Courts Bill [Lords]

Public Bill Committee, 1 July 2003.

Standing Committee D

Clause 7 - The commission of the peace for England and Wales

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

In a spirit of inquiry, I should like to ask this reforming Government and the reforming Department for Constitutional Affairs why the commission of the peace continues to be issued under the Great Seal. Of course I understand the need for justices of the peace; they have a time-honoured role and title, and I have no wish to remove it. However, what precisely is the purpose of something that no one in the outside world understands—a commission of the peace being issued under the Great Seal? I would have thought that the Department might have addressed that issue, as we are doing away with all sorts of things here, there and everywhere.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I shall be interested to hear how the Minister responds to that. Conservative Members are absolutely delighted that for once the Government have left something alone and are not making a change. As the hon. Gentleman points out, there is the title ''justice of the peace'', and such historic titles have, in many cases, lasted for hundreds of years, because they mean something. Justices of the peace, who have an important title, will be delighted to know that there is a commission of the peace.

Looking back at the history of this country, I understand that the origin of that title is that justices of the peace the length and breadth of the country were intended to ensure that there was peace, not lawlessness, in their local communities. That is why the commission of the peace has that name—and it is issued under the Great Seal because the Great Seal represents the Crown. We want to ensure that we have a peaceful kingdom.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Lest there be any misunderstanding, I should say that I certainly understand the history of the matter, and the need to retain justices of the peace. I just wonder what precisely the hon. Gentleman believes that the commission of the peace issued under the Great Seal is.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

We shall hear whether the Minister has anything to add to the explanation that I have given, but I thought that I had just explained my understanding of why the commission of the peace has that name: it was intended to ensure peaceful communities. We Conservative Members are very much in favour of keeping historic titles, and we are

delighted that on this occasion the Government have chosen to do so.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

Good morning, Mr. Illsley.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) is right to point out that we are retaining the commission of the peace. However, I hate to disabuse hon. Members of the idea that we are avoiding our modernising obligations, but in fact there is a change to the commission of the peace. Currently, there are separate commissions for different areas across England and Wales, and the clause creates a single unified commission, which will extend to cover the whole of England and Wales.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Steady on.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I am told that the commission of the peace is the authority traditionally issued by Her Majesty that empowers magistrates to act as such. It has existed since 1326—[Interruption]—roughly when the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) entered political life. The provision is consequential on the abolition of separate local commission areas and on the introduction of the national jurisdiction that the Bill will give to magistrates.

I have looked into why we need to continue with the concept of the commission of the peace. It is the traditional source of magistrates' judicial authority; also, there may be a legal issue with whether the power to bind over is dependent to some extend on the notion of the commission of the peace. Much research has been done on the subject in our Department, and we felt that at this stage, it would be best to preserve the concept of the commission of the peace—hence the provisions in clause 7, which I hope will now stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 - Local justice areas

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 11, in

clause 8, page 5, line 10, at end insert

'which are to be coterminous with the boundaries of the relevant local government area.'.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 118, in

clause 8, page 5, line 13, at end insert—

'( ) No local justice area may include areas which form part of more than one area specified under section 4.'.

Amendment No. 119, in

clause 8, page 5, line 13, at end insert—

'( ) No local justice area may include areas which form part of more than one area established under Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1996 (c.16).'.

Amendment No. 12, in

clause 8, page 5, line 14, at end insert

'but may not change the coterminosity of a local justice with a local government area.'.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Thank you, Mr. Illsley. I can now welcome you, and all members of the Committee, properly. I welcome in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) and warmly congratulate them on their appointment yesterday to the shadow ministerial team. My hon. Friend the Member for Witney is now shadow Deputy Leader of the House, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe is a shadow Minister for the Department for Work and Pensions.

Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 would ensure that local justice areas were the same as local government areas. As with the argument that we had a few days ago that courts boards areas should be coterminous with police authority areas, here we need to minimise confusion and overlap. While preparing for this debate, it occurred to me that in drafting amendment No. 12 I might have inadvertently made an error. When I reread the amendment, I thought that it probably should have read ''local justice area'' rather than just ''local justice''. Before the Minister picks that up, I plead guilty that I might have left something out. The amendment would certainly be clearer with the word ''area'' added.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will speak to the couple of Liberal Democrat amendments, Nos. 118 and 119, in this group. My reading of those is that they aim for the same thing—avoiding confusion—but we shall hear from the hon. Gentleman in a moment. Even if the Minister cannot accept the amendments as they stand, I hope that he understands what we are getting at. There is no need to change local justice areas so that they cross over local government boundaries, and I hope that he will acknowledge that ours is a genuine attempt to improve the Bill by trying to avoid confusion.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I should have said earlier that I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Illsley; I apologise.

This group of amendments deals with the idea of keeping a degree of co-ordination and coterminosity between the local justice areas that will be established under the Bill and other areas relevant to the workings of those areas. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath has already explained the basis of his amendments. My only quarrel with him is that he has not defined whether the relevant local government area should be a shire or a district. That could cause confusion in construing his intention.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

There was, I hope, a bit of logic to that. Under clause 8(7) as drafted, the term ''local authority'' is defined in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). That is why my amendments contain no further definition; the clause already includes a definition of ''local authority''. Adding the word ''area'' would be the simplest way of improving the amendment.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I am not trying to pick a quarrel. I do not think that his amendment is precisely right for areas where there are both county and district authorities, but I am not arguing against his intention.

Amendment No. 118 would ensure that local justice areas were not split between the areas of more than

one courts board. That seems eminently sensible. If we are setting up a system for overseeing the administration of courts for a particular area, it does not make sense for a single local justice area to be answerable—or rather, to be of interest—to more than one courts board area.

It is a matter of good governance that local justice areas should fall entirely within a single courts board area, to allow for sensible administration.

Amendment No. 119 states that the boundary should not cross a police authority area. If we wish to make those areas accountable, and wish to have better co-ordination between the apparatus of justice in its various forms—including the police, the probation service and other bodies that will follow the police authority areas—it does not make sense for a local justice area to cross the boundaries of a police authority area.

Whether or not my amendments are accepted, local justice areas will, in practice, fall within a single police authority area and a courts board area. It would be better if that were explicit, rather than implicit. I would be concerned if there was a local justice area that straddled borders, because that would create confusion and add to the lack of local accountability and transparency in the operation of those bodies. I hope that the Minister will accept my amendment.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I commend the hon. Member for Surrey Heath for his characteristic modesty in commending his colleagues on their promotion in the shadow reshuffle, but failing to mention that he too has been promoted, to shadow Solicitor-General. I congratulate him.

We have four substantive amendments before us. As a consequence of clause 8, we will abolish commission areas from statute, and replace petty sessions areas with local justice areas. We will introduce a transitional provision confirming that local justice area boundaries will, in the first instance, be the same as those of existing petty sessions areas.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath tabled amendment No. 11, which would require the Lord Chancellor to make local justice areas coterminous with the boundaries of the relevant local government areas when he divides up England and Wales. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome pointed out one of the issues that had occurred to me concerning the definition of the term ''relevant local government area''.

I acknowledge the comments of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath about the definition as set out in subsection (7). His amendment does not distinguish between a county council area and a district council area—although that is a drafting point, so I will not dwell on it. It is important that we make it clear that the local level is the foundation building block of the local justice area. Will the local justice areas be coterminous with the local government unit or with one of the 43 police authority areas? All those boundary issues are important.

The amendment is undesirable, given that local justice areas will replace petty sessions areas, and at this stage we do not wish to disturb the underlying structure of existing petty sessions areas boundaries. That is why we will bring forward a transitional provision confirming that the boundaries of the new local justice areas will be the same as those of the petty sessions areas on commencement.

Amendment No. 12 would prevent the Lord Chancellor from changing the coterminosity of a local justice area and a local government area when making an order to alter local justice area boundaries under subsection (4). Unless the term ''relevant local government area'' is clearly defined, there are difficulties with the workability of the amendment, and given what I have already said about amendment No. 11, I do not believe that that would be the correct approach.

Amendment No. 118, tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, would ensure that

''No local justice area may include areas which form part of more than one''

courts board

''area specified under section 4.''

There are difficulties with that approach. Although the amendment suggests that courts boards boundaries are fundamental and inalienable units that should not be tampered with, the local justice areas are the first building blocks of the system. The amendment is undesirable, because it seeks to put the cart before the horse. The petty sessions or local justice areas are fundamental to all aspects of the magistrates courts system, whereas those of the courts boards are part of an administrative structure, through which the administration of the courts—not only magistrates courts—is enhanced. In determining a courts board area, consideration should be given to ensuring that petty sessions and local justice area boundaries are not compromised, and vice versa. Many hon. Members would want to ensure that we saw that point through.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I think that the Minister is agreeing with me that the local justice areas should be entirely within a single courts board area. All he is saying is that one is established before the other. Would he find acceptable an amendment to the definition of the courts boards areas that ensured that they covered a whole number—an integer—of local justice areas? If that were done, there would not be the problem of local justice areas straddling the borders of courts boards areas. I think that he and I would agree that that would not be conducive to good administration.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

That may well be the effect of the final product, as we move from the transitional phase, during which we simply replicate the petty sessions areas, to the new system. However, other matters must be taken into account when considering courts boards areas, given that those do not just relate to magistrates courts issues. We must consider that in more detail, although that is not to say that there should not be widespread consultation on such matters. Subsection (6) already provides for consultation with the relevant courts board, in the event that boundary changes were

to be given further consideration after the first transitional phase.

Amendment No. 119, tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, would ensure that

''No local justice area may include areas which form part of more than one area established under Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1996''.

That is similar to amendment No. 118. The intention behind amendment No. 119 is that such an area should not straddle more than one criminal justice service area, apart from in London, where there are the classic anomalies of the City and metropolitan boundary areas. That is the current position with petty sessions area boundaries and it will also apply initially to those of local justice areas. We expect that such boundaries will be included within those of a criminal justice service area. However, we do not want to commit to ensuring that in the Bill. It is important to remember that magistrates courts also hear civil and family cases, not just criminal cases. The organisation of local justice areas is not solely reliant on the needs of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, and to tie it to the considerations of criminal justice service areas would be, in a sense, to pre-empt and negate considerations that may be necessary in respect of civil and family cases.

Given the wider responsibilities of the magistrates courts system, it would be wrong at this stage to include such restrictive amendments in the Bill. However, I assure Committee members who have raised particular points that if we can keep the boundaries structures simple and clear, that will be our intention. I understand entirely that the amendment was tabled to try to ensure as great a level of coterminosity as possible, but I hope that it will, for the time being, be withdrawn.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I think that the Minister understands entirely what we are aiming at. I do not want to prolong the debate, but I would have preferred it if something along the lines of my amendments and those of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome were included in the Bill. I understand that we are not really falling out on an issue of principle. We are simply talking about the mechanics of the Bill. The Minister has given some helpful reassurances, which are now on the record. In the light of those, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 - Appointment of lay justices etc.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 13, in

clause 10, page 6, line 13, at end insert

', and the rules and the contents of the training courses shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament.'.

I hope either that the Government will not resist this amendment on such an important matter, or, even if they feel that they must, that they might table a similar Government amendment. We on the Conservative Benches think that it is important that

there be some scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament of how lay justices are to be trained.

Earlier in our proceedings reference was made to the fact that in this country we are tremendously fortunate to have about 96 or 97 per cent. of criminal cases dealt with by amateur volunteers—people who devote their lives to public service as justices of the peace. Without their dedication, we would not have such a highly regarded legal system. When I talk to people in other countries, they are amazed that we are fortunate enough to have a system that relies so heavily on volunteers, which of course can save Governments of any party a huge amount of money—it would be much more expensive for the taxpayer to transfer to an entirely professional judiciary.

Although we have volunteers who do all that work as justices of the peace, Parliament needs to have sight of the content of their training courses. I cannot see why there should be any opposition to that. We are saying not that Parliament should interfere, but simply that it should see what is on the syllabus.

I used to have great concerns about a completely different matter many years ago, which was how teachers were trained. I was suspicious about some of the things that were in the teacher training college syllabuses, but, fortunately, when we were in government my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), then Secretary of State for Education, looked at what was in the syllabuses and got a lot of the political correctness taken out. However, that is a different matter and we are not talking about that here. We are talking about Parliament having a view about what is going to be in the syllabus, as I have called it, for training lay justices. The point is shortly stated, but it is nevertheless an important one and I hope that the Government will not seek to resist the amendment.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

Subsection (4), as the hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out, enables the Lord Chancellor to make rules about lay justice training. The amendment seeks to impose an unnecessary restriction on the potential ability of the Lord Chancellor to train lay justices. I am concerned about the amendment. Although I can understand the natural curiosity of the hon. Gentleman, he is insisting that the contents as well as the rules of the training courses should be laid before both Houses of Parliament, which is a slightly worrying suggestion to make. Doing so would be a little excessive and perhaps an unprecedented level of parliamentary scrutiny. We obviously want to see training for lay justices up and down the country, but we also feel that the basis of that training should have a degree of independence.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I wonder whether I could press the Minister on the eligibility of those who are trained. The high cost of training magistrates must be borne in mind, and there needs to be an assurance that a significant number of years of service could be had from a trained magistrate to justify the cost of that training. However, I have heard of cases where older people have been refused on the ground of age, and it

would be a pity if their experience and wisdom, which come with age, were lost to the magistracy.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

As I get older and wiser about these matters, I realise and appreciate the benefits that can come from age and experience. I have had about 15 or 16 days' experience in the field of courts and the wonderful world of the Lord Chancellor, and I feel that great experience should never be thrown away lightly. I will look at whether there are any bars to training that unnecessarily discard experience. I am sure that the system does not do that, but I hear what the hon. Lady says.

There needs to be a degree of independence in the training process. The Judicial Studies Board manages the training of lay justices on behalf of the Lord Chancellor, and it does so well. It is an important aspect of the magistracy's judicial independence that such training should be seen to be free from outside—and particularly political—interference.

Certain training courses need to be prepared quickly—perhaps in response to legislative change—and the amendment would delay or fetter the process of changing or preparing them: their content would need to be laid before Parliament on every such occasion. I am not aware of the contents of training courses in any other field of public life needing to be laid before Parliament.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath says that he does not wish to interfere with the content of such courses, but if we were to have a provision stating that their contents should be laid before Parliament, that would implicitly suggest that Parliament may wish to debate the contents, or even to give approval of them, and that would be the wrong avenue to go down. Because of those concerns, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am disappointed with the Minister's response because having the contents of the training laid before Parliament is an important matter. We might need to return to the matter on Report. The Minister helpfully suggested that he will look at the important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), and I hope that he will also continue to keep this matter in mind, so that at the same time that he is exploring my hon. Friend's concerns about older people being considered as magistrates, he will look again at whether it would do any harm for the Bill to state that the contents of the training should be laid before Parliament. That is not an excessive request, but as I do not wish to prolong the debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I welcome the capacity to allow greater flexibility in the use of lay magistrates between local justice areas—as those areas are to be called—but what is the process for the arrangements under subsection (3) that allow a lay justice to preside over or act in an area to which he or she is not assigned? Will the Lord Chancellor simply write a letter to that

effect, or is there a more complicated process? In clause 16, there is a requirement to notify the Keeper of the Rolls for the local justice area of a permanent assignment, but is that the case for a temporary assignment? What are the procedures that the Lord Chancellor would expect to have in place to make these assignments—to license a lay justice to act in an area to which he or she is not assigned?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting and important point about the process by which lay justices will be assigned to particular areas. Clearly, there will be a change, in that there will be greater flexibility of assignment, given the abolition of particular local commission of the peace areas and the fact that lay justices will be able to act in any local justice area. However, certainly under subsection (3), and not least in conjunction with clauses 43 and 44, we intend to exercise the arrangements in accordance with many of the current procedures used by the Lord Chancellor.

Magistrates would generally continue to sit in their local area, and the wider jurisdiction would only be used on proper conditions, including the magistrates' agreement and the business needs driving the courts system. If there are technical paperwork aspects that I am neglecting, it is simply because I am not intimately familiar with the processology of how magistrates would be assigned. I have given the principle that will continue to be used. Obviously, we do not wish to cause disruption in where a magistrate sits, particularly if the change is against their will.

