Courts Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 26 June 2003.

Standing Committee D

Courts Bill [Lords]

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) during proceedings on the Courts Bill [Lords] the Standing Committee shall meet on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 9.30 a.m. and 2.30 p.m., except that the Committee shall not meet on Thursday 3rd July;

(2) 8 sittings in all shall be allotted to the consideration of the Bill by the Committee;

(3) the proceedings to be taken at the sittings shall be as shown in the second column of the Table below and shall be taken in the order so shown;

(4) the proceedings which under paragraph (3) are to be taken at any sitting shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the third column of the Table;

(5) paragraph (3) does not prevent proceedings being taken (in the order shown in the second column of the Table) at any earlier sitting than that provided for under paragraph (3) if previous proceedings have already been concluded.

TABLESitting Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 26th June (a.m.), (p.m.) 1st July (a.m.), (p.m.) Clauses 1 to 4, Schedule 1; Clauses 5 to 6, Schedule 2; Clauses 7 to 35; Clauses 37 to 45, Schedule 4; Clauses 46 to 65, Schedule 5; Clauses 66 to 85. 5.00 p.m. on 1st July 8th July (a.m.), (p.m.) Clauses 86 to 94; Clause 97, Schedule 6; clauses 98 to 104; Clause 107; Schedules 7 and 8; Clauses 108 to 110. 5.00 p.m. 10th July (a.m.), (p.m.) Clause 36, Schedule 3; Clauses 95, 96, 105 and 106; new Clauses, new Schedules and any remaining proceedings on the Bill. 5.00 p.m.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. O'Brien. I entirely endorse what the Minister said about your chairmanship, and I welcome him to his new responsibilities. Although I cannot claim to be a Yorkshireman, I lived in Yorkshire for many years and fought my first parliamentary seat there, and I agree with the Minister about the fair-mindedness of Yorkshire folk.

We are content with the programme motion. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should be able to complete the business in a straightforward way in the time agreed by the Programming Sub-Committee, and I shall hold him to his word that he intends to be simple and strategic.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I, too, Mr. O'Brien, welcome you to the Chair of this Committee on the umpteenth Bill this Session from the Lord Chancellor's Department, as was. Some of us are beginning to feel like permanent fixtures in Committee Rooms. I can lay no claim whatever to having a particular affinity with Yorkshire, but I hope that that will not be held against me. Somerset and Yorkshire enjoy playing cricket against each other, but that is about it.

The Bill is important. It has been improved hugely already, which is to everyone's credit, especially those in another place who fought for changes. We hope to improve it still further in Committee. I am interested in what the Minister's strategic responses will comprise. We await them with bated breath.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution and a Ways and Means resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are available in the Room. Adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, I do not intend to call starred amendments, including those that may be reached during an afternoon sitting.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in

clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out 'and effective' and insert ', effective and accessible'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 6, in

clause 1, page 1, line 19, at end insert

'and in particular a detailed analysis of the operation of this Act, especially the question of accessibility of the courts to court users.'.

Amendment No. 109, in

clause 1, page 1, line 19, at end insert—

'(5) In the course of preparation of any report under subsection (4), the Lord Chancellor must, in respect of each local justice area, consult with court users on the accessibility of courts situated in the relevant area.'.

Amendment No. 31, in

clause 21, page 10, line 34, at end insert

', and shall take into account the views of lay justices in any local justice area before making any changes regarding that local justice area, and in particular shall not allow any court building in any local justice area to be closed if the lay justices believe that location needs a court to continue to operate there in the interests of local justice, regardless of Lord Chancellor's Department circulars and guidance.'.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

It is always nice to start a Committee with the most crucial subject of the Bill under discussion. The first group of amendments goes to the heart of the concerns of many people, not just those represented in the Room, but people outside who will have to work with the Bill in the future and who, although welcoming some aspects of it, fear some of its consequences. The Minister will know from

reading the reports of the debates in another place how much the principle of accessibility was at the heart of the discussion. It is also at the heart of our worries, because over several years—this is not exclusively due to the actions of the current Government; it has been happening over a sufficiently long period for the blame to be spread—we have seen the closure of smaller courthouses and the concentration of court hearings in an ever smaller number of buildings, which, by necessity, are therefore more geographically remote from the people whom they serve.

That worry has been exacerbated by a policy emanating from the Department formerly known as the Lord Chancellor's Department—I wish there were a shorthand way of saying that. It may be more convenient for Hansard if we still refer to it as the Lord Chancellor's Department, when we mean the previous Lord Chancellor's Department rather than the present Department for Constitutional Affairs. The policy laid down criteria that the present magistrates courts committees have had to follow, and resourcing streams that did not allow them the luxury of maintaining smaller cost centres such as courthouses in remote rural areas. However, the committees were blamed for the closures that resulted.

That was a wholly unsatisfactory position. It irritated and upset people in local areas when they found that their courthouse was closed, and closures had—and still do have—a disruptive effect on the principles of the justice system. In my area of the country and in many others, people were often obliged to travel considerable distances to a court. For those who have a car and a lot of time, that causes relatively few problems. For those who do not have a car and rely on the wholly inadequate public transport system in many rural areas, let alone in some urban areas, or for those for whom time means money because they are self-employed business men or similar people who find it difficult to take time out of their day, it makes it much more difficult for them to participate in the legal process. That is a worry.

Such a problem add costs for the police, too, because they have to devote whole days to being away from their normal patrolling area to attend a court distant from where they are based. It also adds time and difficulty for legal representatives. We already have a significant problem with the number of criminal defence solicitors in this country, and the number of people in general practice who are prepared to take on criminal work. Every additional burden for them in attending courts some distance from their normal practice is one more reason why they choose to cease to do that far from lucrative work and concentrate on other areas of legal practice.

There is also a problem with witnesses who cannot attend case hearings, with those who are affected by cases and wish to see the proceedings but are unable to do so, and with the defendants themselves. They are not the prime concern, but they, too, often find it difficult to attend the hearing in reasonable time. For all those reasons, we should deprecate the move toward the closure of courts. The Bill will increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the Court Service. That is its intention, and we have no quarrel with that.

Indeed we applaud it, but it also makes decisions more remote from the people whom the courts serve. They are taken at a national rather than a local level.

Many people are concerned that that will accelerate not reduce the speed of closures of smaller courts. There is a clear argument that accessibility—accessibility can be expressed in a number of different ways, but geographical accessibility is an important part of it—should be at the core of the Lord Chancellor's duties in implementing the Bill.

That is not just my opinion, it is that of individual magistrates, and a view that is widely held among the general public and local authorities. It is also significant that it is also the view expressed by the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department. In the one report that it has produced so far, its members have made a clear recommendation that the text in clause 1 should be changed so that the general duty of the Lord Chancellor included the word ''accessible''.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman concedes that access to justice means a lot more than the geographical location of courtrooms. Although it would be nice if everything were in clause 1, what is wrong with that being in clause 30, which acknowledges not only the desirability of accessibility, but the need for it?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

It should be in both. I am grateful to the Government for the amendment that they have accepted to clause 30; it is a significant move forward, which will have an effect in practical terms, and I do not decry that. However, when setting out his general duties in maintaining the system of courts, it is obvious that the Lord Chancellor should apply that criterion when considering any aspect of the system, not simply the narrow issue of the position of courts.

There may be other factors involved. If the Government are genuine in accepting the case for accessibility as an important factor in placing courthouses—and I have no reason to suppose that they are not—they should have no difficulty in accepting that as a general duty. It is one among several. The trouble with the words ''efficient and effective'' is that they can be interpreted in several ways. We all know that things that are efficient and effective for the deliverers of a service may be far from efficient and affective for its recipients.

We are asking that the same degree of consideration be given to the interests of court users as to the interests of those who deliver the service, who may wish to do so in an efficient, effective and economical way. Evidence shows that that has not always been the case in the past, and that there is a risk that it will be even less so in the future, because of the inevitable detachment. Any sensible reading of the Bill suggests that it is inevitable that there will be detachment of local communities from the administration of the Court Service, despite the role of the courts boards, which we will discuss later.

This is an important matter of principle. It is a clear recommendation of the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department, whose members picked up the wording direct from Professor Bridges of the

university of Warwick. I cannot improve on what he suggested as a suitable amendment, and that is why I tabled the precise words in amendment No. 1. This is the touchstone of whether the Government are genuine about wanting to see a court system that works well not only for the practitioners but for the users.

Amendment No. 109 would add to the responsibilities in the reporting structure that the Government have accepted as a principle under subsection (4)—that the Lord Chancellor should give an annual report on the way in which he has discharged his general duty.

Amendment No. 109 would ensure that as part of that reporting process, the Lord Chancellor—or whoever is in charge of the courts—went out and asked people, ''How is this for you? Is it working? Can you get to your courts, and are they serving the local community that you represent?'' Such a safeguard would give us more chance of creating a system responsive to local communities, rather than ignorant of their needs.

There is ample evidence that even under the present system ignorance of local circumstances exists. I heard a story—I have no reason to suppose that it is not true—of one poor chap in mid-Wales who ended up walking 14 miles to attend a court hearing in Aberystwyth because his local court had closed down. That is unacceptable; it is not local justice, or what we mean by an accessible court system. I accept that that is an extreme case, but even in my area there are proposals to close Frome magistrates court. There is another proposal in the neighbouring constituency to close Wells court. The effect of those closures will be that people will have to travel to Bath or Yeovil to have their cases heard.

How do people get to Bath or Yeovil with the public transport system in its present state? My village has only one bus a week, and it goes to Frome, not to Bath or Yeovil. How might an 18-year-old defendant charged with taking a car without permission, who does not have the benefit of a car to get him to court, get to his hearing in Yeovil when there is no other transport available? Most youths accused of taking a car without permission would take another car without permission to get to court—and they would be in trouble again. Surely that is not what we want to promote in a sensible judicial system.

This is an important group of amendments. I hope that the Minister will say, ''Yes, we accept amendment No. 1 now.'' Then we could stop this argument. If he does not say that, I predict that it will return again and again. There is already a queue of Bills in another place waiting to reach their conclusion, and if the Minister digs his heels in, this will be another. He will probably say that in principle he does not disagree with what we are saying. However, wisdom dictates—even for a Minister who is new to his brief, which I know makes things more difficult—that he agree to my proposal, which I have reason to suppose will be

supported by other Opposition Members. We can then move on in good order, having established an important principle about the locality and accessibility of justice in this country.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I entirely agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about this group of amendments, and I shall expand on it.

There are a couple of Conservative amendments in the group, and amendment No. 3, which was not selected, would have had an effect similar to the Liberal Democrat amendment No. 1. We agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments about the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department. That must be the only Select Committee in history to be set up, produce one report and then have to change its name immediately—that is another one of the many bizarre features of the Government's botched reshuffle. Of course I do not blame the new Minister for that—this hot potato has been dumped in his lap, and I do not suppose that he is happy with that, but he will make the best of a bad job. As he said, he will be as simple and strategic as he can.

Members of the official Opposition feel as strongly about this as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) does. My hon. Friends and I have been asking questions about it at just about every Lord Chancellor's Department Question Time for many years, not merely for the past two weeks or months. Since they came to power, this Government have closed many more magistrates courts.

I want to explain a little bit about this closure mania. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, and the Minister will no doubt say, there were closures under the previous Conservative Government. However, the fact remains that it was not acceptable for the Minister's predecessors to repeat parrot fashion, as they so often did in successive question times, the phrase, ''Well, these are local decisions taken by the magistrates courts committees. It's nothing to do with us. It isn't our responsibility.'' That was the response so many times—the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues heard it, too.

The Government are responsible, as the hon. Gentleman said, for the severe constraints and tight guidance under which those magistrates courts committees have been working. They have been boxed in and forced by the trend of Government policy, which in my view has been misconceived for many years under Governments of both parties. There is an abnegation of the Government's responsibility to provide local justice. That is why the group of amendments is so vital, why Professor Bridges said what he did to the Select Committee, and why they endorsed it—and that is why the amendments should be made.

Unless the Government have, on reflection, seen sense and accepted the amendments as they stand, or some version of them, the official Opposition will wish to vote on amendment No. 31 when we get to clause 21. That would take the matter a stage further, because it would mean that court buildings would not close if

local justices did not want them to, and give them the final say, regardless of the guidance, the circulars and all that nonsense. We believe that local justice is so vital that it should take precedence over all that guidance and all those circulars.

I am sure that the Minister will respond with a lot of detail on how the decisions have been made by magistrates courts committees. Nevertheless, I want to explain something. In response to questions from my hon. Friend the shadow Attorney-General and me, we elicited a full list of more than 100 local magistrates courts that have closed since the Government came to power. Opposition Members feel strongly about that. Those closures include the magistrates court in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) and various courts in other constituencies, including some in Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire. I shall talk about one or two of those.

When I received the list I remembered appearing as a barrister, as I used to do for many years in the midlands, at various courts on the list. I know that those courts provided local justice. They may not have been the brand spanking new court buildings that bureaucrats like to plan and work in, but they did have the majesty of the law. Most of those buildings were historic as well as local, and local people respected them. Some modern box designed in the 1990s or 2000 does not provide that, although it may have wonderful facilities for the bureaucrats and officials.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Clwyd West)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I shall give way in a moment, but I want to develop my point first. I am not surprised that I am provoking some reaction, but I want to stress how strongly I feel.

Let us consider some of the courts on the list in historic towns in rural areas, such as Stow-on-the-Wold, Lichfield, Wombourne—for the benefit of those who do not know it, I should explain that that is to the west of Wolverhampton—Evesham, Droitwich and Bridgnorth. I appeared in all those courts for many years, and they provided genuine local justice. It is nothing short of a scandal, which will stand to the discredit of the Government, that they have abandoned the whole concept of local justice.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

The hon. Gentleman's argument would have some credibility had he produced the list that included all the courts that closed under Conservative Administrations. His Government should have listened to our representations when we were in opposition about the closure of courts such as Oakmere and Ellesmere Port.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I have already accepted that courts closed under the Conservative Administration. I did not agree with that decision then, and I do not agree with the acceleration of the closures—make no mistake, there has been an acceleration—since this Government came to power. There has been a closure mania, which has led to the kind of nonsense that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome talked about, with people having to walk to court. He, I and other

hon. Members, including the constituency Member concerned, who I think is from Plaid Cymru, have raised that matter at questions to the Lord Chancellor's Department. For every court that closes, the problem described by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome gets worse. Fewer and fewer people can get to the courts.

