.—(1) Subject to paragraph 4 below, the Lord Mayor for the time being shall be chairman of the justices, with the style of Chief Magistrate, instead of a chairman being elected under section 13(2) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949; and the aldermen who have been Lord Mayor and are not disqualified for the office of deputy chairman (or, if there are more than eight such aldermen, tie eight who were last Lord Mayor) shall le deputy chairmen in addition to any deputy chairmen elected under section 13(2).
§ (2) Section 13(3) and (4) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949 shall apply to any Lord Mayor or alderman as chairman or deputy chairman of the justices as they apply to a chairman or deputy chairman elected under section 13(2)
§ 3. Section 4 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949 (which provides for the entry in the supplemental list kept in connection with a commission of the peace of the names of certain persons appointed justices by the commission) shall in the City of London apply to persons holding office by virtue of the charter as it is to apply to those appointed by the commission of the peace; and accordingly paragraph 2(1) above shall no: apply to any Lord Mayor or alderman whose name is entered in the supplemental list.
§ 4. In the event of a Lord Mayor being disqualified for the chairmanship of the justices, then during his mayoralty the senior of the aldermen designated as deputy chairmen in paragraph 2(1) above shall, instead of being a deputy chairman, be chairman of the justices as acting Chief Magistrates; but section 2(4) of this Act shall apply in relation to the Lord Mayor as Chief Magistrate and to am acting Chief Magistrate as it applies to chairmen elected under section 13 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949."
§ The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I have already explained to the House to a considerable extent what this Schedule seeks to effect. I perhaps should reiterate that, apart from the ex officio provisions, the ordinary Law as to supplemental lists, age limits, and so on, will apply to the ex officio justices just as it does to those who are appointed to the commission. There are, however, two points to which I must draw attention, because I shall seek, with your Lordships' agreement, to more this Amendment with slight alterations to the words as printed in the Marshalled List. I think the changes have been agreed.
§
In paragraph 4 of the new Schedule as printed your Lordships will sec that if a Lord Mayor is disqualified for the chairmanship of the justices:
then during his mayoralty the alderman who was last Lord Mayor and is riot so disqualified shall he chairman…as acting Chief Magistrate".
855
That provides for what I should have thought was a very unlikely event, of a Lord Mayor being disqualified by age or infirmity, or for any other reason, from acting as chairman of justices or Chief Magistrate. So it was thought that if that did occur, which was very unlikely, it would be best that the acting Chief Magistrate should be the immediate ex-Lord Mayor. But then it was realised that the custom is, after the Lord Mayor has finished his year of office, to give him six months' leave of absence from performance of his City functions—and I dare say that he has earned it and wants it very badly. It would therefore be very odd to say that you would have as acting Chief Magistrate a man who had in the year following his year of office six months' leave of absence.
§
Therefore, it is proposed, if your Lordships will agree, to provide that, if the Lord Mayor is himself disqualified, then during that period of his office the senior alderman past the Chair, who is ex officio a deputy chairman, and who is not disqualified, should be acting Chief Magistrate. To do that one has to make a very slight Amendment to my proposed new paragraph 4 as printed and I have handed in to the Clerks a manuscript Amendment: that is, in line 2 of the proposed new paragraph 4 as shown on the Marshalled List, to leave out from the second "the" to the end of line 3, and insert:
senior of the aldermen designated as deputy chairmen in paragraph 2(1) above shall, instead of being a deputy chairman,".
I have no doubt your Lordships have found that perfectly easy to follow. The effect will be that paragraph 4, with that change, will therefore read as follows:
In the event of a Lord Mayor being disqualified for the chairmanship of the justices, then during his mayoralty the senior of the aldermen designated as deputy chairman in paragraph 2(1) above shall, instead of being a deputy chairman, be chairman of the justices as acting Chief Magistrate; but section 2(41 of this Act shall apply in relation to the Lord Mayor as Chief Magistrate and to any acting Chief Magistrate as it applies to chairmen elected under section 13 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949.
