COMMONS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 14 July 1999)

§ Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 116. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 117 to 122, 198, 202, 208, 232, 233 and 234. Amendments Nos. 116 to 121 inclusive introduce some drafting improvements to the existing Clause 67. Clause 67 describes the role of justices' chief executives, their responsibility for making arrangements for the efficient and effective administration of magistrates' courts and their powers to delegate duties to the staff. Amendment No. 122 provides definitions to facilitate the construction of the amendments made by Schedule 10. Amendment No. 198 introduces a 483 replacement Schedule 10. It lists the many provisions that require amendment in order to transfer responsibility for administrative functions from justices' clerks to justices' chief executives. Amendment No. 208 makes a consequential change to Schedule 11. Amendments Nos. 232 to 234 are related repeals.

§ Lord Goodhart
My Lords, Amendment No. 198 which inserts the new Schedule 10 is 31 pages long. It appears to have been necessary because the parliamentary draftsman discovered no less than 36 new Acts since the Bill was last before your Lordships' House containing references to justices' clerks which needed to be changed to justices' chief executives. Since this is simply a change in the name of the holder of the office, is it not possible to have a single amendment that provides that all references to justices' clerks should be treated as references to justices' chief executives? That may be sloppy drafting. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, would be violently opposed to it. However, I wonder whether it would save a good deal of paper.

§ Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, I wonder whether it would do so. I do not know. However, we are where we are and it is 10 to 12 at night. I believe that we should proceed as it is.