Stephen Hesford (Labour, Wirral West)

If the hon. Gentleman's experience when he started at the Bar was like mine, he would have found that the facilities for witnesses and police officers in many of those places were abysmal. If he wants to keep all those buildings in place, how does he hope to improve facilities and modernise the service?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am delighted to have taken that intervention, because it shows the mania for so-called modernisation that is the biggest infection in the whole of this Labour Government. They believe that modernisation is a god, and I cannot stress too strongly the fact that I do not believe that modernisation is as important as the need for local justice.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Is it not true that although many ancient local courthouses provided poor facilities, the same could be said about a lot of ancient local schools? They too provided poor facilities—and the answer is to improve them and invest in them, so as to provide local education, just as we should provide local courthouses.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The hon. Gentleman is right, and he anticipates part of my argument. In my constituency, because of the tight constraints of the circulars from the Lord Chancellor's Department, the magistrates courts committee said that it had no choice but to close the court. It did not really want to; it wanted to keep the court in Camberley—the main town in my constituency—open, and improve the facilities. That should have been the priority.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I am glad to hear the sinner that repenteth. The arguments about modernisation were the previous Administration's arguments in favour of the closure of the two courtrooms to which I referred. The cost of modernising them would have been excessive, so the closures went ahead.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

For many years, under Governments of both parties, there has been a corporatist, bureaucrat-friendly culture of saying, ''Because it's old, we have to close it.'' The Bill, the effect of which will last for many years, gives us an opportunity to change that culture. The amendments are important because if accessibility becomes the priority, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has advocated, we can stop dead in its tracks the mistaken mania for closure, and return to real local justice. The amendments put accessibility at the heart of the matter, and that is why they are crucial.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

Does my hon. Friend not agree that if Government Members want to support the idea of accessibility they should vote for the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrat spokesman? However, if they want to argue for modernisation, they cannot complain about the closures that took place when we were in government.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, with his usual perspicacity. I say to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) that we want enshrined in the Bill the concept that the need for justice to be local and remain local should be the first and paramount consideration. Any of the lawyers on the Government side will know that that is a phrase used in other areas of the law. The need for justice to be local is so important that it should be in the Bill, in order to override all the bureaucratic circulars and regulations. The Government should provide that wherever possible, courts stay open in the towns where they have stood, in some cases, for hundreds of years.

Looking at the list of the one hundred plus courts that have been shut since the Government came to power, I would say that we want to go further: what we really want is to reverse the trend gradually over the years. Some of those buildings are still available for use, and they should be reopened. In the end, that is what we will have to do if we want to get back to the concept of local justice.

Throughout my experience, and certainly since I started at the Bar in the late 1970s, officials have always had an empire-building tendency. Officials like spanking new buildings to work in with all mod cons and lovely facilities. They are often modern office-type buildings, which may comply with all the circulars but do not have the majesty of the law, as so many of the old buildings do. It is part of the obsession with modernisation that we deplore.

I would rather have buildings that are genuinely local. In many cases, court buildings are magisterial and historic. They lasted so long because they worked. They may not have every facility that we would aim for in an ideal world, but the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome is right that the way to deal with that is to improve buildings, not close them down and make people travel, in some cases, 100 miles from a rural area to a large town or city to work in a huge but faceless new building called a court centre. The false god of modernisation has led the Government since 1997, which is why, if the Government have not seen sense by the time we reach clause 21, I shall urge my hon. Friends to vote in favour of amendment No. 31. At this stage, I simply support this group of amendments, which includes our amendment No. 6 and the Liberal Democrat amendment No. 1.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I tempted the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) to consider Oakmere courtroom. I am talking not about Somerset, Yorkshire or Surrey, but a minor county in cricketing terms: Cheshire. The hon. Gentleman, who made a powerful case for re-opening Oakmere, which was closed by his Administration, fails to acknowledge that it is not on a single bus route or in a town or village; it is merely on a crossroads. Its location was carefully chosen by a Conservative Government, I suspect, because of its proximity to Gallows hill. That is the kind of modernisation that the Conservative party wants. The hon. Gentleman's argument is absurd.

Bridget Prentice (Labour, Lewisham East)

The location was very accessible.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

It was accessible for some people, especially undertakers.

Some of the arguments that have been advanced, in particular about 19th century buildings such as the courtroom in Ellesmere Port, which was closed by the hon. Gentleman's Administration, have huge flaws. A case was made by the magistrates courts committee, and nobody in the local community was listened to. As I understand the new provisions, there will be a requirement for local people to be engaged in the decision-making process and in determining issues such as accessibility. Although I agree with the spirit of what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, I draw his attention, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), to clause 30, in which the concept of accessibility is clearly included.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

It is there now.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I accept that it is there now. The matter has been well argued and the clause should stay there.

It is appropriate to leave the argument at that point. Local people will be involved in the decision-making process. We welcome the fact that the process will no longer be centrally driven. Even the eminent and learned hon. Member for Surrey Heath, who represented a north-west seat before he took the chicken run a few years ago, did not know where Oakmere was, nor would I expect my hon. Friend the Minister to have known. Why should he? Geographic information of that kind is very local.

Boris Johnson (Conservative, Henley)

Do I take it from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that he supports the closure of all the courts to which my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath has referred, but opposes, retrospectively, the closure of the court in his own constituency?

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I did not say that for one minute. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should listen to every word, not just suspected ones.

The point that I am making, in response to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, who made a logical case about geography, is that geographical information is best understood locally. It is a matter not just of looking at a map or at the network of roads, but of understanding the public transport systems and so on. As the Bill contains provisions to enable issues of accessibility to be determined by those who speak for the local community, not simply by those coming, as in our case, from 200 miles away, my fears have been addressed.

To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), it is impossible in my constituency to accelerate the closure, because the previous Administration closed 100 per cent. of the court provision: county court offices and the magistrates court disappeared. Therefore, we are stuck with the reality that some cases are referred to the newly amalgamated bench of Chester and Ellesmere Port, whereas others are referred to Northwich. Here I agree with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, because, as in the example that

he gave, it is an impossible situation. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that, in any guidance, common sense applies and cases are listed in a way that takes into account the likelihood of the individual being able to travel to the court. I know that the hon. Gentleman was not encouraging people to go round stealing cars, but his point must be considered. We must ensure, when cases are listed, that we meet the needs of justice fully by enabling witnesses and the accused to get to courtrooms.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The hon. Gentleman is making a perfectly sensible speech, but what he has just said is a strong argument for what I am proposing. It is important that the listings take account of the accessibility problems to which he refers, but that is not covered by clause 30. That is why there must be a general duty on the court system to provide for accessibility, rather than a specific duty on the places where courts sit, which comes under clause 30.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but he will acknowledge that there is sufficient variety in the geographical circumstances to make it difficult to include every dot and comma of what is necessary. He argues logically that there should be a general duty, but clause 30 is pretty general in the context of places, dates and times of sittings. It says:

''In exercising his powers . . . the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to the need to ensure that court-houses are accessible to persons resident in each local justice area.''

That point is stated firmly enough in the Bill to assimilate the hon. Gentleman's point.

As all parties in the House are concerned about this question of geography, I urge my hon. Friend to ensure in any guidance that is given that, when clerks list cases, they take into account the circumstances of the accused and the witness, and, in some cases, the practicalities of getting police officers to and from courts, so as to avoid wasting their time by making them turn up and sit all day for a case that might take a few minutes. The clerks should use the technology that they have at their disposal to call in officers more efficiently as and when they are needed. A lot of efficiency gains could be made, as well as improvements in the system of justice.

David Cameron (Conservative, Witney)

I am delighted to follow the hon. Gentleman, as we played together in the Houses of Lords and Commons tennis team. It is good to see that he has recovered from the thrashing that we received from almost every team in Europe at the recent—

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

We beat Russia.

David Cameron (Conservative, Witney)

It was a good example of ''Small is beautiful''. All the small teams, such as the Slovenes and the Macedonians, thrashed us, but we beat the Russians.

Those of us who have sat on Committees dealing with home affairs before are again swimming in a sea of lawyers, which makes those of us who like to keep our appearances in magistrates courts to a bare minimum a bit more nervous. I agree with what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath said about the key issue of accessibility. We all agree that local justice

is important. It is convenient for the court and the users, and in many cases is likely to be swift, because there is less moving around the country to get to places. Also, I believe that it is important that justice is seen to be done locally.

It is clearly right to put in the clause a duty on the court system to be ''efficient and effective''. However, that could sometimes clash with accessibility. An example that my local magistrates courts committee brought to my attention is that of specialist courts. It is hugely efficient and effective to have one court that deals with all the traffic offences, including speeding, because all the experts are there and one can push everything through one court in the county. However, if that court in Oxfordshire is the Banbury court, anyone who has committed another offence in Banbury will have to travel to Witney or Oxford, so there is a clash between efficiency and effectiveness, and accessibility, which the Minister must accept.

Guaranteeing accessibility in clause 1, as the amendments would do, is even more important in a relatively top-down system. From my reading of the Bill, the Lord Chancellor seems to appear all over the place. He is responsible for equipping the courthouses, establishing the boards, delineating the areas and changing the areas. An awful lot of power—for an office that does not seem to exist anymore—is being centralised in the hands of the Secretary of State. If the system is going to be top-down, the requirement for accessibility should be in the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath launched an interesting debate about whether one can have the concepts of both modernisation and localism. He is right that there is conflict. If we have uniform national standards that have large cost implications, rural areas will not have as many services. I see that in the ambulance stations, cottage hospitals and police stations, which are often linked to the courthouses, in my constituency. For example, there are no sergeants at Witney police station, so the cells cannot be used overnight, which means that detainees must be transferred to Banbury and so on. There is conflict, but that does not mean that one must either be totally in favour of localism and say, ''To hell with national standards,'' or be totally for national standards and close everything in local areas. However, there is a balance, and we need to tip the scales of that balance in favour of localism. To use new Labour-speak, putting accessibility in clause 1 would be a great move.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr. O'Brien. It is also a great pleasure once again to sit opposite the Minister. I sat opposite the Minister in Committee when we considered the Local Government Bill, and he was in absolute command of the subject. After hearing what he said earlier, I am sure that—despite his brief tenure in his new post—he will prove again that he is on top of his brief.

Both you, Mr. O'Brien, and the Minister will have had constituency experience of talking to members of all political parties. It is the fate of all constituency MPs, me included, to talk to members not only of our own party, but of others. My hon. Friend the Member

for Witney (Mr. Cameron) said a moment ago that the Committee is drowning in a sea of lawyers. When I talk to people in my constituency—to members of the Conservative Association and to members of the Labour party—I feel as though I am drowning in a sea of magistrates. Senior members of the Labour party in my constituency often turn out to be magistrates, as do senior members of the Conservation Association. Those people have a great deal to say about the point addressed in the amendment that was so ably moved by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. Those people are concerned with the point about accessibility.

I will not rehearse the points already made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. If one examines the list of courts to be closed by the Government, one finds that, in only a few days' time, on 1 July, Beaconsfield court in my neighbouring constituency is due to close. Members of my party, and members of the local Labour party, were keen to discuss that closure when our court in Wycombe held an open day recently.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned Beaconsfield because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who is on the shadow Front-Bench team for home affairs, is also very concerned about that closure. Has my hon. Friend noticed that—I do not blame the current Minister for this—Beaconsfield appears twice on the list? It occurred to me that, to modify the words of a well-known song, it was so good they named it twice.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

I had noticed that—greatly assisted by the squiggle that my hon. Friend drew on the list that he handed to me a few moments ago, joining the word ''Beaconsfield'' when it appeared for the first time to the word ''Beaconsfield'' when it appeared for the second time.

I will now say something that may please my hon. Friend rather less. I say it with great trepidation. I do not entirely follow his argument about modernisation all the way to the end of the line. I think that it is entirely right that the Government should seek to modernise the court structures. It is quite right that the Bill states that there should be an ''efficient and effective system''. That is the heart of the matter. The words ''efficient and effective'' would imply to any reasonable person a degree of rationalisation.

The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston used the phrase ''efficiency gains''. When that phrase is used, it normally indicates an element of rationalisation and contraction. That is fair enough in principle. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Witney said, the principle represented in the Bill needs a counterweight. That counterweight is admirably represented by the word ''accessible'', as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said. Where better to put that right than at the start of the Bill, so that the modernisation that the Government are rightly pursuing is balanced by the principle of accessibility, and so that our constituents do not find that their access to justice is limited? I am looking

forward to the Minister getting up in a few moments and saying that, so reasonable is the case that has been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, he will accept the amendment.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Clwyd West)

Opposition Members have made some effective points, but have overstated the case for accessibility. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston: we have to strike a balance between the need to manage the court estate strategically and the need to maintain localism and geographical accessibility. The case for keeping local courts open at all costs is often overstated.

Can the Minister reassure us that he has taken on board the concerns of those of us who represent rural constituencies that, although we need to rationalise the estate, the interests of victims and witnesses will always be taken into account? We welcome the fact that the new courts boards will include members of the local community. They will need to consider transport, accessibility and the needs of witnesses and victims. The Minister's acknowledgement of that requirement will be most welcome.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome about the fact that it is nice to have had such a wide-ranging debate right at the outset. I have served on Committees that have started with semantic and drafting changes, which rather takes the wind out of the sails of the proceedings. It is important that we have already had the opportunity to think about some of the significant principles of the Bill.

I shall start by providing some background to the Government's thinking behind clause 1, and, indeed, the rest of part 1. The current arrangements provide for separation of the management of the courts in England and Wales. The Supreme Court, as currently understood—the High Court, the Crown Court and the Court of Appeal combined—and the county courts are managed by the Court Service, an executive agency of what is now the Department for Constitutional Affairs. The magistrates courts are administered by 42 separate magistrates courts committees.

In his review of the criminal courts, Lord Justice Auld recommended that a single agency should replace the Court Service and the MCCs. In the White Paper ''Justice for All'', the Government accepted Sir Robin's view that the difference in practice, procedure, management and funding of the current 43 organisations and their respective administrative cultures is occasionally inefficient and could be harmfully divisive, contributing to the fractured nature of the criminal justice system as a whole.

That is why the Government are considering the unification of court administration. It has important benefits. First, the unification process will establish a clear overall direction and accountability for national performance, while giving managers the freedom to innovate as local needs require. It will enable resources to be better used at both national and local level. That includes the better use of the court estate. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas) asked about the local dimension. The agency will be

flexible and will be able to match resources to need, uninhibited by organisational boundaries. It will be more efficient, providing better value by sharing and pooling resources and purchasing power, freeing resources for front-line operations.

The proposal will make justice more accessible. Many hon. Members have mentioned their concerns about rural access to justice. The process of the Bill might help to allow the business of magistrates courts to be conducted at any place in England and Wales that the Lord Chancellor directs. That could lead to greater use of local non-court buildings where appropriate.

The benefits include improved customer service—the new agency will be easier for the public and court users to communicate with and understand—and improved liaison in the criminal justice system, with closer and more coherent liaison between the courts, user groups and justice agencies at national and local levels. Unification will help to provide a framework for the setting and monitoring of national standards to enable best practice to be shared and standards in poorly performing areas to be raised. We must not lose sight of the benefits of unification in our discussions.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome tabled amendment No. 1, which would require the Lord Chancellor to ensure that the system supporting the business of the courts is ''accessible'', as well as efficient and effective. He rightly predicted that I take the view that that amendment is unnecessary. The general duty that the Bill imposes on the Lord Chancellor clearly includes access to the courts:

''to ensure that there is an efficient and effective system to support the carrying on of the business of the courts, and that appropriate services are provided for those courts''

I was saddened by the extreme comments by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, who described the ''mania for modernisation'' as a disease. The hon. Members for Witney and for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) made me feel a bit better because they tempered the Conservative party's official Opposition view with more moderate comments.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I share my hon. Friend the Minister's concern about the rejection of modernisation. We should consider accessibility for people with disabilities, audio loops and the separation of witnesses from the accused in waiting areas in modern courtrooms. I hope that all parties in the House would support such modernisation.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

My hon. Friend is right. Access is an important aspect of our court buildings, but we are doing more than that. Flicking through the ''Court Service Annual Report and Accounts 2001–02''—as I often do—I spotted the successful introduction of money claim online, which uses new technology in court activities; for example, e-mail applications have been piloted at Preston county court. My hon. Friend also alluded to other new ways of working in the courts system. A lot of work is taking place on access, which proves that the amendment is redundant. In particular, work to support victims, witnesses, families, children and professional legal advisers is

currently going on. It is all about harnessing new technology.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford pointed out that accessibility had not been missed out of the Bill. The changes that have been made to clause 30(2) on the places, dates and times of sitting make it clear that the Government readily accept the notion that the Lord Chancellor must consider accessibility. When they look at clause 30(2), hon. Members must acknowledge that we have responded to the debate in another place.

