| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
The Parliamentary Secretary was asked--
Judicial Training
30. Mr. Geraint Davies (Croydon, Central): What plans he has for further in-service training on sentencing for judges. [126365]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): Judicial training is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board. All circuit judges and recorders receive in-service training from the board at three-yearly intervals and locally based training
each year. All these seminars include sessions on sentencing. Specialist courses are also held for judges who try cases involving fraud or serious sexual offences.
Mr. Davies: Given the profound and far-reaching impact of the Human Rights Act 1998, what plans has my hon. Friend for training judges in the pending implementation of the Act in October?
Mr. Lock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. It is an important issue. The Judicial Studies Board has organised a programme of 54 one-day seminars on the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights for all full-time and part-time judges in England and Wales. The programme will have been completed by the end of July, well in time before incorporation takes effect in October. Thereafter, human rights issues will be incorporated into the board's core training for judges and form part of their core training from then on.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): Will this in-service training incorporate the more senior members of the judiciary? Following the embarrassment of Lord Hoffmann over the collapse of the original Pinochet case because of his involvement with a charity, followed by the further embarrassment of the Minister's right hon. and noble Friend last week on another charitable matter, is it any wonder that many people are asking in relation to so many of the current Government's friends in another place "Who do these people think they are?"
Mr. Lock: It is disgraceful for hon. Members to impugn the independence of the judiciary and to cast aspersions on the very good work that its members do. As far as I am aware, there is no suggestion that the rules on disclosure of interests have anything to do with the European convention on human rights. The hon. Gentleman's attempted link is entirely spurious.
Magistrates
31. Mr. Phil Sawford (Kettering): What steps she is taking to encourage greater openness and transparency in the appointment of magistrates. [126366]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): The process is open and transparent. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor revised the directions to which his local advisory committees work in 1998, in order to establish a national unified system for recruiting magistrates. A copy of the directions is in the Library. The local committees actively seek to encourage applications from all parts of the community by using a range of methods, including advertisements in local newspapers, leaflet drops and local radio and television programmes.
Mr. Sawford: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I welcome all the efforts that are being made to encourage greater openness and transparency, but I fear that in all too many cases there is still a shroud of secrecy over the appointment process through the advisory committees. Will my hon. Friend consider more steps to encourage
greater openness, not only in that appointments process, but in the manner in which the advisory committees are appointed in the first place?
Jane Kennedy: I hear the point that my hon. Friend makes, but I repeat that we believe that the process is open and transparent. That is not to say that my noble Friend does not make every effort to ensure that the benches reflect the communities from which they are drawn. It might be helpful to the House and to my hon. Friend to know that the Northamptonshire advisory committee, which covers the area of my hon. Friend's constituency, has recently undertaken a number of activities to encourage recruitment and raise the profile of the magistracy. While my hon. Friend raises fair concerns and makes legitimate comments, we make every effort to ensure that the benches reflect the community.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): We of course welcome as broad a variety of people as possible on the bench, but does the Minister agree that it is important for the best calibre of people to become magistrates, and that the sort of tokenism she described is wrong? We should not appoint people because they are women or because they are black. We must have the best calibre of people, irrespective of who they are.
Jane Kennedy: I find some comments that are made from time to time about the lay magistracy disappointing. The Lord Chancellor defined the personal qualities that an individual must possess to be suitable for appointment as a magistrate as: good character, understanding and communication, social awareness, maturity and sound temperament, sound judgment, commitment and reliability. Candidates for the bench are drawn from people who have all those qualities. However, it is fair to say that every effort should continue to be made to find more candidates who are women, and more candidates from ethnic communities, to be sure that the benches reflect the communities that they are there to serve.
Judicial Appointments
32. Tony Wright (Cannock Chase): If he will make a statement on revisions proposed by the Lord Chancellor to the system for judicial appointments. [126368]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): The Lord Chancellor keeps judicial appointments procedures continuously under review. Last year, he asked Sir Leonard Peach to conduct a scrutiny of the procedures, and he is now acting on Sir Leonard's recommendations.
Tony Wright: How embarrassed is my hon. Friend by the report that was recently published? It was commissioned by the Lord Chancellor's Department and shows that most lawyers would like an independent appointments commission. We know that the Lord Chancellor likes appointing judges--that is reasonable; it is an agreeable occupation--but everybody else, probably including my hon. Friend, believes that an independent
commission should do it. Instead of endlessly peachifying the system to preserve it, why do we not simply get on with the job of changing it?
Mr. Lock: I assure my hon. Friend, who remains my hon. Friend, that I am not embarrassed at all. He has misunderstood the point. Press reports were about research into the factors that affect decisions to apply for judicial appointments and silk. The reports were unbalanced because they revealed respondents' perceptions of the system, but did not analyse the extent to which the system worked, or the factors that worked within the system. There is a difference between how the system is perceived from outside--I accept that it is important for the Government to know that--and its perception inside, which is the subject of the detailed report by Sir Leonard Peach. That will lead to the appointment of a commissioner for judicial appointments for England and Wales later this year. The two perceptions are entirely separate.
Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden): Does the Minister accept that, now that judges must interpret the European convention on human rights, they increasingly have to make political decisions about political policies, which were previously made by elected politicians in this place, and to seek a political balance between different rights? In those circumstances, does the Minister acknowledge that the judiciary is in danger of being politicised, that the selection of judges will be considered from a political point of view, and that in most other countries, such as the United States, those appointments become political as the result of such deplorable moves?
Mr. Lock: I am very disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman believes that giving rights to the British public is a deplorable move. Our judges' decisions under the Human Rights Act 1998 when the European convention comes into force will be no more political than they were when there were judicial reviews of the previous Government's decisions, for example, in the Pergau dam case. It is important that judges judge according to the law and that their appointment and work be entirely impartial.
Magistrates
34. Angela Smith (Basildon): What recent evaluation she has made of the social class of magistrates. [126370]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): Each local advisory committee tries to ensure that the bench reflects the political affiliation and occupational diversity of the local area. Those conditions are currently used as a proxy for social balance, although a viable alternative is being sought. Returns are made to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor every year in respect of each bench.
Angela Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer and her recognition that we need people from all backgrounds to give the magistracy legitimacy. However, does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important factors that deters people from applying is the inability to get time off work? Many people in professions or managerial positions can get time off work, but those in manual work or lower down in their place of work cannot
easily get time off. That is a major hindrance to applying. Will my hon. Friend consider that matter and meet some of the larger employers to discuss it?
Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue, as she regularly does, and for the opportunity to address it once more. We recognise the voluntary nature of magistrates' work and appreciate the commitment that they give to the service. We are committed to the concept of voluntary service but, as my hon. Friend rightly says, without the co-operation of employers, we cannot achieve the balance on the benches which, we all know, benefits everybody.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Will the hon. Lady confirm that quotas, targets and the pursuit of an antediluvian class war should have no role whatsoever to play in the appointment of magistrates, and that the only criterion for such appointments should be merit?
Jane Kennedy: As I have already said, these days, the use of political balance to introduce proper social balance on benches is regarded as a stereotype that no longer holds true. If we look at the results of the 1997 election, we also have to look seriously at other criteria and we are seeking to do that. Unnecessarily dismissive comments about the need to ensure balance on the benches do not give credit to the work of magistrates, who deliver an excellent service throughout the country and deal with 97 per cent. of criminal cases in their courts.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Why not start writing the manifesto for the next election? Why not be ultra-modern and democratic and elect magistrates and judges?
Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend, as ever, comes up with a novel solution, which I shall consider carefully. However, we have procedures in place that will address some of the problems that he raises.
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross): In the light of experience in Scotland following the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998, are the Government satisfied that it is still appropriate for political appointments of judges to be made in England?
Jane Kennedy: We are dealing with the appointments of magistrates, which are made after local advisory committees undertake an assessment of candidates and make recommendations to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |