HL Deb 27 June 1975 vol 361 cc1797-802

3.32 p.m.

Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Darling of Hillsborough.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The Lord MAYBRAY-KING in the Chair.]

Clause 1 [Costs or expenses recoverable by litigants in person]:

The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones) moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 12, leave out (" to proceedings in a county court and ")

The noble and learned Lord said: It may be convenient for the Committee to consider along with this Amendment, Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. The effect of these Amendments is to extend the provisions of the Bill to the Lands Tribunal in England and Wales and the Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland, and to give power to the Lord Chancellor to extend the Bill by order to any other court or tribunal. I undertook on Second Reading to consider a suggestion by my noble friend Lord Darling of Hillsborough, the author and promoter of the Bill, that it should be extended to the Lands Tribunal, and I am now satisfied that it is now right and proper to do that. In its specialised field, the Lands Tribunal deals with a wide range of cases, the weight of which may well be equivalent to matters dealt with not only in county courts but also the High Court. It is a tribunal in which legal aid is available, but cases of substance are often conducted on one side or the other by litigants in person.

The Lands Tribunal has power under its rules to direct that the costs of a party to any proceedings shall be paid by another party, and the Tribunal may settle the amount of the costs by fixing a lump sum or ordering them to be taxed on one of the county courts scales or the High Court scale. It therefore seems appropriate that a litigant in person should be able to recover costs in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. It is possible that in future new courts or tribunals may be created to which it would be desirable to extend the provisions of this Bill. Similarly, changes may be made in the Constitution or method of working of existing courts or tribunals, which might be thought to qualify them also for inclusion. Clearly, the court or tribunal would have to have powers to award costs before the Bill could be extended to it. The draft Amendments cater for this situation by giving the Lord Chancellor power by order to extend the Bill to any other court or tribunal so that each case may be considered on its merits.

On the face of it, the Amendments look highly complicated, but I am happy to say that when they have been translated into the terms of the clause, they at quite happily into a tolerable picture. I beg to move.

Lord ELTON

I do not wish to delay the proceedings of the Committee, which are now rapidly accelerating—and which we all welcome—except to say that we approve of the principles of this Bill. Their extension seems a logical step to follow and I entirely endorse the noble and learned Lord's description of the way they fit into the clause.

Lord DARLING of HILLSBOROUGH

This first group of Amendments are the substance of the Amendments which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is moving to extend the provisions of the Bill, first, specifically to lands tribunals and then by order to other tribunals, as need arises. I am sure the Amendments will be warmly welcomed by the sponsors and supporters of the Bill in both Houses, and will be approved by your Lordships today. I merely wish to say that we are extremely grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for the Amendments he has moved.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

I beg to move Amendment No. 2.

Amendment moved—

Page 1, line 13, after (" proceedings") insert— (" (a) in a county court ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

I beg to move Amendment No. 3.

Amendment moved—

Page 1, line 14, at end insert— (" (b) before the Lands Tribunal or the Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland, or (c) in or before any other court or tribunal specified in an order made under this subsection by the Lord Chancellor.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 4: Page 1, line 23, after (" proceedings ") insert— (" (a)")

The noble and learned Lord said: It may be convenient if I ask the Committee to consider this Amendment together with Amendment No. 5 and the first part of Amendment No. 6, which adds two new paragraphs, (b) and (c), to Clause 1(2). The purpose of these Amendments is to extend the Bill to the Scottish Land Court and the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, and also to give the Lord Advocate power to extend the Bill by order to any other court or tribunal in Scotland. One is always apprehensive about embarking on the territory of Scotland, but I have full authority for saying that these Amendments will be well received North of the Border—and I am very comforted to receive support from my noble friend who hails from those parts. The Scottish Land Court, which is an institution peculiar to Scotland, as indeed its description indicates, is primarily concerned with disputes between landlords and crofters under the Crofters (Scotland) Acts of 1955 and 1961. It also deals with disputes between landlords and agricultural tenants other than crofters under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts.

It is very similar in both its procedure and its organisation to the Lands Tribunal for Scotland. The court has power to award costs and it is designed to enable crofters and tenants to defend their interests without necessarily being legally represented. It is appropriate therefore that where a party in person wins his case, he should be in a similar position as regards costs to a party before the sheriff court or the Court of Session. The Lands Tribunal for Scotland has similar jurisdiction to the Lands Tribunal for England and Wales and should be brought within the Bill for the same reason. It is clearly desirable also that there should be power to extend the Bill to other courts or tribunals in Scotland, although the order for this purpose would of course be made by the Lord Advocate. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

I beg to move Amendment No. 5.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 23, at end insert (" the Scottish Land Court ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 1, line 25, at end insert— (" (b) before the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, or (c) in or before any other court or tribunal specified in an order made under this subsection by the Lord Advocate.

(2A) An order under subsection (1) or (2) above shall be made by statutory instrument and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(2B) In this section "rules of court "—

  1. (a) in relation to the Lands Tribunal or the Lands Tribunal for Scotland, means rules made under section 3 of the Lands Tribunal Act 1949,
  2. (b) in relation to the Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland, means rules made under section 9 of the Lands Tribunal and Compensation Act (Northern Ireland) 1964, and
  3. (c) in relation to any other tribunal specified in an order made under subsections (1) or (2) above, shall have the meaning given by the order as respects that tribunal.").

The noble and learned Lord said: I have already explained the effect of the first part of this Amendment when dealing with Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. The Amendment also inserts in Clause 1 new subsections (2A) and (2B) to provide for any order made by the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Advocate extending the provisions of the Bill to be subject to anulment by a Resolution of either House of Parliament, and to assign the appropriate meaning to the term "rules of court" in relation to the Lands Tribunals and any other tribunals specified in an order extending the Bill.

In the case of a newly created court or tribunal, there will be an opportunity for a full debate on its constitution when the Bill establishing it is before Parliament. In the case of an existing court or tribunal to which the Bill is extended, there will have been full consultation with all interested parties before the order is made. Therefore, it is thought that the Negative Resolution procedure would be sufficient in the circumstances, and it is not necessary to provide for an order extending the Bill to require an Affirmative Resolution.

The term "rules of court" needs no further explanation in the Bill in its application to courts as such. But the Lands Tribunal is not a court and it is necessary to provide for the meaning of "rules of court" in relation to that Tribunal or any other tribunal to which the Bill may be extended. This is done by providing that in the case of the Lands Tribunal it means rules made under Section 3 of the Lands Tribunal Act 1949 or the corresponding Northern Ireland Act, and in the case of any other tribunal it has the meaning given to it by the order extending the Bill to that tribunal. So a litigant in person entitled under subsections (1) and (2) to his costs and expenses subject to rules of court would in the case of the tribunal be subject to provisions made by the designated rule-making authority. I beg to move.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

House adjourned at fourteen minutes before four o'clock.