We could have a long debate about whether other objectives should be inserted before or after ''efficient and effective''. Many of those objectives would be perfectly laudable. Should we include ''fairness'', ''timeliness'', ''high quality'', ''openness'', ''responsiveness'' and possibly even ''modernised''? We must focus on the broad notions of efficiency and effectiveness, which is why I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will withdraw the amendment.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath did not elaborate on the full glory of amendment No. 6, which suggests that the annual report, the idea of which we have accepted, should contain a detailed analysis of the operation of the Bill, especially the question of the accessibility of courts to court users. The provision for an annual report under clause 1 would ensure that the public and Parliament received information about the operation of the new organisation. The annual report will include information about the agency's performance, as well as corporate information about the agency itself. For the first time it will present performance information about magistrates courts and the Crown court in a single annual document that will be available for public and parliamentary scrutiny. We believe that to extend coverage of the report to other provisions of the Bill would be complex, and not necessarily related to the unified administration of the court.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

There is a crux here that my hon. Friend may be able to help me with. Will the annual report say something about courts that have closed and opened during the year that has just passed?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I am sure that such an annual report would, by necessity, have to touch on many of those issues, because it will be about the operations of the unified court system. It would be perverse to accept the amendment, given that it relates not to the operations of the new administration but to the Bill as it is currently framed. That includes provisions about the Official Solicitor for Northern Ireland and the process of periodical payments—matters that we will come to later. It is not appropriate to have a report that simply reflects the legislative vehicle through which a number of changes are being introduced.

My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West asked why we should focus exclusively on accessibility when there are other issues such as efficiency and effectiveness that the annual report should cover, too. It is slightly strange to start a list of particular issues that an annual report should cover.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome spoke to amendment No. 109, which would require the Lord Chancellor to consult court users on the accessibility of all courts in preparing the annual report. We believe that it is illogical to link consultation with court users to the preparation of an annual report. Consultation with court users is something that should take place constantly, and should not start and finish in relation to a particular publication.

Court users will have a say through the new courts boards, and they will have a great input in how courts are run locally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston suggested. Apparently, engagement with the local community is voluntary at the moment, both for the MCCs and the Court Service. We believe that many issues dealt with by the courts administration, such as location of services and court facilities, are of great concern to court users and to the community as a whole. That is why we are creating community-focused courts boards with real influence on the way in which the courts are run.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I do not know if the Minister realises that the citizens advice bureaux have been in touch with a number of us to say that their concern is that the interests of people such as victims and witnesses are not properly recognised in current court user groups. My worry—which I know the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome shares—is that the annual report will simply replicate what has already happened, and the interests of victims and witnesses will not be sufficiently recognised. That is what the citizens advice bureaux say has happened over the past few years.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I must respond to that point. Citizens advice bureaux throughout the country do a phenomenally important job, and I hope that they will have the opportunity to contribute, not just to the consultation processes, but possibly to the running, and to the discussions that take place with courts boards, given that their composition as set out in schedule 1 is fairly broad. There is scope for the appointment of a variety of people—with various skills and feelings on those matters—to the courts boards.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

So that we can understand the matter from the cases that we have dealt with, let us consider the closure of Ellesmere Port court prison. When that occurred, objections were lodged by all parties, including the local authority, the police, the citizens advice bureau, local solicitors and the local representatives of the Law Society. Those were powerful voices, but they were ignored under the present arrangements.

Is my hon. Friend saying that now those voices would be listened to, and account would be taken of their knowledge of the circumstances before closures were determined?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

As I took on my new role, one of the things that struck me about the piloting of some of the Bill through its previous stages was the fact that the current draft includes the widespread ability to consult

at several levels. We will have a unified national courts administration, but the courts boards process and focus will be outward-looking and more community-orientated. Many of the groups to which my hon. Friend referred will have a much greater sense that they are included in that aspect of the criminal justice system.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath spoke to amendment No. 31. He wants the Lord Chancellor to take into account the views of the magistrates in the local justice area before making any changes. The amendment would stop closure of a court building if the magistrates in the area believed that it needed to remain open in the interests of local justice. The amendment is unworkable and would not be in the interests of local justice or of those who use the courts.

The effect of the amendment in respect of the closure of court buildings would be perverse. We recognise that court closures can be an important issue to court users and members of the local community. Clause 5 deals with courts boards, which would include magistrates and representatives of the local community, who will be involved in the development of plans for their area, including proposals to open, close or relocate courthouses in the context of the area's overall business plan. Any proposals to close courthouses will continue to be subject to wide consultation with interested groups in the local community, including the local magistracy.

The amendment would allow the local magistrates to stop the closure of a court building, be it Crown court, county court or magistrates court, if they believed that retaining it was in the interests of their perception of local justice. What if magistrates were to block the closure of a court building that was particularly old, inaccessible and lacked facilities, and regarded even by Conservative Members as requiring modernisation? Keeping such a court building would prevent us from building a new court in a nearby town that might be more accessible to users of the old building. Would that decision be in the interests of all court users?

What if the agency wanted to close a county court building and rehouse civil and family work in a modern magistrates court building in the same town? Even with the support of the local courts board and civil and family court user groups, the local magistracy could prevent those plans from going ahead. In allowing local magistrates to block court closures in their areas, the amendment would confuse lines of accountability, certainly to Parliament. One of the criticisms of the current system, which has been made many times and repeated this morning, is that the Lord Chancellor is not accountable for decisions about the closure of magistrates courts. The amendment would make magistrates, who have no accountability to the public and certainly none to the House, responsible for fundamental decisions about the court estate.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

What the Minister has just said is nonsense, in view of the answers constantly given by his precedessors. Whenever hon. Members have protested about magistrates courts closures, Ministers have constantly repeated that it is nothing

to do with them and that it is all up to the local magistrates courts committee. The Government are now saying that the change that we suggest would confuse parliamentary responsibility and take it away, when for the past six years the hon. Gentleman's predecessors in office have been denying responsibility.

The amendment would ensure that the local justices, who know the needs of local justice far better than any bureaucrat or Minister, had the final say. That is what local justice should be all about.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

The hon. Gentleman is mischaracterising the statements made by my predecessors. There has never been a denial of the right to appeal on such matters. Indeed, I understand that in recent times—for example, in respect of Grays magistrates court and elsewhere—Ministers took the view that they should not accept the decisions of the magistrates courts committees, and have been able to respond to local views. That kind of accountability and response to public views would not be possible under the terms of the amendment, given that the magistrates would have the final say on such matters. It is a rather strange, but perhaps unsurprising, amendment for his party to have tabled.

I do not deny that decisions on the court estate are not easy. Indeed, they can be difficult. It is important, however, that decisions are made properly, and the views of both court users and local communities are taken into account. We must balance the need for locally delivered services with the need to improve their quality within the available resources.

I was interested to hear that the new Conservative party policy is to consider reopening former magistrates courts. That is obviously a new policy statement, which has no doubt been fully costed and discussed with the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It might be worth hon. Members cross-examining their Treasury team to find out whether millions of pounds have been assigned to that, and what would be the effect on public expenditure.

We believe that the creation of a unified court administration will help to create a more efficient, effective system of justice in this country. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome to withdraw his amendment.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

We have had a useful and illuminating debate on this group of amendments, although I have my doubts about whether the Minister's reply was entirely strategic. We may expand a little further on that subject later.

With amendment No. 109, the difficulty is that it is in the Department's interests to ensure that what it does is road-tested against the experiences of court users throughout the country. The Minister says that that happens all the time, and he does not want to restrict it by tying it to the production of an annual report. So be it. That is fine and would satisfy the requirements of my amendment. However, the amendment would also ensure that when the annual report is published we would have an opportunity to test the performance of the Department against the principles to which it claims to aspire. That is important. The Minister says that the courts boards

will fulfil that function, but we have yet to debate how those will operate and the extent of their functions under the Bill.

I remind the Minister that courts boards will be established on the basis of the current magistrates courts committee areas, which are coterminous with those of police authorities. The latter range from areas recognisable as counties to what is recognisable, in most terms, as a region. The police authority for London covers the whole of the Metropolitan police area, which is huge. The Greater Manchester police authority covers an enormous area.

Even in my locale, the Avon and Somerset police authority extends over many lay bench areas. It would be hard to find two individuals who represent the lay magistrates and are considered to have an understanding of the entire area. The Minister will not be surprised to learn that the requirements, character and traditions of inner-city Bristol are slightly different from those of Exmoor. It is an enormous responsibility for courts boards to be asked to articulate the views of many vastly different communities.

To find out how effective the Department has been in doing what it is intended to do, something much closer to the ground is needed—something that relates to the people who use particular courts.

That brings me to the major amendment, No. 1. Most hon. Members have understood that there is a balance to be struck between efficiency, effectiveness and accessibility in terms of locality and so on. Those of us with experience of local government know that people have to wrestle with such matters constantly in many spheres. For example, anyone who has run an education authority in a rural shire knows that one has to work out whether it is better to maintain and improve a small, rural, Victorian school or to find an alternative—a new, purpose-built school that covers several villages and can provide for a wider population. Such a balance has to be struck and it is right for this Department to do so too.

That is why I am disappointed by what the Minister said. Including accessibility in the general duty ensures that that test must be applied to every decision. The debate has concentrated on court closures, but it could equally have concentrated on the other aspects of the Department's work. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston mentioned listings, which are crucial, and the hon. Member for Witney mentioned batch processing, which is also crucial. If magistrates courts have to churn through a vast number of similar cases, they will inevitably be held further away than is appropriate to the needs of a dispersed population because of the listings process, not because of where the courthouse happens to be. That is the key matter, which we want the Minister to consider.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman who, as always, articulates the case with great care. Does he, too, deplore the recent trend, even under the current system and after all the closures, for all the traffic cases in an area to be moved to one place, which makes it even less convenient for victims and

witnesses? We want that trend to be reversed and to return to local justice, the original concept of which was founded on lay magistrates as volunteers taking responsibility for justice in the area they knew and understood.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I accept that. It was the point that I was making.

I am going to say something nice about the Department. Immediately before the changeover I detected a difference in attitude: the Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) was beginning to take a different view about court closures and in the past few months several did not go ahead as expected. I hope that that played no part in her departure from the Department. A more user-friendly attitude seemed to be developing.

The Minister prayed in aid that he had a jolly nice Department, which was interested in ensuring accessibility and he rashly mentioned IT systems. That is a subject that the Department would do well to keep away from until things settle down. The Minister hopes the Bill will become an Act that will govern Ministers' thoughts and activities for many years to come, as there are not many Courts Bills and not all Lord Chancellors are the same—some are saints, and some are far from saints. We had a little brush with history on Tuesday, when I mentioned the Lord Chancellor in 1075, who was called Baldrick and did not last very long. He was removed from office before the end of that year. I have no knowledge of the record of Baldrick as Lord Chancellor, but I have recollections of the behaviour of more recent Lord Chancellors, and not all of them acted in the same way in the exercise of their duties. Some of them had cunning plans and others did not.

To place a general duty on the Lord Chancellor, which the Minister accepts the principle of because he thinks that it is something that will always be taken into account and which does not in any way remove the existing general duty to operate efficient and effective systems, is a simple and sensible way forward and the Minister should consider it. He says that the amendment is unnecessary because of clause 30. I have already said that clause 30 is fine; the Minister and the Department have already accepted an amendment to it. He said that he readily accepted that amendment, but I remind him gently that it was so readily accepted that it went to a Division in another place and was won by 90 votes to 89. Therefore, it was not quite as readily accepted as he likes to portray. It was won by a single vote, nevertheless it was won, and he has accepted the amendment and it is his shield against attack, despite it having been thrust upon him. The trouble is that the amendment deals only with one specific area of the Lord Chancellor's responsibilities, not the others.

Many hon. Members have said that local justice, in all its aspects, is an important concept, which is not at the heart of the Bill in its present form.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in the general duty, the reference to ''efficient and effective'' applies not simply to the Lord Chancellor in his duties towards the state, but in his duties in their entirety, including his duties to the clients of the court, whether they be victims or witnesses? That principle is embodied in a wide range of legislation: general duties mean not just duties to the courtroom, but to the whole service.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I believe that the problem that he has had throughout our proceedings is that he agrees with me, but is not allowed expressly to say so. He has agreed with many of the principles that I have attempted to set out.

The problem is that the words in the Bill as currently drafted are capable of different interpretations. If a general duty is expressed in terms of an efficient and effective system, it could be argued that an efficient and effective system would be to have one enormous court in London and to require everyone to attend it. As far as the state is concerned, that would be remarkably efficient and effective. None of the lawyers would have to leave the court; they could all have chambers encircling the court, and would never have to walk more than 10 yd to go to the court. For everyone except the victims, witnesses and defendants it would be a marvellous way of doing things. However, that would not comply with what I imagine to be local justice.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

That is exactly my point. The hon. Gentleman presumes that the general duty is towards the Government or the state, but it is not. The Bill imposes a general duty on the Lord Chancellor towards all of the users of the court, whether they be policemen, magistrates or court committees. The duty is a general one.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman can pursue that argument very far. If he does, I shall require the Lord Chancellor to have a system that is effective and efficient as far as I am concerned, which would be a courthouse in Witham Friary in Somerset. I shall challenge the Government, because they have failed in their general duty to provide me with an efficient court system. I do not believe that I will succeed in judicial review on that basis, or that I will even start a judicial review on that basis, because the court would interpret it as being a duty to the general good in utilitarian terms, which does not necessarily apply to the individuals who will be badly served by the consequence.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that accessibility is important not only in the efficient running of the courts and in minimising the number of cases that have to be put back because of the non-attendance of witnesses and defendants, but in avoiding the stress and inconvenience experienced by witnesses and defendants who attend but whose cases are put back time and again? That is an important element in the argument about accessibility.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I agree with everything that she said.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I am confused. The hon. Gentleman needs to take two points into account. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston alluded to the nature of accessibility, which I believe has a much wider scope than the hon. Gentleman is considering. Clause 30 now requires the Lord Chancellor to

''have regard to the need to ensure that court-houses are accessible to persons resident in each local justice area'',

which shoots his fox. If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about including accessibility as part of the general duty, why is he not also concerned about fairness? Why should there not also be a fair court system? Why would he exclude that? Does he understand the point about lists continuing perhaps virtuously and inexhaustibly?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The administration of justice and the performance of a court are quite different from the systems that provide for conducting the business of the court. Requirements for fairness are already laid down in the Human Rights Act 1998, quite apart from individual statutes, so fairness is covered. The matter in question is the mechanics of providing for that judicial system. I repeat that the balance between efficiency, effectiveness and accessibility is crucial to the role of the Lord Chancellor, or whoever takes on the role in future.

As I said, local justice as a concept is not to be dismissed. I hesitate to quote the great charter, but there is an element of locality in justice administered by one's peers. One's peers are not remote and unaware of the circumstances or the way of life of the person before the court. For those reasons, the amendment is crucial. The Minister has not accepted it today, but I predict that he will do so at some later stage in the Bill's proceedings because he will not have his Bill without the word in it.

