COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 19 July 1988)

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 2 I should also speak to Amendments Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 27. Your Lordships will remember that during the passage of the Bill through this House I moved a number of amendments to the Bill which were designed to transfer certain care proceedings from Part IV (civil legal aid) to Part VI (care proceedings). That seemed a sensible rationalisation, and your Lordships will remember that I gave the matter quite a lot of consideration.
However, it has since occurred to us that the only way to transfer them back to either civil legal aid or ABWOR without duplication would be by further primary legislation since there is no power to amend the scope of Part VI by regulations. These amendments are designed to give such a power.
The reason it is needed is that it will be necessary to see how the new system works. If it appears in due course that the existing system with its mixture of civil legal aid, ABWOR and special legal aid is better than putting all care proceedings in the special category, then it is obviously prudent to have the power to revert once again to that system. It will also be helpful to have such a power to ease transition to the new system if, for example, we find that the courts are worried about their new workload.
I commend these amendments to your Lordships as giving the necessary flexibility to make this system work properly, and further consideration of the practical problems which might be involved has moved us to suggest this amendment to which the House of Commons has agreed. I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.

§ Lord Elwyn-Jones
My Lords, we are disposed to agree with this; but we are puzzled as to why it should be a one-way power. There is a reference to reserving the necessity of perhaps going back to the initial system, if experience proves that to be necessary. Perhaps I may remind the noble and learned Lord of Lloyd George's famous dictum: It is undesirable to traverse a chasm in two leaps".

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I have a recollection of a gentleman from Killiecrankie who did just that without too much success. The position is that Part VI defines this special category including children's cases. If that stands, we would not be able to take cases out of that category. If, however, we have a power to put cases into the other categories it will give us a flexibility which I do not believe will be restricted in the way suggested by the noble and learned Lord. In the circumstances, I believe that this is the wise way in which to proceed. I commend Amendment No. 2 to your Lordships.