HL Deb 16 December 1996 vol 576 cc1276-88

3.10 p.m.

Read a third time.

Clause 2 [Rule Committee]:

The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 2, line 2, at end insert ("including at least one with particular experience of practice in county courts").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak to Amendment No. 2.

The amendments mirror those tabled by my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner at the previous stage. At that stage I undertook to reconsider the amendments.

As I have stated previously, it is my intention that the lawyer members of the new rule committee should be able to bring with them the broadest possible range of litigation experience. I take the point that it is important to ensure that at least some of the practitioner members on the rule committee have up to date and extensive knowledge of the practice of the county courts. That had always been my intention; my only doubt was whether it needed to be said. On reflection, I am content to adopt the way the point was addressed in the amendments tabled by my noble and learned friend. I beg to move.

Lord Ackner

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for agreeing to move this amendment. It will be a particular pleasure to the Bar Council, which was anxious that this point should be made as so much of the civil work is now dealt with in the county courts, whose jurisdiction is constantly being extended.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 2, line 5, at end insert ("including at least one with particular experience of practice in county courts").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 2, line 17, at end insert— ("( ) The Lord Chancellor may reimburse the members of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee their travelling and out-of-pocket expenses.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment which enables the Lord Chancellor to reimburse rule committee members for their travel and subsistence claims for attending meetings. A similar clause is included in Amendment No. 6 for members of the Civil Justice Council. I think it is clear that this is a reasonable provision to make.

I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 2, line 19, after ("Rules,") insert— ("(a)").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 5.

These amendments arise out of the discussion which focused on the desirability of a new rule committee being a "meeting" committee. It is clear that at the present moment the county court rule committee meets whereas the Supreme Court rule committee does not meet. I believe that the intention of all noble Lords who took part in the discussion was that the new Supreme Court rule committee should follow the model of the county court rule committee. The amendment is designed to secure that that would be the ordinary way in which the rule committee should consider rule changes rather than purely by correspondence.

However, looking at the practice of the county court committee, there are certain occasions when a full meeting of the committee is not necessary, or indeed desirable. For example, there may be minor technical amendments that would not warrant a full meeting. There may be occasions when the committee has all but agreed a rule change but leaves the final drafting to be handled by correspondence. There might also be very urgent rule changes required and it would not be practical to have to convene a full meeting.

The amendments proposed address the balance that is required. The clear message is that the working method of the committee is by meeting. The reservation regarding inexpediency would fall to be construed, if need be, as an objective requirement.

I have considered the possibility of other formulations, but having regard to the advice that I have received and to the way in which the county court rule committee appears to function satisfactorily, with a good balance between meeting and work done on correspondence, this would appear to me to be a reasonable way of expressing the balance of legislation, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 2, line 20, at end insert (", and (b) meet (unless it is inexpedient to do so).").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 6:

After Clause 5, insert the following new clause

CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL

(".—(1) The Lord Chancellor is to establish and maintain an advisory body, to be known as the Civil Justice Council.

(2) The Council must include—

  1. (a) members of the judiciary,
  2. (b) members of the legal professions,
  3. (c) civil servants concerned with the administration of the courts,
  4. (d) persons with experience in and knowledge of consumer affairs,
  5. (e) persons with experience in and knowledge of the lay advice sector, and
  6. (f) persons able to represent the interests of particular kinds of litigants (for example, businesses or employees).

(3) The functions of the Council are to include—

  1. (a) keeping the civil justice system under review,
  2. (b) considering how to make the civil justice system more accessible, fair and efficient,
  3. (c) advising the Lord Chancellor and the judiciary on the development of the civil justice system,
  4. (d) referring proposals for changes in the civil justice system to the Lord Chancellor and the Civil Procedure Rule Committee, and
  5. (e) making proposals for research.

(4) The Lord Chancellor may reimburse the members of the Council their travelling and out-of-pocket expenses.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is brought forward in fulfilment of my undertaking on the last occasion to bring forward a government amendment to establish a Civil Justice Council.

