| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Magistrates Courts (Remands in Custody) (Amendment) Order 1997
3.58 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th November be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order provides that Section 128A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, which enables magistrates' courts to remand defendants in custody for a maximum period of up to 28 days, shall have effect in all petty sessions areas in England and Wales in relation to those under the age of 17, as well as those of 17 and over.
This order is a consequence of Section 52 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. As noble Lords may recall, Section 52 provides that Sections 128(1A) and (3A) and 128(A) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 shall apply to defendants under the age of 17.
The effect is that the maximum length of time for which courts may remand to custody a juvenile who is awaiting summary trial or committal to the Crown Court will be in line with that for adult defendants. This means that on second and subsequent appearances of a juvenile in court, the court may order a remand to custody of a juvenile for up to 28 days, rather than eight days as at present.
This order brings into effect the change to Section 128A provided by Section 52 by providing, as I have said, that Section 128A will have effect in all petty sessions areas in relation to those under the age of 17. Section 128A already has effect in these areas in relation to those aged 17 and over. We intend to bring the amendments to Section 128(1A) and (3A) into effect on 1st February by means of a separate appointed day order.
Frequent court appearances where no change in remand arrangements are sought can be disruptive for young people as well as being unproductive. The new arrangements will give courts greater flexibility in determining the appropriate remand period and reduce the number of adjournments. Courts will remain free to set shorter remand periods than the maximum if they consider it is desirable and defendants will be able to make bail applications before the end of a remand period if there is a change in circumstances.
We will be issuing guidance to the courts and to other criminal justice agencies to make sure that the effect of the new arrangements and the flexibility that they provide are fully understood. This will, in particular, make clear that the welfare of the child must be considered in determining the appropriate remand period.
The order will be subject to debate in another place. If it is approved by both Houses, the Home Secretary will then sign the order and it will come into operation on 1st February. I commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th November be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].--(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand that the matter has not yet been debated in another place, which is unusual. Normally we have the benefit of its opinion before orders come to us. None of us likes juveniles, people under 18, being remanded in custody. We do not like them being in prison. We certainly do not like them being in police cells; nor do we like them being in detention centres when it can possibly be avoided.
However, from what the Minister said, I am relieved to hear that in itself the order will not increase the amount of time that juveniles will spend in custody. It will simply reduce the number of occasions on which they are required to go before the courts and the courts have to grant an adjournment. On that basis and on the basis that the order implements legislation which has already been passed, we have no objection to it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Home-Grown Cereals Authority Levy (Variation) Scheme (Approval) Order 1996
4.3 p.m.
Lord Lucas rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 13th November be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the order is to make two small changes to the 1987 Home-Grown Cereals Authority Levy Scheme. The authority exists to improve the production and marketing of home-grown cereals and, since 1989, oilseeds. The authority is funded almost exclusively by industry levies which it uses to commission research and development, provide a market information service, encourage the development of UK cereals exports and support food from Britain. Fourteen of its current 16 members are appointed specifically to represent the interests of the levy payers and after consultation with relevant trade organisations. It therefore remains directly answerable to the industry which it has served for over 30 years.
The order before us today concerns the arrangements by which the authority collects the levy on cereals. In the first place it concerns the levies payable to the authority by cereal growers and by cereal dealers. Except where grain is sold directly into intervention, cereal grower levy payments to the authority are collected by the first purchaser or dealer. Therefore the levy due from the dealer is a gross figure which includes the grower levy, which the dealer recovers from the grower and an element from the dealer himself.
Dealers are permitted to make a small deduction from the gross levy before passing the balance to the authority. This deduction--or commission--is intended to provide the dealers with some recompense for any expenses which they may incur when collecting the
grower levy on behalf of the authority. The principal change being made by the order before us today is to reduce from 5 per cent. to 3.7 per cent. the deduction which cereal dealers may make from the gross levy before passing the balance of the levy to the Home-Grown Cereals Authority.The dealer commission has remained at 5 per cent. of the gross dealer levy throughout the life of the 1987 levy scheme. During that period, however, the cereal growers have chosen substantially to increase their financial contribution to the authority's activities whereas the dealers have not. For example, in 1988-89, 78 per cent. of the gross dealer levy came from the growers, whereas in 1996-97 the proportion has risen to 90 per cent. This means that a commission of 5 per cent. of the gross levy now takes a disproportionately large share of the growers' levy contribution. Both growers and dealers recognise the inequity of this situation, hence the present proposal to reduce commission from 5 per cent. to 3.7 per cent. At current levy rates, a reduction from 5 per cent. to 3.7 per cent. would limit commission in monetary terms to approximately the sum deducted by the dealers in 1995-96, the last year before the growers agreed a further substantial increase of 10 pence per tonne in their own levy contribution.
The opportunity is also being taken to make a second minor change to the 1987 levy scheme. This will make it clear that the Home-Grown Cereals Authority may instruct persons not employed by it--for example, a firm of accountants--to inspect cereal grower, dealer and processor records on its behalf for the purpose of determining liability for levy. It is clearly not cost effective for a small organisation such as the authority to retain sufficient employees with the required level of expertise to inspect records of levy payers scattered the length and breadth of the country.
The order will not come into force until 1st July 1997 which is the start of the authority's next financial year. However, it is being brought forward now because the reduction in dealer commission will obviously have an effect on the actual income which the authority can expect to receive from a given rate of levy. Therefore the authority needs to know what the commission rate will be well before it must finalise and forward to Ministers its financial estimates and levy recommendations for 1997-98. Ministers would normally expect to receive these around Easter each year.
Both changes follow extensive consultation with, and have the support of, relevant UK cereal trade interests. I therefore hope that your Lordships will be able to approve this short but useful order which I commend to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 13th November be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].--(Lord Lucas.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, as a cereals and oilseed grower, I should declare an interest in the order. I believe that the Minister answered the questions that I was going to ask. The change is welcome and agreed by the industry and it is clear that it has no effect on the growers' levy. It cannot be clawed back from the grower because of the way in which the levy is collected.
I would have asked the Minister what kind of inspectors will be authorised besides the officers of the authority. However, he said that they would be accountants employed by the authority.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Deregulation (Rag Flock and Other Filling Materials Act 1951) (Repeal) Order 1996
4.7 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th November be approved [4th Report from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the draft order is concerned with removing the burdens currently imposed by the Rag Flock and Other Filling Materials Act 1951. The Rag Flock and Other Filling Materials Regulations 1981 would fall with the repeal. If the House wishes me to go into the detail of the 1951 Act's provisions, I can do so.
The controls placed in the rag flock legislation are considered to be over-prescriptive and bureaucratic. Furthermore, both businesses and the enforcement agencies consider that the methods used to assess the cleanliness in the rag flock legislation have become outmoded.
The Government are satisfied that the repeal of the Act will not compromise the protection it was enacted to provide. This protection will be offered by the existing provisions of the General Product Safety Regulations 1994 (which implement an EU directive) and the British Standard 1425 of 1991. These place responsibilities on producers and distributors of products (including second-hand products) to supply only those products that are safe, that is in this case, products that are clean, free from contaminants and impurities. In order to ensure that producers and manufacturers supply products that are safe, the regulations attract the relevant enforcement provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 in relation to prohibition and warning notices, suspension notices and appeals, forfeiture, the power to obtain information, the power to enter and search premises and to take samples. The measure will therefore not reduce the necessary protection for consumers.
The proposal has completed the preliminary scrutiny procedures for the deregulation orders under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships' House and the Deregulation Committee of the other place have separately assessed and reported on the proposal. Both committees have indicated that they are content with the draft order as it stands.
The order will remove controls which are considered to be over-prescriptive, bureaucratic and outmoded, without reducing the necessary consumer protection. Therefore I commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th November be approved [4th Report from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee].--(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page