| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, we strongly support the amendments. They are responsive to the concerns I expressed in Committee, which I believe were supported by others, when moving Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 at that time. The effect of the amendments is to make it absolutely clear that Clause 6 is not to be taken as altering the law on self-incrimination. I desire to put on record again the fact that I entirely accept--as I did in Committee--that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had no intention whatever to alter the law in relation to self-incrimination. I am happy to support the amendments which put the matter beyond any doubt.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 27:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 28:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall, with the leave of the House, speak also to Amendment No. 29 which is tabled in my name. I moved such amendments in Committee (as Amendments Nos. 30 and 31). I can assure your Lordships that I was well intentioned in moving the amendments at that time. I was proposing a definition of the word "inspection" so as to clarify the position concerning information stored in computer systems or otherwise in computer readable form, in order to ensure that a respondent or other person could be required to give access to any such information.
The second definition--that of the word "record"--was also aimed at clarifying the rights of an applicant. However, I know that case law already exists as regards the meaning of these terms and that the advice of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is that it is desirable to leave room for development of the meanings of these expressions by the courts, without fixing any precise definitions, should the development of technology render that desirable. Nor would I have any desire to cast doubt on the use of those terms in other statutes where they are not defined in the manner proposed in these amendments.
Certainly, I would not wish to be the cause of any confusion about the meaning of "inspection" or of "record"; far less would I wish to put a brake on the meaning of these terms as expounded by the courts. However, I invite the noble and learned Lord, in responding to these amendments, to assure me, if he feels able, that Clause 6 in its present form enables a court to order a person to provide another with access to a computer system and to enable that other to make print outs or to copy data on to disks. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he has explained the amendment. I take the view that the meaning of "inspection" and "records" has grown over time to embrace the meaning which those terms have in a computerised context. I would also wish to avoid creating any remote impression that other statutory references to such terms do not extend to computerised data or records, or to data held on information systems called by some name other than "computers". Technology is developing all the time; language has to grow with it and so, too, the meaning which the courts give to such terms. I would consider that it is a necessary implication of the conferral of the powers granted by this clause that it would extend to enabling a court to order a person to provide another with access to a computer system and to enable that other to make print outs or to copy data onto disks. It is a necessary implication because the clause would be rendered ineffectual without it. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw this amendment and that he will not wish to move Amendment No. 29, which this explanation is intended to cover.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: My Lords, on that basis I am content to withdraw Amendment No. 28. I shall not move Amendment No. 29. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Civil Procedure Rules]:
The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 31:
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 14. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 32:
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the power to make rules of court in relation to family proceedings in the High Court and county courts is contained in Section 40 of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984. This amendment inserts a new subsection into that section which provides that such rules may make different provision for different areas or for specific proceedings or specific courts. This would allow the rules to provide for future pilot projects and would bring them in line with the civil procedure rules in respect of which a similar power is contained in paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 to the Bill. My learned friend the President of the Family Division has indicated his support for such pilots. It is desirable to provide express power for such pilots. I think we probably all agree on the value of pilots in some situations. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Ackner moved Amendment No. 33:
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this, happily, is the last of the amendments. It is concerned with the allocation of business between the High Court and the county courts. The effect of paragraph 4 to Schedule 2--which I seek to excise--which is headed "Minor and consequential amendments" is, as the explanatory memorandum indicates, to provide for the,
Section 120 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 provides:
I have the support of the Bar Council in this measure. It is the belief of the Bar that any litigants and potential litigants would be concerned at any erosion of their right to a High Court trial. It is in the public interest that the affirmative resolution procedure be retained. Further, Section 120(4) providing for the affirmative procedure was enacted in November 1990; that is just over six years ago. We do not consider that there has been any sufficient change of circumstance in the past five or six years to justify an amendment.
I appreciate that it may be claimed by the Government that the minor additions to the jurisdictional arrangements effected by the increase of the small claims limit to £3,000 for all but personal injury cases attracted no parliamentary interest. That was no doubt because they were both minor in nature and not particularly controversial. Anything more significant would be a proper matter for public and parliamentary debate. I beg to move.
Page 3, line 40, leave out subsection (7).
Page 3, line 43, after second ("Court") insert--
("inspection" includes the inspection of data stored in computer readable form, and references to permitting inspection include permitting access to any such data,").
Page 6, leave out lines 10 and 11.
Page 7, line 37, after ("rules)") insert--
("(a) after subsection (3) there is inserted--
"(3A) Rules made under this section may make different provision for different cases or different areas, including different provision--
(a) for a specific court, or
(b) for specific proceedings, or a specific jurisdiction,
specified in the rules.",.
and
(b) ")
Page 7, leave out lines 39 to 41.
"negative resolution procedure to apply to orders made under section 1(1) of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 regarding the allocation of business between the High Court and county courts".
I remind your Lordships of the provisions of Section 1 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. It provides that the Lord Chancellor,
"may by order make provision:--
(a) conferring jurisdiction on the High Court in relation to proceedings in which county courts have jurisdiction;
(b) conferring jurisdiction on county courts in relation to proceedings in which the High Court has jurisdiction;
9 Dec 1996 : Column 905 (c) allocating proceedings to the High Court or to county courts;
(d) specifying proceedings which may be commenced only in the High Court;
(e) specifying proceedings which may be commenced only in a county court;
(f) specifying proceedings which may be taken only in the High Court;
(g) specifying proceedings which may be taken only in a county court".
(1) Any power to make orders or regulations conferred by this Act shall be exercisable by statutory instrument ...
(4) No instrument shall be made under section 1(1) ... unless a draft of the instrument has been approved by both Houses of Parliament".
The affirmative resolution procedure required for orders under Section 1 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 should--this is the purpose of the amendment--remain and not be removed. There are two main reasons for this. The powers given by Section 1 to which I have referred are far wider than either the existing rule making powers of the Supreme Court Rule Committee or the proposed rule making powers of the proposed unified rule committee. In particular, under Section 1 the Lord Chancellor may make provision conferring jurisdiction on county courts in relation to proceedings in which the High Court has jurisdiction; allocating proceedings to the High Court or to county courts; and specifying proceedings which may be commenced or taken only in a county court.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page