ASSISTANCE IN CONNECTION WITH OTHER APPOINTMENTS

HL Deb 14 December 2004 vol 667 cc1305-17

(1) The commission must provide any assistance requested by the Minister under this section.

(2) The Minister may request assistance for the making by him or by another Minister of the Crown of an appointment or recommendation for appointment, other than one to which section 17 or a provision of this Part applies.

(3) The Minister may only request assistance under this section if it appears to him appropriate because of the commission's other functions under this Part and the nature of the appointment concerned.

(4) Without limiting the assistance that may be requested, it may include—

1. (a) determining a selection process;
2. (b) applying a selection process;
3. (c) selecting a person;
4. (d) selecting a short list;
5. (e) advice on any of those matters.

(5) Before making a request the Minister must consult—

1. (a) the Lord Chief Justice, and
2. (b) the commission.

(6) In this section "appointment" includes the conferring of any public function.

(7) In this Part references to selection under this Part include references to selection by the commission pursuant to a request under this section (and references to a person selected under this Part are to be read accordingly)."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment will provide a statutory basis for involving the Judicial Appointments Commission in the selection of candidates for appointment to judicial posts not otherwise catered for in the Bill. The Lord Chancellor's current role in judicial appointments in England and Wales means that he is often involved, to a greater or lesser extent, in advising on similar appointments elsewhere. For example, he advises the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on whom Her Majesty's Government should recommend for appointment to the European Court of Justice or the European Court of Human Rights.

It is clear that the commission should not be responsible per se for appointments to international courts because those are not appointments in England and Wales, and in many cases the appointment does not formally lie within the gift of the UK Government. On the other hand, the commission will in due course be the country's expert in judicial appointments. The expertise in detailed selection processes currently held by the Lord Chancellor and his staff will diminish over time. So it should be open to the Secretary of State to use the commission's expertise on an ad hoc basis when he wishes to do so, including appointments to international courts. However, we do not believe that he should be obliged to involve the commission. That is because what he is asked to do in relation to any particular post varies very widely.

The amendments enable the Lord Chancellor, after consulting the Lord Chief Justice, either to require the commission to select someone to be appointed or nominated for posts not listed in the relevant schedule to the Bill or to advise him on the selection of such a person. The power is drafted widely in order to avoid questions about what does or does not constitute a judicial post. The final part of the amendment extends the ombudsman's remit to complaints about how the commission has conducted a selection under the provision. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 84 [Consultation on appointment of lay justices]:

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 167:

Page 34, line 21, leave out "Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs" and insert "Lord Chancellor"

The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move.

Lord Henley

My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor tell us on which group we spoke to Amendment No. 167? I have it grouped separately.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, it was the group spoken to on the previous occasion. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Henley, recalls that we went through all of the changes in one group—I think that it was group 15—in order to change references to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs to Lord Chancellor. I am sorry that I cannot give the exact reference but the noble Lord, Lord Henley, did well in ensuring that I was awake.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor but it would help if he told us with which group he spoke to the relevant amendment when he next intervenes.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 85 [Confidentiality]:

[Amendment No. 168 not moved.]

Clause 87 [Disciplinary powers]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 168A:

Page 36, line 8, leave out "from office the holder of" and insert "a person from"

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these amendments are mainly drafting and technical amendments designed to improve Clauses 87 to 90 of the Bill, which deal with judicial disciplinary matters. They follow discussion of the detail of these provisions with Lady Justice Arden and the other members of the judges working group on the Bill.

I should highlight to your Lordships that there remain some amendments relating to judicial discipline which the Government will seek to bring forward at a later stage. In particular we wish to clarify that, in relation to Scottish or Northern Irish members of UK-wide tribunals, disciplinary powers will continue to be exercised by the Lord President of the Court of Session or the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, as appropriate, with the agreement of the Lord Chancellor, rather than by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales.

Of the amendments moved today, I should like to draw attention in particular to Amendment No. 168U which permits the Lord Chancellor, with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice, to designate offices whose holders will be subject to the disciplinary provisions of the Bill although they are not offices listed in Schedule 12 and not senior judges. The offices must be ones from which the Minister has the power to remove. The amendment is designed to allow office holders such as coroners to be brought fully within the disciplinary regime.

Most of the other amendments in this group—Amendments Nos. 168A to 168L, 168N and 168P—delete various references to "judicial office holder" in Clauses 87 and 88 and replace them with "person". Amendment No. 168R makes a consequential change to the definition of judicial office holder, which is turned into a definition of judicial office. It is still clear from the overall drafting of the provisions that the persons concerned are judicial office holders. However, this change allows for the fact that an office holder may hold more than one appointment, and I hat sanctions applied to him in relation to one office may not automatically apply to others.