The clause re-enacts several provisions in the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, and puts on to a statutory footing for the first time the requirement on the Lord Chancellor to assign magistrates to a local area. The clause is a step forward. It is intended to preserve, and perhaps even strengthen, the statutory position of the bench in relation to the community and magistrates working in local justice areas. Putting the provisions in the Bill gives strength to the foundations of the appointment process. If the hon. Gentleman wishes, he can raise points—or I could follow up on his points, if he has any more to make—in correspondence with me.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I was not trying to be clever and catch the Minister on the hop with my question; it simply seems that there is a lacuna in the Bill in relation to setting out the exact procedures. That may not need to be done in primary legislation, but clear procedures need to be involved, because nothing would be more certain to cause upset and difficulties in a local government area than some magistrate from outside suddenly appearing to hear a choice case, or something like that.

I just want to be reassured that procedures for the new way of doing things have been envisaged, and that they will ensure that the local bench know about, and are party to, what is going on. Those procedures should perhaps allow for consultation along the way, and ensure that there are no sudden lurches in personnel that would disrupt the principles of the lay magistracy as we know them. I am perfectly satisfied

that the Minister will address the issue, but he might also like to consider whether it would be appropriate to publish clear rules of procedure on the subject at an early stage so that everyone knows what is entailed, because I do not think that it is absolutely clear.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Resignation and removal of lay justices

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move amendment No. 120, in

clause 11, page 6, line 17, leave out 'Chancellor' and insert 'Chief Justice'.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 124, in

clause 22, page 10, line 37, leave out 'Chancellor' and insert 'Chief Justice'.

No. 125, in

clause 22, page 11, line 9, leave out 'Chancellor' and insert 'Chief Justice'.

No. 126, in

clause 23, page 11, line 12, leave out 'Chancellor' and insert 'Chief Justice'.

No. 127, in

clause 24, page 11, line 18, leave out 'Chancellor' and insert 'Chief Justice'.

No. 128, in

clause 24, page 11, line 27, leave out 'Chancellor' and insert 'Chief Justice'.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

This is a series of probing amendments on a subject that the Minister must have known would arise at some stage in our proceedings. The point of the amendments is to try to divine what exactly the Department had in mind about the future role of the Lord Chancellor in relation to judicial appointments. I put the amendments forward not as a comprehensive list of all the places where one could substitute ''Chief Justice'' for ''Chancellor'', but simply as test cases to stimulate debate on the subject.

We are told that the Lord Chancellor will bow out of the process of judicial appointments. I welcome that. There have been strong arguments for a long time for the Lord Chancellor not to combine his various roles. There will be debates on the matter and proposals will be discussed. However, we are debating a Bill that will create a new raft of judicial appointment functions for the Lord Chancellor at a time when he is only Lord Chancellor for the interim period. His official title is included in the Government list and will change.

Judicial appointments are best left to the judiciary and, under my proposal, the person who will nominally be the head of the judiciary will be the Lord Chief Justice. It is open for the Minister to say that I have interpreted matters wrongly and that the head of the judiciary will continue to be the Lord Chancellor. I hope that he will not say that. The Minister could say that I had got it wrong and that another judicial personage will be the appropriate head of the magistracy. I should be content with that,

but it would be helpful to know the Government's thinking.

It is unacceptable for us to pass into law a new statute, which runs entirely counter to the Government's declared policy in such matters. I may have more to say when I have heard the Minister's reply. I do not want to labour the point now, but to explore his thinking about who should be making such appointments.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I entirely concur with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I do not. [Interruption.] I appreciate the succinct reply of my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller).

The amendments would pre-empt decisions based on the outcome of the consultation paper on the independent judicial appointments commission, with which members of the Committee will be intimately familiar and which was announced at the time of the Cabinet reshuffle. It will be issued on 14 July and will explore all the points that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome raised, such as whether judicial office holders should be appointed by the commission. It would be premature for me to form views on the outcome of the consultation process in advance, although clearly the principle of reducing the level of political input into the selection process between candidates for the judiciary is an aim with which the hon. Gentleman agreed. I have not heard disagreement with that concept.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Clwyd West)

I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. None the less is it the Government's position that, although the precise replacement for the Lord Chancellor has yet to be determined and is the subject of consultation, the Lord Chancellor will not be involved in judicial appointments? Is there not some merit in the amendment because of an anomaly? If the Lord Chancellor cannot appoint, he should not be allowed to sack. However, different considerations may apply to lay justices as opposed to other members of the legal profession.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

My hon. Friend has asked a reasonable question, which I imagine will be covered in the consultation paper when published. I am not particularly sure whether the proposal of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome about the Lord Chief Justice is desirable. I am not even sure whether the Lord Chief Justice would be keen on the concept. We shall have to study the matter when the consultation paper is published.

The hon. Gentleman slightly overstates his case when he talks about the Bill creating new appointment roles for the Lord Chancellor. The Bill simply re-enacts several of the Lord Chancellor's existing appointment powers. It may well be that there are questions to do with accountability that must be brought out in the consultation paper, but we will have to wait and see.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister says that we will have to wait and see, but he will concede that it is bizarre that he is resting his argument on the consultation paper that is not due to be published until four days before Parliament rises for the recess. None of us know what the contents of it will be. The Minister may have some idea, because I am sure that in his short time in his new Department he has been involved in discussions about the contents of the consultation paper. However, we do not know what its contents will be; they remain in the ether. Given that the Minister is now under pressure from his own Back Benchers, as well as from the Conservative Benches and, in particular, the Liberal Democrats who tabled the amendment, will he concede that it may be wiser to take cognisance of the unhappy state that we are in of not knowing what will be in the consultation paper?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I should be happy to take cognisance of the state that we are in. There is a great deal of eagerness—rather than unhappiness—in our anticipation of the consultation paper. Given the path down which we have stated we will go, that is proper and reasonable. Several questions must be resolved. I do not want to pre-empt the consultation process. Just because publication will be on 14 July does not mean that the consultation period will end a week later.

The consultation will continue until November, when there will be ample opportunity for all hon. Members, and others outside this place, to have an input, consider and debate the merits of different aspects of the creation of an independent judicial appointments commission. As the Minister who has been involved in much of this process, it would not be right for me to pre-empt the views expressed in the consultation process. That is why I ask the Committee to resist the amendments.

Boris Johnson (Conservative, Henley)

I wish to follow the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and probe the Minister a little further on one point. Will he guarantee that, if we approve the clause, we will not allow whoever emerges as the successor to the Lord Chancellor to be an exclusively political figure in the removal of the magistrates? That is what we are talking about—removing magistrates from office. It would be bad and dangerous if whoever took over the office of Lord Chancellor under clause 11 was an exclusively political figure.

In ending the anomaly of the Lord Chancellor, the Government are trying to do something sensible. Why should a figure be judicial and political at the same time? If it is proposed under clause 11 that the successor to the Lord Chancellor should be the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and that he will have the power to remove lay justices, that would be a serious matter. An exclusively political figure, with no judicial dimension to his office, would have the ability to remove magistrates. That would be wrong and a gross constitutional impropriety. Is the Minister willing to rule out the possibility that, when the Bill refers to the ''Lord Chancellor'', that may at some future time designate the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I am glad that that matter is beginning to come to light and that many hon. Members are thinking through the current anomalous situation of a twin-hatted Lord Chancellor with judicial and political roles. One of the points that must be remembered is that all appointments are made by the Lord Chancellor not in a judicial capacity, but as a Minister of the Crown. Most of the appointments are already undertaken under what may be defined broadly as political arrangements. No change is proposed to the current system under clause 11. The current arrangements will be continued.

I respect and understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Just as in any consultation paper on judicial appointments, matters of removal, discipline, wayward justices and so forth must be dealt with. I do not want to pre-empt the contents of that consultation paper before it is published; these things should be announced in the normal way. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman has raised an important point: we cannot examine the appointments process in isolation from what would happen in terms of the removal of those playing a part in the judiciary. I have no doubt that some of those points will be touched on in the consultation paper. We have shared our concerns about the appointments process, and they will be part of the consultation process. It would not be right for me to go into too much detail at this stage, and I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am grateful for the Minister's response as far as it goes. He expressed pleasure at the fact that some hon. Members are now thinking seriously about the position of the Lord Chancellor and the triple-hatted nature of his present incumbency. Some of us have been raising that issue for a long time, and certainly when the Government resisted any attempt at change by saying that it was perfectly acceptable for the Lord Chancellor to have multiple roles. We have been convinced for some time that that was an untenable position, and one that needed to be addressed.

The Minister's response raises several problems. We are required to vote into law today proposals that re-establish the position of the Lord Chancellor not just to appoint, but to remove justices from their posts, but the fact that we must wait for the judicial storming of the Bastille on 14 July before we even know the Government's thinking is—and I do not want to overdo it—an abuse of process. At the time of the Government's announcement, I said that the best thing that they could have done was to pull back the Bill and wait until they knew what they were doing. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) is right: by default, the role will fall to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. If the position of Lord Chancellor is no more and nothing else changes, his successor in title will be the Secretary of State.

We accept that the Government are serious about considering a new judicial appointments commission, or something similar. However, that prompts a new question. There will be a power to remove a justice from his office by instrument on behalf, and in the name, of Her Majesty. How will that instrument be

constituted in the absence of a Minister of the Crown to lay it before Parliament? In what way will the judicial appointments commission, as it is formulated, exercise its powers of appointment to and removal from office? Those questions need to be addressed as part of the consultation process.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I entirely agree with his points; I am sure that the Minister will take them seriously. By the time that we have all seen the consultation paper, the Bill will not have completed its stages—it is likely that the Bill will be on Report in our two-week sitting in September or in the autumn—so there will be time for the Government to table amendments clarifying the position in light of the consultation paper. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be enormously helpful if the Minister told us that he already firmly intends to amend this part of the Bill in light of the consultation paper?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

That would be helpful. Unfortunately, I do not think that it is going to happen.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I am being prompted to pre-empt the results of the consultation by inserting amendments into the Bill before we know what the results of the consultation will be. Although the hon. Gentleman criticises the Government for moving too speedily when he regards consultation has not having been thorough, he is encouraging us to move in such a way in this case.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am not accusing the Government of being too speedy, but of leaving it too late and then doing everything in a rush. That has resulted in a muddle, which is par for the course.

My difficulty is not that the consultation process should have been completed before the Bill commenced its passage. I understand that there are complications and areas that will need to be addressed. However, given that the one thing about which we are absolutely clear, irrespective of the mechanisms involved, is the Government's intention for judicial appointments to cease to be the province of the Lord Chancellor, to pass into legislation a duty that falls exclusively on the Lord Chancellor seems to be to take obstinacy a little too far. There was not even going to be a Lord Chancellor until somebody consulted the rule book of the House of Lords and discovered that there needed to be one.

I would be much happier if the Minister were to come back on Report not with the finished product—I accept that he cannot do that; the consultation process will not be complete—but at least with a transfer of the function to the judiciary in some form. That would put the Bill into the correct form for it to be later amended, as it will inevitably have to be in the light of consultation and the final arrangements for judicial appointments. At the moment, it is in the wrong form. It has the wrong structure in that it places the duties in the hands of a Minister, a member of the Cabinet and the presiding officer of another place.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I am having trouble following the hon. Gentleman's argument. If the Bill did not exist, the Lord Chancellor would be the person to appoint and sack magistrates. We could therefore

leave things as they are. I note that the hon. Gentleman did not propose any amendment to clause 10, which renews the Lord Chancellor's power to appoint magistrates in the future, presumably because the hon. Gentleman assumes that the Lord Chancellor's power will eventually be taken over by a judicial appointments committee. Therefore, we should be discussing the valid point made by the hon. Member for Henley about sackings, not appointments. As it would require an Act of Parliament to abolish the position of Lord Chancellor, would that not be the right time—after all the consultations had taken place—to debate where his functions should go?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for saying that the hon. Member for Henley, in supporting me, has a valid point even though I did not have one in the first instance. He obviously expresses it better than I do.

I made it plain that I was putting specimen charges before the Committee to try to ascertain the Government's intentions. I do not think that I have done a very good job of finding out what they plan to do, because they simply have not told us. The Minister says that we shall learn all on 14 July—I cannot wait. Similarly, I cannot wait for the Bill in the next Session of Parliament that will undo what we are busy doing today. It is an odd way of making law. We can do better than this and we would do better if the Government had a coherent view about constitutional reform and built their legislation into a comprehensive framework. However, they always fail to do that, and that is why we find the anomalies that make nonsense of the process of scrutiny in which we are engaged. However, despite all that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 15, in

clause 11, page 6, line 23, after 'satisfied', insert 'on reasonable grounds'.

The amendment would simply introduce a test of reasonableness. It is a small amendment, but we think that it ought to be made clear that the Lord Chancellor should have reasonable grounds for believing that lay justices are

''declining or neglecting to take a proper part''

in the exercise of their functions as justices of the peace. It is a small point, but it is important that the Bill should not say simply, ''if he is satisfied'', but that he should be satisfied ''on reasonable grounds''. I hope that the Government will not resist such a small and eminently reasonable amendment.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I hate to dash the hon. Gentleman's hopes, but I have several reasons for not accepting it. The first point, which is not to be dismissed lightly, is that the Lord Chancellor, like all Ministers, should always act reasonably. In this case, the Lord Chancellor should always have good reason for removing lay justices, and he should not do so lightly or frivolously. The ordinary principles of administrative law require him not to act

unreasonably in taking such decisions. As I recall from the many happy hours that I spent debating the Local Government Bill, the Wednesbury principles of reasonableness apply to public administration, so the amendment would add little, if anything.

Secondly, I am advised by those helping to draft the legislation that the amendment would add unnecessary terminology. That would have the further disadvantage of implying that, whereas reasonable grounds are required for dismissal in this type of case, they may not be required in other cases. I would be concerned that, because the phrase ''reasonable grounds'' was not included for other decisions, other could infer that reasonability was less desirable when they were made. That might seem a small point, but I am advised that it is significant.

I hope that those two rather robust arguments will have persuaded the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I think that the Minister is being a little unreasonable, but I shall not pursue the point. However, he and those who advise him must be aware that the reasonable test has been applied to the actions of Secretaries of State and Ministers in many areas of legislation. I have been involved in a number of Standing Committees, as has the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, and we have seen such phrases in Bills.

The fact that all Ministers are under a general duty to act reasonably under the Wednesbury principles does not mean that reasonableness cannot be included in legislation. It is often to be found in legislation, and there is no reason why it should not be included in the Bill. However, I shall not waste the Committee's time by pursuing the point now. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 - The supplemental list

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 16, in

clause 12, page 6, line 27, at end insert

'and a copy is to be laid in the Library of the House of Commons and the copy laid there is to be regularly updated as appropriate.'.

This is a small amendment. It would be helpful if Parliament had a copy of the supplemental list. I see no reason why an updated copy of the list should not be placed in the Library of the House. It is only a small point, but I hope that the Minister will understand that we are trying to improve the provision of information, and the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. I hope—at this time of day, without much optimism—that the Minister might not resist the amendment.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

A supplemental list already exists and this is a measure to preserve it. Can it already be found in the House of Commons Library?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I do not know, although the Minister will no doubt tell us.

When I read the Bill, however, it struck me that keeping the list in the Library and updating it would be a helpful way of increasing parliamentary scrutiny. I shall listen with interest to his reply.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I feel that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath is losing heart, which is a sad state of affairs at this time on a Tuesday morning. I cannot believe that the supplemental list will be essential reading for every Member of Parliament, but will the Minister tell us whether it is included in at least one reference volume? I imagine that it probably is and that it is not a discrete item.

