ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL [Lords] – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 30 April 1964.
Mr Henry Brooke
, Hampstead
12:00,
30 April 1964
I beg to move, in page 11, line 42 to leave out subsection (5) and to insert:
(5) There shall be a chairman, a vice-chairman and a deputy chairman of the committee of magistrates, and the chairman of the court of quarter sessions for the inner London area shall be the chairman of the committee, the chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate shall be the vice-chairman and a person chosen from amongst themselves by the lay justices who are members of the committee shall be the deputy chairman.
This Amendment fulfils an undertaking which I gave in Committee to the hon. Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl). As drafted, the Bill follows the recommendations of the Aarvold Committee in providing that the chairman of quarter sessions and the chief magistrate be respectively chairman and deputy-chairman of the Committee of Magistrates. If the Amendment is accepted, there will be an office of vice-chairman, to be held by the chief metropolitan stipendiary magistrate, and there will be an office of deputy-chairman to be held by a person chosen by the lay magistrates who are members of the Committee from among themselves. There will be an order of precedence—chairman—vice-chairman—deputychairman—which is already familiar to many people concerned with London
affairs, because there is a similar trio in that order among the leading members of the London County Council.
I hope that this plan will be acceptable to the hon. Member for Widnes and to the House.
Mr James MacColl
, Widnes
The Amendment, as indeed was the undertaking given in Committee, is rather better than the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He harped on the happy precedent which he sees in the London County Council. I have two comments to make. First, historically it is not correct. Historically the deputy-chairman was a full-time paid member of the Council, who was responsible for the administration of the staff of the London County Council. I think that it was Mr. Firth. Later the idea came along of having the unfortunate deputy-chairman as the man in permanent subjugation to the chairman and vice-chairman on the dais. The chairman and vice-chairman are members of the Majority party. The deputy-chairman represents the powerless minority.
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman used that analogy, because that is precisely the attitude to the lay magistrates which I deplore. I think that there should be an integrated legal system. I do not think that lay magistrates should be regarded as inferior beings in permanent minority, allowed to choose their tribune who can speak for them, but who have no effective authority.
That was the implication of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I do not think that it is all in the Amendment, and therefore I welcome the fact that he has gone as far as he can.
This is not a criticism of stipendiary magistrates, who are men of great legal and judicial experience. What this is about is a Committee whose job it is to carry out a very delicate piece of pure administration—the allocation of courts, looking after the problems of the staff, and so on. I believe that this job might well be done by lay magistrates as well as by stipendiaries, because, whatever we think about stipendiaries, there is nothing in their work which gives them experience of pure administration.
To put it bluntly, this is rather a farce. There may be a man who has spent his life in public administration. He may be the chairman of an establishment committee in a local authority, or he may have considerable business experience, yet he is to be regarded as inferior when it comes to the day-to-day administrative problems of running a machine, which is what this Committee is concerned with.
My other point concerns a more immediate transitional problem. The delicate task to be performed is to bring into one service clerks of the old petty sessional Division and clerks of the stipendiary court. In seeing that the centre of gravity of this Committee is on the side of the stipendiary magistrates, rather than on the side of the lay magistrates, clerks of the petty sessional division may feel that their interests are not likely to be looked after.
The right hon. Gentleman moved the Amendment in a way that made me as little willing to accept it as I could be, but it would be silly to try to make an issue of a matter of this sort. I am grateful for this concession, and I therefore welcome it.
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
As a bill passes through Parliament, MPs and peers may suggest amendments - or changes - which they believe will improve the quality of the legislation.
Many hundreds of amendments are proposed by members to major bills as they pass through committee stage, report stage and third reading in both Houses of Parliament.
In the end only a handful of amendments will be incorporated into any bill.
The Speaker - or the chairman in the case of standing committees - has the power to select which amendments should be debated.
The House of Commons votes by dividing. Those voting Aye (yes) to any proposition walk through the division lobby to the right of the Speaker and those voting no through the lobby to the left. In each of the lobbies there are desks occupied by Clerks who tick Members' names off division lists as they pass through. Then at the exit doors the Members are counted by two Members acting as tellers. The Speaker calls for a vote by announcing "Clear the Lobbies". In the House of Lords "Clear the Bar" is called. Division Bells ring throughout the building and the police direct all Strangers to leave the vicinity of the Members’ Lobby. They also walk through the public rooms of the House shouting "division". MPs have eight minutes to get to the Division Lobby before the doors are closed. Members make their way to the Chamber, where Whips are on hand to remind the uncertain which way, if any, their party is voting. Meanwhile the Clerks who will take the names of those voting have taken their place at the high tables with the alphabetical lists of MPs' names on which ticks are made to record the vote. When the tellers are ready the counting process begins - the recording of names by the Clerk and the counting of heads by the tellers. When both lobbies have been counted and the figures entered on a card this is given to the Speaker who reads the figures and announces "So the Ayes [or Noes] have it". In the House of Lords the process is the same except that the Lobbies are called the Contents Lobby and the Not Contents Lobby. Unlike many other legislatures, the House of Commons and the House of Lords have not adopted a mechanical or electronic means of voting. This was considered in 1998 but rejected. Divisions rarely take less than ten minutes and those where most Members are voting usually take about fifteen. Further information can be obtained from factsheet P9 at the UK Parliament site.
The term "majority" is used in two ways in Parliament. Firstly a Government cannot operate effectively unless it can command a majority in the House of Commons - a majority means winning more than 50% of the votes in a division. Should a Government fail to hold the confidence of the House, it has to hold a General Election. Secondly the term can also be used in an election, where it refers to the margin which the candidate with the most votes has over the candidate coming second. To win a seat a candidate need only have a majority of 1.