Amendment No. 168N1 corrects a mistake, which was referred to in Committee, in the definition of criminal proceedings in Clause 88. This governs when the Lord Chief Justice may suspend a judge who is subject to criminal proceedings. As currently drafted, this includes only proceedings on indictment from committal until the conclusion of the case. This excludes offences in Scotland and offences tried summarily. The amendment will mean that a judicial office holder in England and Wales who is subject to any criminal proceedings throughout the United Kingdom, including summary offences, may be suspended by the Lord Chief Justice if he thinks it appropriate and if the Lord Chancellor agrees.

Amendment No. 168Q clarifies the definition of when a senior judge is subject to proceedings for an Address in Parliament. The existing clause would mean that a senior judge was no longer subject to an Address if it were amended in any way at all. The amendment clarifies that a senior judge will remain subject to an Address unless it is amended in a way which means that it is no longer an Address for the removal of that person from office; or unless it is withdrawn, lapses or is disagreed to.

Amendments Nos. 168S and 168T remove unnecessary references to the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice in Clauses 89(1) and 90(2)(a). First, that avoids giving the misleading impression that the Lord Chancellor and Lord Chief Justice will personally investigate all disciplinary cases. It also makes it clear that regulations made under Clause 89 can allow for disciplinary responsibilities to have been delegated, and that certain decisions may be made by people other than the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendments Nos. 168B to 168L

Page 36, line 10, at end insert "(as well as any other requirements to which the power is subject)"

Page 36, line 19, leave out "judicial office holder" and insert "person from a judicial office"

Page 36, line 21, leave out "office holder" and insert "person"

Page 36, line 22, leave out "office holder" and insert "person"

Page 36, line 23, leave out "office holder" and insert "person"

Page 36, line 26, leave out "judicial office holder" and insert "person from a judicial office"

Page 36, line 27, leave out "office holder" and insert "person"

Page 36, line 28, leave out "office holder" and insert "person"

Page 36, line 33, leave out from "a" to "is" and insert "person from office as a senior judge for any period during which the person"

Page 36, line 36, leave out "office holder" and insert "person"

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 88 [Disciplinary powers: interpretation]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendments Nos. 168M to 168R:

Page 37, line 3, leave out subsection (2) and insert— (2) A person is subject to criminal proceedings if in any part of the United Kingdom proceedings against him for an offence have been begun and have not come to an end, and the times when proceedings are begun and come to an end for the purposes of this subsection are such as may be prescribed.

Page 37, line 7, leave out "senior judge" and insert "person"

Page 37, line 9, leave out "judge" and insert "person"

Page 37, line 11, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert—

1. "(b) either motion is amended so that it is no longer a motion for an address for removal of the person from office;
2. (c) either motion is withdrawn, lapses or is disagreed to;"

Page 37, line 15, leave out subsection (4) and insert— (4) "Judicial office" means—

1. (a) office as a senior judge, or
2. (b) an office listed in Schedule 12;

and "judicial office holder" means the holder of a judicial office.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 89 [Regulations about procedures]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 168S:

Page 37, line 33, leave out "by the Lord Chief Justice or the Minister"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 90 [Contents of regulations]:

Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendments Nos. 168T and 168U:

Page 38, line 18, leave out "by the Lord Chief Justice or the Minister" After Clause 91, insert the following new clause—

"EXTENSION OF DISCIPLINE PROVISIONS TO OTHER OFFICES

(1) This Chapter applies in relation to an office designated by the Minister under this section as it would apply if the office were listed in Schedule 12.

(2) The Minister may by order designate any office, not listed in Schedule 12, the holder of which he has power to remove from office.

(3) An order under this section may be made only with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice."

On Question, amendments agreed to.

10.45 p.m.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 168V: After Clause 97, insert the following new clause—

"PART 3A

JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE: NORTHERN IRELAND

"REMOVAL FROM MOST SENIOR JUDICIAL OFFICES

In the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (c. 23) before section 13 insert—

"12B TENURE OF OFFICE

(1) The Lord Chief Justice, Lords Justices of Appeal and judges of the High Court hold office during good behaviour (subject to section 26 of, and Schedule 7 to, the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993).

(2) Her Majesty may on an address presented to Her Majesty by both Houses of Parliament remove a person from office as Lord Chief Justice, a Lord Justice of Appeal or a judge of the High Court.

(3) A motion for the presentation of an address to Her Majesty for the removal of a person from any of those offices may be made—

1. (a) to the House of Commons only by the Prime Minister; and
2. (b) to the House of Lords only by the Lord Chancellor.

(4) Neither the Prime Minister nor the Lord Chancellor may make a motion for the presentation of such an address unless a tribunal convened under section (Tribunals for considering removal) of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 has reported to the Lord Chancellor recommending that the person be removed from the office on the ground of misbehaviour.

(5) The Prime Minister shall lay a copy of the report before the House of Commons before making a motion for the presentation of an address in that House; and the Lord Chancellor shall lay a copy of it before the House of Lords before making such a motion in that House.

(6) If the Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor are considering the making of motions for the presentation of an address to Her Majesty in relation to the Lord Chief Justice, the Prime Minister may suspend him from office; and if they are considering the making of such motions in relation to a Lord Justice of Appeal or a judge of the High Court the Prime Minister may suspend him from office with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice.

(7) If a person is suspended from an office under subsection (6), he may not perform any of the functions of the office (but his other rights as holder of the office are unaffected).""

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 168V to 168Y and those grouped with these amendments. The amendments insert a new Part 3A in the Bill to provide for the removal of judges in Northern Ireland in the period prior to devolution of justice to the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Amendment No. 168V inserts new Section 12B into the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 to provide for the removal of judges from the most senior judicial offices in Northern Ireland. The clause provides that, as at present, the Lord Chief Justice, Lords Justice of Appeal and High Court judges may be removed by the Queen on an Address by both Houses of Parliament. An Address may be made to the House of Commons by the Prime Minister and to the House of Lords by the Lord Chancellor. However, no such Motion may be made unless a tribunal with a strong judicial membership has been convened and has recommended removal in a report to the Lord Chancellor. The report is to be laid before both Houses before the Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor can make a Motion for removal. New Section 12B(6) provides for suspension of the judge in question while the making of this Motion is under consideration.

Amendment No. 168W gives the Lord Chancellor the power to remove from office a member of the judiciary below High Court judge level. Removal is possible only for reasons of misbehaviour or inability, and can take place only on the basis of a recommendation of a tribunal convened under the new clause installed at Amendment No. 168X and following consultation with the Lord Chief Justice. The clause also provides for the Lord Chancellor to suspend persons from such judicial office pending a decision on their removal if the tribunal recommends this and the Lord Chief Justice is consulted.

When speaking about Amendments Nos. 168V and 168W, I said that the removal of a judicial office holder is possible only on the recommendation of a removals tribunal. Amendment No. 168X provides a new clause detailing how such a tribunal is to be set up and providing for its membership. The membership and power to convene varies, depending on the level of judge whose removal is under consideration. Amendment No. 168Y defines for the purposes of new Part 3A the meaning of listed judicial office, the Lord Chief Justice, the Lord Justice of Appeal and protected judicial office.

Amendment No. 179A provides for consequential technical amendments to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002. They provide for the repeal of the provisions in this Bill, dealing with the removal of judges in Northern Ireland and devolution of justice functions to the Northern Ireland Assembly. As noble Lords are aware, the post-devolution arrangements for removal of judges in Northern Ireland are set out in the 2002 Act. I beg to move.

Lord Goodhart

My Lords, I am sorry to raise a wholly technical point, but some of the way in which this has been laid out is confusing. For instance, it appeared to me, until the noble Baroness explained it, that Amendment No. 168W inserted a new clause into this Bill and not the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. I am not at all clear what the position is.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland

My Lords, as I began, the amendments do insert a new Part 3A in the Bill, but I also indicated that they insert a new Section 12B into the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978. I am perfectly happy to write to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to ensure that he is happy with what I said and the way in which it is laid out, if that would be helpful.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 168W to 168Y: After Clause 97, insert the following new clause—

"REMOVAL FROM LISTED JUDICIAL OFFICES

(1) A person holding a listed judicial office other than as a judge of the High Court may be removed from office (and suspended from office pending a decision whether to remove him) but only in accordance with this section.

(2) The power to remove or suspend him is exercisable by the Lord Chancellor.

(3) He may only be removed if a tribunal convened under section (Tribunals for considering removal) has reported to the Lord Chancellor recommending that he be removed on the ground of misbehaviour or inability to perform the functions of the office.

(4) He may only be suspended if the tribunal, at any time when it is considering whether to recommend his removal, has recommended to the Lord Chancellor that he be suspended.

(5) He may not be removed or suspended except after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice.

(6) If he is suspended he may not perform any of the functions of the office until the decision whether to remove him has been taken (but his other rights as holder of the office are unaffected)." After Clause 97, insert the following new clause—

"TRIBUNALS FOR CONSIDERING REMOVAL

(1) A tribunal to consider the removal of the Lord Chief Justice may be convened by the Lord Chancellor.

(2) A tribunal to consider the removal of the holder of any other protected judicial office may be convened—

1. (a) by the Lord Chancellor, after consulting the Lord Chief Justice, or
2. (b) by the Lord Chief Justice, after consulting the Lord Chancellor.

(3) A tribunal to consider the removal of the Lord Chief Justice or a Lord Justice of Appeal may not be convened unless the Prime Minister has been consulted.

(4) A tribunal to consider the removal of the Lord Chief Justice, a Lord Justice of Appeal or a judge of the High Court is to consist of—

1. (a) a person who holds high judicial office within the meaning of Part 2 and does not hold (and has never held) the office of Lord Chief Justice, Lord Justice of Appeal or judge of the High Court,
2. (b) a person who is, or has been, a judge of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales or the Inner House of the Court of Session, and
3. (c) a person who does not hold (and has never held) a protected judicial office and is not (and has never been) a barrister or solicitor.

(5) A tribunal to consider the removal of the holder of any other protected judicial office is to consist of—

1. (a) a person who holds, or has held, the office of Lord Chief Justice or Lord Justice of Appeal,
2. (b) a person who holds the office of judge of the High Court, and
3. (c) a person who does not hold (and has never held) a protected judicial office and is not (and has never been) a barrister or solicitor.

(6) The chairman of a tribunal is the person mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (4) or (5).

(7) The selection of the persons to be the members of a tribunal under paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (4) is to be made by the Lord Chancellor, after consultation with—

1. (a) the Lord Chief Justice (unless the tribunal is to consider his removal from office),
2. (b) the President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom,
1313
3. (c) the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, and
4. (d) the Lord President of the Court of Session.

(8) The selection of the persons to be the members of a tribunal under paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (5) is to be made by the Lord Chief Justice.

(9) The selection of the person who is to be the member of a tribunal under paragraph (c) of subsection (4) or (5) is to be made by the Lord Chancellor.

(10) The procedure of a tribunal is to be determined by the Lord Chief Justice except where—

1. (a) the office of Lord Chief Justice is vacant,
2. (b) he is not available, or
3. (c) the tribunal is to consider his removal from office;

and in such a case its procedure is to be determined by its chairman.

(11) The Lord Chancellor may pay to a member of a tribunal any such allowances or fees as he may determine." After Clause 97, insert the following new clause—

"INTERPRETATION OF PART 3A

In this Part— listed judicial office" means an office listed in Schedule I to the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 (c. 26); Lord Chief Justice", unless otherwise stated, means the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland; Lord Justice of Appeal" means a person styled as such under section 3 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 (c. 23); protected judicial office" means the office of Lord Chief Justice, the office of Lord Justice of Appeal or a listed judicial office.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 98 [Parliamentary disqualification]:

[Amendment No. 168Z not moved.]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 168AA:

Page 41, leave out lines 32 and 33.

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is about the supplementary panel. Issues arise about whether members of the supplementary panel of the Supreme Court should be able to sit and vote in your Lordships' House.

I have closely considered the views expressed on this issue by your Lordships, and I have concluded that membership of the panel is in reality a part-time judicial office, and it would not work against our principle of functional separation to allow members of the panel to participate in the business of the House as fully as may other holders of part-time judicial office. The proportion of time that they would spend sitting judicially would be limited, and the ability to ensure that they are not called on to sit in cases with which they have had any connection through business of this House is far greater than is possible with full-time, permanent judges. Amendment No. 168AA therefore deletes the reference to members of the Supreme Court's supplementary panel from Clause 98(1), with the effect that they will not come under the disqualification in subsection (2).

Some concern has been expressed by this House that it will suffer from the loss of judicial expertise in its committee work; I hope that the amendment will go some way towards alleviating that concern. The other amendments that I propose to Clause 98—Amendments Nos. 168AB, 168AC and 169C—are technical amendments to ensure that the rules governing disqualification from membership of the Northern Ireland Assembly are, as respects Supreme Court judges, aligned with those for the House of Commons and the Scottish Parliament, and to improve the structuring of the clause in consequence. I beg to move.

Viscount Bledisloe

My Lords, grouped with the amendment is my Amendment No. 169, which I tabled to give the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor the opportunity to put on public record what he has said privately; namely, that Clause 98(2) will not alter the position of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary in relation to their participation in this House, until such time as the Supreme Court comes into being. As I understand it, Lords of Appeal in Ordinary are, not surprisingly, not dealt with in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. I invite him to confirm that that is the position.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, I confirm it, not only privately but publicly. If the noble Viscount had been listening earlier—I can understand why he was not—I said it in my speech at the end of the first amendment. I repeat it now for noble Lords who were not there.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 168AB and 168AC

Page 41, line 33, at end insert—

"() In Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 (c. 25) (judicial offices disqualifying for membership) at the beginning insert— Judge of the Supreme Court."

Page 41, line 34, leave out from "any" to "disqualified" in line 36 and insert "disqualifying judicial office,"

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 169 to 169B not moved.]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 169C:

Page 41, line 39, at end insert—

"() In subsection (2) "disqualifying judicial office" means any of the judicial offices specified in—

1. (a) Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975, or
2. (b) Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975."

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 169D and 170 not moved.]

Schedule 13 [Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]:

[Amendments Nos. 171 and 172 not moved.]

Clause 101 [Interpretation]:

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 173

Page 42, line 15, leave out "Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs" and insert "Lord Chancellor"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 103 [Orders and regulations]:

The Duke of Montrose moved Amendment No. 174:

Page 43, line 7, at end insert— (2) Any power to make an order or regulations under this Act shall only be exercised after appropriate consultation has been undertaken with persons likely to be affected by it.

The noble Duke said: My Lords, the amendment ensures that the Minister must consult before making orders or regulations under the Bill. The creation of the Supreme Court is an important constitutional event and requires an inclusive approach to its provisions. The amendment ensures that consultation is required to take place before the making of orders and regulations under the Bill, as well as their being subject to oversight by the House. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland

My Lords, I thank the noble Duke and the Law Society of Scotland, which has been involved with the amendment, for their work on the matter. We have considerable sympathy with the spirit of the amendment, but considerable difficulty with the letter of it.

I appreciate the concerns regarding the setting up of the Supreme Court. I agree with the noble Duke that an inclusive approach is required in making the orders and regulations. We accept and understand the need to consult the right people before framing the secondary legislation under the Bill, and value the responses that we have had to ensure that we get that right and make the right decisions.

The Bill sets out detailed arrangements for consultation where there is a clear individual or group of persons whose input is essential to make sure that the legislation will operate effectively. As I stated in response to Amendments Nos. 142 and 143 to Clause 44, tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, the Government agree with the consultation requirement in relation to Supreme Court fees and I have tabled Amendment No. 141A to that effect.

In other cases, we expect to hold a proper consultation of those who can help in framing any provision, but we do not believe that those arrangements, of the kind which apply in many areas of government business, should in the case of this Bill be overlain with such a broad and unspecific requirement. I hope that on that basis the noble Duke will withdraw his amendment.

The Duke of Montrose

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that explanation of the Government's view. It has certainly gone a long way toward allaying fears that there might not be enough consultation. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No.175 not moved.]

Lord Henley moved Amendment No.175A:

Page 43, line 12, leave out paragraph (a).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I referred to this matter in Committee when I received an assurance from the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, that I had spotted a mistake in the Bill. I am asking for the removal of the reference to "section 51", because the subsection specifies that any orders made under paragraphs (a) and (b) would be made by affirmative resolution. If one then refers back to Clause 51 on page 21, one discovers that no orders are made under that clause. The Minister assured me that that would he corrected. That has not been done. I have, therefore, tabled the amendment for the noble Baroness, hoping that she will accept it. I beg to move.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland

My Lords, nothing would please me more than to be able to accept the amendment, but unfortunately, as drafted, it would leave Clause 103 saying: Those provision are … paragraph 5 of Schedule 10". I am sure that the noble Lord would not want me to accept it on that basis. I completely accept the noble Lord's point. I absolutely assure him that the mistake will be corrected; I will indicate to him precisely when and ensure that it happens.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I did have that assurance from the noble Baroness at a previous stage. I appreciate that my drafting is not as felicitous as might have been managed by those who are in charge of such matters, but I hope that the noble Baroness can give me an assurance before I sit down that this will actually happen before the Bill leaves this House.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland

My Lords, indeed, I give the noble Lord that assurance. I am terribly sorry that it was not corrected before.

Lord Henley

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 14 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

Lord Falconer of Thornton moved Amendments Nos.176 to 178

Page 231, line 23, leave out paragraph 1.

Page 231, leave out line 28.

Page 232, line 7, leave out paragraph 6.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No.179 not moved.]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No.179A:

Page 236, line 22, at end insert—

"PART 3