The amendment before your Lordships today attempts to capture both the substance of the amendment as tabled at earlier stages, and also to address other points raised in the very helpful debate that we had on Report. As with the original versions of the draft amendment, I have attempted to preserve the underlying inclusive nature of the council in relation to its participants and its functions. I think it right that the council should be able to develop with some flexibility. Therefore, adopting the line taken in the original amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Hacking and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and others, I feel that this amendment retains a considerable degree of flexibility.

There are some points which require consideration. First, I have added an express provision which will emphasise the advisory nature of the council. Many of the individual functions contained in subsection (3) paragraphs (a) to (e) are different expressions of the ways in which the council as an advisory body will promote the aims of the civil justice system. Secondly, I have also thought it might be helpful to link the functions of the council to the overall aim in similar terms to those contained in the purpose clause. This is now reflected in subsection (3)(b) of the new clause.

Your Lordships will also see that the clause provides that the duty of establishing and maintaining the council falls to the Lord Chancellor. I can see that we do not want an elaborate regime for appointments to the council. But it seems right that the Lord Chancellor should have the responsibility of taking forward the task of establishing the council.

I have also made a provision similar to that for the rule committee which would enable payment to be made to members of the council for travelling and other expenses. I feel it is appropriate that that should be done. Also, following our discussions on Report regarding the assistance which the council might provide to members of the senior judiciary other than just the head of Civil Justice, I have broadened that category to include advising all the judiciary, including the Lord Chancellor, on future developments.

The final point of detail to which I would draw attention is that, as regards the main participants on the council I have added reference to those representing the interests of particular kinds of litigants. I have in mind that there may be those, for example, in business for whom the efficiency of the operation of the civil courts is a vital consideration. I beg to move.

Lord Ackner moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 6, Amendment No. 7:

Line 14, at end insert ("and in particular monitoring the impact of proposed changes.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for tabling his amendments following his acceptance in principle of Amendment No. 2 moved on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in regard to setting up the council.

I think that my amendments can with confidence be described as exceedingly modest. They are designed to do merely one thing; namely, to emphasise the stature of this council. Before I justify very shortly each of the amendments, I remind your Lordships first that my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf, who is not here but who has written to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, myself and others supporting my amendments, said on Second Reading that the council was a central plank to his recommendations. Perhaps I may also put on record again the short excerpt from a speech he gave recently at the memorial lecture for Mr. Sargant, which was devoted almost entirely to the council and was in these terms: When I set out on the inquiry which resulted in the report, I was very conscious that since 1885 there had already been over 60 reports, each urging reform of the civil justice system, yet the situation on which I had to report was one which many commentators described as being in crisis. Why should this be so? It is not because of any callous disregard of their responsibilities by those in charge of the system; it is my belief part of the cause is the absence of a broadly based body which has the clear responsibility of monitoring the justice system as a whole and identifying the areas which are in need of reform".

He was referring to the council. Before turning to the amendments I refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said in the debate on Report. He said: I agree with the criticism offered by the noble and learned Lord. Lord Ackner. in Committee of the proposition that what is required is no more than a consultative body or machinery. What is necessary is to have a high-powered body representative of all the relevant interests which monitors the effectiveness of the new rules in practice and measures their success against the objectives which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, defined in his two reports and which have commanded general acceptance-.—[Official Report, 9/12/96; col. 875.]

Turning to the specific amendments, Amendment No. 7 does no more than stress what is the essential function of the council; that is, to monitor the impact of the proposed changes. Hence, those words are added to proposed subsection (3)(a). Amendment No. 8 provides that the proposals for research should be capable of being initiated by the council and I have returned to the words of the amendment agreed by your Lordships in principle on Report, taking out the word "making" and replacing it by "commissioning". It therefore reads, "commissioning proposals for research", which was the original proposal. That emphasises that this is not purely a consultative body.

Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 should be taken together. They deal with the question of payment. The provision, as it stands, reads: The Lord Chancellor may reimburse the members of the Council their travelling and out-of-pocket expenses".

That is an indication of Treasury parsimony on the very face of the Bill. It downgrades the stature of the committee. I have looked up the many pages devoted in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 to the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Standards, a committee charged with far less responsibility than this committee. It has made reports from time to time, the majority of which have not found support from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor.