Am I right in thinking that the posts of Clerk of the Crown in Chancery and permanent secretary in the Department for Constitutional Affairs are held simultaneously by the same individual? If so, questions about the supplemental list would presumably be open to direct parliamentary scrutiny.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

To answer the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, my understanding is that the current Clerk of the Crown in Chancery is, indeed, one and the same person as the permanent secretary in the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Indeed, I spoke about the amendments with him yesterday, and he was most interested to know that we were going to discuss them.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath wanted to make a short and interesting point, but it now means that I must describe the supplemental list and elaborate on some of the existing arrangements. Section 7 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 provides that the names of lay justices who have retired, or stood down due to age or ill health, can be entered on a record known as the supplemental list, which many former justices of the peace regard as a roll of honour. The list is kept by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery at the headquarters of the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Each commission area has a keeper of the rolls, who holds a record of all serving and supplemental justices resident in their jurisdiction. The Bill maintains the office of keeper of the rolls, but defines its responsibilities in terms of groups of local justice areas, because commission areas will no longer apply.

I am afraid that the amendment is unnecessary and slightly impractical. It is the responsibility of keepers of the rolls to inform the secretary of commissions when a person on the supplemental list dies. Unfortunately, keepers must rely on the deceased's relatives to notify them, and many deaths go unrecorded. Understandably, even relatives who know of the procedure often overlook what is a relatively minor matter in comparison with the more pressing issues that they face. With the best will in the world, therefore, it would be slightly difficult to keep a completely up-to-date copy of the supplemental list available. That would negate one of the main intentions behind the amendment.

Furthermore, we consider it inappropriate and unnecessary for Parliament to hold a copy of the list, because it is essentially a record of local appointments. We do not retain lists of comparable voluntary

workers in, for example, the Territorial Army or the Royal Naval Reserve. Nor do we retain lists of school governors, special constables or lifeboat crews, and I can see no valid reason to make an exception for former lay justices. Given the sheer scale of the task, the length of the list and the difficulty in ensuring that it is regularly updated, the amendments would be particularly burdensome. Few hon. Members may have looked at the supplemental list, but I am sure that it will be accessible, under normal freedom of information arrangements, to those who want to see it in the bowels of the Department for Constitutional Affairs building. I hope that Committee members will not require it to be put in the House of Commons Library.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister may have misheard me. I did not claim that the matter would be interesting, although I certainly said that it was a small debate. Nevertheless, it was useful for those points to be put on the record. Perhaps the permanent secretary is still Sir Hayden Phillips, with whom I had the great pleasure of working when he was permanent secretary at the Department of National Heritage, when my party was in government and I was parliamentary private secretary there. I am delighted to know that the position of Clerk of the Crown in Chancery is in such safe hands. It was helpful for the minister to put the full position on the record. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 - Removal of names from the supplemental list

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move amendment No. 121, in

clause 14, page 7, line 15, at end insert—

'(3) If the Lord Chancellor directs the removal of a person's name under subsection (2), he shall give his reasons for so directing.'.

Again, this is partly a probing amendment to help us to understand under what circumstances the Lord Chancellor might direct the removal of a person's name from the supplemental list. However, it is also a little more than that. Under natural justice, a person should be entitled to know why they have been removed from what is essentially an honorific list. Subsection (1) contains a clear requirement for that to happen if a person

''ceases to be a justice of the peace.''

Subsection (2)(b), however, appears to be entirely discretionary on the part of the Lord Chancellor, unless it is intended to qualify the first provision. However, I do not think that it is. Perhaps the Minister could explain under what circumstances the Lord Chancellor would exercise his powers to direct the removal of a name and why he should not be required to give a reason for doing so, given that there are, perhaps understandably, none of the qualifications that apply to the removal of a lay justice from office. Clear grounds must be set out in statute. However, no such grounds are set out in the Bill, which is rather fuzzy as it is currently worded.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

We have touched briefly on the wonderful issue of the supplemental list. The hon. Gentleman's amendment may have arisen from a misunderstanding. I shall thrill the Committee with a detailed explanation—which I hope is clear and can be followed—of why that is so.

Under clause 13(4) a magistrate may be placed on the supplemental list at his own request. He may do that for various reasons, including, for example, the illness of a close relative. Under clause 13(5) a magistrate may be placed on the list by a direction from the Lord Chancellor on the grounds of incapacity.

Clause 14(2) provides for the removal of names from the supplemental list under the Lord Chancellor's direction, but only if the person's name is on the list as a result of clause 13(4) or (5). However, the removing of a name from the list is not a negative action. Clause 14(2) provides for a change in circumstances, which may mean that the person on the supplemental list would be able to serve again. The circumstances of a person whose name has been placed on the list under clause 13(4) or (5) may change. For example, a person who was previously incapacitated may regain their health and be able to serve again as a magistrate. Clause 14(2) ensures that the Lord Chancellor could allow such a person to continue their valuable service as a magistrate. We need that provision; without it a magistrate would, under clause 12(2), be prevented from serving.

It is unnecessary to provide for the Lord Chancellor to inform a person whose name was being removed under clause 14(2). He could make such a direction only if the person concerned were content for his name to be removed from that list. That would follow a request from that individual. I hope that my explanation gives comfort to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, and that he will withdraw his amendment.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am grateful for that explanation. I still think that the clause is not terribly transparently worded. I assume, therefore, that there is no capacity to remove someone from the supplemental list for misconduct, misbehaviour or permanent incapacity.

Boris Johnson (Conservative, Henley)

I do not understand what the purpose of the supplemental list is. Does it list people who are no longer allowed to serve or people who have served and are now receiving a mark of distinction? What is its purpose?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The hon. Gentleman has got to the nub of the issue. The supplemental list is a sort of retirement home for magistrates who are, in a variety of ways, past their sell-by dates. When it is honorific, it is likely to concern someone in the other place, but I should not say that.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I wish to defend the honour of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) who is a member of the supplemental list. That is an outrageous slur on her character. She is not the only Member of Parliament on it. People in other occupations have gone on to the list because their current occupation debars them. If my hon. Friend retired from her seat,

she would be able to continue as a member of the bench.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I was coming to that precise point. The list has two aspects: one is a way of removing somebody so they are not allowed to serve; the other is a way of keeping somebody in abeyance while they temporarily cannot serve, so that they can return to the active bench at the end of that period. The wording of the clause does not make that distinction in any way, and I do not apologise for the misunderstanding that I was guilty of, because it is possible to construe the provision in exactly the way that I did. The Minister may like to look at the matter again.

It is clearly necessary to have a method of getting someone back on the active roll, as it were, under appropriate circumstances. That is what the Minister is trying to ensure. Can I assume that there is no provision for removing someone from the supplemental list who should jolly well not have been on it at all as they were unfit to practice as a magistrate under any circumstances?

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

Further to a point that I made earlier, there seems to be a link between people reaching the age of 70 and going on to the supplemental list. I do not include the hon. Member for Lewisham, East in that bracket. There is an implication in clause 13 that being 70 automatically precludes somebody from performing a magistrate's duties. The vast majority of people aged 70 are still in full possession of their faculties, and therefore the vast majority of magistrates are, too. It would be a great mistake to put them out to grass purely for that reason.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The hon. Lady raises a separate point and one that has troubled people for some time—the question of when people should step down from judicial appointments of any sort when there is an age limit. There has been a lot of regulation about the statutory age of retirement for judicial appointments. Can the Minister comment on that matter?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

Believe it or not, I am assured by officials that the provisions that we are dealing with are a lot clearer that the current arrangements. The key is to bear in mind clause 12(2). That relates to the purpose of the supplemental list—and, indeed, to the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Henley. Further to his point concerning the removal of lay magistrates, the provisions of clause 11 would provide the opportunity to remove people for other reasons. The supplemental list is not the main vehicle to do that. Rather, it is a roll of honour for those who are no longer practising.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I now understand that, if somebody does awful things, they are not removed from the supplemental list, but from the lay magistracy under the provisions of clause 11. I now understand the Minister's point and his opaque legislation. We have taken far too long on the rather minor issue of the supplemental list, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

h3Clause 15

Lay justices' allowances

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 17, in

clause 15, page 7, line 22, at end insert

'and are to be reviewed by the Lord Chancellor at least at five yearly intervals to consider the effect of inflation on these allowances.'.

Again, I can be quite brief. The amendment is intended to probe the Government on lay justices' allowances. In a debate earlier this morning, I referred to the debt that we all owe the lay magistracy for their dedication. Requiring consideration of allowances at least every five years—one could express that as once a Parliament—would be no bad thing. It is important to encourage people to continue to volunteer for the vital role of justice of the peace. At least reviewing their out-of-pocket expenses every five years would assure anybody who became a JP and provide useful assistance. I am sure that the Treasury mandarins have told the Minister not to concede the point under any circumstances, but it is well worth probing.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I have not spoken to any Treasury mandarins in my short time in my current post, although I may well seek to do so at the prompting of the hon. Gentleman. He is seeking to amend the clause, which relates to the allowances regime available for those who are magistrates, which provides a useful opportunity to record the gratitude not only of the Government but of the whole of Parliament for the immensely valuable work undertaken by magistrates. They do not do it for allowances, but deserve compensation for the sacrifices that they make in fulfilling their roles.

The clause is substantially the same as the existing power under the Justices of the Peace Act and will largely allow the Lord Chancellor to pay and determine allowances. They include allowances for the cost of travelling to and from the place where duties are performed, subsistence allowances for any specified period during which they are required to be away from their normal place of residence, and financial compensation for loss of earnings or social security benefits, or for additional expenditure incurred in the performance of duties.

The amendment would require the Lord Chancellor to review allowances every five years. That provision is not needed in the Bill. First, having a specified time span between such reviews introduces a matter of detail into the Bill that is not appropriate. Secondly, the levels of allowances are in any case reviewed annually, so five years would probably be too long an interval. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that the amendment is not needed and will withdraw it.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

It is useful to have a record of the fact that the Minister recognises, as all hon. Members do, the importance of the work of lay magistrates. I did not really expect him to accept the amendment, but felt that it was important to have the debate, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the

Bill.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I am grateful to the Minister and I will take his thanks back home to Mrs. Miller, who is a magistrate of some 20 years standing.

The breadth of the magistracy in the area in which I live concerns me because it is supposed to represent the whole of the community. Over recent years, it has become more difficult to recruit suitable candidates, particularly people from manual occupations, because of the problems of release from work. Some of the bigger employers in the north-west used to wear as a badge of pride their habitual release of people from work to carry out such functions. Recruitment has become more difficult as employment units have become smaller. In small and medium companies, someone with a particular occupation might be the only person doing a certain job.

I recognise that there is no easy solution to that problem. Part of the solution is ensuring that lost-earnings compensation is kept up to a sensible level. Over the years, lost-earnings compensation has tended to be a miserly sum not in keeping with modern well-paid jobs. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister carefully to examine how we can maintain the balance of the bench while addressing some of the difficult problems concerning release to undertake duties such as those of the magistracy. I appreciate that the issue of release is covered in employment legislation, which is another Department's responsibility, but it may be sensible for the Minister to acquaint himself with that legislation to try to find a working balance, so that the problem, which is probably more acute in some parts of the country than others, is dealt with.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

My hon. Friend raises an extremely interesting issue. I hope that he will pass on my best wishes to Mrs. Miller and thank her for her work as a magistrate in his constituency.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

Just outside.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

Just outside my hon. Friend's constituency. He asked how we can encourage magistrates from diverse backgrounds to come forward to reflect society as a whole, which we want to see. I understand that the magistracy is relatively representative in comparison with other parts of the judiciary. For example, roughly equal numbers of men and women become magistrates, which is welcome.

I should like to make two points to my hon. Friend. First, the existing earnings-loss compensation already recognises those justices who are self-employed as opposed to those who are not, and the changing nature of industry and employment in society. Secondly, it is time that we had a national strategy for the recruitment of lay magistrates, and I will look to announce such provisions shortly. We must aim to target employers and under-represented groups more thoroughly. We must also examine the allowance structure to see whether it affects people volunteering to be magistrates. I hope, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston will recognise that the clause is necessary to continue the good, existing arrangements.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 - Chairman and deputy chairmen: selection

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move amendment No. 122, in

clause 17, page 8, line 40, leave out

', or a person acting on his behalf,'.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 123, in

clause 17, page 9, line 10, leave out 'experienced' and insert

'assigned to and acting as'.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

This is a probing amendment. Who is this person acting on behalf of the Lord Chancellor who puts in his first appearance in subsection (3)? The Lord Chancellor is not only a person, but a Department. Anyone with authority in the Department forms part of the personage of the Lord Chancellor, so why do we need to specify an additional person only in this instance in the Bill? The Minister may be able to enlighten me about why that person must be empowered to act on his behalf in this particular function.

Amendment No. 123 makes a slightly more substantive point. Subsection (5)(c) sets out the rules for a contested election for the chairman or deputy chairman of the local justice area, and deals with the franchise for any such election. The terms in which the paragraph is couched are unnecessarily open to misinterpretation and dispute. Subsection (5)(c) states:

''the election is made by those experienced as lay justices in the local justice area''.

That term is open to various constructions. I should not like to determine who is an experienced lay justice rather than simply a lay justice. At what point does the term ''experienced'' come into play?

I would have thought, and my amendment would ensure, that the appropriate requirement is for someone to be assigned to and to act as a lay justice in the local justice area for which the election is held. The meaning of anything expressed more vaguely than that is open to challenge, and I cannot understand why the subsection is couched in those terms. The Minister may tell me that there is a very good reason why a lay justice must be an experienced lay justice, in which case he may be able to tell me by what criteria that experience is to be judged.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's amendments, although I may not want them to be accepted. However, they are part of my own education about current processes, and it has been quite interesting to consider some of the points that his amendments have prompted.

On amendment No. 122, the clause provides for the magistrates of local justice areas to elect from their number a chairman and one or more deputy chairmen, and confers a rule-making power on the Lord Chancellor as to how that will operate. Subsection (3) makes provision for the Lord Chancellor, or a person nominated by him, to authorise a lay justice to

continue to hold office as chairman or deputy chairman to hear specified proceedings. That would enable the chairman or deputy chairman to continue to preside over the court to hear a specified, partly heard case.

Amendment No. 122 would remove the express provision that ensures that the Lord Chancellor may delegate his power under the clause. There may be a need for such a power to be exercised at short notice. For example, if it suddenly becomes clear that a case will overrun, there can be no guarantees in such circumstances that the Lord Chancellor will personally be available. Therefore, arrangements for delegation clearly need to be in place to ensure that the administration of justice is not undermined.

The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome asked an interesting question about the powers and which person they are delegated to. The secretary of commissions has delegated powers from the Lord Chancellor—there is a civil servant to whom much of these powers can be delegated. As a matter of law, specific statutory authority is not generally required for a Minister to delegate his function to a civil servant in his own Department. That is known as the Carltona principle, after the case in which it was established. However, clarification of the provision is necessary to put the matter beyond doubt because it relates to the appointment of magistrates. The people who drafted it felt that it was worth while explicitly to state that it was possible to delegate on these particular matters.

Amendment No. 123 would amend the provision in clause 17(5)(c). It would remove the possibility of providing in rules that only magistrates with experience in a local justice area can vote in a contested election for a chairman.

The clause re-enacts those parts of the Justices of the Peace Act that relate to bench elections. It could be used to prevent someone from voting in a contested election if they have been assigned to the area only the day before and are not au fait with its local dynamics—at least that is what it says in my note. However, I have subsequently scribbled that the current rules do not restrict the right to vote on the ground of experience. We do not enact the rules at present, so we do not have the set of regulations in place, and I can tell the Committee that we have no intention at the moment of changing the rules to insert such an experience qualification.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

The first part of my hon. Friend the Minister's explanation is logical and stands up to examination, but I have a worry about the use of English in the clause. That

''the election is made by those experienced as lay justices''

could be interpreted in such a way that people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East could participate in the election. The Minister needs to make it clear that the supplemental list is excluded.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

My hon. Friend is particularly eagle-eyed. I have sought assurances about that, and I have been told that people on the supplemental list are excluded.

Given my comment about not having any intention at present of excluding such lay justices, I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will withdraw the amendment.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am grateful to the Minister for those explanations. He agreed that there is no legal impediment to devolving the responsibility within the Department to a civil servant: subsection (3) simply makes that explicit. I accept that, and I will not pursue the matter further.

On the second point, the explanation was a little threadbare in places. I think that the Minister knows that. Simply because the previous enactment said something does not necessarily mean that that is the right way to cater for any eventuality. If the Committee can make improvements, it is sensible to do so.

When we are establishing the franchise for a general election, we say that we give the vote not to people who are experienced at living in a constituency, but to the people who live in a constituency. It is very odd to put that term in there. I accept that it will probably have little effect in practice, but it begs the question: if it can be misconstrued, why put it into statute?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

As I said, I welcome that the hon. Gentleman has flagged up the matter. I was not aware of that provision. I will look more closely at the amendment to see whether there is any scope for change because his point is reasonable, although we have not enacted any regulations under the provision, and I do not intend to do so.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am grateful to the Minister. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 18 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 - Duty to consult lay justices on matters affecting them etc.

Clause 22 - Appointment etc.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 33, in

clause 22, page 10, line 39, at end insert—

'(1A) Before making a recommendation under subsection (1), the Lord Chancellor shall consult the lay justices of the local justice area to which it is intended that the District Judge may be assigned.'.

It must be sensible for the Bill to require that, before a recommendation about who is to be a district judge is made, the lay justices who will be working with him should be statutory consultees, as it were; they should have a part to play in the decision making. We hope that the Government will agree that that would be sensible. As I experienced in my years at the Bar, the way that Crown court judges heard appeals from magistrates courts with lay justices sitting either side of them was an important part for those concerned of developing a working relationship in the administration of justice. Senior magistrates got greater experience by sitting with Crown court judges.

If the different parts of the judicial system are to work properly together, surely it is a good idea for lay justices to express a view on who will be appointed as a district judge. That is a small point, and I do not want to take up too much of the Committee's time with it, but I hope that the Minister will understand that the amendment is a genuine attempt to improve the Bill by including the requirement that lay justices be consulted. I will listen with interest to the Minister's response.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

The amendment would require the Lord Chancellor to consult lay justices before the appointment of the district judge to the local area, as the hon. Gentleman has set out. The intention is that the views of local benches and advisory committees will be sought by the Lord Chancellor before any assignment is made. However, a requirement to ensure that lay justices are made aware of any issues that may affect them is already set out in clause 21, which we have just ordered to stand part of the Bill.

In some circumstances, there may be an urgent need for the appointment of a district judge to meet local needs. The amendment could be an unnecessary constraint should there be such an urgent need. Requiring the Lord Chancellor to consult would unnecessarily fetter powers and cause delays, and we do not want to constrain him in that respect, as he is responsible for the efficient and effective deployment of judicial resources.

We are keeping provisions to appoint to a particular area without consultation, if the Lord Chancellor considers that necessary. Lay justices should not be singled out for consultation. We want to bring the criminal courts closer together. The views of professional judiciary, such as the resident judge and the presiding judges, might also need to be taken into account. At present, district judges are appointed without the requirement for consultation, and that works well. The usual arrangements for discussing appointments in the normal way will be honoured. I

hope that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath recognises that to introduce such a rigid constraint to the clause is not desirable.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

It is helpful to hear some reassurance from the Minister. I know that concerns are sometimes expressed, not least by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who is not on this Committee, about secret soundings. I see the Government Whip nodding—on many occasions in the Chamber, and no doubt elsewhere, she has heard the hon. Gentleman wax lyrical on that subject. Nevertheless, the Minister's reassurances are of some help. We do not want to constrain consultation, but it is wise for consultation to be wide whenever there are judicial appointments. In light of the Minister's comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

May I ask the Minister a simple question about the appointments procedure for the various types of justices of the peace? Under clause 22, the process is clearly laid out:

''Her Majesty may, on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, appoint a person . . . to be a District Judge''.

Clause 10 states:

''Lay justices are to be appointed for England and Wales by the Lord Chancellor by instrument on behalf and in the name of Her Majesty.''

Clause 24 states, in dealing with deputy district judges,

''The Lord Chancellor may appoint a person'',

and there is no reference to Her Majesty, despite the fact that a deputy district judge has exactly the same functions as a district judge. Why is there a difference? I presume that there are historical reasons for it, rather than any difference in functions under the Bill. It is time that we sorted out such things and had a consistent method of appointment. The judicial appointment process has a degree of internal logic, at least in terms of where the fount of authority lies—all people who act in a judicial capacity are answerable to the Crown—so why in some instances is the Lord Chancellor allowed to act on his own?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

The clause provides for the appointment by the Lord Chancellor of district judges, and for qualification requirements, payments of allowances and removal from office. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has discovered the traditional barrier in terms of the level at which appointments are delegates of Her Majesty. All appointments are made in the name of the Crown, and they follow the normal arrangements of seniority. Obviously, the more senior members of the judiciary are appointed directly by Her Majesty. There has been an historic and traditional delegation to the Lord Chancellor to deal with the greater volume at less senior ranks. Hence there is a difference between clause 10 and clause 22(1). That is the reason why there is no direct requirement for Her Majesty's personal involvement in those matters, but

all such appointments are made in the name of the Crown. I hope that that helps.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I do not want to pre-empt discussion of a later clause. However, is the Minister saying that a deputy district judge is of lower seniority than a lay justice despite the fact that they are both able to act in the capacity of district judge?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

My understanding is that a district judge is what used to be called a stipendiary magistrate. Therefore, there is a difference between the district judge and the deputy. The difference between this clause and the one that we shall discuss shortly concerns the volume of appointments, which previously determined the cut-off point for the Lord Chancellor delegating such appointments. It is straightforward that that should be the level at which the Lord Chancellor's direct appointment, delegated from the Crown, comes into effect.

Stephen Hesford (Labour, Wirral West)

Is it not a distinction without a difference? The process is exactly the same. The form of the words is different for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Minister has given.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall stick with the form of words that I have used. They form the bedrock of the strong case that I have made.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I want to clear the matter up to avoid further debate. Clause 24 does not specify that when the Lord Chancellor appoints a deputy district judge, he does it, as is stated in clause 10,

''by instrument on behalf and in the name of Her Majesty.''

In fact he does, because he is a Minister of the Crown and acting under its authority. Why is that explicit in clause 10, but not in clause 24?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

My understanding is that the Lord Chancellor makes appointments under clauses 10 and 24, but that Her Majesty makes the appointments under clause 22. The distinction is based on seniority—I do not wish to use the phrase pecking order, although others might wish to characterise levels of seniority thus. That is why the Lord Chancellor has a direct input into these matters. The current arrangements deal with the appointments that come under clause 22. I hope that the Committee will agree that that is relatively straightforward, and that the clause will stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24 - Deputy District Judges (Magistrates' Courts)

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Before the Minister has a chance to read any further advice he might have received, why do the words

''by instrument on behalf and in the name of Her Majesty.''

not appear in this clause?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

The hon. Gentleman might be testing the patience of the Committee. I explained previously why, in respect of a deputy district judge, the words that he seeks are not set out. As my explanation has been fairly robust, I am reluctant to fall back on the requirement to write to hon. Members. The reason for the wording is the difference in seniority between a deputy district judge and a district judge. That is why Her Majesty makes the appointments under clause 22. It is self-explanatory. If I am missing the point, will the hon. Gentleman clarify it?

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am sorry. I do not want to labour this, but the Minister is missing the point. He has persuaded me that the district judge has a very important position and must be appointed directly by Her Majesty with the advice of the Lord Chancellor. He has not yet persuaded me that the deputy district judge should be appointed under the fiat of the Lord Chancellor with no reference to an instrument in the name of Her Majesty. That is a necessary part of the appointment of lay justices. There must be a reason for that other than simple omission. What is it?

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

Appointments of deputy district judges are normally made for what might be regarded as emergency business reasons so as to make appointments swiftly and to enable someone to step into the shoes of the district judge for urgent and specific needs. In those circumstances, it is not felt necessary to have an appointment made specifically by Her Majesty, which is why such matters are delegated to the Lord Chancellor. With that strong explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will desist from pursuing the matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 25 to 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27 - Justices' clerks and assistant clerks

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 34, in

clause 27, page 12, line 23, after '2(1)', insert

'to be clerk of a local justice area'.

Eric Illsley (Labour, Barnsley Central)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 37, in

clause 27, page 12, line 24, at end insert

'appointed to serve on one or more local justice areas.'.

No. 35, in

clause 27, page 12, line 28, leave out 'or'.

No. 36, in

clause 27, page 12, line 29, at end insert

'or

(d) is appointed with the agreement of the chairman and deputy chairman of the local justice area.'.

No. 38, in

clause 27, page 13, line 1, at end insert

'appointed with the agreement of the clerk of the local justice area.'.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I shall be brief. The crucial amendment is amendment No. 36, which requires the agreement of the chairman and deputy chairman to the appointment of the justices' clerk. The rest of the amendments are connected with that. We feel that it is important that the chairman and deputy chairman are required to be involved in the designation.

Amendment No. 38 is also important. It suggests that an assistant clerk should be appointed only with the agreement of the clerk to the area. It would be helpful if that were also made clear in the Bill. I am sure that such an appointment would happen in practice only if the justices' clerk were happy. I hope that the Minister understands that we are genuinely trying to improve the provisions for consultation and involvement so as to improve the Bill. I shall listen with interest to his response.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I rise briefly to support the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. I can see a strong rationale for this nationalisation—as it were—of the justices' clerks, but it is desperately important to maintain the local connections between the justices' clerk and the bench that he or she supports. We should also maintain the confidence of each one in the other. Anything that adds to that confidence is to be encouraged, and the hon. Gentleman's amendments will help in that process.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I shall firstly address amendments Nos. 34, 37 and 38, and then I shall look separately at amendments Nos. 35 and 36.

Amendments Nos. 34 and 37 would require the Lord Chancellor to appoint a justices' clerk to particular local justice areas, under clause 27(1). The amendments are unnecessary because, under subsection (3), the Lord Chancellor must assign each justices' clerk to one or more local justice area. The assignment offers the right link between the clerk and the area in which they work. If the amendments were intended to ensure that the appointment would tie the clerk even more closely to a specific area, our view is that that would be undesirable. It would reduce much of the flexibility that the provisions would introduce.

Amendment No. 38 would require the Lord Chancellor to obtain the agreement of the justices' clerk of a particular local justice area before designating a member of staff of the new court agency as an assistant to that clerk. We feel that the amendment is undesirable in terms of managing civil service human resources, because nothing in current legislation requires the agreement of local justices clerks before assistants are appointed. Clerks will be civil servants—as, usually, will be their assistants—so the usual practice with civil service appointments, and who approves them, will apply. The new courts agency will hire assistants; the employer will not be the justices' clerk.

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

Courts Bill [Lords]

Clause 27 - Justices' clerks and assistant clerks

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment No. 37, in

clause 27, page 12, line 24, at end insert

'appointed to serve on one or more local justice areas.'.

Amendment No. 35, in

clause 27, page 12, line 28, leave out 'or'.

Amendment No. 36, in

clause 27, page 12, line 29, at end insert

'or

(d) is appointed with the agreement of the chairman and deputy chairman of the local justice area.'.

Amendment No. 38, in

clause 27, page 13, line 1, at end insert

'appointed with the agreement of the clerk of the local justice area.'.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

Before the break, I think that I had dealt with amendments Nos. 34, 37 and 38, which were largely about the process of appointment of justices' clerks and their assistants. My concern was that the amendments would be undesirable in terms of normal civil service employment practices.

I now want to consider amendments Nos. 35 and 36, tabled by the official Opposition. Amendment No. 35 is largely a paving amendment for amendment No. 36, which would result in the Bill stating:

''A person may be designated as a justices' clerk''

if he or she is appointed

''with the agreement of the chairman and deputy chairman of the local justice area.''

I have a number of concerns about that proposal. The amendment would require the Lord Chancellor to hold such consultations before making the appointment, and that would be impractical, as it would require him to decide on the area to which he would assign the clerk before the appointment, and then to consult the local bench on the appointment. That would severely restrict the flexibility that a new courts agency would achieve, and the new business processes that we want put in place.

It would also be undesirable for the chairman and deputy chairman of an area to be able to veto staff appointments made by the Lord Chancellor; there will be ample opportunities for normal consultation, as we said earlier in our proceedings. Clause 21 gives the Lord Chancellor the duty to take reasonable and practical steps to consult lay justices on matters affecting the performance of their duties and to ascertain their views on such matters. I assure the Committee that magistrates will be consulted on such relevant matters—for example, before a change in the assignment of a justices' clerk to an area. Clause 27(4) gives the Lord Chancellor the duty to consult the chairman or his or her deputy on the lay justices assigned to the area.

I hope that in the light of my comments, and those that I made before we adjourned this morning, the amendment will be withdrawn.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Welcome back to the chairmanship of our proceedings, Mr. O'Brien. I am grateful to the Minister for what he has put on the record, before and after the Adjournment, and in the light of his reassurances, I am content to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 39, in

clause 27, page 13, line 7, at end insert—

'( ) Before the Lord Chancellor takes steps to remove a justices' clerk from office he shall—

(a) consult the justices for the relevant local justice area,

(b) consult the courts board for the area which includes the relevant local justice area, and

(c) consider any recommendations made to him by the justices, the courts board or the justices' clerk who is under notice of removal.'.

This amendment would have a slightly different effect.

We were talking about consultation before people were appointed, but we are now talking about the need for some level of protection before anyone is removed from the position of justices' clerk. It would be helpful if there were consultation with both the lay justices and the courts boards before the removal of a justices' clerk was contemplated. Their recommendations, or any representations by the clerk, should be considered.

I hope that the Minister will understand that we are trying to provide a level of employee protection in the Bill, and I will listen with interest to what he has to say on the subject.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I welcome you to the Committee this afternoon, Mr. O'Brien. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for North

Norfolk (Norman Lamb), fresh from his travails on the Finance Bill Committee. He will, no doubt, return there in the near future.

I agree with the view expressed by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), but not with the precise wording of his amendment—I hope that he can live with that. There seems to be a need for some sort of protection for justices' clerks, beyond that which is available through normal employment protection. They have a judicial function, if not a judicial post, so it seems appropriate that something should be laid down in statute regarding the process of their removal.

My only quibble with the hon. Gentleman is the wording of paragraph (c) of his amendment, which states that the Lord Chancellor shall

''consider any recommendations made to him by the justices, the courts board or the justices' clerk who is under notice of removal.''

It occurs to me that a recommendation from the person who is about to be sacked might be that he should keep his job. ''Representations'' would be a better term.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Of course I am not wedded to my wording. It might interest the hon. Gentleman to know that in the long watches of the night when I was preparing today's speeches on the amendments, I thought the same thing. I should have included the words ''or representations by'', which is why I used the word ''representations'' rather than ''recommendations'' when I spoke to this group of amendments. If I had not drafted them late at night, I might have included those words.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The hon. Gentleman must get to bed earlier—but his argument does not detract from the case that he has made, which I support. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

The amendment would require the Lord Chancellor to consult both the justices of the relevant local justice area and the courts boards covering that area, before taking steps to remove a justices' clerk from his or her post. It would also require the Lord Chancellor to consider representations made by the justices, the courts boards or the justices' clerk himself or herself before taking such a step. While I understand the motivation behind the issue—given that the posts are important and that it is necessary to take great care over such matters—the amendment is undesirable. It would require the employer—the Lord Chancellor—to consult widely on what might be sensitive staffing issues and personnel matters.

For example, it might be inappropriate to consult the courts boards on the assignment, or removal, of a justices' clerk, when they might have a strategic role in local statutory matters. They will not be the employers' body, nor will they represent the interests of local magistrates. In the event of a clerk being removed from his post, there would be nothing to prevent local courts boards, magistrates or justices' clerks themselves from making such representation to the new courts agency. That is what I imagine will be normal and likely, should those organisations and bodies choose to do that.

In the course of employment it can happen that certain individuals need to be removed from their posts for very delicate and sensitive reasons, so such widespread consultation may not always be appropriate.

However, I assure the Committee that in practice, magistrates will continue to be consulted about decisions that affect them, including the assignment or removal of a justices' clerk. Clause 21 gives the Lord Chancellor a duty to take reasonable and practical steps to consult on matters affecting the lay justices and the performance of their duties, and to ascertain their views on such matters. We tabled amendments in the other place to make it clear not only that justices' clerks are to be assigned to particular local justice areas, but that the chairman of the justices must be consulted before a clerk's assignment is changed. That consultation matters, not the wider question of a person's employment or suitability for employment by the new agency. Justices should not be prevented from expressing views on such matters, but they should not have a natural entitlement to do so.

Norman Lamb (Liberal Democrat, North Norfolk)

If chairmen of the justices are to be consulted on changes to assignments, surely it would be appropriate for them to be consulted on proposed dismissal. Consultations can certainly be on a confidential basis, and it is appropriate that they should be. According to normal employment law principles, for a dismissal to be fair, those people ought to be consulted. Best practice must dictate that the Lord Chancellor, based at the centre, should be consulting at local level before dismissing a clerk under such circumstances.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

Clearly, the new courts agency will have a local structure that will be able to deal in the normal way with employment matters. Hon. Members are employers these days, so they will be familiar with the need to take great care to ensure that should somebody need to be removed from their post, procedures are gone through and sensitivity is applied to certain issues that can arise in the course of employment. A rigid requirement to consult the courts board, for example, as set out in paragraph (b) of the amendment, would not always be appropriate, because it will not be the employer. As I said, there is already latitude in the provisions to allow for consultation, and for representations to be made. They are adequate in their present form.

There is also a minor technical problem with the title ''courts administration council'' as opposed to ''courts board'', but I will not make a big deal about that. There are reasons why the amendment is not absolutely correct in that regard, but I have made the substantive point that sensitive personnel matters could be involved. Such wide and rigid consultation requirements will not always be appropriate. On those grounds, I hope that the amendment will be reconsidered.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

It is helpful to have the Minister's reassurances on the record. Were there to be a dispute about the need for consultation about the removal of a justices' clerk, those involved can now refer back to the Hansard report of this Committee's proceedings and

read what the Minister said on behalf of the Government. It was worth while tabling the amendment and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his usual courtesy in addressing the matter seriously.

We were grateful for the Government's response in another place. The Minister touched on the fact that the Government had responded to concerns raised by my noble Friend Baroness Anelay of St Johns and other noble Lords about the matter. We have explored the matter sufficiently and now have some reassurance on the record, so I do not need to press the amendment to a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 - Functions

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 40, in

clause 28, page 13, line 10, leave out 'things' and insert 'matters currently'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 41, in

clause 28, page 13, line 10, leave out second ', to'.

Amendment No. 42, in

clause 28, page 13, line 13, leave out 'things' and insert 'matters currently'.

Amendment No. 43, in

clause 28, page 13, line 13, leave out second ', to'.

Amendment No. 44, in

clause 28, page 13, line 15, at end insert

'and not by any other person'.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I admit to the Committee that I am being pedantic in this group of amendments and I make no apology for that. The clause begins by stating:

''Rules may make provision enabling things authorised to be done by''.

When I read that, I thought that it was not the wording that I normally see in a Bill that will become an Act of Parliament. The word ''things'' is ugly in such legislation. Therefore, I tabled a group of amendments to change it, so that we have the wording that we are more used to seeing in Bills and Acts. I also felt that it was unusual for the Bill to suggest that things would be done ''to a single justice'', and that it was better to have matters being dealt with ''before'' single justices or benches of magistrates.

I hope that Committee members will understand where I am coming from. With great respect to the parliamentary counsel who drafted this Bill, I genuinely believe that it would look more fitting if we referred to ''matters'' rather than ''things''.

However, one amendment in this group is of slightly more substance than the others—amendment No. 45. [Interruption.] I have just checked my notes.

Amendment No. 45 has not been selected, so I cannot talk about it. I conclude by saying that I hope that the Minister will say that he accepts that the Opposition's phraseology is more elegant than the Government's.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

There was a famous occasion when the former American President, Bill Clinton, spent hours discussing the meaning of the word ''is''. I know that we do not wish to open up some of those matters.

The Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt), has suggested sotto voce that ''stuff'' could also easily be used as a replacement word. I do not think that either that or ''matters'' would be better than ''things'' in this instance. However, perhaps I should stick to the points that it has been suggested sorrythat I raise.

Clause 28 sets out the functions of a justices' clerk and empowers the Lord Chancellor to make rules allowing a justices' clerk or an assistant to a clerk to perform the functions of a single justice of the peace. The clause remodels section 45 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, which is to be repealed under the Bill. The clause introduces no new powers and no significant changes are anticipated to the advisory or judicial functions of the justices' clerks.

Amendments Nos. 40 and 42 change

''things authorised to be done''

to

''matters currently authorised to be done''

in subsection (1) and subsection (2). I am told that that adds little to the clarity of those subsections.

I hear what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath says about the need to use appropriate wording. I am advised that the word ''things'' has been transposed from section 45 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, although I cannot remember exactly which political party may have helped in drafting that.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Things are not what they used to be.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

The hon. Gentleman says that things are not what they used to be. To quote from one of the Labour party's slogans, things can only get better, and we intend to pursue that aim.

I am sorry to say to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that his amendment does not add anything to the meaning of the clause. I am unclear what he intends the word ''currently'' to mean. Does it mean the date of Royal Assent, when the clause can be enforced, or when the reader is looking at it? That is a bit of pedantry that I can throw back at him.

Amendments Nos. 41 and 43 similarly seek to delete the second instance of the word ''to''—how one pronounces it depends on the part of the country from which one comes—from the phrase

''to be done by, to or before a single justice''.

The Government feel that that makes no discernible improvement to the wording taken from the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, which has stood the test of time since it was implemented. Apparently, the phrase

''by, to or before''

a person is not uncommon in legislation. It appears, for example, in the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 and the Charities Act 1993.

Norman Lamb (Liberal Democrat, North Norfolk)

I wonder whether the Minister will give some examples of what it is envisaged would constitute things done to a single justice.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I am sure that I could, but I am not sure that I should like to do so at the present moment. Should I feel the need to elaborate, I may do so on Report. Who knows when we may return to this matter? I stand by the points that I make.

The clause seems to be perfectly clear as it stands. It replicates a provision in the 1997 Act, which works adequately and is currently in force. Although I understand the points raised by hon. Members, far be it from me to tamper with the good advice and wise voices of parliamentary counsel. I shall stand by them to the hilt on this matter.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister said that things can only get better. As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) wisely observed, was that in the Labour manifesto? I do not think that the British people necessarily feel that things have got better.

I do not want to take up the Committee's time. However, in asking whether the Minister could think of a single example of something being done to a single justice, the hon. Member for North Norfolk asked an especially apposite question. The fact that that phrase might have been used in other legislation in a different context was not a good answer to our amendments. Will the Minister write to all Committee members, not only to the hon. Member for North Norfolk and to me, to give some examples of where he and parliamentary counsel believe that something would properly be done to a single justice of the peace? If he cannot think of one, perhaps he will table a Government amendment on Report to correct the drafting.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Clwyd West)

As a member of the Bar, the hon. Gentleman no doubt recalls making applications to a judge or a justices' clerk. That is rather different from making applications before them, which suggests that those could be made on paper, not necessarily in person. The wording is not otiose in that respect. That is my stab at it.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He will remember that he and I have crossed swords as advocates in the past. I see that his imagination has not deserted him since the mid-1990s, when he became a Member of Parliament.

I hope that the debate has been useful, if only to parade the knowledge of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) on song titles. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30 - Places, dates and times of sittings

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move amendment No. 2, in

clause 30, page 14, line 17, at end insert—

'( ) Before giving any direction under subsection (1), the Lord Chancellor shall consult with—

(a) the relevant courts board;

(b) any local authorities whose area includes the relevant local justice area or a part of the local justice area.'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the amendment No. 129, in

clause 30, page 14, line 33, after 'place', insert

'in the local justice area'.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Amendment No. 2 deals with the now familiar subject of locality, proximity, accessibility—call it what you will. It makes the point that directions may be given under clause 30(2)

''to ensure that court-houses are accessible to persons resident in each local justice area.''

Clause 30(1) states that

''The Lord Chancellor may give directions as to the places in England and Wales at which magistrates' courts may sit.''

The amendment will ensure that, before making the direction, the Lord Chancellor will consult with the relevant courts boards, which have a duty to scrutinise and review such arrangements, and local authorities in the area, which may be said to speak for the local community at large. The amendment takes a belt-and-braces approach so that, as far as possible, the community can make sure that access to justice is maintained locally between the people who are running the courts, working in them and using them, and the general public who have a legitimate interest in the court remaining in their area.

The point at issue is to ensure that courthouses are available and accessible to the local community, which, as expressed through the local authority, has a locus in such matters. At present, the local authority is often involved in proposals to close courts—often, the primary objection comes from the local authority. For example, Mendip district council led the campaign to save Frome court in my constituency from closure. Local justice was needed. Apart from all the issues that we have raised about the workings of the court system, we must bear it in mind that, more and more, particularly in rural areas and small communities, there is a feeling that the justice apparatus is becoming more remote, that local people no longer have the police presence that they once had and the direct accountability of the forces of law and order.

The courthouse is a physical manifestation of the fact that there still is an engagement for the community in respect of law and order, and local justice. It is an important aspect. The Minister would do well to consider how local authorities are brought into the loop effectively in respect of consultation to ensure maximum local consensus about such matters.

Amendment No. 129 deals with a slightly different issue, although it might seem similar. It would introduce the words

''in the local justice area''

to subsection (5), which states:

''The places are—

(a) a place in the local justice area in which the offence is alleged to have been committed;

(b) a place in the local justice area in which the person charged with the offence resides;

(c) a place in the local justice area in which the witnesses, or the majority of the witnesses, reside''.

That is fine until paragraph (d), which states

''a place where other cases raising similar issues are being dealt with''.

That does not refer to the local justice area.

At our first sitting, the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) raised the concept of batch processing. That is a worry to magistrates, who consider that either they will be doing the same business in a repetitive way, or that business will be taken away from them, leaving them only with lesser fodder for their courts. It may be deemed extremely efficient and effective to have that done at a remote location in a centralised court for an area, but that would be inconvenient for everyone else involved. It would be extremely inconvenient for the court officials to deal in Bristol with all the parking offences in the Avon and Somerset police authority area. That would be extraordinarily inconvenient for someone who committed a driving offence and who happens to live on Exmoor or at the other end of the authority area. Such a situation is not ruled out under the present arrangements. Inserting the words

''in the local justice area''

would mean that, if we are to have batch processing of similar cases, we at least retained the sense of locality and the convenience for the local court user, as well as the convenience of the system. Reducing things to more manageable proportions will prevent some of the proposals from having the sausage-factory effect, which many people find rather repugnant. The Minister might not be able to accept my amendment, but can he explain why

''in the local justice area''

is not included in paragraph (d)? I suspect that he wants to have a single processing court for dealing with large numbers of similar offences in a place remote from where the offender, witnesses, legal representatives, police officers and everybody else are living. If so, he is advancing an argument for a rather remote and inefficient form of justice, which I personally deplore.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

We agree with the Liberal Democrat amendments.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I was hoping that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath would elaborate a little, but that was not to be the case. Now that he has concurred completely with the Liberal Democrats, I shall try to answer the points raised.

The measures in clause 30 should make courts more accessible by removing restrictions on where magistrates courts can sit, and by allowing the use of non-court buildings, if that is appropriate. Moreover, giving the new unified administration control of the

entire court estate will afford greater opportunities for co-location of county courts within magistrates courts in rural areas.

I shall address the two amendments to clause 30 separately. Amendment No. 2 relates to the requirement to consult, and its effect would be to require the Lord Chancellor, when giving directions as to the places where magistrates courts may sit under subsection (1), to consult the relevant courts board and any local authorities whose area included the relevant local justice area or part of the local justice area. That is a reasonable point to raise, and I understand some of the concerns of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, but that provision is not desirable.

First, under provisions in the Bill courts boards will, for the first time, give a voice to a wide section of those communities in relation to all the courts. That is a much more inclusive and genuinely consultative approach, and the courts boards will add a great deal. Under clause 5, courts boards will be involved in the development of plans for their area, which will include any proposals to open, close or relocate courthouses in the context of the area's overall business plan. To place a duty on the Lord Chancellor, when exercising his powers under subsection (1), to consult those who have already had an input into decisions regarding the court estate is a tad superfluous.

Secondly, placing a duty on the Lord Chancellor to consult any local authority whose area includes the relevant local justice area would be unduly restrictive. As we have already heard, clause 8(7) provides a definition of a local authority, but that definition includes police authorities as well as borough councils, county councils, district councils, London boroughs and police authorities. To expect the Lord Chancellor to consult all those bodies when exercising his powers under subsection (1), when it is expected that he will exercise his powers only in limited circumstances—for example when determining the days on which courts will close for civil service holidays—is over the top. Having said that, it is fair to suggest that we should think a little more thoroughly about how we might bring local government into the loop a bit more, as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said.

I was not involved in the drafting of the provisions but, looking at them, I can certainly see the virtue in some of the hon. Gentleman's points. It would not be appropriate to make the amendment, but I shall certainly talk to officials about the interaction between local government and other bodies, although I am not making any promises.

Amendment No. 129 would mean that, under the directions in subsection (3) concerning

''the distribution and transfer of the general business of magistrates' courts'' ,

the places where the person who is charged with an offence is required to appear would include, under subsection (5)(d), a place

''in the local justice area''

where

''other cases raising similar issues are being dealt with''.

That is not particularly desirable.

Paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (5) all include a reference to

''a place in the local justice area''

because in each of the circumstances described there is a definite link to a specified locality, namely the place in the

''area in which the offence is alleged to have been committed'',

the place

''in which the person charged with the offence resides'',

and

''a place . . . in which the witnesses, or the majority of the witnesses, reside''.

There is no such local link in the ''similar issues'' categorisation.

Furthermore, the provisions in paragraph (d) allow a case to be heard at a venue more suited to a particular kind of case, for example a venue with specialist facilities such as video links or a high level of security. Those facilities might not be available in the local justice area where the offence was alleged to have taken place, and where the majority of witnesses or the person charged reside. The amendment would seriously reduce our ability to make better use of the court estate and the greater flexibility as to where cases can commence that underpins clause 30.

The hon. Gentleman's particular concern was about batch processing and taking all cases of a particular sort to a warehouse, presumably at a distance from and out of contact with those concerned. I hear what he says, but the purpose of subsection (5)(d) is not to achieve batch processing but to allow trials to be held at locations with better facilities, often more appropriate to the nature of the trial concerned. I have mentioned security issues, which can often be a consideration. On the number of ineffective trials, sometimes the nature of facilities can inhibit the swift processing of justice. That was largely the rationale behind subsection (5)(d).

There is no particular reason why we should not proceed with the measures and keep the flexibility in the Bill. As I said, provisions in the clause and elsewhere are aimed at removing current statutory restrictions on where magistrates courts can sit. For example, they are currently unable to sit on licensed premises. Removing such restrictions would introduce greater flexibility and would allow the use of non-court buildings in local areas, where that is appropriate. The amendment is not necessary, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.

Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)

I understand my hon. Friend the Minister resisting amendment No. 129 because it is too restrictive, but I ask him to consider some aspects of the issue.

Clearly, it is not unusual for cases that involve much local feeling, security issues, specialist information technology and communications facilities or specialist facilities for children to be moved around, and that is fine. Facilities for

dealing with children and similar cases being dealt with in a locality are explicitly encompassed under subsection (5)(d).

Batch processing—I use that phrase again—goes against good local justice. For example, a gentleman from my locality came to see me a few years ago complaining about how he was being treated after a breach of television licensing regulations. I told him that he was guilty and that, if I were him, I would pay up. However, he had a good point about the process of justice. The case was being heard in Northwich, which is not, in the absence of a motor car, the most accessible part of Cheshire, especially from Ellesmere Port. Prior to the Opposition's closing the court, that case would normally have been heard in Ellesmere Port.

Nowadays most cases are heard in Chester, where there is a combined bench. There is a good bus service from Ellesmere Port and Neston into Chester, but it is one hell of a journey to Northwich. Some kind of guidance is needed on listing, so that magistrates courts clerks can ensure that careful consideration is given to the circumstances of the accused, even if it might be more efficient, from the point of the view of the management of the court, to deal with centralised cases.

