COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 22 July 1986)

§ Lord Cameron of Lochbroom
My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. For the convenience of the House, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 10. I have very much in mind what the noble and learned Lord opposite has just said. This amendment reinstates the subsection deleted in Committee in your Lordships' House, indicating in general terms on the face of the Bill which summary proceedings for persons not in custody will be covered by criminal legal aid and which by assistance by way of representation. Amendment No. 10 is consequential to that reinstatement.
It was thought that this was a much more desirable way of indicating where the point came at which criminal legal aid should be provided in summary criminal proceedings than the dividing line that could only arise by a combination of regulations made under Clause 21(2) and Clause 9, which deals with assistance by way of representation. I beg to move.

The Earl of Selkirk
My Lords, we had some discussion on this. My interpretation is changed substantially by what comes under Amendment No. 12, which defines the matter more closely. I raise no objection to this. It is a very delicate point. But there is the preliminary advice that can be given in any case. I am therefore most happy to thank my noble and learned friend for the amendment.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, while not pretending to understand the reference to until the conclusion of the first diet"— I must say that it conjures up an attractive picture, especially at dinner time—I understand vaguely to what it refers. In so far as I do, I respectfully agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, says.