| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend Lord Ackner indicated earlier, there was a major increase in the jurisdiction of the county courts following the 1990 Act and the use of the power in question. Since then the amendments have been comparatively minor and have attracted little attention. The Hansard report of the debate in this House on 16th December 1994 to the most recent amending order took two minutes of the House's time and provoked no questions. That does not seem a good use of Parliament's time. If people have questions, the negative resolution procedure is available.
The power to make such orders is vested in the Lord Chancellor, not the rule committee, and this change is not related to the amendments regarding laws of court overriding enactments which I have tabled.
The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation supported the justification for the change from affirmative to negative procedure. Its report expressly deals with the matter; and it is familiar with the conditions under which these matters should be either affirmative or negative. It does not foreclose a decision to the other effect by the House. However, in my submission to your Lordships, the fact that the major change has taken place and that if any change in the future were controversial it would certainly attract attention is sufficient safeguard. In the meantime, the sort of orders that we propose are unlikely to require the attention of an affirmative resolution. That being supported by the committee in charge of considering the matter from the point of view of your Lordships' House, I venture to suggest that the amendment should not be given effect.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am bound to say that I am somewhat disappointed in my noble and learned friend's reply. However, in the circumstances, I do not propose to press the amendment, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction (Amendment) Order 1996
5.35 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th November be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the draft order contains three amendments to the High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction Order.
The first amendment, Article 2, will give the county courts jurisdiction to determine applications under Sections 13 and 14 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996. This will not confer a new area of jurisdiction on the county courts, but will maintain their current jurisdiction. The amendment is necessary because in January 1997, Section 14 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 will replace Section 30 of the Law of Property Act 1925, under which the county courts currently have a jurisdiction not limited by the value of the property. I wish to retain this unlimited jurisdiction for the county court in these matters.
Section 30 concerns applications to the court in the event of a dispute about the exercise of their powers by trustees for sale. Section 14 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 directly replaces Section 30. Section 13 of the 1996 Act enables the court to approve the regulations by trustees of land of the right to occupy any land subject to the trust conferred by Section 12 of the Act. There will frequently be a great deal of overlap between an application under this section
and an application under Section 14. It would be appropriate, therefore, for the county court to have the same jurisdiction.The second amendment, Article 3, will enable a larger proportion of county court creditors to opt for enforcement by sheriffs. At present, only creditors with a county court judgment for more than £2,000 may currently transfer to the High Court for execution against goods to be carried out by the sheriffs, rather than the county court bailiffs. Article 3 reduces the limit for such transfers to £1,000.
The third amendment, Article 4, relates to the county courts' jurisdiction in road traffic debt cases. This involves the registration of parking penalty charges in the county court for enforcement. The Road Traffic Act 1991 provides for the resolution of any disputes about the penalty charges, which require the personal attendance of the vehicle owner, to be dealt with not by the county courts but by a separate adjudication system. This scheme was initially confined to the London boroughs, but has now been extended to areas outside London. The jurisdiction order currently confers jurisdiction only on Cardiff County Court for the registration and recovery of parking penalty charges. Registration is a process facilitated by a computer system which many participating local authorities use. That computer system was located in Cardiff County Court but is now in Northampton County Court which houses the Court Service's other centralised county court computer systems. Article 4 allows this system to issue proceedings in the name of Northampton County Court in order to bring together the judicial and administrative functions.
Article 1 cites the dates when the amendments I have outlined shall come into force. I commend this measure to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 25th November be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].--(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office Bill
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.--(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th November be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, first, I take this opportunity to remind the House that in July 1995 European Union member states signed a draft convention based on Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union on the Establishment of a European Police Office; or familiarly, the "Europol Convention". This convention was published as a Command paper (Cm 3050) and laid before Parliament on 8th December 1995.
Under the convention, Europol staff will have no operational powers, but will focus on the exchange and analysis of intelligence relating to serious international crime. A single national unit in each member state will be responsible for providing Europol with relevant intelligence and for acting as the link to law enforcement agencies in the member state. The National Criminal Intelligence Service will undertake this role in the United Kingdom. Europol staff, assisted by national liaison officers, will be responsible for centralised analysis of information obtained and for disseminating the results of this work. The national units will remain under national control. The Director of Europol will be its legal representative and he will report to a management board comprised of representatives from all member states.
The convention also makes detailed provision for the protection of data held by Europol and will establish an independent joint supervisory body drawn from national data protection supervisory bodies.
These terms are confusing and questions were raised in another place as to their meaning. Therefore, perhaps I may explain. The national unit is the sole contact point in each member state for communicating with Europol. The UK's national unit will be the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) with which this House will be familiar from the Police Bill currently in Committee. Each member state shall also have a national supervisory body. This shall monitor the data exchange between the national unit and Europol. We intend to designate the data protection registrar as the UK's national supervisory body. A nominee from each member state's national supervisory body shall make up the joint supervisory body. This shall have the task of monitoring Europol's compliance with the data protection regime set out in the convention. I hope that that explanation is of some help. I thought it important to tackle it at the outset.
The convention will come into force when ratified by all EU member states. The United Kingdom fully supports the establishment of Europol and is committed to creating an organisation that can work effectively and add real value to existing European police and customers co-operation. To emphasise this support we wish to be among the first member states to ratify the
To do so, however, we must first make an Order in Council under Section 1 of the International Organisations Act 1968 to enable us to give effect in UK law to Article 26 of the convention which provides that Europol shall enjoy legal personality in each member state. We propose to do so my means of the European Police Office (Legal Capacities) Order 1996, which is the sole purpose of the draft order before the House today.
I very much hope that your Lordships will approve this draft order, enabling us to achieve earlier ratification of the convention, and thereby underlining our commitment to Europol. I commend the draft order to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13th November be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].--(Baroness Chalker of Wallasey.)
5.38 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page