Even though my advice to the gentleman was, ''Do not see a lawyer, you are guilty, full stop. I suggest you plead guilty and pay up,'' he had the right as a citizen to put his case—his mitigating argument. That was removed from him by virtue of how the case was listed. He would have needed to stay overnight because of the timing of the case. Certain adjustments are necessary to overcome some of the rural difficulties, notwithstanding the good reasons why subsection 5(d) should remain as it is.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I thank the Minister for his response, especially on matters relating to local authorities. His brief, however, protested too much. He and I have both served on local authorities and we know that there are all kinds of statutory consultations on all sorts of things. It does not take much work to ensure that the people on the list are aware of proposals and have the opportunity to make representations, if they wish to do so. He has said that he will consider that matter again, for which I am grateful.

I am also grateful for the support of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on amendment No. 129. The more I listen to him, the more I think he agrees with the amendment on extending the principle of accessibility beyond the narrow view of the clause, with which we started the entire proceedings.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

In case I do not have an opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston for what he said, I draw the Committee's attention again to subsection (2), which 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 gives the measure of protection that my hon. Friend was looking for.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The Minister is right; it does. Let us not repeat the arguments. I draw his attention to the fact that subsection (2) contains the words:

''In exercising his powers under subsection (1)''.

We are talking about matters of listing, which do not appear in subsection (1). That is precisely the point I was trying to get through to the Minister the other day. It is all very well saying that the Lord Chancellor will have regard to the places where courts will sit, but not the cases that are presented before them; accessibility is still an issue in interpreting the rest of the clause, let alone in the rest of the Bill. However, that is a matter for another day.

I hear what the Minister says about his intentions in terms of subsection (5)(d), and they are laudable. I do not disagree for one moment that where there is a need for enhanced security provision, interpretation or video linking—which the hon. Member for Surrey Heath and I had reason to discuss in the Standing Committee considering the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill only a couple of weeks ago—there are good reasons for sitting elsewhere.

However, that is not what the paragraph currently states. My reading is that

''a place where other cases raising similar issues are being dealt with''

refers to the legal issues arising from the case—in other words, the type of case it is, rather than ancillary issues such as the provision of security or interpretation facilities. That is a reasonable reading of that paragraph.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I entirely agree with his point, and I venture to say that the way that he views paragraph (d) is the only way that it can be interpreted. It provides for what we call batch processing. The hon. Gentleman may know that, in respect of, for example, fixed penalty cases, a particular court is already used to send things out for the whole of the rest of the country. Northampton, one of the areas in which my former chambers were located, is one of the courts that is used for sending things out over the whole of England. Admittedly, they are intended to be dealt with by post, but there is a great temptation to move in the direction of administrative convenience, and both the hon. Gentleman and I are concerned that we should not allow administrative convenience to take over from the need to ensure that people can have a hearing at a place that is convenient for them.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. What he says is right. I was being generous to the Minister by suggesting that the provision could be construed in the way that he wishes. That is not its primary construction.

We know that there are efficiency savings to be gained by centralising these things. That is the call centre mentality. A call centre, or trial centre for all the same sort of cases will be much cheaper to administer. There will be a temptation to put everything up in Strathclyde, for example—eventually, it might all be moved to Bombay, and everybody will be listed for a huge court in the Indian subcontinent, which will be

very cheap to run. That is the natural extension of what is being proposed.

I am not suggesting that that is in the Minister's mind at present. However, the fact is that that is what he is providing for in subsection (5). I ask him to look at that again. If it is genuinely his intention not to facilitate batch processing, as we call it, but to deal with the exceptional cases that need facilities beyond those that are provided in the local justice area, there is a better way of phrasing the clause, perhaps by referring to an exception, so that it states that the above will not apply where specific facilities are required in the interests of justice. Something along those lines would ensure that the Minister could do what he wants to do, without encouraging the use of remote courthouses to deal with a large number of cases of a similar type, which is most people's interpretation of the provision as it currently stands.

I ask the Minister to think about whether the clause can be worded better so as to achieve what he wants to achieve—let me not accuse him of bad faith. If he does not give attention to the matter, I will want to come back to it on Report, and perhaps at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Boris Johnson (Conservative, Henley)

I rise to speak on clause stand part, because I am not sure whether I shall have a further opportunity to make these points. They are directly connected with the question of places, dates and times of sittings. I speak in favour of a particular group that I believe should have access to courts—''persons resident'' in the local area, to whom reference is made in subsection (2). I am talking about members of the press, a group with which I have some familiarity in my capacity as a columnist on the Henley Standard, a post for which I receive no payment whatsoever.

It is a shame that amendment No. 46 was not selected for debate, because it perfectly expresses how the clause should be drawn up. It would be worrying if members of the press did not have ready access to the courts. The Minister may be unfamiliar with the Henley Standard's open justice campaign, but I can fill him in.

There are two problems. First, as we discussed earlier, the Henley court was closed, followed by the Thame court. Secondly, once everything is moved to Oxford, no lists will be sent to groups of residents in the ''local justice area'', including newspaper journalists, of what cases are to be heard. It will therefore be impossible for newspapers to provide the vital service of telling the local community who is being tried and for what. They will not be able to play their part in the administering of justice by providing the vital utensil of public shame. It is an important part of local justice that cases should be reported in local newspapers.

Without wishing to try your patience, Mr. O'Brien, I ask for an assurance that the Government will

include newspapers in their thinking about who should have access to the courts in the local justice area. Not only should they have access to the courts but they should know what cases are coming up and should be able to report them freely. I think that the Minister will agree that that is an important part of administering justice locally.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

May I say how much I agree with the hon. Gentleman that part of the local administration of justice is the reporting of cases to the public in the local area?

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Order. Amendment No. 46 was not selected. I allowed the hon. Member for Henley to make his point, but I am not prepared to allow a discussion on it.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

After that admonishment, Mr. O'Brien, I am not sure how to respond. However, I understand the legitimate point raised by the hon. Member for Henley. He spoke of the role of the press as a utensil of justice, and he wants to ensure that the press know what cases are listed for the various courts. I have not seen the vehicle by which the lists are transmitted to the local press, although I am becoming increasingly familiar as inspiration comes to me.

I understand that lists are available from the justices' clerks, wherever they are located, and I am told that they can be obtained over the telephone. Other methods of publicising the lists may be used in different justice areas. One of the benefits of the new courts agency, with its unified administration, is that we could consider taking a national approach. Some magistrates courts areas may follow a traditional approach but we could look at best practice in order to ensure that lists are made available to the press and the media. I would be happy to consider that.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I suggest that this may be a way for the Minister to make his mark in the first few days and weeks in his new role. If he were to adopt a crusade to ensure that every magistrates court gave lists, with details of all cases, to all local newspapers in their areas, it would please not only my hon. Friend the Member for Henley. I have had approaches from a number of organisations representing the media; the problem affects not only the Henley area. The degree of helpfulness of justices' clerks to parts of the local media differs widely. I realise that the Minister will take time to look into the matter and I hope that when he goes back to his Department he will think about issuing a ministerial fiat that says that all justices' clerks should smarten up their act in order to please my hon. Friend the Member for Henley. If they do not, he has his column in his local newspaper—

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Order. We are straying from the fact that amendment No. 46 was not selected, so we should not discuss it any further.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

Except that I entirely agree. The clause deals with places, dates and times of sittings. As technology develops, we might well have an e-enabled shadow Solicitor-General and the hon. Member for Henley might well be wired up to the internet. Crown court listings are available electronically on the

internet. Under unified administration, there is no reason why we should not consider making magistrates courts listings available electronically. I am not able to promise to do it immediately, but it might be desirable and it is important for us to investigate it further. I hope that the virtues of clause 30 are apparent and that it will stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 31 to 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37 - Designated officers and magistrates' courts

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I beg to move amendment No. 130, in

clause 37, page 18, line 3, leave out 'justice of the peace'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 131, in

clause 37, page 18, line 7, leave out 'justice of the peace'.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

This is a probing amendment. The clause deals with the designated officer, a title that refers to the fines officers mentioned in clause 36. I am not clear how the designated officer can relate to an individual, such as a justice of the peace, rather than to the court in which that JP sits, the magistrates court, or the local justice area if the jurisdiction extends beyond a single court. At the moment, the words ''justice of the peace'' signify an individual in relation to whom the designated officer acts. The object of the amendments is to enable us to understand in which circumstances an officer can be designated to act in relation to an individual rather than to a court.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

The clause allows the Lord Chancellor to designate members of the courts agency staff to perform certain statutory functions in relation to the business of a magistrates court. Many of those functions are currently performed by a justice's chief executive within the magistrates courts committee. The statutory post of JCE will cease to exist in the new courts agency, and as a direct result the former functions of the JCE will rest with the Lord Chancellor. Where appropriate, he will nominate a designated officer of a magistrates court to perform them. It is envisaged that that will mean little change in practice, as the functions will continue to be carried out by the members of staff to whom the work is presently delegated.

Amendments Nos. 130 and 131 would both remove the term ''justice of the peace'' from subsection (1). The clause reflects the fact that the references to justices' chief executives in current legislation are many and varied. Some such references are being amended by the Bill to read, ''designated officer''. However, as the references are varied, the clause is drafted to cover all eventualities in which the term ''designated officer'' will apply.

As drafted, the clause highlights that it is not practicable, nor in all instances desirable, to change all legislative references from JCE to ''designated officer'', for example in legislation pertaining to pension or

compensation arrangement for JCEs. Removing the reference to justice of the peace in the clause would mean that any reference to a designated officer and a justice of the peace in an Act would not be covered by clause 37. That would in turn lead to confusion about what is meant by the term ''designated officer'' in those circumstances.

Furthermore, the clause follows the same pattern as existing legislation where JCEs are mentioned in the same provision as justices of the peace. One example of such a reference is in section 16 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Removing the words ''justice of the peace'' from this clause is therefore undesirable, given the need for consistency and watertight drafting arrangements. On those grounds, the amendment should be withdrawn.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I do not think that that was the clearest explanation I have ever heard. I am still puzzled by the fact that the Bill already contains a definition of the functions of a single justice of the peace as being those of a court, or, in the case of a justices clerk or assistant clerk, as being those of a magistrates court. It therefore seems that the term ''magistrates court'' includes any potential reference to a justice of the peace acting alone. I still find it difficult to understand how an officer of the court could act for a justice of the peace, but not for the court through which the justice of the peace exercises his functions. That is an important distinction about the way in which a designated officer would work.

I am sure that the Minister's advice is proper, and that it is too difficult to ensure that there is no reference to a justice of the peace somewhere in statute, but I would have thought that a watertight change in definition of what comprises a court for this purpose could include the actions of a justice of the peace. That would be a rather better way of dealing with the problem in statute so that we do not have to keep on inserting phrases that will be repeated in Bill after Bill, year after year and century after century for no reason other than to confuse those who want to interpret legislation. Will the Minister confer with his officials to consider whether there is a better solution other than an anomalous reference in a clause? I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill

Clauses 38 to 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41 - Disqualification of lay justices who

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I beg to move amendment No. 21, in

clause 41, page 20, line 27, at end insert—

'( ) No act is invalidated merely because of the disqualification under this section of the person by whom it is done.'.

I should like at the outset to put this amendment in context. Clause 41 deals with the disqualification of lay justices who are members of local authorities—in other words, councillors. It provides that a magistrate who is a member of a local authority may not sit in cases where that authority has an interest. It replicates

section 66 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, which included a provision which meant that no Act was to be invalidated merely because a justice was disqualified. That provision was removed in the other place because of concerns about ''fair tribunals'', arising from article 6 of the European convention on human rights.

The Government remain satisfied that the inclusion of that provision does not infringe article 6. The Joint Committee on Human Rights published its agreement with that view in its fourth report for the 2002–03 session. Its members are satisfied that the clause, as originally drafted, did not infringe article 6 of the ECHR. The Government pay considerable attention to the views of that Committee, and we do not believe that we should disagree with it on this occasion. We consider that it would be inappropriate for the amendment that was tabled in the other place to stand, and that is why we are seeking to move the amendment to correct it at this stage.

Article 6 of the ECHR refers to the determination of a party's civil rights and obligations, or of any criminal charge against him. Where the justices act in circumstances that do not engage the article, or where the participation of the individual does not violate it—as may be the case at an interlocutory hearing on uncontentious matters—the subsection would provide that the action would not be invalidated merely because of the disqualification. If it is felt that article 6 applies in a particular case, it is always possible for a party to appeal. Where no prejudice is caused by the magistrate's disqualification, it would be unreasonable and burdensome to invalidate those decisions.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

As the Minister says, there was a lot of debate about that issue in another place, and it will not be helpful to repeat it all this afternoon. We took the view—it may be that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, whose noble Friends are also involved in debating the matter, does so too—that it would have been better if the judgment taken by another place had been allowed to rest. We are disappointed that the Government have chosen to reverse it, but we understand where the Minister is coming from. He says that the Joint Committee is content and that the Government do not want to second guess, or undermine, the judgment of the Joint Committee.

Having said we are disappointed that the Government have chosen to reverse the decision of another place, it would not be helpful to go over that ground again. I will restrict my remarks to saying that I suspect that we may have to go back to the matter on Report, if we still feel that that would achieve something positive. At this stage, I leave my remarks at that.

Amendment agreed to.

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

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Is there a satisfactory definition of ''local authority'' anywhere in statute that does not require the whole lot to be repeated in future definitions? I refer particularly to the inclusion of

separate clauses for the Corporation of the City of London and the Common Council of the City of London. It is such a waste of paper and statute time. There should surely be a definition of ''local authority'' that clarifies the expression under the wording of a particular Act.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I am tempted to pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments to the Common Council of the City of London, but I suspect that its members would not be particularly grateful to receive them. We should make similar provision under the clause as that set out in section 66 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, which provided for the various disqualifications of magistrates who were members of the local authorities. Definitions of ''local authority'' differ in different parts of the Bill, so we have to make sure that we are thorough in our explanation and description; it is better to be thorough than to miss things.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 41, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42 - Effect of Act of Settlement on

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I beg to move amendment No. 22, in

clause 42, page 21, line 1, leave out 'before 31st January 2002' and insert

', whether made before or after the passing of this Act,'.

Clause 42 will validate retrospectively the appointment and acts of several foreign magistrates who are not nationals but who were appointed before 31 January 2002 in unwitting breach of the nationality requirements of the Act of Settlement 1700. The amendment would avert the effect of the Act of Settlement in respect of lay magistrates. During the debate on the Bill in another place, Lord Goodhart attempted to introduce a similar amendment. My noble Friend Baroness Scotland gave an undertaking that we would consider what he was suggesting and table such an amendment during our consideration of the Bill, even though future legislation is planned in respect of nationality and the civil service.

As will be clear from the amendment, we have decided to legislate on the point at this stage. It will enable Ministers to operate a more flexible approach to appointing people who are not necessarily citizens of the UK, the Commonwealth or the Republic of Ireland and avoid potentially embarrassing legal challenges arising from EU legislation. Given that it is the policy of the Department for Constitutional Affairs to broaden the recruitment base for lay magistrates, it is something that should be welcome. The form of discrimination set out in the provision is now defunct and should be changed by the amendment. I hope that the Committee will agree.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

We welcome the Government's action. As the Minister said, it is a concession to those on the Opposition Benches. Not only Lord Goodhart for the Liberal Democrats in another place,

but my noble friends Baroness Anelay of St. Johns and Lord Renton have expressed their worries about the matter. It is undoubtedly an improvement to the Bill and it shows that there is a purpose in our debating such matters. Both Houses can achieve a better Bill. The amendment removes an anomaly and we welcome the Government's change of mind to recognise what was rightly said from our Benches and the Liberal Democrat Benches in another place.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I thank the Government for listening to our argument.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 42, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 43 to 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

Clause 46 - Power to transfer criminal cases

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 58, in

clause 46, page 22, line 10, at end insert

'after hearing representations from all parties, including those representing the interests of the victim, lay and professional witnesses and defendants'.

This is an important amendment. When there is talk of criminal proceedings being transferred, we say from the Conservative Benches that it is extremely important not to allow the transfer without hearing representations from all parties, including in particular those who are representing the interests of the victims of the crime.