As I said to his colleagues in other Departments, it is foolish to spend much time resisting the inevitable when it will not prevent the Department from carrying out its sensible duties. He says that he sympathises with the concept, if not the reality, of my amendment. Any sensible Minister who was thinking simply or strategically would simply and strategically tell his officials, ''We will have to do something about this. Let's get it right before Report.'' I invite him to get it right before Report, because we will divide on the matter on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Stephen Hesford (Labour, Wirral West)

I want to raise an issue with my hon. Friend, of which I have given him prior notice. It was not right to comment on it during our discussions on the amendments. I refer to the streamlining of the court system. Lord Justice Auld rightly said that the magistrates court, the Crown court and the Court of Appeal criminal division should be a seamless service. Has consideration been given to the inclusion or the placing of the divisional court in that criminal jurisdiction? It exercises large jurisdiction over the

magistrates in its criminal capacity. Given that there is to be streamlining, was the divisional court left alone for a reason? If not, will my hon. Friend consider my proposal?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Although we have had a difference of view across the Committee about the amendments, we welcome the fact that—not least in relation to clause 30 to which the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome referred—the Government have taken on the chin some of the defeats that my noble Friend, Baroness Anelay of St. Johns, who led for my party in another place with the support of many Liberal Democrats, inflicted on the Government. It is important to consider the Bill in its present form, having been improved in the other place.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman's predictions about the amendments and that we are bound to return to such matters on Report. I do not believe that the Government will get their Bill without improvements being made, not least to clause 1. I want to flag up our worry about the way in which the Minister's Department will carry out its general duties. Over the past few years since the Government came to power, Conservative Members have observed a move by stealth to downgrade the role of the lay magistracy. We are seeing a greater use of stipendiaries. We will be watching the Department carefully. After the shambolic reshuffle and the disastrous creation of the Department, which was not a good start, we need to be suspicious. I hope that Labour Back Benchers will be equally suspicious if they support, as I do, the role of the lay magistracy.

When I looked at the membership of the Committee, it came as no surprise to see that one of the great champions of the lay magistracy from the Labour Back Benchers, the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), was not part of it. The Minister would have had a more difficult time had he been appointed to the Committee. On many occasions, the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire has joined Conservative Members and Liberal Democrats in attacking the previous Lord Chancellor's Department for its actions.

We welcome the Minister to his post and we hope that, despite moving the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) away from the Department, he will carry on with the hon. Lady's welcome display of independence, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said. I think that she was moved sideways into another Department because she was beginning to think for herself too much and resist attacks on the lay magistracy. I hope that members of the Committee, including Labour Back Benchers, will watch carefully to see how the Department carries out its general duties.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

First, the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) will recall that on Second Reading I referred to the family division and its absence from the proposals. Co-location between the family division and magistrates courts or even county courts is crucial and should be considered in the context of the efficient and effective use of court buildings. In particular, smaller courts that deal with

relatively few cases in rural areas can make all the difference to cost effectiveness.

Secondly, I welcome the Government's acceptance of the amendment on the annual report and the fact that that will not be reversed.

Thirdly, we have heard a lot of nonsense about a supreme court in recent weeks with people suggesting that it is a wholly American term that we have imported to discuss the future of the House of Lords. That is not so. It is a term that is basic to English and Welsh law, but I wonder whether there is a satisfactory definition of supreme court in other statutes. I have always understood it to be the High Court and Court of Appeal as a whole. The clause appears to change the definition, although I am not sure whether it is a change or clarification, and we need to know whether there is a satisfactory definition of what we in this country mean by supreme court before we try to amend it and call it something else.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

It is important not to neglect the central aspects of the clause when discussing whether it should stand part of the Bill. It places on the Lord Chancellor a duty of securing the efficient and effective administration of the courts in England and Wales. It also requires him to present a report to Parliament on the new agency within 18 months of its establishment and annually thereafter. This clause acts as the means by which unification of the administration of all courts in England and Wales, except for the House of Lords, can be undertaken. That was the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West, particularly in respect of the divisional court of the Queen's bench division, which has some criminal jurisdiction and is the only court that tends to sit regularly. I am assured that it will be part of the unified administration and I hope that that answers my hon. Friend's point.

In reply to the point raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, the family court and civil branches will be included in the unified courts administration. We have identified around 70 opportunities to house county courts in magistrates courts, which may be helpful in widening local access to civil justice.

In practice, the Lord Chancellor will establish a new executive agency for the day-to-day running of the courts. The agency will replace the Court Service, the magistrates courts committees and the Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority.

The Lord Chancellor is currently required to publish and lay before Parliament an annual report on the business of the Supreme Court and the county courts, namely the Court Service annual report. The clause extends that requirement to all the business of the unified court system for which the Lord Chancellor will be responsible. It is a means of holding the agency, via the Lord Chancellor, accountable to Parliament for its performance.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am genuinely surprised at what the Minister said about the family division because it does not seem to be included in the unified court structure

under the Bill, although he obviously knows what he is talking about. Will it come under the jurisdiction of the courts boards? It is not specifically included in clause 5(4) and I am surprised that if it comes within the unified structure it is excluded.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

A number of important issues have been usefully raised and it might be helpful if I write to hon. Members.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Court officers, staff and services

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 7, in

clause 2, page 2, line 21, at end insert—

'( ) The Lord Chancellor shall ensure that justices' clerks do not become civil servants but retain their preexisting employment status and rights.'.

This is a probing amendment. I hope that the Minister will understand that I am not being mischievous here. I want to enable the Committee to have a debate about the specific future role and the independence required of justices' clerks. All those members of the Committee who are lawyers will know that the vast majority of criminal cases in this country are dealt with entirely in the magistrates courts. I think that the figure is about 96 or 97 per cent. Lay magistrates have no legal training and so rely on justices' clerks to give them advice on points of law.

During my years of practice at the Bar I got to know a number of justices' clerks very well. When I read for the Bar in the late 1970s I studied with a number of people who were in the process of being called to the Bar as part of their professional training as justices' clerks. A huge number of justices' clerks do a fantastically good job. I certainly remember that they were keen to preserve their independence. I therefore want the Committee to be able to debate the change in their status. My amendment suggests that justices' clerks should not be rolled up into the generic description of civil servants, but should retain all their pre-existing rights of employment.

If no one challenges what is happening we are in danger of accepting this nationalisation, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome described it, on the nod. It is a small point, but we need to address whether it is right for there to be an expansion of the numbers of those coming under the control of central Government. There is a creeping nationalisation. There has been a huge growth of public sector jobs since the Government came to power, which has been written about by various economic commentators.

I have received representations from the Association of Magisterial Officers saying that as long as their trade union rights are protected they are quite comfortable with what is going on. However, we should not allow this to go through on the nod. The Minister should at least explain how the independent role of justices' clerks, which has been a historic feature of magistrates courts, will be safeguarded.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I will take the hon. Gentleman's comments in the spirit in which they are intended. I

will try not to be too pedantic about the wording of this probing amendment. We believe that making justices' clerks civil servants will give them enhanced career prospects that will include the chance to work in the headquarters of the new agency, for example, or for the Department of Constitutional Affairs more generally, if they feel and we feel that that is appropriate. They will also be eligible to join the principal civil service pension scheme and will be eligible for other superannuation benefits in the same way as other civil servants.

We feel that for justices' clerks to retain their pre-existing employment status and rights and not to be civil servants in the new agency is not the way forward. The amendment has a number of unworkable elements. At present justices' clerks are appointed by magistrates courts committees and are employed under their terms and conditions. However, magistrates courts committees will no longer exist by virtue of clause 6. All justices' clerks will be transferred to the employment of the Lord Chancellor and so they would have no employer if they were not made civil servants under the provision.

In setting up the new agency, we will be applying the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) principles to the staff transfer. That means that the new employer will take the same perspective as the old and that an individual's terms and conditions from the MCCs apply on transfer to the new agency. Almost all staff will be mapped across on the same duties, at the same location, with new senior management, but with no change to their terms and conditions. However, pay and conditions might change in the future as a result of the transfer. Over time, we will be looking to harmonise terms and conditions. However, it is much too early to say when and in what circumstances. We will, of course, consult the relevant employee associations and trade unions in advance of any decisions being finalised.

Clause 29 states that a justices' clerk, while exercising an advisory or judicial function, will not be subject to the direction of the Lord Chancellor, or anyone else. Justices' clerks will, therefore, have the same statutory guarantee of independence in relation to their advisory or judicial functions as they currently have.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Clwyd West)

The statutory guarantee preserving justices' clerks independence in relation to giving advice to their justices is crucial. That is a full answer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

That is entirely true and is one of the reasons why I made those comments. I should also mention that justices' clerks are not judges under the current system and will not be judges under the new system. There is a statutory guarantee of independence, so I invite the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to withdraw his amendment.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am grateful to the Minister. It was useful to have those matters clarified and put on the record. I am still somewhat concerned that the change is going through swiftly. It is quite a major change.

People who have had, in their official capacity, independence from the state are to be walled up in new state bureaucracy. I am slightly surprised that the change has, apparently, been welcomed. I have a nasty feeling that in a few years' time, when the people concerned start getting let down by the Labour Government on pay and conditions, there will be many protests. People will say, ''We never realised that it would mean this. We would much rather have kept our old position.''

Nevertheless, having put the matter on the record, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move amendment No. 110, in

clause 2, page 2, line 29, leave out 'and'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 111, in

clause 2, page 2, line 30, at end insert

'and

(e) persons who appear to him to be representative of the lay justices.'.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I shall not spend much time on amendment No. 110. Amendment No. 111 is the substantive amendment.

The clause deals with the Lord Chancellor making an order for entering into contracts for the provision of officers and staff to carry out the administrative work of the courts. Subsection (7) requires the Lord Chancellor to consult before doing that. The people whom he is required to consult are very grand. They are the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor.

I have absolutely no quarrel with the Lord Chancellor consulting the upper tiers of the judiciary in relation to making such an order. However, the order will apply to the workings not only of the High Court, but of magistrates courts. I have the greatest admiration for each of the current holders of the positions referred to in subsection (7), but my suspicion—I have not checked—is that none of them will have presided in a local magistrates court and, indeed, that it may have been some time since any of them appeared in such a court. Their duties as senior members of the judiciary will have taken up most of their time in recent years.

Given that the administrative arrangements are crucial to the way in which magistrates courts work, it would be a good idea if representatives of the magistrates had an opportunity to comment at an early stage on the effect of the Lord Chancellor's proposals on local magistrates courts and the way they do their business. Nobody will know better than local magistrates what the effect on the administration of justice in their courts and at their tier of court will be.

Stephen Hesford (Labour, Wirral West)

Is the amendment necessary? As I understand things—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—by the time those consultations take place, the courts boards will have done their business and consulted locally. They will have made their representations, which will go up the system. The hon. Gentleman's amendment should not, therefore,

be accepted because it would take us back to the beginning of the process.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am not confident that the hon. Gentleman is right that the consultation will take place after the courts boards are established and have had an opportunity to discuss the proposals. He might be right, but not necessarily. If that were the case, and every consultation had already taken place, one wonders why there is a need to specify in statute the duty to consult the appropriate heads of the senior judiciary at the various hearts of the judicial system.

Stephen Hesford rose—

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The hon. Gentleman wants to intervene again to tell me why it is important that the Master of the Rolls be consulted.

Stephen Hesford (Labour, Wirral West)

It is important because we are talking about a consultation that is going up the line to the higher courts at a different stage of the process. Those are the appropriate people to have that consultation with at that point in the process.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is trying to say, but I am not entirely convinced. At the end of the day, the Lord Chancellor needs to hear directly from the practitioners at each tier about the consequences of any order that he proposes under the clause. My amendment would provide a sensible safeguard to ensure that lay magistrates' voices are heard.

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the Lord Chancellor should consult

''persons who appear to him''—

that is, the Lord Chancellor—

''to be representative of the lay justices''

rather than persons who he—that is, the hon. Gentleman—considers to be objectively representative? He is giving the Lord Chancellor a lot of discretion.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

That is simply how we draft things in statute. It is not for me to determine who the proper representatives of magistrates are. I do not have a legal persona in this context, but the Lord Chancellor does. He has a duty to apply that discretion sensibly, and is open to challenge if he applies it inappropriately.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I shall take the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe on a stage. It would have been perfectly proper to draft an alternative version of amendment No. 111 that stated that there was a duty to consult people chosen by the lay justices to represent them. That is the nub of my hon. Friend's point.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The hon. Gentleman is right, except that in effect the two come to the same thing. As he knows, the Secretary of State—the Lord Chancellor in this instance—will always accept the fact that there are bodies that represent a class of persons who are the right people to consult. I have made my case sufficiently for the Minister, so I look forward to his reply.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I agree with the spirit of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, and with the supplementary point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe. I look forward to the Minister's response. The amendment would be a genuine improvement to the Bill for the reasons stated.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

If the amendment were accepted, the Lord Chancellor would have to consult

''persons who appear to him to be representative of the lay justices'',

as well as the heads of division who are listed in subsection (7), before making an order to contract out under subsection (6).

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee D

Clause 2 - Court officers, staff and services

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

I remind the Committee that with this we are taking amendment No. 111, in

clause 2, page 2, line 30, at end insert

'and

(e) persons who appear to him to be representative of the lay justices.'.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley. I said to Mr. O'Brien at the beginning of our proceedings this morning that it was nice to have a fair-minded and even-tempered Yorkshireman in the Chair. The same comments apply twice over.

Under the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), the Lord Chancellor would consult persons who seem to him to be representative of the lay justices, as well as the heads of division already listed under subsection (7), before making an order to contract out under subsection (6). We consider the amendments to be unnecessary as the heads of division will be the heads of the judicial family to which the magistrates already belong. The purpose of consulting the heads of division is to ensure that no judicial function has unwittingly been prepared for contracting out and, thus, transgresses the safeguard under subsection (5). In that respect, I expect the heads of division to have regard to all of the interests of the judiciary, including the lay magistracy, when undertaking such a role.

The four senior judges are consulted to ensure that the contracting out does not, in principle, involve a judicial function prohibited by the prevention under subsection (5). They are the right people to consult, not the local board or the local magistracy. If we were to have local consultation, it would be unclear what is meant by ''representatives of the lay justices'' under the amendment. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) highlighted that fact in his intervention. We presume that it means representatives of the Magistrates Association, but the phrase raises questions about how such a system would work, who would be the representatives, how many should there be and so on. The lack of clarify is also the reason why I am not keen to accept the amendment.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) who referred to local business plans and local proposals for specific contracting out, courts boards will be involved in the

business planning process. Indeed, the protection under clause 21 concerning the duty to consult lay justices on matters affecting them will also kick in at that point. There is ample protection at local level. Setting out the difference between why we have wider, in principle, consultation about ensuring that judicial functions do not come under the contracting-out capability helps to clarify why we have framed the provisions in such a way. I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will see fit to withdraw the amendment.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley. I am grateful to the Minister for his response. Were the consultation under subsection (7) purely on the basis of ensuring that the contracts did not transgress subsection (5)—that was what the Minister said—and to make sure that no judicial function is unwittingly put into the contract area, that would have been a proper response. However, the actual words under subsection (7) are

''what effect (if any) the order might have on the proper and efficient administration of justice'',

which go much wider than the narrow criterion whether a judicial function has been put into the contracted-out area. I suggest that the Minister reconsiders his definitions.

