| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Rob Marris: This is perhaps a tangential point, but, like the hon. Gentleman, I am a solicitor and a member of the Law Society. Has the Magistrates Association considered clause 13? It seems surprising that the bar on people continuing as lay magistrates after the age of 70 will be statutorily continued under the Bill, given that—as he will know, given his great interest in matters European—under article 13 of the treaty of Amsterdam, we in this country will have to outlaw age discrimination by the end of 2006. Does he find that provision's inclusion surprising?
Mr. Cash: I never cease to be amazed but am unsurprised by anything on such matters that comes from the European Union. I can only say that I have said repeatedly that I suspect that the white book and all the rules of procedure that are prescribed at the moment by our domestic courts will require revision. I said that during the proceedings on the Nice treaty. Under the proposed constitution—if it were to be adopted by way of an Act in this country, heaven forbid—the enhanced powers of the European Court of Justice would have a powerful impact on how such matters have to be interrelated, but that issue is probably best left to consideration in Committee.
The other matters that the Magistrates Association had wanted to clear up were the grounds for removal of magistrates; the training of magistrates; and the whole question of fines officers, which we have touched on already. In fact, the association's deep concerns at the beginning have been largely dealt with, and it has told me unequivocally that amendments in the other place have fully met some of its concerns and greatly improved the situation in relation to others. However, as with the others who have made representations, the association is anxious that none of those gains should be lost and there are still points on which it would wish to press for further changes in the Bill.
For example, the association found the original proposals in relation to the rule and function of courts boards totally unsatisfactory, and it still suggests that the new structure could be highly centralised. Again, that point will need to be considered. On striking the balance between the efficiency of the local administration with access to local justice and ensuring that the powers given to the Lord Chancellor and others do not result in over-centralisation, we find that the proposals are somewhat driven by cost considerations, because that is a Treasury function. We must not have something that looks as though it will achieve good local administration—very much a local concept—only to find that the imposition of Treasury requirements results in greater centralisation.
The Government have indicated that they are keen that the courts boards should have a non-executive role and the Bill has been improved, but that is a somewhat contentious issue. The Magistrates Association certainly believes strongly that there should be full executive power. That issue is extremely important. Magistrates need to be able to ensure that they have full authority to carry out the job, and I suspect that it is valid to suggest that it will be necessary to strengthen the role of magistrates and courts boards. That is why I mentioned the issue that the Select Committee raised about the precise nature of the courts boards' role.
The association also considers it a matter of great importance that the number of courts boards should not be lower than 42. I have to confess that I am not absolutely convinced about why 42 was the chosen number.
Mr. Heath: It is the number of police authorities.
Mr. Cash: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the answer. On the basis that the courts boards should be coterminous with the current police authorities, that suggestion makes a great deal of sense.
On consultation, the Government new clause that lays a duty on the Lord Chancellor to consult lay justices on the performance of their duties, rather than on the administration of the courts, was extremely important, but it is even more important that such consultation should be complete. I say only this: the word "consultation" is not interpreted as I heard the Leader of the House mention with regard to the Intelligence and Security Committee the other day on the "Today" programme. I was certain that he said that it was necessary to obtain the Committee's consent as to whether the Prime Minister could expunge the record of the report of that Committee. The word "consultation" means no more than that people's comments will be listened to responsibly, but without the obligation to act on them. I issue this caveat: in this important area, in which lay justices' performance of duties are involved, something stronger than consultation may be needed, such as words to the effect that consultation should have regard to the performance of their duties. I do not intend to prejudge the Committee stage, but certain matters must be considered in principle on Second Reading, and that is one of them.