The function of the new council is to make sure that the root and branch alterations proposed by my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf, and accepted in principle by everybody, go through properly. In place of the limitation to making payment of out-of-pocket and travelling expenses, I have inserted: Such remuneration and such travelling and other allowances as he [the Lord Chancellor] may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine".

It provides a discretion to my noble and learned friend and he has to obtain the concurrence of the Treasury. It imposes no obligation at all except the need to consider the merits of any specific expense. Those are the words which adorn the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee under the Act to which I have just referred. That Act and the schedules go into detail with pensions, compensation and other matters. The amendment merely gives a wider discretion to the Lord Chancellor than he proposed.

Finally, we have the addition in Amendment No. 11 that,

"The Council shall submit to the Lord Chancellor an annual report on the discharge of its functions',

and,

"The Lord Chancellor shall lay the Council's annual report before each House of Parliament".

Again, that is one of the obligations of the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee to which I have just referred. It is only right that, with the obligation cast upon this committee to monitor, the public should see what are the results of that monitoring; what is going right and what is going wrong. All I seek to do, therefore, is to enhance the stature of the committee and make sure that it performs the vital task which my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf suggested it must be there to do. I beg to move.

Lord Thomas of Gresford

My Lords, I briefly "croak" my support for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in these amendments. When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was speaking in the earlier parts of the Bill, he said that he would keep an open mind with regard to the civil justice council. It is with pleasure that we on these Benches note that he has kept an open mind and has given the council a statutory form. Nevertheless, the three matters referred to in the amendments are of importance.

It is of vital importance that the reforms put in place by the Bill are properly monitored and not simply reviewed; that is to say, that those members of the civil justice council who come from various parts representing various interests should be able to express what is happening on the ground as the reforms are put into place and the new rules come into effect so that any review of those rules can be informed and cogently commented upon.

The later amendments deal with remuneration. It may well be that, in relation to the first three categories of membership of the council—that is, the judiciary, members of the legal profession and civil servants from the Lord Chancellor's Department—service upon the council may be seen to be a legitimate form of career development. But that cannot be said for the other three categories who represent consumer interests and so forth. They are people who would be giving of their time without any possibility that their careers may be affected one way or the other. Such people should be properly remunerated for the job which they undertake.

Finally, with regard to the third aspect of the matter, the annual report, it is right that Parliament should be kept informed of the effectiveness of the Civil Justice Council. One would not wish it to become simply a body talking to itself. If it is to be effective, it must not only carry out its functions but make sure that that work is fully understood and accepted by Parliament. Therefore, I support the amendments.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Hacking

My Lords, in supporting my noble and learned friend in moving Amendment No. 6, I desire to make two observations. At Report I spoke of how flattered I was that the noble Lord who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench adopted in its entirety the amendment that I had tabled in Committee. That flattery goes further, because the noble and learned Lord has picked up not only the principle but the functions of my amendment and has tabled and now moved it in your Lordships' House.

My second observation goes to the quality of the noble and learned Lord's amendment. Over the years I have moved many amendments in your Lordships' House. If I may lay modesty aside, I have learnt to draft with precision, simplicity and clarity. But it has never been my experience that the text in that regard of my amendments has actually been improved by Her Majesty's Government when they have on the rare occasion accepted my amendments in principle. So often the clear has become obscure and the simple complex. It was therefore with delight that I read the amendment tabled by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. It was not only precise, simple and clear, but in terms of looking at the whole scope of the function of the proposed Civil Justice Council, he has taken matters a great deal further forward.

That does not mean to say that there is not some room for improvement. I am attracted by Amendment No. 8 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I am attracted, too, by Amendment No. 11. I am not sure whether it is necessary to go to Amendment No. 12. However, if it is necessary to do so, I shall certainly support that. I observe that Amendment No. 7 rather clutters the text. I know the original source of that amendment. It comes from the amendment I tabled in Committee! But it seems to me that the wording of the main draft of my noble and learned friend, keeping the civil justice system under review", is sufficient to cover monitoring as well.

I do not desire to make any observations about the Treasury issues—my noble friend Lord Renton will make some observations about those—which come out in Amendments Nos. 9 and 10.

