| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
7.15 pm
Mr. Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in 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.'.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
No. 5, in 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 11 to the Police Act 1996 (c. 16).'.
No. 52, in page 5, line 14, at end insert
'but only with the prior consent of the lay justices for that area and in any event not in a way which removes the coterminosity of a local justice area with a police authority area'.
Mr. Heath: This group of amendments deals not with courts boards but with local justice areas, which will be more familiar to most Members as the petty sessions areas that they effectively replace under the Bill. Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are simple. They propose that a local justice area should not straddle the borders of courts boards areas or of police authorities under the Police Act 1996. However, I cannot believe that it is anyone's intention to make them do so, and it could be argued that if one requirement is satisfied, so is the other, by virtue of what we have already said about coterminosity.
It cannot be in the interests of good administration if the local justice area—which is, as the smallest unit, the building block of the revised structure of the justice system—were to come under the jurisdiction of more than one courts board area. Conflicting advice could be given to the Secretary of State or Lord Chancellor on the interests of a specific local justice area. Magistrates might not know to which courts board they should address any views on the administration of courts in their bench areas. In short, we would have completely unnecessary confusion.
When we discussed the matter in Committee, the Minister covered his tracks by saying that the courts boards deal with more than just the magistrates courts in their area, and that is true. However, if we are agreed that the local justice areas are, as the Minister put it, the essential building blocks on which the whole structure is based, they should not teeter between two different areas. Even though the courts board has an interest in the family courts, the civil courts and the youth court structure, it does not alter the fact that a single local justice area should fall within a single courts board area; otherwise, unnecessary and easily avoidable confusion would arise.
Amendment No. 5 makes the same argument in terms of police authorities. Such authorities can be very large, and the whole thrust of Government policy, for some years, has been to achieve a degree of coterminosity between police authority areas and all the other agencies that are relevant to the work of the police. Indeed, that argument was made strongly in the debate that we have just had. It was argued that the courts boards should be—wherever possible and with the exception of London—identical to the police authority areas. If that is the case, where is the logic in having a local justice area, dealing with one or more magistrates courts, which straddles police authority areas? It flies in the face of what we are led to believe is the Government's policy, which cannot be what they intend.
The only argument for not clearly stating that in statute, thereby making it the basis of the structure, would be that there was a need for transitional
arrangements when petty sessions areas straddled police authority areas and needed special treatment. I have two arguments against that suggestion: first, it would not be impossible to devise transitional arrangements and, secondly and more cogently, it should not happen. If we are to set up a new, unified court structure whose building blocks are to be the local justice areas, those areas should be so constructed as not to go from one police authority area to another, from one probation service area to another or from one CPS area to another—all the arguments prayed in aid in our earlier debate for not having more than one courts board in a police authority area.When I put all those points together it is difficult to find a reasonable argument against our amendments. My only suggestion for the Minister would be that they do not apply because as the justice areas are already encompassed within the measure, no adjustment will be necessary, and that it is not necessary to include the proposals in the statutes because some future Secretary of State might choose, willy-nilly, to create new justice areas that straddle police authority or courts board boundaries. I do not think that is a sensible argument, however, and I hope that the Minister will not make it.
If we are to set up a unified courts structure, with an integrated system, it should be based on common building blocks making up several local justice areas, courts areas and police authority areas so that there is an organised and regimented structure for the whole country. Both the Minister and I want to see that pyramid. My amendments would make that happen; in their absence, it may not happen.
Mr. Hawkins: Once again, as we did on this issue in Committee, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and I are arguing from a similar perspective. The Opposition take the view that the Bill would give the Lord Chancellor too wide and unfettered a discretion. Currently, clause 8(4) states baldly:
- "The Lord Chancellor may make orders altering local justice areas."
The Opposition want to set up some control on what the Lord Chancellor is or is not allowed to do, but in a slightly different way to that proposed by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. We want to include the rather ugly word "coterminosity" that was used in Committee. Under our amendment No. 52, the Lord Chancellor would not be able to alter the local justice area
- "in a way which removes the coterminosity of a local justice area with a police authority area".
We are pressing the Government in the same way as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and I did in Committee. The Bill should include restrictions. The
Lord Chancellor should not have unfettered discretion to do things that would be illogical and could be damaging, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out. That is the basis for our amendment and I very much endorse his views on the importance of the building blocks. We shall, of course, listen to what the Minister has to say, but I was not persuaded by the Government in Committee and I am not persuaded now. The Bill would be much better if it included the safeguards either of the Liberal Democrat amendments or, more specifically, of our amendment No. 52.
Mr. Leslie: As we have just heard, the effect of amendment No. 4 would be to ensure that no local justice area may include areas that form part of more than one courts board. Amendment No. 5 would ensure that no local justice area may include areas that form part of more than one police authority area. The second part of amendment No. 52 largely covers the same issue. As I said earlier, the Government have made a commitment that courts board areas will be coterminous with criminal justice areas—police authority areas—so I shall deal with all the amendments together.
The amendments are unnecessary and undesirable. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) tried to pre-empt my justification for resisting his amendments and made very good arguments against them, which I hope to supplement in some small way. In fact, the amendments try to put the cart before the horse, which is the fundamental point of my argument. Currently, the first building block is the petty sessions area, which is more or less what we envisage as the local justice area, and it is the fundamental aspect of the magistrates courts system, whereas courts board areas are an administrative structure whereby the administration of the courts, and not only magistrates courts, is enhanced.
Clearly, in determining a courts board area, consideration should be given to ensuring that petty sessions area and local justice area boundaries are not compromised. That is common sense. However, I am not convinced that we need to erect the concrete walls that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome suggests. In fact, subsection (6) of clause 8 already provides for consultation with the relevant courts board if boundary changes are under consideration. The powers are not entirely unfettered, but we need to realise that if the local justice area—the petty sessions area—is to be the main building block we need to ensure that there is some provision for latitude without the need for an Act of Parliament.
Amendment No. 5 would require that no local justice area would straddle more than one police authority area—sometimes known nowadays as a criminal justice system area—apart from the City-Metropolitan boundary in London. That is the current position with petty sessions area boundaries and it will also, initially, be the case for local justice area boundaries.
The second part of amendment No. 52 again refers to coterminosity with police areas. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) does not like the word "coterminosity", as it neatly describes what we are talking about. We expect a local justice area to have boundaries that will in future remain within those of a criminal justice system area but we would not want to
fetter our future discretion by making that a requirement of the Bill. It is important to remember that magistrates courts hear civil and family cases as well as criminal cases, so the organisation of a local justice area should not relate solely to the needs of the police and the CPS. We must allow some latitude to recognise those aspects that could affect the shape of a local justice area, but I do not envisage that this will be a significant issue in the initial establishment that we currently plan.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |