|Previous Section||Index||Home Page|
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): The judgment of the Court of Session in Starrs and Chalmers in November l999 indicated that prosecution before a temporary sheriff in Scotland did not constitute a fair hearing under article 6 of the European convention on human rights because a temporary sheriff had insufficient security of tenure. Consequently, the Scottish Executive, who are responsible for the administration of justice in Scotland, stopped using temporary sheriffs and judges and promoted legislation--the Bail, Judicial Appointments etc. (Scotland) Act 2000--to provide for the appointment of part-time sheriffs who would have security of tenure. The first such sheriffs commenced work in October 2000.
Mr. O'Brien: I thank the Advocate-General for that answer. Is she aware and does she agree that, despite the further ramifications following the findings of the Court of Session, that case could have serious consequences for the administration of justice involving lay members and an irreparable effect in England and Wales? Does her advice extend to advising those in England and Wales, as well as in Scotland, as this is a major issue for justice in the United Kingdom?
The Advocate-General: I am not sure whether I follow the hon. Gentleman's question. A successful challenge was made under the ECHR in particular circumstances that applied only to Scotland. Of course there may be ramifications. As he will know, the Lord Chancellor took steps to enhance the security of tenure of part-time judges in England. On the long-term consequences, any challenge that is made will be considered in the particular circumstances of the case. I am sure that our jurisprudence is sufficiently flexible to take account of any change that may be made.
Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, Pollok): Does the Minister accept that that is an important issue, but far more important to my constituents and the people of Falkirk is the discussion that they are having in the pubs and clubs about how much better they are under the Labour Government? I was speaking to one of my in-laws yesterday, and Joyce said that we are much better under the Labour Government than we were before. Does the Minister agree?
The Advocate-General: I am sure that Starrs and Chalmers is the talk of the pubs and clubs throughout Scotland, but I hope that there is at least some understanding in those conversations of the importance of the ECHR to Scotland and, indeed, the United Kingdom.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): There is frequent contact between my office and the Home Department, both at official and ministerial level, about matters of common interest, including human rights.
Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Advocate-General for that reply. Is the hon. and learned Lady aware that there was widespread disgust in the country at the initial Scottish Appeal Court ruling that an individual accused of drink driving should not be obliged to state whether he or she was the registered keeper or the driver at the material time and that the decision of the Law Lords to overturn that perverse ruling was widely welcomed by my constituents and those of other right hon. and hon. Members? Will she accept that, in the light of the passage of the pernicious Euro-inspired Human Rights Act 1998, it is essential that she should be able to offer us an assurance that there will be no repetition of such unjust, pernicious and untenable cases in Scotland in future?
The Advocate-General: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that, as Advocate-General, I argued that case before the Privy Council with some success. I argued it on the basis not of disgust, perniciousness or any other matters, but of logic and rationality. I am pleased to say that those arguments were upheld.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on 14 November.
The Government have recently published a report--indeed, on Thursday--on results of research into the role of the lay and professional magistracy. I reiterate that we are committed to a continuing role for both types of judiciary in the criminal courts. Each brings a different approach and a different range of experience to the court. Making effective use of that experience can only be to the benefit of the community. The report is very interesting, Mr. Speaker. If you have a spare moment this Christmas, you might like to get a copy and read it. I commend it to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
Mr. Flight: The report, "The judiciary in the magistrates' courts", to which the Parliamentary Secretary refers, in many ways contrasts and contradicts the Auld report, which has broadly recommended a professional magistracy. The judicial report finds overwhelmingly in favour of a continuing lay magistracy. Will the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that the Government have already accepted the essence of "Judiciary in the Magistrates Courts", which the Home Office commissioned?
Jane Kennedy: I hesitate to contradict the hon. Gentleman, but Lord Justice Auld's report and its detailed conclusions have not yet been published. It would be premature to comment on his review before it has been completed. However, we have reached the provisional conclusion that the current jurisdiction of lay magistrates should be preserved for cases carrying a penalty of up to six months' imprisonment. It is important to note the research report's conclusion that to abolish or greatly diminish the role of the lay magistracy would not be widely understood or supported in the community.
Mr. Barry Jones (Alyn and Deeside): Could I persuade my hon. Friend that, if it is working, it should not be fixed? Does she agree that it is not good for the morale of voluntary magistrates, of whom there are many thousands throughout the country, for rumours about switching to stipendiaries constantly to emerge from London? Will she knock those rumours on the head, pay tribute to hard-working magistrates and kindly consider receiving from me in the not too distant future a deputation on those matters?
Jane Kennedy: I am always willing to receive a deputation and representations from my right hon. Friend. I have sought to do my level best to allay the fears of lay magistrates, which are based on wrong and misleading
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): The Minister, with her usual approach of sweet reasonableness, suggests that the Government are supporting lay magistrates, but I am sorry to have to put it to her that the facts directly contradict that.
The Minister talks of coverage in the national press. Thanks to the very hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), has it not been made clear recently in the national press that her Department is telling magistrates courts that they will have to close because of costs imposed on them as a result of the suggestion under the Human Rights Act 1998 that those wearing handcuffs cannot be seen in public areas because it might be thought to offend against article 3 of the convention, prohibiting inhuman treatment or torture, which of itself is an insult to magistrates courts?
The Government's sweet, honeyed tones are undermined by the facts of what they are doing. Will she reject what officials are currently saying and make it clear that there is no question of inhuman treatment or torture in magistrates courts and that the costs of conversion do not mean that every rural magistrates court has to close?
Jane Kennedy: As this is the season of good will, I shall not respond to the tone in which the hon. Gentleman asked his question. I do not seek to sugar a bitter pill. I am genuine when I extol the role that the lay magistracy plays in the administration of criminal justice. I do not expect magistrates courts closures to result directly from the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998. Many smaller or remote magistrates courts lack suitable facilities for holding defendants in custody. It is essential that the magistrates courts committees carry out their part in making sure that the courts and services that they provide are modern and that the courts are fit for their purpose.
Mr. David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire): I have this morning tabled an early-day motion signed by 175 hon. Members who represent all parts of the political and geographical spectrum. It celebrates the work, commitment, dedication and expertise of the 30,000 lay magistrates who deliver justice in local communities. Will my hon. Friend reassure the House that she and others will resist any Home Office attempt to subvert and subordinate the role of lay magistrates in a way that would lead to their control and supervision by retitled stipendiary magistrates? Such a move would be most vigorously opposed, not least by members of the Magistrates Association such as myself.