I was genuinely surprised by what the Minister had to say about the wording of my amendment. I know for a fact that such formulations have been tabled by Ministers of this Government to a great number of Bills to express a provision that would allow for representation from associations, such as the Magistrates Association, but without listing specific organisations, as the provision would become redundant if the associations changed. Perhaps the Minister has been given unwise advice if he thinks that my amendment is in an inappropriate or vague formulation. It has been used before. The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas) will recall the many happy hours that we spent on the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill Committee, when a similar formulation appeared many times to provide for statutory consultees who appeared to the Secretary of State to be representative of this, that or the other.

I hear what the Minister says, but I still think that before contracting out essential support services and administrative functions it is wise to have the views of magistrates directly, rather than simply the advice of a senior judge who is not a magistrate—he might be capable of giving a professional opinion, but not a practical one. In practice, the views of magistrates will probably be heard, but I regret that a provision for that will not exist in statute. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Provision of accommodation

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I beg to move amendment No. 18, in

clause 3, page 2, line 40, leave out 'shall' and insert 'may'.

This amendment has been tabled to dispel the uncertainty created by an Opposition amendment that was successful in the other place. We hope that it will remove problems about interpretation.

During Committee stage in the other place on 28 January, Baroness Anelay tabled a successful amendment to clause 3. The aim of the amendment was to make it clear that the Lord Chancellor should be under a duty to provide, equip, maintain and manage such courthouses, offices and other accommodation as appear to him appropriate. The amendment therefore changed the wording from ''may provide'' to ''shall provide''. Baroness Anelay was concerned that the Lord Chancellor should not have discretion to choose to make no provision. I think that that is a fair summary of the rationale behind her amendment.

I fully understand the noble Lady's concerns about interpretation and not leaving unnecessary lacunas in the Bill. Nevertheless, we want to reverse her amendment at this stage, as we feel that the Bill makes it clear that the Lord Chancellor is already under the necessary duty, and I shall explain why. Primarily, clause 1(1) states that the Lord Chancellor has to provide an efficient and effective court system; that is his general duty. We are worried that the wording of the Opposition amendment could create uncertainty about the relationship between clause 3(1) and clause 3(2). If the Lord Chancellor, by virtue of clause 3(1), were under a duty to provide, equip, maintain and manage such courthouses himself, how could any contracting out take place under the subsequent subsection? The amendment would produce dubious wording in the Bill, so it needs clarifying.

The uncertainty is greater still, given that there is at present a mismatch between the words of clause 2, which still states ''may appoint'', and clause 3, which now states ''shall provide''. They were formerly constructed in a similar way. We feel that, in addition to those reasons, some potential problems of interpretation would remain. That particular phraseology needs to be altered and we should leave out ''shall'' and insert the word ''may''. I hope that the Committee can see the benefits of the amendment.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I add my welcome to your chairmanship of the proceedings this afternoon, Mr. Illsley.

I am slightly disappointed that the Government have not accepted one of the mini triumphs of my noble Friend Baroness Anelay of St. Johns in another place. Having considered the matter, I do not propose to resist amendment No. 18 this afternoon. The Minister sent me a helpful letter and the Under-Secretary of State, Lord Filkin, sent a not dissimilar one to my noble Friend the Baroness Anelay, explaining the basis of the Government's thinking.

The Minister has explained why Baroness Anelay put forward such a proposal and she was able to persuade sufficient noble Lords and Ladies to inflict defeat on the Government. However, it is useful to

have had it stated on the record this afternoon that the firm duty—which was what our amendment was seeking to achieve—is acknowledged by the Minister.

When I read Lord Filkin's letter to my noble friend Baroness Anelay, it seemed that what Ministers were being told was coming from parliamentary counsel. If the word had been changed and allowed to remain, parliamentary counsel was worried that there might be some confusion. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will be aware, we had some of those concerns expressed by parliamentary counsel on the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill that we finished in Committee last week. I said on that occasion that sometimes parliamentary drafting as an arcane skill is rather different from the way in which Acts are read by ordinary people.

Nevertheless, we do not want to have any confusion. While we preferred our wording of the amendment that was passed in another place, we do not want to undermine the basis of what the Minister has said, which acknowledges that there is a clear duty on the part of the Lord Chancellor. Given that the hon. Gentleman said that on the record, it will be recorded in Hansard, so it lays to rest our worries about clause 3 as originally drafted.

In the light of the Minister's helpful reassurances both in his letters and in what he has said this afternoon, I shall not pursue the matter further or press it to a Division. We accept that on this occasion—although not on many others—the Government can reverse what was done in another place.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I accept entirely the Minister's argument. The clause will deal with a power rather than a duty. The power derives from the duty, not the other way round. There is potential for confusion in the present wording.

Given that there is no explicit duty to provide premises in the general duty, does that have any implications for the powers of compulsory purchase under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or will the general duties suffice for that purpose?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I have to assume that there is no adverse effect on our powers as set out. Particular descriptions of the nature of compulsory acquisitions of powers are set out under clause 3. We are relatively content with them. However, I will talk to officials at some point and if there is any opinion other than that which I have just expressed, I will drop the hon. Gentleman a note to correct myself, but I do not anticipate any difficulties. I am glad that hon. Members can see that we might get into a pickle should the words remain in the Bill and that the amendment is necessary to preserve the spirit of good working order under the new arrangements.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

As a layman surrounded by lawyers, I hesitate to challenge the wording of legal documents, but looking at the clause with layman's eyes—[Interruption.] I am not alone, I am glad to hear. At line 41, the phrase ''appear to him appropriate'' seems so open to interpretation that I

wonder if it would matter whether the word ''shall'' were changed to ''may'' or not. It could be overridden by an interpretation of ''appear to him appropriate''. For example, if the Lord Chancellor thought it appropriate to close a courthouse, the wording would hardly matter. That is a layman's question.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

That is a reasonable question for the hon. Lady to ask. Our primary concern is that, if the Lord Chancellor must provide, equip, maintain and manage courthouses himself, it raises a doubt whether the contracting out by a third party would be possible. If we were to rely only on the phrase ''appear to him appropriate'', there would still be confusion. To avoid that, I consider that it is best to change that word.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4 - Establishment of courts boards

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I beg to move amendment No. 19, in

clause 4, page 3, line 17, leave out 'Subject to subsection (7),'.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 9, in

clause 4, page 3, line 21, at end insert

'if a police authority area changes, but may not change the coterminosity of a court board area with a police authority area.'.

Government amendment No. 20, in

clause 4, page 3, line 29, leave out from 'Chancellor' to second 'the' in line 34 and insert

'must have regard to the desirability of specifying areas which are the same as—

(a) the police areas listed in Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1996 (c.16) (division of England and Wales, except London, into police areas), and

(b) the area consisting of '.

And amendment (a) to the proposed amendment,

after ''the same as'' insert

', or fall entirely within,'.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I shall speak to amendments Nos. 19 and 20 first. Others will speak to their amendments, and I want to hear the debate before I respond to them. I think that would be the most appropriate way to proceed.

Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 make drafting changes to an amendment made on Third Reading in another place. That amendment required the Lord Chancellor, when specifying the courts boards areas, to have regard to the desirability and coterminosity with the 42 criminal justice areas. The areas are based on the current police authority areas. There was a great deal of debate about that point and there may well be in Committee. We agree that the criminal justice areas are one of the factors that should be taken into account when deciding how the courts boards should be organised.

However, there are other factors, such as an effective fit with other agencies in the civil and family jurisdictions, the need and the nature of local

communities to be considered in the shape of those courts boards and the volume of work load in each area, the distribution of courthouses and even the shape of Government offices and region boundaries. If those factors are changed, there must be scope to alter the courts boards areas accordingly in consultation with the boards affected. The amendment in another place affords sufficient flexibility to take those factors into account. We therefore propose only minor drafting changes to that amendment to make sure that the degree of flexibility is retained, along the lines of the proceedings in another place.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

We are delighted that the Government accepted that what was put forward by my noble Friend Baroness Anelay of St Johns and supported by the Liberal Democrats and others was an improvement to the Bill. It was one of the most important debates in another place. It is a good example of how the Committees in another place and here work to improve what the Government initially put forward.

Amendment No. 9 is intended to reinforce my noble Friend's victory in another place by adding some extra words to subsection (4), so that if a police authority area were to change the Lord Chancellor could make an order altering an area, but could not change the coterminosity of a court board area with a police authority area. I hope that even if the Minister cannot accept amendment No. 9 today, he understands the spirit of it. We are simply seeking to back up with an extra safeguard the change made in another place, which the Government have now accepted. We may want to return to that matter on Report, if the Government cannot accept our amendment today.

I am entirely sympathetic to Liberal Democrat amendment (a) to Government amendment No. 20. Indeed, if the amendments had not been starred, I might have wanted to add my name and the names of my hon. Friends to that of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, who tabled it. That amendment would reinforce the principle on which my noble Friends in another place, and those of the hon. Gentleman, were working. I genuinely congratulate the Government on their wisdom in accepting the underlying philosophy of our putting forward coterminosity between police areas and those of the new courts boards. I do not have a problem with the Government doing a little bit of tidying and redrafting of what we achieved in another place, but it would be even better if they accepted both Liberal Democrat amendment (a) and our amendment No. 9. I shall listen with interest to the Minister's response to those two amendments.

We are grateful to the Government for accepting their defeat with good grace, and for accepting the principle behind what we put forward in another place.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

This is an important matter in terms of the courts boards proposed by the Government. Most commentators outside this place feel that there is a need to ensure a sense of locality in the courts boards, so that they are not so large as to be divorced from the proper concerns and interests of the people they purport to represent. There is clearly a strong argument for coterminosity with the other functions

of the justice system. That argument has been used in recent years to bring the present magistrates courts committee structure into line with the police authority areas, which were established under the Police Act 1996.

I can understand that argument. Indeed, I recall that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), speaking on Second Reading, questioned

''why 42 was the chosen number.''

Somebody sotto voce said, ''Because it is the answer to the world, the universe and everything.'' The recorded sedentary intervention in the Official Report is mine:

''It is the number of police authorities,''—[Official Report, 9 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 461.]

which is rather more mundane and boring. But it is true. It is important that there should be no fewer than 42 police authority areas under the clause in terms of the courts boards. I can envisage a strong argument for there being more, provided that those do not cross the borders of the police authority areas. That is the purpose of amendment (a) to Government amendment No. 20.

I mentioned in the debate this morning that some police authority areas are large. The largest is in the Metropolis—the Metropolitan police area—which is treated as being connected in this instance with the City of London police. Of course, it is connected geographically, but not in constabulary structure. That area is equivalent to 15 normal sized constabulary areas. I daresay, although I am no expert on London, that Committee members would feel that the structures of their constituencies are very different from each other. I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) and the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) feel that the areas that they represent not only have different problems with policing and maintenance of law and order, but are different from, say, Soho, the east end or Harrow. Those areas are vastly different in terms of community interests and structures. Similarly, there are hugely disparate areas even in the police authority areas outside the metropolis, such as the Greater Manchester police area, the West Midlands police area and the Thames Valley police area. St. Pauls in Bristol, in the Avon and Somerset constabulary area, is very different from somewhere up on the Quantocks. There is therefore an argument for courts boards areas that more relevantly follow the community boundaries that they represent. For the sake of convenience and ''operational efficiency'' many police authority areas have coupled together shire counties, metropolitan districts, and so on, into rather ungainly apparatus.

There is an argument that we have espoused on many occasions for reducing the unit of accountability in relation to policy on policing, sentencing and prosecution, courts, the probation service and all the accessory functions of state, to something that people can relate to. For the police, that will very often be the basic command unit. I am concerned that the presumption of coterminousity with police authority

areas that is in the scope of the Bill works against that principle, if it were to be espoused in the future. For London, I should like to see areas, perhaps the size of a borough or something similar, where people can really have a say in the way that courts are administered, police functions are carried out, and local prosecutions are mounted, so that they connect to the citizen in a way which I suspect people would find it difficult to relate to now.

My argument in the amendment is not that we should invent small areas just for the purpose of inventing small areas—that would be nonsense.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Can the hon. Gentleman help us, as I am not quite following his argument? Is he saying that we should go down to a unit that is small enough for there to be a commonality in terms of the policing problems? Even in the borough of Ellesmere Port and Neston, which is approximately seven eighths of my constituency there is a huge polarisation between difficult estates, where there is huge disadvantage, and some of the richest parts of Cheshire, where even the good folk of Surrey, Heath would struggle to afford the houses.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I do not disagree one bit with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. One obviously cannot get to the stage at which every street has its own police force—that is nonsense. I think that his constituency falls in the area of the Cheshire constabulary, and I hope that he accepts that it is reasonably small and reasonably homogenous. If the hon. Gentleman were a few miles up the road, he would come into the Merseyside police area, where some of the problems may be more similar to those that some of his constituents face daily. However, he would find that those problems would be very different from some of the problems of the outlying areas of the Merseyside police. I am not trying to prescribe lots of lines on maps, because that is quite impossible. I am content with the distance that the Government have already come in saying that when the courts boards are established they will be on the basis of the police authority areas.

I use my area simply as an illustration. Even though Somerset has areas of deprivation and of empty landscape, such as Exmoor, each part is more like other parts of Somerset than it is like the centre of Bristol. Similarly, the centre of Bristol is more like the urban areas of what used to be Avon than any part of Somerset. Although I do not put it forward as being the answer, I could see a case for having an area covering Somerset and an area covering the county formerly known as Avon.

There is an argument in London for a courts board area to be smaller than the area of the metropolis. That will be a matter for debate and for the Government to take a view on at some later stage. I certainly do not want courts boards to cross boundaries. That would be unhelpful; inherent in the Government's proposals is the view they should not cross boundaries. Where possible, the courts board area should follow the boundary of a police authority area, a probation service area or whatever. There will

be a case, which some of us will argue strenuously, for having courts board areas that are smaller constituent parts of a large police authority area. I am trying to allow for that in my amendment. It is an argument that I commend to the Minister.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

Under amendment (a), the Lord Chancellor would have to have regard to the desirability of specifying areas for courts boards that are either the same as or fall entirely within the criminal justice areas. He would therefore have to consider whether there should be several courts board areas within a single criminal justice area.

Earlier this year, the former Lord Chancellor's Department held a series of discussion groups up and down the country to discuss the area structure of the new organisation. I think that I sent a copy of the report of those discussion groups to hon. Members last week. The stakeholders, who included magistrates, judges and representatives of those who use the courts, concluded that the criminal justice service areas were roughly at the right level at present, although particular consideration needed to be given to London. Clearly, we must take those views into account. No firm or final decisions have been made.

Our problem with amendment (a) is that we feel that clause 4 already affords sufficient flexibility to get the area structures right. As well as considering having 42 areas, we will consider the needs of local communities. It is difficult to see why we should consider only whether courts board areas would fit within a criminal justice area. Why should we not also consider whether police areas should be combined to form a courts board area? Lord Thomas of Gresford proposed that for Wales and Chester. I presume that that mirrored a proposal on the court circuit, with which hon. Members may be familiar. That would be prevented if there were the level of restriction suggested in the amendment.

The discussion groups were helpful. We will look with interest at the views relating to London. The amendment is not appropriate. We should not have that telescopic, microcosmic approach to the criminal justice service areas. We should be able to take a sensible and rational approach, depending on the area and reacting to some of the consultation that will have taken place.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am perfectly happy with the Minister's approach, but how can it be equally sensible and rational to have an area the size of Gwent or Dyfed-Powys and an area the size of the Metropolitan police area or the City of London?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

It may have escaped the Committee, but I did not design the layout of the United Kingdom, and cannot be held responsible for the nature of communities throughout the country. Some areas require a certain level of focus; perhaps urban areas need a different approach from more rural parts of the country. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to reflect that fact.