§ LORD ROWLEYMy Lords, before the noble and learned Viscount continues, is it possible that there might not be a senior alderman past the Chair; and should the Amendment not be even wider 856 than that to bring in a lay deputy chairman?
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEWe thought not, for the actual chairmanship—the acting Chief Magistrate which has a particular provision. This particular provision is ex abundanti cautila, because I think it very unlikely in these days you would ever have a Lord Mayor either disqualified or incapacitated actually acting as a Chief Magistrate. But that amendment means a slight amendment also to paragraph 2(1); namely,
to leave out the words 'and are available for the purpose' and insert in their place not disqualified for the office of deputy chairman'Then we require to leave out the words "each of". That is really in the nature of drafting and consequential. So, if I may, I move the Amendment, No. 10, in the new form.
§
Amendment moved—
After Schedule 1, insert the said new Schedule.—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I have of course seen the changes which the noble and learned Viscount wishes to make in the Amendment as shown in the Marshalled List, and I have agreed them with him. The Question is that the new Schedule, in the form proposed by the noble and learned Viscount, be agreed to.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Schedule 2 [Supplementary Provisions as to City of London and local Act stipendiaries]:
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORIt may be that your Lordships would think it right—it is a matter for the noble and learned Viscount—to take Amendments Nos. 11 to 20 en bloc.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, that suggestion is agreeable to me, and will be also, I think, to the House as a whole. These are all consequential Amendments on the other Amendment—with perhaps the exception of Amendment No. 13, which provides that no order shall be made for the division of the City of London into petty sessional divisions. The reason is this. If an order were made for the City of London to be divided into petty sessional divisions the Chief Magistrate would then be Chief Magistrate of one petty sessional division and 857 not of the City as a whole. That is not what is intended, and so special provision is made so that that cannot happen. Having explained that point, I think that all these Amendments could be put en bloc. I beg to move.
§ Amendments moved—
§ Page 9, line 15, leave out from first ("peace") to ("shall") in line 16 and insert ("holding office as provided by that section")
§ Page 9, line 15, line 19, leave out ("so issued") and insert ("issued for the City")
§ Page 10, line 38, at end insert ("; nor shall paragraph 3 above authorise the making of an order under section 18 of that Act for the division of the City into petty sessional divisions.")
§ Page 11, line 23, leave out from ("when") to ("to") in line 25 and insert ("by virtue of section 1 of this Act persons appointed by a commission of the peace are to take office as justices of the peace for the City.")
§ Page 11, line 27, leave out ("(and no others)")
§ Page 11, line 32, leave out from beginning to ("justices") and insert ("of")
§ Page 11, line 33, leave out ("persons thereby designated as")
§ Page 11, line 39, leave out ("persons") and insert ("justices")
§
Page 11, line 39, leave out lines 44 to 46 and insert—
("10.—(1) At the time from which persons are first appointed justices of the peace for the City by a commission of the peace in accordance with section 1 of this Act,—")
§ Page 11, line 48, leave out ("new").
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ Schedule 4 [Enactments repealed]:
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, I beg to move Amendment 21.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 8, column 3, at end insert ("except in relation to the City of London.")—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, Amendment No. 22 is consequential upon the repeal of Section 45(2)(c) of the Criminal Justice Act 1948. This is to be repealed on the enactment of Clause 1(9), which abolishes the arrangement for appointing stipendiary magistrates under local Acts of Parliament. Section 45(2)(c) of the 1948 Act provides that for the purposes of the Act relating to probation an area which is not a petty 858 sessional division may be designated as such by the Secretary of State. The provision relates only to the area of the jurisdiction of a local Act stipendiary magistrate. Subsection (3) merely empowers the Secretary of State to adjust the administrative arrangements for probation Provided in the Act to accommodate the special circumstances of a local Act stipendiary area. It should therefore also be repealed. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 49, column 3, at end insert ("and (3)")—(The Lord Chancellor.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT DILHORNEMy Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 23, which is consequential.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 25, column 3, after ("(2)(b)") insert ("except in relation to the City of London").—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.