Lord Renton

My Lords, I welcome the amendment of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor but there are one or two points in it that do not need to be included. Paragraph (d) refers to, persons with experience in and knowledge of consumer affairs". I wonder why. Litigants are not consumers. Litigants are in any event referred to in paragraph (f) in very wise terms:

persons able to represent the interests of particular kinds of litigants (for example, businesses or employees)". I should have thought that that makes paragraph (d) quite unnecessary.

I am a little puzzled by the expression in paragraph (e) about the lay advice sector. If my noble and learned friend could explain what that is, it would enlighten me at any rate, although it may be that other noble Lords understand it.

I come now to subsection (3)(e) on research, about which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, had a good deal to say. I do not agree with him on Amendment No. 8. I prefer the way that the Lord Chancellor has put it: making proposals for research". That does not mean to say that the new body will itself have to carry out the research or commission it. It means that it will be able to make proposals to the Lord Chancellor for the carrying out of research. If I may say so with respect, that is the better way to do it.

Perhaps I may briefly refer to Amendments Nos. 7 to 12. I agree with Amendments Nos. 7, 9, 11 and 12. I have already mentioned that I do not agree with Amendment No. 8 and hope that it will be withdrawn. I do not think Amendment No. 10 is necessary. The Lord Chancellor has drafted his amendment in a short and simple way. It says: The Lord Chancellor may reimburse the members of the Council their travelling and out-of-pocket expenses". I do not think we need more than that. I do not think we need to drag into this the consent of the Treasury. We often drag the Treasury into giving consent to expenditure, for which in any event Ministers answerable to Parliament are responsible. I do not think it is necessary to drag in the Treasury.

Lord Ackner

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, with regard to his comment in relation to subsection (4) of the amendment and my proposed Amendment No. 10, does he appreciate that the amendment of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor only gives power to reimburse travelling and out-of-pocket expenses whereas my proposal is not the same? It is a trifle more ambitious because it refers to "remuneration" as well as "travelling and other allowances"?

Lord Renton

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for pointing out an omission on my part. However, it was at the back of my mind that if they received their travelling and out-of-pocket expenses that was all that needed to be paid to them.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, at the moment we are primarily discussing Amendment No. 7. In my submission the phrase that we use, keeping the civil justice system under review", is perfectly adequate to deal with any form of monitoring that the council thinks fit to engage in. There is an ambiguity at the very least in Amendment No. 7 in that it refers to, monitoring the impact of proposed changes". I think I gathered the sense of what my noble and learned friend was speaking of as monitoring the impact of the changes presently proposed. But as a statutory provision this will go on for a long time in the future and it is not quite correct to talk about monitoring the impact of proposed changes in that kind of way because the changes would need to be adopted and put into effect before their impact could be monitored.

I turn now to Amendment No. 8. I do not know that there is much difference between "commissioning" proposals for research and "making" such proposals. I believe that the word "making" is probably the most direct and effective. Therefore, I prefer my own draft on that matter. As regards Amendments Nos. 9 and 10, my view is the same as that of my noble friend Lord Renton; namely, that this is not the sort of council in which it is right to have a provision for remuneration. If there is money available for the civil justice system, on the whole I would prefer it to be used in advancing the system itself rather than in examining it.

On Amendments Nos. 11 and 12, I explained on the last occasion that I understood that the Vice-Chancellor intends to submit an annual report. It has become quite customary now for courts to do that. It is certainly perfectly easy for him to incorporate into the report an account of the work of the civil justice council, which would be part of the total arrangement for the monitoring of civil justice. Accordingly, as far as I am concerned at the present stage and in the light of the arguments that we have heard so far, I would prefer my own Amendment No. 6 unamended by Amendments Nos. 7 to 12. Of course, the Bill will now go to another place, but as far as I am concerned that is the way that I believe the argument has taken us so far.

Lord Renton

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, will he be so kind as to deal with the point I mentioned about consumer affairs? If he agrees with me, an amendment can be moved in another place.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I was really concentrating on the fact that at the moment we are dealing with Amendment No. 7. I come to the question that my noble friend asked. It is true that not all litigants are consumers. I was thinking of those who have a general interest in, and responsibility for, matters connected with consumers who as a body are regularly in the court dealing with what is referred to very often as a "consumer contract". That is a body of opinion of very considerable value in relation to the civil justice system.