Amendment No. 9 is interesting. I have already spoken about some of the changes that we have accepted to clause 4. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) is pushing it a little with the

amendment. I was interested that he said he supported both his amendment and that tabled by the Liberal Democrats. It would be contradictory to insist that courts boards must fit the police board areas but state at the same time that it might be possible to divide them up, as suggested under amendment (a). On reflection, he might not wish to support amendment (a) if he is standing by amendment No. 9.

Amendment No. 9 is too restrictive. It would mean that courts board areas could be altered only in the event of a police authority area changing, and only in a way that preserved co-terminosity with the police authority area. The criminal justice areas will be the building blocks of the courts board areas, and I assure the Committee that thought will be given to their formation.

The amendment would tie the courts boards structure to any future changes to the police areas too rigidly. Under the amendment, only the needs of police authority business would be taken into account, not the business of the courts. It would not allow us to take into account the needs and nature of local communities, as we have in relation to the civil and family business of the court. Why should civil and family court activity fit around police authority business?

While criminal court activities will obviously be a priority for the courts boards, they will look at other issues. The amendment would prevent the merger of two courts board areas, or the creation of two smaller areas, even if such changes were supported by both the boards, unless similar changes were made to the police authority area. It would prevent the alteration of the courts boards' names, unless the police authority area were changed.

Clause 4 ensures that the Lord Chancellor must consult any affected courts boards before making an order to alter their areas. That will ensure proper consultation and parliamentary scrutiny of any changes to the areas. I invite hon. Members not to press amendment No. 9 and amendment (a) to a Division.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 20, in

clause 4, page 3, line 29, leave out from 'Chancellor' to second 'the' in line 34 and insert

'must have regard to the desirability of specifying areas which are the same as—

(a) the police areas listed in Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1996 (c.16) (division of England and Wales, except London, into police areas), and

(b) the area consisting of '.—[Mr. Leslie.]

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 - Constitution and procedure of courts boards

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I beg to move amendment No. 24, in

schedule 1, page 60, line 9, leave out 'who are assigned' and insert

', each of whom is assigned'.

This amendment makes drafting changes to an amendment made on Report in another place. The effect of the amendment tabled by Lord Phillips of Sudbury was to increase the minimum number of magistrates on each courts board from one to two. I shall explain why we resisted that in the Lords. In short, we wanted the Bill to set out a framework, so that that the constitution of courts boards could vary between local areas. The regional discussion groups, to which I referred earlier, have unanimously agreed that one size does not fit all.

We have listened to magistrates' concerns that a minimum of one magistrate would not be sufficient, and we shall not try to defeat an amendment that increases the minimum number of magistrates to two. However, we want to amend the amendment that was accepted in another place. It would require all magistrates appointed to a courts board to be assigned to the same local justice area. Courts boards are likely to cover areas that include more than one local justice area. Amendment No. 24 therefore clarifies that each magistrate member should be assigned to one of the local justice areas that are in whole or part covered by the relevant courts board area, hence the better turn of phrase,

''each of whom is assigned''.

I hope that that necessary drafting change does not in any way change the spirit of what we accepted in another place.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

We are very pleased that the defeat inflicted on the Government by the combined forces of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives in another place has been accepted. The Minister referred to the amendment tabled by Lord Phillips of Sudbury, which was supported by my noble Friend Baroness Anelay of St. Johns. Lord Goodhart neatly encapsulated the reason why we felt it vital to have two magistrates—two lay justices. He pointed out what could happen if a single magistrate were the appointee under the original proposals:

''If there were only one magistrate on the board, he might be ill or have some unavoidable other commitment. There could therefore be a meeting of the courts board at which no magistrate would be present. That would be absolutely wrong.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 May 2003; Vol. 647, c. 1198.]

The belief of Lord Phillips and my noble Friend Baroness Anelay was that it was essential to have at least two lay magistrates—there could be more.

We have no difficulty with the Government's further clarification in their amendment, and I am delighted that Ministers have written to my noble Friend Baroness Anelay and I; no doubt they have written to others, too. We accept the principle of the Government amendment. Lord Filkin wrote in a letter to my noble Friend on 19 June that the Government simply want to tidy up the drafting. The Government amendment achieves that, and we welcome the fact that, as a result of the work by those in another place, we have improved the Bill. That is a good example of how this House and another place work together.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I thank the Minister for accepting the amendment, and I agree with his redrafting of it.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, That this schedule, as amended, be the First schedule to the Bill.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I shall be brief. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the formulation that is used in paragraph 2(c) and (d). If I remember his words correctly, he said that that was terribly vague and the Lord Chancellor's having to nominate persons who appeared to him to be representative of a particular area could not possibly work in practice. I cannot remember all the arguments that he adduced in talking down my amendment earlier. I am sure that he has those somewhere in his notes.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 - Functions of courts boards

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move amendment No. 115, in

clause 5, page 4, line 3, after 'concerned,', insert—

'( ) in particular, to scrutinise, review and make recommendations about the way in which the Lord Chancellor is discharging his duty under section 21 in relation to the courts with which the board is concerned,'.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 112, in

clause 5, page 4, line 3, leave out 'and'.

Amendment No. 113, in

clause 5, page 4, line 5, at end insert

'and

(c) to perform any other function which the Lord Chancellor may prescribe by statutory instrument laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.

Amendment No. 114, in

clause 5, page 4, line 20, at end insert—

'( ) The Lord Chancellor must prepare and issue to the boards guidance about how they should carry out any function prescribed by order under subsection (1)(c).'.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The amendment would beef up the functions of the courts boards just a little bit. There has rightly been a considerable amount of discussion, both in another place and outside, about what exactly would be the functions of the courts boards and to what degree they would have any management functions or whether they are merely sounding boards with little consequence in affecting the Lord Chancellor's decisions. The amendment would seek to make it an explicit function of the courts boards to consider how the Lord Chancellor exercises his functions under clause 21.

Clause 21—''Duty to consult lay justices on matters affecting them etc.''—says:

''The Lord Chancellor must take all reasonable and practicable steps . . . for ensuring that lay justices acting in a local justice area are kept informed of matters affecting them in the performance of their duties, and . . . for ascertaining their views on such matters.''

That is a kind of lock—a lock on the Lord Chancellor—to ensure that the courts boards have a handle on whether the systems, which the Minister is

putting in place under the Bill, will have the desired effect. That is a sensible proposal. If the courts boards had the duty of oversight, they could take soundings from the local justice areas in their purview and talk to local magistrates and people who use the courts. If it seemed as though it was all going pear-shaped or that the Government were not behaving as the Minister or hon. Members hoped, there would be, in executing their duties under the Bill, an explicit mechanism for the courts boards to make recommendations to the Lord Chancellor. Incidentally, that would also be for the benefit of Members of Parliament and others who may be able to apply pressure on the Lord Chancellor regarding how he exercised such duties. Amendment No. 115 is a fail-safe mechanism that would lock together the various bits of the Bill and give the courts boards an effective function.

Three other amendments in the group hang together. No. 112 is simply a drafting amendment. No. 113, however, is the operative one, which would allow the Lord Chancellor, through a properly debated order in the House, to extend the functions of the courts boards. Those bodies are too valuable for them not to be used. Debates in another place have established more precision about what the courts boards would do, but the Bill is still light on the functions that they may perform. I want to provide a clear mechanism through which the Lord Chancellor could consult and listen to people once the boards are operating and extend the functions to include management functions, making that explicit by order. Although the courts boards are not executive bodies, they should have a managerial role in the operation of the local courts. If that is to happen, the Lord Chancellor must give guidance, which is the purpose of amendment No. 114.

Stephen Hesford (Labour, Wirral West)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the amendment would be too prescriptive?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

No, I do not. The bodies can perform only the functions that are ascribed to them by law. I do not want specifically to set out every dot and comma of what the courts boards should do, but they have a vague function under the Bill. Most of the magistrates who have taken an interest in the measure feel that the courts boards would be better bodies were they to have better prescribed functions and duties within the system. I am trying to make provision for that.

The hon. Gentleman is worried that the Lord Chancellor might use the powers to over-prescribe, but that is always a possibility when a power is given to a Secretary of State under secondary legislation. We have the safeguard, however, of proper parliamentary scrutiny, rather than perfunctory scrutiny. I must assume, therefore, that the Secretary of State, in exercising those functions, and Parliament, in scrutinising them, will make a proper job of it. The risk is that they would not. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that we cannot legislate for the over-prescriptive qualities of future Secretaries of State or the under-performance of future Parliaments, but that is inherent in our system.

Stephen Hesford (Labour, Wirral West)

The hon. Gentleman and I have sat in Committee on many occasions when the measures that he proposed were criticised by Opposition Members for leaving powers open for prescription and arguing for descriptions of certain functions under the Bill. Why is he not arguing for that now? What does he have in mind for the functions?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

It is a fair criticism. We have often said that, when possible, matters should be covered by primary legislation. I still hold that view. However, the bodies under discussion are new. Their function is not yet prescribed clearly as an initial function, even by the Lord Chancellor. For me to add functions by definition to the Bill when I do not know what the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor already has in mind for the bodies would be premature. When the bodies are up and running, they will evolve and seek functions and powers for which there is not provision within the arrangements. It would be wrong to prejudge them.

I am not an expert in such matters, but I understand the arguments that have been advanced forcibly by those who currently run the magistrates courts committees. They consider that, as of yet, such matters are insufficiently defined and that more exploration needs to take place to find out what the bodies could usefully do to improve the system. Were I giving powers to the Secretary of State, I would be worried, but the powers will go through the Secretary of State to the courts boards. I have more confidence in them.

I hope that I have made myself plain. I have two things in mind. First, the intention of amendment No. 115 is to lock together the courts boards and the local justice areas so that feedback ensures that what everyone wants happens. Secondly, we must allow for a growth in the functionality of the courts boards, so that they can undertake tasks to which I think they will aspire to, but which are not specified in the Bill. Taken together, that will build on what the Minister is proposing for the courts boards and what has been helpfully improved by the debates in another place.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I can be brief in responding to the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I have more sympathy with amendment No. 115, which would add a specific scrutiny power for the boards to look at how the Lord Chancellor would be discharging his duties under clause 21, than I do with amendments Nos. 112, 113 and 114. I am always a little chary of plans to encourage a new bureaucratic body to do more, but I understand the spirit of what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome is suggesting. I am sure that he is right that the courts boards will aspire to do more. Whether that is entirely a good thing or something that we should be encouraging in the Bill under his further three amendments I am not sure, but I shall listen with interest to what the Minister has to say about that.

I can see a big advantage in amendment No. 115 because, as the hon. Gentleman says, it would be a helpful addition in the spirit of what was discussed in another place. It would add to clause 5(1)(a) a further scrutiny power for the boards in respect of the Lord Chancellor. I am content to support the amendment,

but I am agnostic about the other three. I shall wait to hear the Minister's response to the case made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome.

I want to remind the Committee that it is a surreal exercise to be discussing powers that will be given to and exercised by someone holding a post that the Government intend to abolish. That is true of almost every clause in the Bill. We do not want to continue such a debate throughout our proceedings, but it is pertinent to ask: can the Minister shed light on whether some of the powers might be exercised by a Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs or a Secretary of State in another Department?

I would not be happy if many of the powers that have been traditionally associated with the Lord Chancellor were in 18 months' or three years' time suddenly transferred overnight in the Government's planning to the Home Secretary, for example. That is a worry. I have been talking to my hon. Friends about the matter and we were wondering whether some powers might be better exercised by senior members of the judiciary, rather than a Lord Chancellor who is not really a Lord Chancellor or may not be a Lord Chancellor in 18 months' or three years' time.

Boris Johnson (Conservative, Henley)

I want to get a flavour of the Government's thinking on the matter, because I do not understand what the role of the Lord Chancellor will be when the reforms are put through. If we get rid of the office of Lord Chancellor, will the appointments to the boards be classified as a judicial appointment or will they be something that falls to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs? I should be interested to know the Minister's views.

Who will be the head of the judiciary under the proposed reforms? Will it be the Lord Chief Justice or a senior Law Lord? Who is it envisaged will be the head of the judiciary? What will be his powers and responsibilities for the judiciary?

Paul Goodman (Conservative, Wycombe)

My hon. Friend assumes that the Government will abolish the post of Lord Chancellor, but since the Government will consult on the proposals that they have now issued, can we be certain that they will abolish the post? Will the Minister clear up that matter?

Mr. Johnson rose—

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

Order. Before the Minister responds to any of those points, I advise that they are slightly outside the clause under debate. Hon. Members must return to the subject under discussion.

Boris Johnson (Conservative, Henley)

Of course, I abide by your ruling, Mr. Illsley. However, as we are trying to legislate on the Lord Chancellor's appointments, it would be helpful to know in what sense the Lord Chancellor would be exercising a judicial function or an executive function. What will it be? We ought to know.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

It is interesting how at the end of the discussion on the narrow but important issues raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, we have broken out into a discussion that I expected

would happen sooner or later about how clauses or amendments can include the phrase ''the Lord Chancellor'' when the Government intend to abolish that post. The post exists for the time being. We have not brought forward legislation as yet to change very many statutory references to the role of the Lord Chancellor. All that will come in due course.

We envisage that these references in a number of Acts of Parliament will eventually transfer to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. Indeed, the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) asked about the post of head of the judiciary. That is not particularly relevant to these amendments. As I understand it, there is no such role as head of the judiciary and president of the Supreme Court as currently understood. These are probably discussions to be held at another time.

Boris Johnson (Conservative, Henley)

The Lord Chancellor is currently head of the judiciary. Who would inherit those responsibilities under the proposed reforms?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

Much as I would love to expand on all these matters, there is no technical post of head of the judiciary in our constitution. I suspect that I would be ruled out of order if I continued in that vein. I am sure that we will have a further discussion about these issues in other forums.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

My hon. Friend might have noticed that this morning the Annunciators in the other place—we must bear in mind the fact that the Opposition have a majority there—showed that the Lord Chairman, rather than the Lord Chancellor, was having a procession. This is all semantics. We are dealing with the person who does the job of the Lord Chancellor, as would be the case in many other pieces of legislation when named individuals pass on their responsibilities to others. We are dealing with the legislation in terms of the facts as they are now.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

While changes are under consideration, it would not be right for me to interpret how the Annuciators in the other place describe the person undertaking a particular procession. Nevertheless, we still have a Lord Chancellor.

Amendments Nos. 112 and 115 together would require courts boards to scrutinise, review and make recommendations on the way in which clause 21 is exercised. Clause 21 is about the duty to consult magistrates. It was added to the Bill by Government amendment in another place. It guarantees that proper lines of communication will be established between magistrates and the courts administration about matters that affect them in the performance of their judicial duties. Although the Lord Chancellor's general duty includes the need to build effective lines of communication with all stakeholders, we added clause 21 because we recognised that, unlike the professional judiciary, magistrates do not have day-to-day contact with the courts, and statutory reassurance was therefore appropriate.

Clause 21 was developed in discussion with the Magistrates Association, and I am pleased that it welcomed the amendment. We intend to set out the key issues and the guiding principles for how this should work in practice in the agency's framework

document. The Court Service's existing framework document prescribes issues on which the professional judiciary must be consulted. That arrangement works well. The additional statutory backing given by Clause 21 to communication with magistrates gives them further reassurance.

That said, and given the extent and importance of clause 21, we feel that amendments Nos. 112 and 115 are not necessary. The courts boards will be expected to scrutinise, review and make recommendations on the way in which the Lord Chancellor is discharging his general duty. One of the necessary elements of that is to scrutinise the way in which consultations and communications are undertaken with all interested parties in the administration of the courts, including lay magistrates. The amendment therefore seems slightly superfluous; it gives courts boards a special remit to scrutinise the way in which the new agency communicates just with magistrates.

Although that is an important element of the work of the new administration, it does not merit such singling out of magistrates in particular. The function of the courts boards is to make recommendations that will make the courts' functions more effective in the interests of all court users in the local community in general, not just to ensure that the administration of the courts meets the needs of the magistracy. What about witnesses' interests, victims' interests and so forth? In many ways those are as important, so to include the proposals in the Bill would be slightly strange.

I would like to remind the Committee that the unified administration is about much more than the magistrates courts. Although I am repeating what I said before, the fact that the administration will also cover the work of the Crown court and the county court, as well as of the magistrates, the civil and family jurisdictions and the criminal jurisdictions, merits drumming home. The work of the civil and family jurisdictions is significant, in terms both of workload and of the issues at stake, and the new administration must support the needs of users of those courts equally.

Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 are slightly different and would provide that the Lord Chancellor may prescribe additional functions for the courts boards by statutory instruments subject to affirmative resolution. It would further be provided that the Lord Chancellor must prepare and issue guidance to the boards about how they should carry out any supplementary functions.

There was a great deal of debate in another place about the clause, which the Government added to the Bill through an amendment on Report. At that time, it provided that the guidance could be used to confer supplementary functions on the courts boards. Lord MacKay of Clashfern and Baroness Anelay in particular expressed concerns about the relevant subsection, which they thought gave the Lord Chancellor too much power to act through guidance, which reflects some of the instinctive comments that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath made earlier.

At the time, the Government withdrew the relevant subsection in response to those concerns. However, we are now in Committee in the Commons, with the amendment and the idea from the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. We are prepared the consider the notion in the amendment a little further, although like my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West I have an instinctive scepticism about some of the issues and think that we must look with caution at whether to extend certain powers, and ask whether they are necessary.

The powers set out in the Bill at present are the right ones, and they resulted from a great deal of general debate and discussion about the formation of courts boards, not just the debates in another place. Although I invite the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome not to press amendments Nos. 113 and 114 now, I assure him that the question of what supplementary functions we might think about has come up before in consideration of the Bill. I assure the Committee that I shall think about the matter in much greater depth before Report.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I thank the Minister for the way in which he responded to the amendment. I understand what he says about singling out the magistrates, but I instinctively feel that if the new system will leave anyone hard done by, it will be the magistrates courts rather than the High Court or the Supreme Court—they might have more friends in better places to protect their interests. That is why I am going out of my way where possible to protect the interests of the local magistrates courts.

The Minister knows perfectly well the position of most magistrates on the question of whether the courts boards should have an increased range of powers. They have argued cogently for executive powers to be given to courts boards, but the Government are not prepared to accept that. Even within the scope of what is laid out, they feel that an enhanced role for courts boards would be to their advantage and to the advantage of the administration of justice. The Magistrates Association has commented to the same effect, as have individual magistrates courts committees. I have a letter from the Norfolk magistrates courts committee, which was passed on to me by my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), and it explicitly states that the committee wants courts boards to have a stronger role.

Earlier, the Minister prayed in aid his consultation exercise, which included regional discussion groups. Again, it was clear during that exercise that there was much concern about the vague role of courts boards. There was a feeling that they needed to be better defined. Paragraph 13.1 of it states:

''Some participants found it hard to understand what role the Boards would play. They thought it difficult to discuss roles and responsibilities until the scope of the Boards was more clearly defined.''

Through discussions, a consensus was formed on what should fall under the scope of the boards. It was thought that there should be a focus on service delivery and performance, and on looking at outcomes. Boards should be involved in the

development and review of the strategic plan, and provide a link with the local community, including drawing local views to the attention of the chief officer. They should relate local need to available resources and consult local communities. They should be hands off and non-managerial, but also challenging and influencing. They should liaise with and provide support to the chief officer, and act as a buffer between national instruction and local issues. Finally, it was thought that boards should ensure that resources were allocated appropriately between civil, family and criminal work.

I cannot say that that view from the Minister's own discussion groups is reflected in the powers under clause 5. The Government need to think about this further. As the courts boards evolve, there will be a need to confer greater powers and scope to allow them to do their work. However, on the basis of what the Minister has said today and the fact that he clearly intends to continue thinking about this matter, I am content to withdraw my amendment. We do not have that long to go before the end of our consideration of the Bill, so we need greater clarity of the courts boards' role. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 10, in

clause 5, page 4, line 24, at end insert

'and may not come into force until it has been approved by an affirmative resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament'.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 14, in

clause 11, page 6, line 22, after 'Chancellor', insert

'(such directions to have been laid before both Houses of Parliament and approved by affirmative resolutions)'.

Amendment No. 78, in

clause 72, page 34, line 5, leave out from 'Rules' to third 'of' and insert

'shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of both Houses'.

Amendment No. 85, in

clause 79, page 37, line 26, leave out from 'Rules' to third 'of' and insert

'shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of both Houses'.

Amendment No. 86, in

clause 80, page 37, line 35, at end insert—

'( ) No order which amends or repeals any enactment may be made under this section unless a draft of the statutory instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.'.

Amendment No. 88, in

clause 84, page 39, line 17, leave out from 'order' to 'House' in line 18 and insert

'shall not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each'.

Amendment No. 92, in

clause 85, page 39, line 40, leave out from 'Rules' to 'of' in line 41 and insert

'shall not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by, a resolution of both Houses'.

Amendment No. 103, in

clause 107, page 59, line 2, at end insert—

'( ) An order under subsection (3) shall not be made until a draft has been laid before both Houses of Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I can be brief in speaking to this group of amendments, because although it is large its contents are all to the same effect. We want to provide parliamentary scrutiny in a range of areas in the Bill. Amendment No. 10 relates to clause 5, and amendment No. 14 would add the provision for scrutiny of clause 11 by affirmative resolution. Amendment No. 78 would do the same thing for clause 72, amendment No. 85 for clause 79, amendment No. 86 for clause 80, amendment No. 88 for clause 84, amendment No. 92 for clause 85, and amendment No. 103 for clause 107.

The Minister will be familiar with the concerns that we often express from the Opposition Benches about the need for greater parliamentary scrutiny. That applies to this kind of legislation, not least because of the concerns that I raised, which were further enlarged upon by my hon. Friends the Members for Henley and for Wycombe in the previous debate. We are talking about a completely new legislative arrangement. The Government are implementing a number of the suggestions that came out of Lord Justice Auld's report, and in the many different areas of the Bill—I shall not go through them all now—we need to be certain that parliamentary scrutiny exists so that the legislation can be kept under review.

It is not satisfactory for such a major new change to a system, which has been working well since 1949 for the most part, and for much longer in some cases, to simply go through on the nod, without proper parliamentary scrutiny. There will not be the opportunity for us to raise concerns on behalf of our constituents and lay magistrates throughout the country.

All the various parts of the Bill must contain the opportunity for any further changes made to order-making powers to come before Parliament. Our job here is to keep an eye on things. It will not be good enough if powers created by the Bill lead to future orders going through on the nod.

I hope that the Minister will understand that we are not trying to throw a spanner in the works. We simply want to ensure that we, the constituency MPs, whether we are on the Front or the Back Benches, may check how things will work in future and how orders that derive from the proposed legislation will affect the courts in our constituencies.

Although I do not expect the Minister to accept all the amendments today, I hope that he will understand the spirit that drives them and that he will consider whether to adopt some of them on Report. It would be helpful if the provision for parliamentary scrutiny that I feel is necessary were clearly written in the Bill.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I concur.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

My comments run to several paragraphs—which will, I am afraid, be something of a contrast to the brief comment by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. However, I feel duty bound to respond to some of the amendments, which are grouped together because of their general effect, and to the question of whether parliamentary scrutiny should be undertaken by affirmative or negative resolution.

Under amendment No. 10 the guidance for courts boards in clause 5 could not come into force without an affirmative resolution in Parliament. The Bill was improved as a result of the thorough debate in another place about the guidance to the courts boards.

The Bill originally provided only for guidance, but the Government tabled amendments that would allow for regulations, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, if those were appropriate. The provisions on the constitution and procedure of courts boards are to be found in schedule 1. Nevertheless, there remains a need to provide guidance on matters that are not suitable for regulations. We have included provisions for guidance in the Bill to ensure that there is appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and that things must be laid before both Houses. In addition, we gave an assurance that the draft guidance would be available at the same time as the debate on regulations relating to the courts boards. That would ensure an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny for detailed arrangements, once they had been properly developed in partnership with stakeholders.

Stephen Hesford (Labour, Wirral West)

Does my hon. Friend think that one of the worries of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath is whether the annual report to be made by the Lord Chancellor under clause 1(4), within 18 months of the courts boards coming into operation, would cover some of the general concerns about what progress was being made? That would answer the general concerns, rather than the specific concerns in each amendment, or other things as time goes by.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Although I have not been involved in drafting the Bill—I am only 10 or 11 days into my role with this portfolio—I am struck by the fact that it bends over backwards to ensure that there is full accountability and parliamentary scrutiny in various ways, including the annual report provisions. The drafting has been generous in terms of striking the right balance between the flexibility of the Executive to conduct business with efficiency and due speed, and the need for proper scrutiny, discussions and consideration of the views expressed in Parliament. Many of those points are the same as those that my hon. Friend made.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

Bearing in mind the pressure that the House is under about when to use affirmative resolutions, is it not particularly inappropriate for the Opposition to ask for them here, given that what the guidance relates to is on the face of the Bill? Did we not just hear in the last debate that a wider power of giving guidance was narrowed because of the Opposition's objections?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I am sorry to blow the whistle on this

parliamentary tactic, but in my long years of experience in Parliament I have realised that Oppositions feel it their duty to table amendments to press for more affirmative resolutions and for powers to be introduced only by positive order. Governments have traditionally tended to resist that, because of the need for the expeditious execution of business. I feel that in this case my hon. Friend is right to suggest that to subject guidance, which is not in legislation, to such close parliamentary scrutiny is a little over the top. Guidance should not be subject to affirmative approval from Parliament in that way, not least because it needs to be a living document. It needs to be something that can be amended in the light of experience and changed priorities. The affirmative resolution procedure makes it difficult to make changes as circumstances evolve.

Amendment No. 14 seeks to open up to parliamentary debate and approval the competence framework established for lay justices. In our view it is entirely inappropriate for Parliament to involve itself in debating matters affecting the competences of independent judicial office holders, particularly when effective mechanisms are already in place to ensure that the competence framework is appropriate, robust and workable.

Moreover, the framework providing for the Lord Chancellor's removal of a magistrate if he is not playing a proper part in the exercise of his duties has been developed over time through consultation with the relevant organisations. They include the Magistrates Association, the Justices' Clerks Society, the Association of Justices' Chief Executives, the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees and others. It is overseen by the Judicial Studies Board's magisterial committee and approved by the Secretary of State in his capacity as Lord Chancellor.

Amendments Nos. 78, 85 and 92 relate to rule making, which we will undoubtedly discuss later as we proceed through the Bill. They would subject all rules of court, whether allowed or altered by the Lord Chancellor, to the affirmative resolution procedure. If they were accepted, unnecessary delay would be introduced into the process of making rules of court, be it for the criminal, family or civil jurisdiction—with consequences for the provision of justice.

Historically, rules of courts made by specialist committees have been subject to the negative rather than the affirmative resolution procedure. That has worked perfectly well. To change it would unnecessarily increase the amount of work before both Houses of Parliament. One of the most overwhelming arguments is that the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has approved the negative resolution procedure as the appropriate level of Parliamentary scrutiny for the making of rules of court.

I am aware that amendments similar to these were tabled in the other place as a result of concerns about the Lord Chancellor's power to alter rules. Those amendments were withdrawn when the Government tabled amendments subjecting altered rules to the affirmative resolution procedure. This is a higher level

of parliamentary scrutiny than for those rules that are simply allowed by the Lord Chancellor. I hope that these amendments, too, will be withdrawn now that I have made it clear that altered rules will be dealt with by the affirmative process.

Finally, I should like to add a couple of comments about amendments Nos. 86 and 103. Amendment No. 86 proposes that all secondary legislation introduced under Clause 80, which is about the power to amend legislation in connection with family procedure rules, should be subject to affirmative resolution. The amendment is unnecessary.

The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform has already commented on that.

Amendment No. 103 seeks to require that no orders may be made under clause 107(3) unless the order has been approved by affirmative resolution. As I said in response to amendment No. 86, there is a good reason for resisting the amendment because that is already provided for in clause 106(3). There will be affirmative statutory instruments in those cases.

Although the Bill as originally drafted provided for negative resolution of orders made under clause 107, the Government amended the Bill in the other place to provide for affirmative resolutions in the light of views expressed by the Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. We believe that the Bill strikes the appropriate balance between flexibility and parliamentary scrutiny. It is generally acknowledged that the experts on such matters are the members of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, and we have already amended the Bill in the light of some their views. We now believe that the delegated powers strike the appropriate balance. I therefore hope that the amendments will not be pressed.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I shall not pursue the matter further today. As the Minister has said, Governments traditionally resist attempts by the Opposition for more use of the affirmative resolution procedure. That is an ongoing battle, and we will no doubt return to it on future occasions. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 - Abolition of magistrates'

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

It has been suggested that the transition from the magistrates courts committees to the new structure might benefit from using some of the experience of those who at present sit on magistrates courts committees in an effective way. History supports that view, but I say that with some trepidation, because I do not necessarily want the same bodies to be transferred from one area of responsibility to another if they do not merit it.

I recall that when the Police Act 1996 was passed, I was the chairman of the Avon and Somerset police authority. I then found myself elected as chairman of the newly constructed police authority for Avon and Somerset, which was a completely different beast. The number of members was cut from 35 to 17; it had new independent members and a vastly different structure. It was of enormous benefit that a few people appeared on both sides of the transition, because they had the experience of what had happened previously, knew the tricks of the trade, had a relationship with the chief constable and were able to contribute effectively.

I suspect that the same may be true under the Bill, although we are talking about moving from an executive to a non-executive function. The courts boards may well benefit from the experience of those who have served on magistrates courts committees. I put it to the Minister that that is something to be considered when appointing the courts boards, not to avoid having new blood—I approve of new blood being brought into such organisations—but because some continuity is occasionally helpful.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I share the hon. Gentleman's views. Whenever a new system is created, some expertise from the past is assuredly helpful. I regret that the Government's response to Sir Robin Auld's report on magistrates courts committees was to decide that they had to abolish the old and bring in something completely new. As a matter of general principle I have always believed in the maxim, ''If it ain't broke, don't fix it.'' I am not convinced that something as quintessentially English as magistrates courts committees need wholesale reform.

Much of what was in the Auld report said that there were some differences in the ways in which magistrates courts committees did things because they were left to devise their own procedures and forms of implementing legislation and Government policy.

As we have already said, and as the hon. Gentleman pointed out this morning, the reason why that tended to work was that there are vast differences between different parts of the UK. The die has long since been cast, so I shall not challenge the entire basis of the Bill at this late stage—but I did not want the clause dealing with the abolition of those bodies to pass without at least placing on the record our recognition of the huge amount of work that has been done successfully in the past by members of the magistrates courts committees.

I am not sure that we will find that by creating a new kind of bureaucratic monster, the Government are addressing some of the problems that Sir Robin Auld referred to in respect of the shortage of funding, accounting arrangements and gaps in coverage that were found during inspections. I have a feeling that the same sort of failings will apply to the new system. Just because we want administrative consistency, we should not tear up something that was quintessentially English and replace it with a new bureaucracy—but that is my personal expression of regret. I want to place on record the view of the Conservative party that we must pay tribute to the hard work done by lay magistrates who give up their time to be magistrates and to sit on magistrates courts committees. It is

important that that work should be recognised publicly.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

As the Committee is aware, given that the Lord Chancellor is taking responsibility for the administration of all courts in England and Wales other than the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords for the time being, the clause abolishes the current arrangements for the administration of magistrates courts, known as magistrates courts committees. Those and the Court Service will be replaced by an executive agency of the Lord Chancellor's Department. The clause abolishes magistrates courts committees, of which the Greater London Magistrates Court Authority is one—that is mentioned in the Bill. That means that England and Wales will no longer need to be divided geographically into different MCC areas.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath needed to voice his dislike of the abolition of the MCCs. As a result of the Auld review, the Government came to the conclusion—even in my short time as a Minister with responsibility for the Court Service, it has occurred to me, while thinking through potential improvements to the system—that to have such a rigid and fragmented service with barriers between each MCC area inhibits change. Labour Members may call that modernisation, but I would not want to put off Conservative Members by using that term.

At present, a justices' chief executive acts as the full-time chief officer employed by each magistrates courts committee. As the committees will be abolished, there will no longer be a function for justices' chief executives, so that post will be abolished as well. On behalf of the Government, I pay tribute to all who have undertaken the role of justices' chief executive. Over the years, they have provided immense service to the administration of justice. They will continue to work in the justice system, although the title and role of the post will change and evolve.

As a result of the clause, many provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 will no longer be operative. In order to keep the statute book in good order, we have re-enacted the remaining operative provisions, with the necessary modifications, where appropriate. We have done so to ensure that all relevant provisions can be easily located in one place.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome reasonably raised the matter of using experience gained from magistrates courts committees. That is a fair point. The courts boards will need a great deal of local expertise in order to get up and running. We have got to keep the show on the road and ensure continuity of business. Although the task will change, there will still be a local role. The Government need to consider thoroughly at a national level how to make sure that we keep some home-grown expertise and bring it into the new administration as it evolves.

I hope that the clause is self-explanatory and stands part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2 - Abolition of magistrates'

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move amendment No. 116, in

schedule 2, page 61, line 25, leave out 'or in connection with'.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 117, in

schedule 2, page 61, leave out lines 36 and 37.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

These are probing amendments intended to clarify the effect of the schedule. I shall set out my worries, after which the Minister must tell me that they are misplaced. Several public or private authorities own property, which is used in connection with magistrates courts, but which forms no part of the magistrates courts committees estate. Under the Bill, it could, in effect, be requisitioned by the Department for Constitutional Affairs to promote its own interests. I am sure that that would not happen, but can the Minister explain the meaning of ''or in connection with''? I understand the meaning of ''for the purposes of'' and ''are otherwise attributable to''.

I shall cite an example. We have a magistrates court in Frome, and I hope that we shall still have one in a few months' time. We have a police station. The police station is next to the magistrates court. The police station and its curtilage are owned by the police authority and the magistrates court is owned by the magistrates court committee. One building is clearly ''in connection with'' the other. They may have other functions, but the positioning is not other than deliberate.

I am slightly worried that the present wording suggests that, when the transfers have taken place, the courts agency could quite properly say—although I do not say that it will—''That building is in connection with the magistrates court, so it now passes into our ownership by statute of Parliament.'' I find it hard to find any reason in the text to say that that is not the case. Will the Minister explain the meaning of ''or in connection with''? What circumstances is the provision intended to deal with?

Sub-paragraph (2) refers to ''persons'' who own property that will be transferred to the new agency. It lists those who we would expect to find in such instances and then includes a catch-all provision, which states:

''any other body which acts under any enactment or instrument for public purposes and not for its own profit.''

Thus, any agency of the state or local government that happens to own property that the Lord Chancellor has his eye on could be required to hand it over by virtue of the provisions for the purposes of adding to the Lord Chancellor's estate. I am sure that that is not the intention, although past Lord Chancellors would no doubt have found that an attractive element in British law. If the provision were not for that purpose, under what circumstances could a body unconnected with the magistrates courts committee and unconnected with an agency of the justice system be required to transfer ownership of property or assets to the Lord

Chancellor because it has some connection with the magistrates or other courts? That seems odd, but there must be a reason for it. Will the Minister say what it is?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I concur.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

This is déjà vu all over again.

I take it that the amendment is a probing amendment that is intended to ensure that the Bill is not too widely drawn. The phrase ''in connection with'' is necessary to ensure that all buildings needed for the smooth running of the magistrates courts are transferred under the Bill. It is important that we do not leave anything out. The phrase ''in connection with'' is intended to cover functions related to magistrates courts other than specific court functions.

Two main situations are envisaged, although there may be others. There are apparently 23 instances of MCC office accommodation separate from courthouses fulfilling a function that is subsidiary to but supportive of the judicial function of the courthouses themselves. I am told that there is at least one instance of an MCC management training centre that would be covered by the contentious but important phrase.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I want to stop the Minister before he goes any further. Surely those functions are for the purposes of magistrates courts or otherwise attributable to magistrates courts, and do not have to be separately defined.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

That is not the interpretation of parliamentary counsel in drafting the Bill. We feel that we need the latitude given by the phrase in question in order to encompass the relevant situations. I must put my hand on my heart and say that I have not necessarily visited all 24 examples that I have alluded to, but I shall consider the matter in closer detail.

Norman Lamb (Liberal Democrat, North Norfolk)

I thank the Minister. I understand from what he said that the parliamentary draftsmen feel it necessary to include those words to ensure that the provisions catch the 24 examples that he gave. However, is there not a danger that the provisions go much further than that and potentially bring within their remit lots of other circumstances, which may not be intended?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I have not seen sufficient reason to believe that that would be the case. We have an obligation more in the other direction: to ensure that we do not have disputes over the future ownership of buildings whose functions are closely connected to but distinct from the primary function—I stress the word ''primary''—of the magistrates courts.

Amendment No. 117 would leave out paragraph 1(2)(g), which is intended to cover two situations. There may be circumstances under which a public body other than those mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(a) to (f) has a freehold or leasehold interest in property used for the purposes of, in connection with or otherwise attributable to magistrates courts. Under such circumstances, it is intended that the interest should pass to the

Department for Constitutional Affairs—the DCA. The national probation service was envisioned in constructing the schedule. The service has a significant presence in magistrates courts and in at least one known instance owns the court building. There may be similar situations involving other public bodies, but those have not yet been discovered, and I am certainly not aware of them, so we must err on the side of caution.

In many cases, areas of magistrates courts are occupied by other parties with a connection to the court function, such as the Crown Prosecution Service. Those arrangements are generally on an informal basis for the mutual benefit of the parties. However, it means that in several situations a significant proportion of space available in a courthouse or another building, the function of which is connected with the magistrates courts, is occupied by bodies other than the MCCs themselves. While it is intended that in general those occupancies should remain in place, for the avoidance of complications, the interests of those subsidiary bodies should nominally transfer to the DCA, which will re-grant them back to those bodies. I hope that with that level of assurance and with those particular examples that I have been fascinated to learn about, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will withdraw the amendment.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I do not know who would be prouder of the Minister's performance: Cardinal Wolsey or Thomas Cromwell. One of the two would have been pleased to have that power. I accept the Minister's explanation of why he needs the power for the specific instances. It is drawn too widely but I will have to trust to the good sense and lack of avarice of the new Department to ensure that it does not acquire, by virtue of this statute, property to which it is not entitled.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

A thought occurs to me. Given that the hon. Gentleman has made his comparison with two famous previous Lord Chancellors and that the most recent Lord Chancellor prior to the reshuffle compared himself to Cardinal Wolsey on a famous occasion, is the hon. Gentleman saying that Lord Falconer is his idea of Thomas Cromwell?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Such comparisons would be odious. I notice that there is no specific reference to wallpaper in the clause. We must assume that the previous Lord Chancellor's writ no longer runs.

The Minister has satisfied me about the use of magistrates courts' property by other bodies. However, I am still concerned about what is meant precisely by the phrase ''in connection with'', which is not within the other two definitions. It looks like one of those belt-and-braces jobs in which parliamentary counsel sometimes indulge just to make absolutely sure. It has probably always been put like that when people are taking over just in case someone comes up with a bright reason for resisting the transfer, but it seems otiose. Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That this schedule be the second schedule to the Bill.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I want to ask my hon. Friend a couple of questions because there are some issues that are quite fundamental to the people who transfer. Staff transfers are covered in detail in part 2, which is very positive. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made an important statement recently about TUPE. It was a progressive statement that was welcomed by those of us who negotiated transfers of undertakings on behalf of employees over many years.

I suspect that it is an academic issue in the context of people like members of the Association of Magisterial Officers because I would presume that their pension transfers would be treated as the kind of club transfers that apply within the public sector. Preferential arrangements are built in for those transfers. As a non-lawyer and not having visited too many magistrates courts, or indeed any other court, I presume that there are other employees who are not engaged on the kind of terms and conditions that are afforded to the Association of Magisterial Officers. I therefore seek an assurance that relates to the timing of the enactment of both this Bill and the statement on pensions. Can we ensure that when these public servants make that transfer the spirit of the statement made only last week is incorporated in whatever we finally enact?

Paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 refer to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, and statutory instrument 1981/1794. TUPE specifically excludes pension provision. I appreciate that this is a technical matter, which may require liaison with colleagues in the Department of Work and Pensions, but I seek assurance that the timing of the enactment of the schedule will not disadvantage people.

Secondly, I do not expect an answer today, but for the sake of those of us who are not lawyers, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to paragraph 14—

''Restrictions on employment of aliens not to apply to transferred employees''—

which states:

''Nothing in . . . section 3 of the Act of Settlement (1700 c.2)''.

It is good to hear that legislation enacted by one of my hon. Friend's predecessors has survived for so long: all power to them and the civil service for getting things right.

Similarly, paragraph 14(b) states:

''section 6 of the Aliens Restriction (Amendment) Act 1919''.

That is a tad before anyone in the Room was born. It would be helpful to have some explanation of what that means in plain English, and to know whether there are possible contradictions. I presume that rights might be afforded to Commonwealth citizens who would be excluded from legislation that existed before the creation of the Commonwealth. I make only a general inquiry because I am intrigued by the fact that legislation has such longevity. It is a credit to the British parliamentary institution. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome shakes his head, but the

Liberals were in power for some of that time, so we might have to blame them for it. I do not know.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I honestly do not believe that the hon. Gentleman can blame us for the Administration of 1700, as it would not be considered to be Liberal Democrat in tone.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Indeed. I was thinking more of the middle of the 20th century.

There is a serious point to be made: we need to make legislation understandable to lay people. It would be very helpful if the Minister could put these points into context.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has raised some important points about pensions, because the announcement made by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is relevant to the debate. I am sure that he will be aware that the relevant trade union—the Association of Magisterial Officers—is now generally satisfied about the TUPE arrangements and the staffing issues that were a matter of contention at an earlier stage in our deliberations on the Bill. I am grateful to Ministers for listening to the points that it had to make. Its key point is whether the level of funding will be sufficient after transfer to achieve the objectives that the Bill sets itself, while also representing a fair deal for the staff who work in these institutions. That is a genuine and legitimate concern, which the Minister should be able to address.

On the Act of Settlement 1700, I have little to add other than to say that I suspect that, if anything, it will be disobliging to Scots, rather than anyone else, given that period in English history.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

Schedule 2 makes provision for the Lord Chancellor to facilitate the transfer of magistrates courts estate and real property rights to the Secretary of State, to transfer other property rights and liabilities to himself, and to transfer staff to his own employment on the abolition of the MCCs under clause 6.

The aim of the property provisions in the schedule is to integrate the Court Service and magistrates courts estates under the auspices of the new agency. The schedule provides that the Lord Chancellor may create a property transfer scheme to transfer any property, rights and liabilities of the MCCs, local authorities and others, in connection with the magistrates courts, to the Lord Chancellor or another Minister immediately before the appointed day. The appointed day is the day immediately before the MCCs and the Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority are abolished. The details of the transfers will be contained in a property transfer scheme.

The schedule overrides any provisions of whatever nature that might prevent, penalise or restrict the transfer. It provides for just compensation to be paid to third parties whose rights are affected by other provisions in the schedule and provides that a certificate issued by the Lord Chancellor will be conclusive evidence that property has, or has not, been transferred.

The schedule also sets out a number of important provisions that will allow eligible staff currently

employed by the MCCs to transfer to the new agency. That was the subject of the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). The definition of an eligible employee is set out in paragraph 9(4) and includes local authority staff who spend a substantial amount of their time on work connected with the MCCs or magistrates courts.

In relation to the matter my hon. Friend raised, the schedule makes it clear that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, which are known as TUPE, will apply in order to ensure that staff subject to the scheme will receive terms and conditions of employment under the new agency which are no less favourable that those that they had under their previous employers. Although TUPE excludes pensions, there is no intention to disadvantage staff transferred to the principal civil service pension scheme. Transfers will have to be worked out so that terms are broadly equivalent, according to actuarial calculations. I hope that that is sufficient to placate my hon. Friend.

My hon. Friend also asked about restrictions on the employment of aliens not applying to transferred employees. Some hon. Members will have followed the civil service reform programme over several years. Having been a Minister at the Cabinet Office, I can say that the Government have been concerned for some time about civil service rules including a certain number of nationality conditions in relation to employment in the civil service. The schedule provides that any MCC or local authority staff who are regarded as aliens under the current definition in civil service employment legislation will still be eligible to transfer into the employment of the Lord Chancellor. In this context, an alien can be defined as a person who is precluded from employment in the civil service by existing legislation. Examples are

nationals of non-European Community or non-European Free Trade Association states. I hope that that answers my hon. Friend's point.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome was particularly concerned about funding. That has obviously been raised in discussions with the relevant trade unions and employee associations as matters have progressed. I am assured that the plans that are in place are robust and capable of dealing with all the necessary costs, but I will obviously ensure that the management of the process is closely monitored to ensure that we are not underfunding transfer arrangements in any way.

Norman Lamb (Liberal Democrat, North Norfolk)

May I ask the Minister another question about TUPE, to which he has just referred? The TUPE regulations do not preclude the transferee—the receiving employer—making staff redundant if the redundancy is genuine. Is it anticipated that staff could be made redundant, despite the provisions of TUPE applying, or will all existing staff transfer and retain their employment?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I dealt with some of these matters earlier in references to similar discussions on the general duties under clause 1 and I will not repeat what I said. We want the transfers to go through without the controversies to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. However, we will keep matters under review as they develop. We cannot preserve the current arrangements in aspic for all time, but we intend to honour our normal TUPE obligations.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Five o'clock till Tuesday 1 July at half-past Nine o'clock.