For many years, I have been involved with the organisation Victim Support. I have spoken to groups in various parts of the country, before joining the Front Bench of my party and since. I know that hon. Members on all sides of the House have had great involvement with Victim Support. Clause 46 inserts a new section 27A in the 1980 Act, but a statement should be clearly inserted in the Bill to the effect that, before a case is transferred, the victims have the right to be heard. That is because there is nothing worse for a victim of a crime—I have met victims of the most serious crimes, as have MPs from all parties—than to be told suddenly that the whole matter is being transferred, perhaps for good reasons, to a court in a different location that is much less convenient for them to get to. I am sure that many hon. Members have received harrowing letters from constituents who have been the victims of crime, or met such people in their surgeries, as I have.

We should not miss the opportunity to put into law provisions that say that the victims have a right to be heard before the case is moved. Even if there are good reasons for the transfer and there is a chance that it will go through in the end without any difficulty, as long as the victims feel that they have had an opportunity to make their point of view heard, they will at least feel that something relevant has happened, despite their probable concern if it is inconvenient for

them to get to the new venue. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to that suggestion.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

Amendment No. 58, tabled by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, would require a magistrates court to hear representations from all parties, including those representing the interests of the victim, lay and professional witnesses and defendants, before transferring a matter. The hon. Gentleman raised an important issue, and I would even go so far as to say that I am attracted to the sentiments behind the amendment. Nevertheless, I need to set out the fact that if a magistrates court decides of its own volition to transfer a case, the parties would have a right to be heard. Moreover, there would be practical difficulties with the amendment were it to be adopted.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am grateful to the Minister for the helpful way in which he began his response. Does he accept that in some situations, someone might be regarded as being within the general category of a victim of a crime, without necessarily being automatically regarded as a party to criminal proceedings? Parties to criminal proceedings are the prosecution and the defence. I hope that, as part of his his sympathetic response, the hon. Gentleman will consider the fact that one of the difficulties is that often the victim of a crime may be a witness, but not a party to the proceedings. I am sure that he will understand the significance of that argument.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

Indeed. I was about to say that we have set out where courts should sit, and their location. Clause 30(5) covers several such considerations. We must have regard to victims, witnesses and defendants when deciding whether to transfer a matter. Directions will, in particular, require a court to take account of where the offence was committed and where the majority of witnesses and the person charged with the offence reside. That applies also to transferred matters. We consider that many issues are already covered by clause 30.

Given its wording about representation and the representatives of various parties, an additional difficulty with the amendment is that it does not make clear whether it would require the relevant individuals' views to be ascertained before a case could be transferred. If that meant the views of all the individuals, a lot of work could be involved, which would cause significant delays. It could make the transfer of cases less convenient for everyone, rather than more convenient, which must be our objective.

We do not want additional costs to be incurred. To insist on separate legal representation for each witness, as well as the parties, would be a strange route to go down. We accept that occasional difficulties may be involved about where a case should be heard, but it would not be desirable to impose requirements that may not be necessary in ordinary cases and which may cause delay, extra complexity or cost.

That said, I reiterate the fact that the protections in clause 30(5) ensure that consideration will be given to the location of witnesses and others involved in proceedings. Although I sympathise with the aims behind the amendment, in practical terms it would not be the best measure to take.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I detect that the Minister is coming to the end of his remarks, and, given the sympathetic way in which he has responded, I shall not press the matter to a Division. However, is he prepared to continue considering the issue as the Bill wends its way through Parliament? We could all try to come up with a formulation that would avoid the problems that he identifies; I do not suggest that my wording is perfect. I hope that the Minister and his officials are prepared to continue to look into the matter, perhaps with a view to introducing a Government amendment. We genuinely want to be constructive; we want to find a way to ensure that victims are consulted in some way, without that causing delays. It would be helpful if the Minister were prepared to agree to that.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I shall certainly talk again with officials; I would be happy to do so. Obviously, in transferring criminal proceedings from one court to another, we have to balance the virtues of increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the proceedings with those of not jeopardising the legitimate need of witnesses, victims and others taking part in court proceedings to have easy access. We have discussed that in debate on several other clauses already. I am not entirely persuaded that we have not already adequately covered many of the matters set out in the amendment, but I am happy to keep the matter constantly under review. It is fair and laudable for hon. Members to be concerned about this issue, but I do not think that the amendment is the right one to put in the Bill.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

I can foresee many cases in which, early in the proceedings, only the prosecutor, the defendant and the defence solicitor, and none of the witnesses and victims, are present. The court will consider whether it should transfer the case to another court, because it is more convenient or whatever. Under clause 30(3), which relates to the direction that may be given by the Lord Chancellor, the magistrates could be asked to bear in mind the interests of those who are not there, such as the witnesses and victims, and to consider whether, in particularly serious cases, they ought to adjourn to get the views of such people. There is no requirement to do so in every case, but at least the matter would be in the magistrates' minds in every case.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. Indeed, much of what is in clause 30 and elsewhere suggests that such issues should be considered by those forming judgments on the transfer of cases. Having focused on the amendment—as we are properly bound to do in Committee—I must say that I do not believe that, as framed, it is targeted in the right direct manner, and I therefore hope that it will be withdrawn.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister has given a helpful reassurance, and has confirmed that he will carry on talking to officials. If we can come up with a better

form of words that avoids the difficulties to which he has drawn attention, we will do so, and we will send it to him and his officials. The Government clearly recognise that we are talking about a serious issue, as the Minister has said, and as he understands the spirit behind our attempt to amend the Bill, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Under suggested new section 27A(3), there is rightly a provision that if once proceedings have started the hearing is transferred to another court, it must begin hearing the evidence and the parties again. How would that apply to the admissibility of evidence, where the first court had decided that evidence was not admissible? Would it be a requirement for that process to happen a second time? That would seem foolish if a court had ruled that on a matter of law evidence was inadmissible, given that that inadmissible evidence might prejudice the views of the magistrates hearing the case.

We talked at length about that danger in the proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill: because the magistrates are finding on both fact and law, they have to hear evidence of, for instance, bad character, which might then prove to be inadmissible. It is odd to require a second court to be prejudiced by that inadmissible evidence if the hearing is then transferred.

David Kidney (Labour, Stafford)

May I remind the hon. Gentleman that when he and I served on the Standing Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill—which has not yet completed its passage through Parliament—there was a new possibility of magistrates making binding directions ahead of the trial? I presume that if that is enacted in that form, those will become binding, even if the case is transferred somewhere else.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The hon. Gentleman is right. That was part of what I was trying to elicit from the Minister. Do such actions form part of the proceedings, or are they prior to the proceedings? In other words, once the case is transferred, does it have to happen again with a new set of magistrates hearing the same matters in a different place? It would be better if it did not. The original ruling should stand, and the evidence should not have to be considered again, in so far as it dealt purely with the admissibility of the evidence that might be produced before the court. As things currently stand, I think that it would have to be considered anew, and the whole of the proceedings would have to be repeated, including the consideration as to whether in law a piece of evidence was admissible.

My question may be complicated, and I hope that I have expressed, at least broadly, my meaning in a way that the Minister can make sense of. If he has no answer to my question today, he might like to consider it further.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Part of clause 46 touches on what happens when deciding whether to transfer a case, and

the fact that the court should take account of the directions made by the Lord Chancellor under clause 30, and that cases can be transferred before or after the beginning of a trial or inquiry,

''But if the court transfers the matter after it has begun to hear the evidence and the parties, the court to which the matter is transferred must begin hearing the evidence and the parties again.''

The hon. Gentleman asked a specific question about pre-trial hearings, the admissibility of evidence and so forth. I do not want to prejudice a point that I do not want to be too definite about at present, but my initial advice suggests that those matters would have to be heard afresh should a case be transferred. However, if a ruling had already been made by one court about admissibility of evidence, that would seem a good reason for not transferring a particular case or matter. That is the advice that I have at present. If there is any change to that, I will write to the hon. Gentleman and the other Committee members to correct it. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

It is helpful in that the Minister has set out what he believes the position to be—but it is unhelpful in that I am not sure that that is what the position ought to be, in terms of common sense, let alone anything else.

If material is adduced in a pre-trial hearing, or during the initial stages of a hearing, and is held to be inadmissible and prejudicial to the interests of justice, it seems odd that it might be considered anew at the next hearing. Perhaps there ought to be some rules of court to deal with such a situation.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I stand by what I said previously. If, on reflection, there is a different interpretation of the hon. Gentleman's question, I shall be the first to bring it to the attention of hon. Members. There is a need to allow easier transfer of criminal cases between magistrates courts. Most Committee members would want that principle to be used, given the need to improve and enhance the flexible and efficient administration of justice. That is the purpose of the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 47 and 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49 - Family proceedings courts

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 59, in

clause 49, page 23, leave out lines 31 and 32 and insert—

'( ) The Lord Chancellor may make rules under subsection (4) provided that he has—

(a) published the draft rules;

(b) consulted the Family Procedure Rules Committee; and

(c) had regard to their recommendations.'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 30, in

clause 49, page 23, line 39, leave out subsection (2).

Amendment No. 60, in

clause 49, page 23, line 40, at end insert—

'( ) In discharging his duties under this section the Lord Chancellor shall make provision for the training of a sufficient number of lay justices to sit on family proceedings courts.'.

Amendment No. 61, in

clause 50, page 24, leave out lines 27 and 28 and insert—

'( ) The Lord Chancellor may make rules under subsection (4) provided that he has—

(a) published the draft rules;

(b) consulted the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee; and

(c) had regard to their recommendations.'.

Amendment No. 62, in

clause 50, page 24, line 36, at end insert—

'( ) In discharging his duties under this section, the Lord Chancellor shall make provision for the training of a sufficient number of lay justices to sit on youth courts.'.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

We now come to family proceedings. In due course we shall discuss other matters, such as youth courts. I am especially concerned about such things, not least because in my early years at the Bar I spent much time doing family law cases, both in the magistrates courts and the county courts. At one stage my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), who is now in the shadow Cabinet, and I spent much time on such cases, working either together or on opposite sides. We used to meet in courts in places such as Peterborough and work on domestic violence injunctions. Because of the harrowing circumstances in so many of those cases, I am aware of the crucial importance of family proceedings, especially when we are talking about the protection of children.

This group of amendments would require more than changes to clause 49—amendments Nos. 61 and 62 deal with clause 50. Amendment No. 59 would require the Lord Chancellor to consult and have regard to the views of the family procedure rules committee. On considering the matter last night, it occurred to me that I may have picked out the wrong subsection in my amendment. Perhaps I should have referred to subsection (6). If that is part of the Minister's response, I concede at the outset that I may have got it slightly wrong. On looking at how the amendment reads across to clause 50 I realise that I may not have got that quite right.

I hope that the Government will accept that our amendments might offer a better, clearer formulation than that of subsection (6). The Government are particularly keen on so-called pre-legislative scrutiny. However, we are talking about real pre-legislative scrutiny, whereby the views of the family procedure rules committee would be taken into account—this would not merely be a matter of consulting it.

We suggest, in amendments Nos. 30 and 60, that the Lord Chancellor must ensure that there is training and a large enough number of lay justices for the family proceedings courts. We also suggest that exactly the same changes should be made to clause 50, which deals with youth courts. That is just as valid. As lay justices, people need specialist training to deal with the difficult issues arising in youth courts—just as they do in family courts.

I hope that the Government will see that the amendments are genuinely intended to improve the Bill. I have made it clear that they are not perfect, but I hope that the Minister will respond constructively.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I shall take amendments Nos. 59 and 61 together, as they both deal with the same subject, and then speak to the remaining amendments in the group. Amendments Nos. 59 and 61 deal with consultation on rules to be made under these clauses. They would require the Lord Chancellor to publish draft rules and to take into account the views of the respective rules committees.

I am not sure that we would accomplish much by adding the word ''publish'' to the Bill. Apart from anything else, I am advised that it has no meaning in statute. It is common practice for Departments to consult on draft rules via websites, as well as to send copies to interested parties. That seems adequate.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I am slightly concerned about the Government's increasing reliance on websites—almost to the exclusion of all else. although we want to encourage what is referred to as e-government—earlier, someone referred sotto voce to an e-enabled shadow Solicitor-General, and I am happy to be considered to be e-enabled—the Government must remember that hard copies are still important when they are consulting people in a traditional field such as the law. It will never be adequate for the Government just to put something on the website of the Department for Constitutional Affairs and to assume that everybody will see it.

Not everybody is of the same generation as the youthful Minister who is putting forward the Government's case. I asked my—

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

Order. This is supposed to be an intervention.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I had forgotten that, too, Mr. O'Brien. One can get carried away by a persuasive argument.

It is sometimes adequate to put details on the website, but it can also be necessary to send hard copies to interested parties; indeed, that is normal practice. We would not wish to row back from that. That explanation of how we publish, disseminate and consult should satisfy the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, and I hope that he will think again about that aspect of the amendment.

Subsection (6) already states that

''Rules under subsection (4) may be made only after consultation with the Family Procedure Rule Committee.''

I am not sure whether it is the hon. Gentleman's intention to replicate that demand elsewhere, but that would be the effect of the amendment. I should be concerned about that, given that there is already a requirement to consult.

Turning to the proposed duty to have regard to the recommendations of the rules committee, the courts have made it clear that in order to comply with any statutory requirement to consult, the person under the duty must conscientiously take into account the product of the consultation. That being the case, we are not sure that the proposed duty would add anything. If adopted, it might have the unlooked-for

and adverse consequential effect of suggesting that statutory references to consultation are deficient if they do not contain that phraseology. I am advised that that is another reason why we should be wary of inserting that provision in the Bill.

The amendments would also remove the subsections that allow the rules to confer powers on the Lord Chancellor. That is not a new provision; section 67(5) of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980 is similar.

As the clause already refers to the Lord Chancellor's powers in relation to authorisations, it makes sense for any rules under that clause to be able to do the same. I therefore hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

As for amendment No. 30, magistrates exercise a wide jurisdiction in family cases, sitting as family proceedings courts. Because of the sensitive nature of family work, and the knowledge and understanding that are required, only certain magistrates exercise those specialist jurisdictions. Outside greater London, they are at present drawn from panels elected locally by their fellow magistrates. The relevant provisions are currently contained in sections 67 and 68 of the Magistrates Courts Act 1980. That system will no longer be appropriate when there is a national jurisdiction for magistrates, and the panel system will be abolished. Clause 49 provides for a better and more transparent procedure, by which only specially trained and suitable magistrates will be selected to sit in family proceedings courts. Those selected will have authorisation that will be valid throughout England and Wales.

In future the Lord Chancellor will have to authorise a justice of the peace before he or she can sit as a member of a family proceedings court, and will be able to delegate that power—for example, to the president of the family division or to the appropriate committees of justices. The Lord Chancellor will have the power to make rules regarding the allocation and removal of authorisations, the appointment of chairmen at family proceedings courts and the composition of those courts. It is envisaged that new rules that provide for a more transparent selection procedure will be published for comment and be subject to Parliament's approval.

Clause 49(2) repeals section 68 of the Magistrates Courts Act in respect of combined family panels for two or more petty sessions areas—now to be known as local justice areas. Those provisions will be obsolete, as the Bill abolishes petty sessions areas and gives magistrates a national jurisdiction. The amendment will therefore serve only to leave an unnecessary section in the 1980 Act, which I hope the hon. Gentleman can see would be neither desirable nor effective.

Finally, amendments Nos. 60 and 62 seek to impose on the Lord Chancellor a duty to make provision for the training of a sufficient number of lay justices to sit in family proceedings and youth courts. We recognise the valuable role that magistrates who take part in

family and youth jurisdictions play, and we are committed to retaining lay magistrates and encouraging them to sit in those jurisdictions. We are also aware of the importance of having sufficient authorised justices to sit in those jurisdictions. The effective running of those courts requires an appropriate number.