My noble friend also asked about the lay advice sector. By that I mean the sector which provides advice not necessarily by qualified lawyers. I have in mind specifically the citizens advice bureaux. My noble friend may recollect that having received the report of Lord Justice Otton on litigants in person, one of the suggestions was that I should make some grant to the citizens advice bureaux in the Royal Courts of Justice. It is right to say that the lay advice sector is important in relation to litigants in person who are quite an important part of the total system. In a sense, each litigant is on his or her own. It is not easy to get a body that represents litigants as a whole. Therefore, we have tried to break it up in this way under the three heads to which I have referred.

Lord Ackner

My Lords, before my noble and learned friend sits down can he help me as regards my amendment proposing that he should have discretion to pay remuneration and the obligation on the council to make an annual report? Both that discretion and that obligation are imposed in relation to the Lord Chancellor's advisory committee on education and standards. Can he tell us why there should be this marked difference between the two, particularly when one bears in mind that what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, proposed, as a result of a two-year study, is accepted to be a root and branch amendment to the civil justice system and therefore involves matters of complexity and importance, certainly as great as advising on education and standards, if not more so?

3.45 p.m.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, it depends to some extent on the nature of the arrangements. As regards this council, I would expect it to be represented in its membership primarily by those with positions in the civil justice system already in the various parts of it referred to in subsection (2)(a) to (f) of the new clause. As my noble and learned friend Lord Woolf indicated on the last occasion he spoke here, he did not expect the number of meetings to be too many. He did not regard it as something that would be very costly from the point of view of resources.

This is dealing with a system in which there are existing, as my noble friend Lord Renton said previously, a number of people with responsibilities already directly on them. Of course, the Lord Chancellor is directly responsible to Parliament in relation to the civil justice system. As I said, at this stage I am not anxious to impose on this council any more in the way of obligations than is necessary to set up the council properly. If the council wishes, and thinks it helpful to submit a report to the public through the Lord Chancellor, there is absolutely nothing to prevent it from doing so. I did explain that the head of the civil justice system intends to make an annual report of that character. The Master of the Rolls also now makes an annual report. As far as I know there is no statutory obligation for him to do so. As regards remuneration, the point that I made a moment ago is the principal one I have to make in that connection.

Lord Irvine of Lairg

My Lords, because I am also croaking, I have kept my counsel until I had the advantage of hearing the debate, in particular on Amendments Nos. 7 to 12 in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. We have been advocating throughout the whole progress of this Bill the establishment of a civil justice council. We therefore welcome Amendment No. 6 in the name of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, which closely corresponds to the amendment I moved at Report stage. I am happy, of course, to concede primary authorship for that amendment to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. Dealing in detail with Amendments Nos. 7 to 12, I agree with the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that the provision that the functions of the council are to include keeping the civil justice system under review would comprehend monitoring the implementation of the proposals in practice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. I agree that the words "proposed changes" are not the happiest.

As regards substituting the word "commissioning" for "making" in proposals for research—namely, Amendment No. 8—I shall be interested to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, clarify what is comprehended by "commissioning". I would understand "making" proposals for research to mean that the new civil justice council will make proposals to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. It appears to me that "commissioning"—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, will confirm or no—would involve the council being entitled itself to commission and therefore to be obliged to pay for research of whatever kind and whatever extent. I certainly do not believe that that can be supported.

As regards remuneration, as I understand it, what is contemplated by the civil justice council is not paid employment for those persons who serve on the council. I would not have thought that an obligation to provide remuneration as distinct from the reimbursement of expenses was necessary in order to have an effective council.