With respect to the size and number of local justice areas, it is incredibly important that the local justice areas remain local. The great distances that are already travelled following court closures and amalgamations undoubtedly put a significant strain on the courts system and undermine local justice. I have had reason to mention this previously in the House. Many Members have had court closures in their constituencies, and they cause a great deal of justifiable concern, particularly when the court closure is followed by a lack of access to justice. Elderly people, whether witnesses, defendants or victims, cannot simply jump into cars at the drop of a hat. If somebody has to drive an unfair distance, or no bus service is available, a severe restriction is put on the manner in which people acquire not only local justice but real justice. We need to bear that in mind.
Police are having to spend more time coming to court for criminal matters, and I am glad that clause 30, which was amended in another place on Report, and further amended on Third Reading, specifies that
- "the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to the need to ensure that court-houses are accessible to persons resident in each local justice area."
On the question of justices' clerks, the amendment to the new clause retained a specific link through assigning a clerk to specific local justice areas, and ensuring that the benches, through their chairmen, were consulted before any change of assignment. The question of whether all these matters will be retained in the Bill is one on which I look to the Minister to reply in the wind-up. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who will wind up for the Opposition, will no doubt keep a watchful eye on that.
I have raised the question of the high sheriffs previously with the Parliamentary Secretary. My point was that the removal of high sheriffs from rolling high court enforcement will break the link between the high sheriff and the under-sheriff. That has certain consequences of grave concern to both, because in the past, the under-sheriff has offered the incoming high sheriff an indemnity against litigation that might be brought by aggrieved debtors. I asked whether the Lord Chancellor's Department would indemnify the high sheriffs in any outstanding period between Royal Assent and the point at which the statutory limitation became legally effective. Bearing it in mind that I only get one shot at Lord Chancellor's questions, we will have much more opportunity to pursue the matter in Committee. In a nutshell, the hon. Lady's response was that one of the reasons for the change was that it was felt that it was unfair for a volunteer to be under certain legal obligations and to carry such a responsibility. As for the time between Royal Assent and the continuation of the indemnity, she said that that would be looked at and consulted on. I assure her that we, too, will look at the matter again in Committee, and we will insist that it is dealt with properly.
The question of compensation can be dealt with in Committee, other than to say that this matter arose in the 1970s with respect to the loss of emoluments. On the face of it, under-sheriffs face a loss of emoluments as a result of the Bill. A memorandum was prepared at that time, to which we will refer in Committee, which was dependent on what is known as the Crombie code. It dealt with how compensation could be paid and came into effect in the context of the Courts Act 1971. I simply put on notice that this is a matter that is as yet outstanding, and I do not think that it was dealt with in the other place. It is therefore a matter to which we will want to return in Committee.
Having said all that, the content of the Bill is greatly improved, which is a measure of the good sense on both sides of the House in the other place, and of the industry that was put into it. I hope that we will reflect on that on Third Reading. The Bill can be improved, and has been improved, and I hope that in Committee it will continue to become better and better.
6.58 pm
Stephen Hesford (Wirral, West): It is rather strange to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who opened for the official Opposition. Perhaps you, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, did not hear the word "welcome" fall from his lips in relation to this Bill. He is out of touch with members of the public not only on Europe but on why the Bill is before the House: namely, because it is on the Government's reform agenda. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor spoke earlier of the economic reform agenda, and previously we discussed the reform agenda for the health service, which Opposition Members opposed in respect of foundation hospitals. Today's debate has shown that Opposition Members do not understand why the Government have taken on reform of the courts service, which is not the usual agenda, it is often said, of the Labour party.
The hon. Gentleman disclosed no policy on behalf of the Opposition. Indeed, he disclosed no principle underlying anything that he said, and hon. Members may have been taken aback by his opening remarks. When he went through what had happened in the other place, which considered the Bill extensively in eight separate Committee sittings, he described a number of amendments that were passed by one vote and issued what was tantamount to a threat: that this House should not look again at any part of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister might accepted those amendments, and they might remain in the Bill, but it does not behove the hon. Gentleman to issue a threat to this House not to exercise its jurisdiction to examine the Bill afresh and do what it likes on full consideration.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |