COMMONS AMENDMENTS (Hansard, 12 November 2003)

§ Lord Filkin

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 3 en bloc.

Amendment No. 1 is necessary to clarify the position following an amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, and adopted by the House on Report. It was concerned with ensuring that the Lord Chancellor should not have a discretion to choose to make no provision for accommodation and therefore changed the wording from "may provide" to "shall provide". Although I am chancing my arm, I am hopeful that the noble Baroness is now satisfied that the Government's explanation is adequate in this respect. I shall therefore not speak at great length.

In essence, the Bill makes it clear that the Lord Chancellor is already under the necessary duty which the noble Baroness sought to ensure. The general duty under Clause 1(1) provides that the Lord Chancellor must provide an efficient and effective court system. I am happy to confirm that that must include matters such as accommodation. Clause 3 deals with the Lord Chancellor's powers which derive from this general duty.

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 make minor drafting changes to the amendments that were previously tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, at Third Reading and accepted by this House and by the Government.

Amendment No. 21 makes a drafting change to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and accepted by this House. The Government do not intend, nor have we sought, to overturn that amendment.

I hope that these amendments will set the tone of our debate on our further consideration of the Bill. The Government have genuinely considered and respected the views of the House. I beg to move.

§ Baroness Anelay of St Johns

My Lords, I can indeed confirm that that has set the tone for our consideration of the Amendments to the Lords Amendments to the Bill. On Amendment No. 1, I signal that on this occasion I accept the Government's rejection of my amendment. I accept the Minister's reassurances that the principle which I tried to achieve by the amendment is already satisfactorily incorporated in the Bill's drafting. I also thank him for his courtesy in writing to me when the amendment was introduced in another place, to ensure that I was fully informed of the Government's position. I felt that the further explanation in another place was enough to satisfy me that I would not need to object to the overturning on Amendment No. 1.

On Amendments Nos. 2 and 3, I agree with the Minister that these drafting changes make better clarification of a matter that was won on Division with regard to the coterminosity—a ghastly word, but we all knew at the time what it meant—of the courts boards with the 42 criminal justice areas. I agree that the government drafting today gives a better flexibility, so that they may properly meet all the requirements that the boards will need to meet when those boundaries are so fixed.