I am, however, rather persuaded that Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 should be considered further. It may be that if the noble and learned Lord reflects further on this matter—and perhaps in relation to the other place—these amendments may be conceded. It is rather odd to have a statutory body such as this council that has no obligation to report to the Lord Chancellor or to either House of Parliament, which has set it up, exactly what it is doing. I was impressed by the short argument of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that it should not be a body that talks to itself but a body whose discussions are known about. That can be done only through a report. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack says that the head of civil justice will presumably in ordinary course be reporting upon its activities. One must bear in mind that the head of civil justice is not underpinned by statute at all. He was created by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—his choice was that of the present Vice-Chancellor, Sir Richard Scott—following the recommendation in the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, that a head of civil justice be created. However, the head of civil justice is not a position that is underpinned by statute. Therefore, he is under no obligation to report. The Civil Justice Council is a statutory body. It would be odd if that did not have an obligation to report whereas the head of civil justice, a post not created by statute, could be expected to report on the transaction of his functions and also the transaction of its functions by the statutory body. I urge the noble and learned Lord to reconsider his response to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. Apart from that, I have made my observations in relation to Amendments Nos. 7 to 10 inclusive.

Lord Ackner

My Lords, with regard to Amendment No. 7 monitoring is involved in the general obligation to keep the matter under review. That is recognised by my phraseology "and in particular". It merely emphasises one particular feature of the monitoring. I do not mind if it is not there. If it is thought that that emphasis is unnecessary I shall press it no further.

The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, invites me to explain why I have inserted "commissioning". That is an unusual request, because the phrase "to commission research into the proposed changes in the justice system" reflects the very wording of the amendment that he moved so successfully on the last occasion. I would have thought that he would have known more about it than I do. On the assumption that he does not, I assist him in the following way. I want the council to be in a position to take the initiative. It is not there just to make advisory noises that can be ignored. It should be capable of standing up and doing something. That was my understanding of why the noble Lord inserted it last time, and it was on that basis that I supported his proposal.

There seems to be absolutely no reason why a similar committee that performs a less important task but is also a Lord Chancellor's advisory committee should receive remuneration but this one will not. It may be that when the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee was set up it was looked upon with greater favour by the Treasury than this one is likely to be.

I come to the question of the annual report. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has admitted what is well established. There is no statutory obligation on either the head of civil justice or the head of any division to make an annual report. The Chief Justice does not do so. I believe that the practice was begun by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson when he was Master of the Rolls. It is entirely for them to decide whether they believe that to be helpful. Certainly, if the Vice-Chancellor were to make a report I would not expect him to do so on behalf of inter alios the members of the council.

I give your Lordships an example of why it is so important that they make an annual report. Suppose, as I have rather pessimistically assumed, that there are problems in obtaining resources and the council reports to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that there are too few judges, that judges are not properly trained and that the new system is breaking down. Suppose that it receives no satisfactory response. I interpolate that no very satisfactory response was obtained by former Lord Chief Justices when they asked for more High Court judges three or four years ago. The council should be in a position to say in an annual report that it has reported a number of serious matters and pointed out what is needed but has got nowhere. That should come before Parliament, where effective pressure can be brought to bear. If the council has no statutory obligation to say that it is difficult to see how the matter will come before Parliament, except perhaps by a Starred Question. That is essentially the reason why this matter is so important. I, too, urge the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to give further consideration to the matter. His own advisory committee on legal education and standards has that obligation. Why not this body? I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is prepared to assist before I sit down.

The Lord Chancellor

My Lords, I have already spoken to this matter. However, since I have received such a generous invitation, with your Lordships' leave perhaps I may speak again. I made it plain from the outset of the Bill that I would listen to all that was said without necessarily arriving at a final conclusion on everything the first time it was mentioned. I see the force of Amendments Nos. 11 and 12, I believe that they require further consideration. I am anxious not to create an unnecessary obstacle to the use of available resources for the civil justice system itself rather than a body that is responsible for monitoring it. On the whole, the chances are that the money will be better used if it is devoted to the system itself rather than to a monitoring system. I am certainly willing to consider these matters further, but at the present time I am not in a position to accept these amendments.

Lord Ackner

My Lords, in view of the willingness of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to consider this matter further, and perhaps urge that action be taken in another place at least in regard to the question of submitting annual reports and Parliament's opportunity to see them, I shall not ask the House to divide on any of these amendments.

Amendment No. 7, as an amendment to Amendment No. 6, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 8 to 12, as amendments to Amendment No. 6, not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 6 agreed to.

An amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.