The power in the clause to authorise magistrates for specialist jurisdictions allows the Lord Chancellor to authorise the right number of people, and people of the right calibre, too. There is a balance to be struck between those two necessary aims, and the relevant amendments are not an appropriate way to deal with those concerns. I assure the Committee that we shall continue to seek to recruit lay justices of the right quality and to train them to the standards required to sit in both the family proceedings and the youth courts. As we are publicly committed to that aim, the amendments are unnecessary, and, moreover, might not achieve what they seek. On those grounds, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I shall not pursue the matter today. I said in my opening remarks that we were seeking a better formulation than the existing subsection (6). I went on a bit in my intervention, but I am still worried that the Government concentrate too much on websites—although I am glad that the Minister confirmed that it is his Department's practice to send out hard copies to appropriate consultees. I shall not purse the matter this afternoon, but I hope that the Minister will understand that we are concerned about both family courts and youth courts. We might want to return to those issues on Report, but for now I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51 - Court security officers

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I beg to move amendment No. 63, in

clause 51, page 25, line 4, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 64, in

clause 51, page 25, line 6, after 'conditions', insert

'(including conditions as to good character)'.

Amendment No. 29, in

clause 51, page 25, line 7, at end insert—

'(2A) Regulations under subsection (2) shall require that no person who has ever had any kind of conviction for any kind of criminal offence may ever be considered for any appointment as a court security officer.'.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

We now turn to the important issue of court security—especially important in the light of the recent, heavily publicised escape of a couple of dangerous criminals as they were about to arrive at the Inner London Crown court. The escape was in no way the fault of the security officers at the court, but I am

sure that it has brought into sharp focus the danger attendant on the security issue at and around our courts. I was particularly conscious of that episode because it took place just up the road from my flat in central London. My wife was watching the news flash that announced that two dangerous men were at large in Newington Causeway, and she wisely delayed her departure from the flat until a while later when, unfortunately for the forces of law and order, the two escapees had got clean away.

Amendment No. 63 is the old traditional amendment that has been tabled before, not only to this Bill but to other legislation. If it is clear that the Lord Chancellor is to make regulations, clause 51 should state that he ''shall'' rather than ''may''

''by regulations make provision as to''

training courses and conditions to be met. I am sure that the Minister will not say that the Lord Chancellor might make, or might think about, regulations; in practice there will be regulations, so the amendment is a small point—although I do not expect the Minister to accept it.

Amendment No. 64 is perhaps a matter of greater substance. In our view, previous criminal convictions should be a bar to employment as a court security officer. In the last Parliament I was fortunate enough to represent my party as shadow Minister with responsibility for the Private Security Industry Act 2001. I have taken a continued interest in that subject, but I know that the right hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) is probably the greatest living expert on the private security industry—I see the Government Whip nodding in agreement. He has made, I think, about half a dozen attempts over the years to secure a private Member's Bill to introduce proper standards for the security industry, and he was delighted to be involved in that Bill's passage.

Like this Bill, the Bill for the private security industry was dealt with in a constructive spirit. There were genuine attempts from both sides to improve it. The right hon. Member for Walsall, South and I were both at the launch of the new Security Industry Authority, and we felt that things were working well; it seemed that several of his misgivings were being reduced because of the way in which the new head of the SIA was operating.

There is a link between that legislation and this, because one of the purposes of having new security industry legislation was to prevent criminals from working in security. It was on that basis that I table amendment No. 64. It is crucial that we do not run into the problem of somebody who might have had links with crime in the past being employed in that capacity.

Such people might no longer be criminals; perhaps the conviction was relatively minor and happened 20 years ago, and the individual has put it behind them—we are all in favour of the rehabilitation of former offenders. However, in the security industry, blackmail could be used by those who are involved in serious and organised crime, and might want to organise escapes from courts.

If there were something in a security officer's past that he wanted to keep secret, somebody could say to him, ''Unless you help us, we'll have you all over the News of the World,'' or another tabloid. It might be a huge scandal that a person who had had a criminal conviction 20 or 30 years ago was employed as a court security officer.

As a matter of principle, it simply should not be possible to employ someone who has had a criminal conviction in that particularly sensitive job.

If the Minister understands the purpose of our proposal, I hope that he will at least say that he will consider with his officials whether he can suggest some wording that might be an improvement on ours. I hope that he at least understands the spirit behind the proposal.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Clwyd West)

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's point about blackmail. Would not importing the proposed requirement into the Bill be rather counter-productive? Would not the mischief to which he refers be more likely to happen in those circumstances?

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I thought about that point quite a lot when drafting the amendments. I wondered which scenario was better, and came down on the side of the argument that says that no one who has had a criminal conviction should be employed as a security guard. If that were clear in the Bill, the situation described should simply not arise. It is a judgment call, and that is the judgment that I came to. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept either amendment No. 29 or a variant of it whose wording may be more appropriate.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

This important part of the Bill merits significant attention. The high level of responsibility attached to the role of court security officer makes recruitment of the right people and effective training essential. The employer, court users and the wider public must have confidence that an officer will use his or her powers and carry out his or her duties in a fair, efficient and responsible way. Effective training and appropriate personal qualities are essential in inspiring such trust. That is an element of the rationale of part 4 of the Bill.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath has spoken to a series of amendments. Clause 51 gives the Lord Chancellor the power to make provision, by regulations, as to training courses to be completed and conditions to be met before a person may be designated as a court security officer. Amendment No. 63 would change that power to a duty, and amendment No. 64 would require that any regulations included conditions as to good character. Amendment No. 29 would introduce a total prohibition on persons with any sort of criminal record being considered for appointment as court security officers.

In many ways, amendment No. 63 seems quite similar to amendment No. 65 to clause 56. We shall reach that amendment at some point, but it could easily have been grouped with this one. The importance of publicly demonstrating that we are recruiting appropriate people to be court security officers is recognised. It is vital that we can reassure

court users, the judiciary and staff that court security officers are suitably and sufficiently trained to enable them to use their powers lawfully and effectively. The Department intends to make appropriate provision by regulations in due course. Those will set out the areas covered by court security officer training and ensure that the conditions of service are considered suitable.

I am concerned about the phrasing of the amendment that would turn the power to make regulations into a duty. It would replace the word ''may'' with ''shall''. Although we fully expect to make regulations on these matters, it would not be appropriate for the Bill to require us to do so. If we changed the word ''may'' to ''shall'', the Lord Chancellor would be required to make regulations covering everything in clause 51, but in reality there may be no need to make regulations on every one of those factors.

For example, earlier today we debated clause 17(5), and I pointed out that no rules had been made under the equivalent of subsection (5)(c). If that power had been a duty, the Lord Chancellor would have been required to make regulations on that point. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome asked about the experience that justices of the peace would have to have had to entitle them to vote in elections.

If the word ''shall'' had been used instead of the word ''may'' in clause 17(5), we would have been required to make regulations to that effect. That is one of the reasons why we have used the term ''may'' instead of ''shall'', because it gives us some discretion.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Clwyd West)

Is it not the case that, as a matter of good practice and good governance, the Government should not necessarily have a duty to make regulations? Does the Minister agree with me that it seems rather contradictory for the Conservatives, who so often complain about over-regulation, to require regulations to be made? It is not the first time during the Committee that they have made that sort of point.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

My hon. Friend makes a legitimate point. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath was the first to acknowledge that this was what one might call a ''standard'' amendment to be tabled for the Committee stage of a Bill.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I entirely take the Minister's point, and that of the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas). However, I made the point that, unlike the subsection of clause 17 to which the Minister referred, with this provision I could not envisage a situation in which a Lord Chancellor would not be making the regulations. We are discussing important issues, such as the conditions to be met before a person may be designated as a court security officer, and training courses for security officers, and so I assume that there will be regulations. That is why in this case, it would be more appropriate than in some other circumstances to use ''shall'' rather than ''may.''

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

We have discussed that point, but I still err on the side of good drafting and of ensuring that

our approach throughout the Bill is consistent—and I believe that the current drafting of the Bill is correct.

Amendment No. 64 seeks to introduce the requirement that court security officers be of ''good character'', and to include that qualifier in the Bill. The role of a court security officer carries a high level of responsibility, and people would expect such officers to be of good character. We believe that it is inherent and implicit in the position that the person who is appointed will be of good character. We agree that when regulations are made setting out the conditions to be met before a person can be designated as a court security officer, conditions involving good character will rank as a high priority.

It would therefore be superfluous to mention that particular condition in the Bill, when there might be many other equally important conditions concerning what would make a good court security officer, which could be contained in subsequent regulations. I believe that, given the difficulties of defining good character in the Bill, the amendment should be withdrawn.

We believe amendment No. 29 to be undesirable from both a practical and a policy perspective. The reference to

''any kind of criminal offence''

would include spent convictions which, under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, cannot generally be taken into account when assessing suitability for employment, except for employment in a limited and specified number of occupations. Court security officers are not currently one of those exempted occupations.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I rather anticipated that the Minister might say that. I therefore ask him to consider seriously, with his officials and his ministerial colleagues, whether that occupation should be one of those exceptions.

I said in my initial remarks that we are all in favour of the rehabilitation of offenders. However, we are discussing the security of courts. If the amendment is not accepted or the employment category not changed, I do not want to see, in a few years' time, an escape that turns out to have been organised by a person who has been accepted for employment as a court security officer on the basis that their serious conviction had occurred a long time in the past.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

One can never predict what will happen in the future, but in framing the legislation we must ensure that we strike the right balance. I believe that, given the strict limitations on the powers of court security officers contained in the Bill, and the vetting procedures that will apply, there is no reason for us to change the attitude that we have taken so far. However, I understand the basis on which the hon. Gentleman proposed the amendment. We appreciate the importance of ensuring that court security officers pass appropriate background security checks prior to appointment, and the hon. Gentleman has raised a significant issue.

There are several methods of carrying out those background checks, and in the future the Department will aim to use the basic disclosure service offered by

the Criminal Records Bureau. Once that is available, it will provide a criminal record check incorporating several levels of disclosure for different types of employment. In the meantime, the Department will carry out checks on all contractors and in-house security guards. All employees and contractors must be subject to the basic check, which will clarify the identity of the person concerned.

The counter-terrorist check must be carried out for all first and second tier Crown courts. In practice, it is carried out on everyone. It includes both a criminal records check and verification with the security services. In addition, the two security companies that supply guards throughout the Court Service are affiliated to the British Security Industry Association, and they are required to complete a 10-year employment history for all employees, together with a formal declaration of criminal record.

The current checks undertaken by the Department are therefore comprehensive and lawful. That will continue to be the case when the current procedures give way to the Criminal Records Bureau. There are thorough, comprehensive arrangements in place that strike the right balance, but keep within the scope of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. On that basis, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

As I said, I am not at all happy with such an explanation. We shall definitely return to such matters on Report. I shall not take up the Committee's time by pressing the amendment to a Division, but the matter is crucial. We must bear in mind the recent history of problems with the Criminal Records Bureau. In an earlier debate, reference was made to matters that are checked in other countries. A few weeks ago, I was involved in a debate on the Criminal Records Bureau when it became clear that a lot of its work was being done in India by private sector contractors. Concerns were expressed about that. The history of the Criminal Records Bureau is one of the most embarrassing for the Government, and it continues to be so.

I am not reassured by the Minister's words. I know that he is well-intentioned, but there is something serious involved and the interests of court security must be put ahead of the rehabilitation of offenders. I accept that he will talk to officials. It is exactly what I would expect of him, as I know him to be extremely diligent. I advise him to discuss the matter with the right hon. Member for Walsall, South and the people at the new Security Industry Authority to see whether he can table Government amendments on Report to toughen up the Bill.

I stick to the view of those on the Conservative Benches. A criminal conviction ought to be an absolute bar, and I am not yet happy that we have the checks in place to prevent a potentially dangerous criminal from escaping from a court as a result of the fact that somebody who was not vetted thoroughly enough was employed as a security officer. We shall return to the issue, but 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. 132, in

clause 51, page 25, line 7, at end insert—

'(c) requirements in respect of the uniform or badge to be worn by a court security officer to ensure that he is clearly identifiable—

(i) as a court security officer; and

(ii) by his individual name or number.'.

I shall deal with the amendment extraordinarily quickly because, by my reckoning, we now have less than two minutes to spend on each clause that has been selected for discussion today. Amendment No. 132 suggests that the Lord Chancellor may by regulation make requirements in respect of uniforms or badges worn by security officers. There is already sensible provision in clause 51 for the court security officer to be identifiable by means of his uniform or badge.

A person should be able to identify an individual officer. The officers have substantial powers similar to those of a police officer, including powers of search, powers to restrain, exclude or remove persons. When they are exercising those powers, they should be identifiable to the person on whom they are exercising those powers as an individual, so that, if there is any complaint about the conduct of an officer, it can be correctly attributed to a particular officer instead of the generality of court security officers. Not only is it necessary to set out what is required in terms of uniform but an individual number or name should be clearly included so that the officer can be identified.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I shall also be brief. The hon. Gentleman may find that there is even less time if the information coming to me is correct because we may be about to have a Division in the House.

I agree with this sensible amendment to require clear identification and I need say no more than that I concur with the hon. Gentleman.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I, too, will be brief. I understand the hon. Gentleman's point in tabling the amendment, although I emphasise the provisions in subsection (3), which give a measure of protection, although not necessarily with the detail that he seeks.

One of my concerns about the amendment is that it is not appropriate to prescribe in regulations the type and style of the uniform or badge that a security officer wears. That is an administrative matter and not appropriate for that secondary legislative tier. Moreover, subsection (3) makes explicit the requirement that a court security officer acting in the execution of his duty must be easily identifiable as such. Departmental guidelines will be produced for in-house staff and contractual standards for external security officers will specify the uniform, and that badges or other items must enable easy identification. That will be evident to those drawing up the guidelines.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The Minister is going a long way towards what I want, but he has not yet said whether there will be a requirement for an officer to be individually recognisable. That is very important. It exists for police officers and many other officers in uniform. It should exist for court security officers.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

I recognise the strength of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but we have not decided what level of detail should be in the guidelines. However, as

there has been strong representation about the importance of some level of individual identification, whether by name or number, and the hon. Gentleman's comments have been recorded, I will give closer consideration to them when I look at the guidelines.

Gareth Thomas (Labour, Clwyd West)

People are often confused in court and I know from experience that they often mistake ushers for security people.

Chris Leslie (Labour, Shipley)

Again, that involves having different uniforms so that security officers are easily identifiable from ushers, but that will have to be dealt with as an administrative matter when the design of uniforms and so on is considered. It is not appropriate for that to be in the regulations and I hope that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will withdraw his amendment.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I disagree with the Minister and believe that the matter should be covered in regulations because it is crucial. However, I do not intend to pursue it today and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 52 - Powers of Search

Bill O'Brien (Labour, Normanton)

With this it will be convenient to take new clause 1—Interpretation of sections 52 and 53—

'In sections 52 and 53 the term ''any person'' does not include judges, barristers, solicitors and justices of the peace who are present in, or seeking to enter, a court building for the purposes of their duties.'.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

I shall have to be brief because the Division Bell may ring at any moment. I want to make it clear that we feel strongly about new clause 1 and if the guillotine prevents the Minister from responding in detail this afternoon, I hope that he understands that we shall certainly return to the matter on Report.

As I made clear in a debate on a previous group of amendments, we are very concerned about court security, but we are also concerned that those who are representing the forces of justice and law and order

should not have their passage into and out of courts delayed unnecessarily. New clause 1 is simply to ensure that the provisions of clauses 52 and 53 should not delay those who are concerned with the administration of justice. From my fairly extensive experience of practice in the courts—from the Court of Appeal and divisional court to the magistrates courts—there is a greater level of security in some court buildings than others. That is understandable, but we do not want every judge or lay magistrate, nor all barristers and solicitors to have to go through a slow and tortuous searching process along with defendants and witnesses. That would be nonsense.

Even if the Minister cannot accept new clause 1, I hope that he will at least talk to officials to see whether something can be done. Although searching is important—it is right that it should be included in the Bill—it should not delay those who are concerned with the administration of justice. It is a small, shortly stated point, but an important one. I hope that the Minister will respond positively, if not today then on another occasion. If he cannot accept it today, I hope that he will take seriously what I have said, as we shall return to the matter.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

It being after Five o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [29 October 2002] and the Orders of the Committee [26 June 2003 and this day], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

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

Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time.

Clauses 53 to 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes past Five o'clock till Tuesday 8 July at half-past Nine o'clock.