| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Heath: I am being intervened on by a lawyer, to whom I shall give way briefly.
Mr. Hawkins: Despite the fact that he is not a lawyer and I am, does the hon. Gentleman agree that he and I have in common a slight concern that, just as we
approached Report stage and Third Reading, we both received letters from the Lord Chancellor saying that the Bill might be used in another place as a vehicle for yet further changes on criminal procedure rules, which—even though that dog did not bark tonight—did not suggest that the Government had necessarily finished tinkering?
Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is too modest. Far from finishing their tinkering, the Government had in mind wholesale disruption. However, they were dissuaded from that course of action by one simple fact—they could never get it through another place. The Bill would have returned to the Commons as sure as eggs is eggs, and it would have ping-ponged backwards and forwards—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) says that eggs do not ping-pong, but this one would have done so and destructive tendencies would have been displayed in the process.
Before I extend that metaphor any further, I will accept that it is time to call it a day. However, as I have said, we have established some base camps. Over the next few months, we will see the developing future of the judiciary and the Department, the development of a supreme court, the abolition of the Lord Chancellor and changes in judicial appointments. This is the biggest constitutional change in the judiciary for more than a century. It is essential that we get it right, so I make no bones about the fact that we will scrutinise the Department's next piece of legislation every bit as closely as we have the Bill, and we will make every attempt in, I hope, a constructive way, to make it better. However, if it does not do the job we will reject it either here or in another place.
9.51 pm
David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire): The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) expressed regret that he is not a member of the large minority of professional lawyers in the House. Neither am I—I am a member of the even more reviled minority of accountants.
Mr. Heath: As a matter of record, I expressed no regrets whatsoever—it is a badge of honour.
David Taylor: I accept that clarification and correction, but I draw to the attention of the House the fact that I am a member of the Magistrates Association, and was a lay magistrate on the Ashby petty sessional division in the '80s and early '90s sitting at Coalville courthouse, and am now a member of the supplemental list of that bench.
Unifying the administrations of all the courts in England and Wales is a defining point in the history of the lay magistracy, and a watershed in the development of the judicial system. In future, magistrates will be welcomed as full partners in the judiciary—some may say that that is long overdue—and will share the same rules, guidance, guidelines, practice and procedures. The Bill introduces sweeping organisational changes to the court system in England and Wales, and many of its clauses relate to the lay magistracy. When it was first published, our concerns focused on the role and
function of what were then called courts administration councils—now courts boards. The key matters about which the lay magistracy expressed concern included consultation with magistrates, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) mentioned; the size and number of local justice areas; the recruitment strategy for magistrates—I am not yet convinced that one exists that is worthy of that name; and supplemental lists, the future of which I am glad has been secured. The House will have heard me say that I am a member of such a list. The lay magistracy also had reservations about the grounds for removal of magistrates from the bench; the training of magistrates; and the roles and powers of justices' clerks and fines officers.Amendments to the Bill in the House of Lords have fully met some concerns and improved the situation regarding others. However, there is great anxiety that none of those gains should be lost. The Government must keep certain matters under close review, and I shall give a small number of instances. In relation to the roles and functions of courts boards, for example, the unified administration of magistrates, crown and county courts naturally entailed the replacement of both magistrates courts committees and the Court Service. In their place, local management bodies with executive powers were needed. The original proposals for the court administration councils were quite unsatisfactory, as they were a hybrid of management and consultation. They appeared to be toothless talking shops with no local ownership and no ability to prioritise local requirements or reflect local needs. Magistrate membership of the CACs was minimal.
Although the Government remain firm about the courts boards' role being non-executive, amendments to the Bill have improved the situation and resulted in courts boards being given an effective role and the ability to make genuine decisions. We welcome that. The Bill now provides that at least two magistrates will be members of each courts board. I congratulate the Government on these changes, and all those in the House and in another place who brought about the changes through pressure.
Full executive power remains the preference of many magistrates, and any further strengthening of that role would be welcome. Any loss of the powers that have been gained would be disastrous.
The number of courts boards has yet to be decided, but account must be taken of the desirability of ensuring that their areas are coterminous with current police authorities. It is important that the number should not be lower than 42, the number of police authorities, in order to retain that vital local accountability and identity. I urge the Government to accept that figure and acknowledge the importance of that principle.
On consultation, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath said, after much pressure in this place and elsewhere, not least from Back Benchers, the Government have imposed a duty on the Lord Chancellor to consult lay justices on matters affecting them in the performance of their duties. It was disappointing that that was not in the original Bill, but its inclusion in it now is to be welcomed. This is a separate matter from the administration of the court, but it is vital for confidence in the system. It is a welcome restatement of the centrality of local people to local justice.
Frequently, at Question Time, Ministers restate their view of the importance of local people administering local justice to local people in local courthouses. Current bench areas are to be renamed local justice areas, and we have been assured that the boundaries of these will be the same as existing benches to begin with. Any changes thereafter will involve consultation, but I regret that there are no guarantees or safeguards against future rationalisation or centralisation.
The local justice areas must remain local. The greater distances already travelled following court closures and amalgamations are putting a strain on the court system and undermining local justice. Court closures have an enormous effect on a number of agencies and on the general public. The police have to spend more time coming to court for criminal matters. Youth offending teams, which are essential to the youth court, and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, which is essential for family proceedings, lose links with their local courts. Those who have to attend as victims or witnesses suffer cost and inconvenience, and there is a greater risk that they will simply fail to appear.
Newspapers cover courts less frequently if they are more distant, and that weakens the deterrent effect of judicial hearings and penalties. Should there be yet more court closures, there would be a related negative impact on the recruitment and retention of magistrates. Clause 30, as we heard, 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 justices' clerks, the relationship between justices' clerks and benches is of the highest importance. I am pleased to see that clause 27 retains a specific link by assigning a justices' clerk to specific local justice areas. It is a welcome addition to the original Bill, and it must be a central feature of the new system.
Finally, on fines officers, magistrates are broadly content with the new fines officers and the fines collection scheme. We are satisfied that the benches will retain judicial control, and that fines officers will be operating a scheme that has been agreed and imposed by a bench. Benches will also be able to retain a case, rather than make a collection order, if they think that is the proper course of action. The piloting of the collection scheme in order to test the efficacy of various options within it has met with wide support.
The unified administration recommended by Lord Justice Auld has great benefits for court users and for the magistracy. For court users, there will be a clear understanding of the court system, a commonality of procedures and processes, and a logical use of court buildings. There is potential for a further streamlining of transfer of cases between magistrates courts and Crown court, and between family proceedings courts and county courts.
For me, two key questions remain and I would like the Minister to address both. First, how will the unified administration of the courts affect the relationship between the magistracy and the higher judiciary? There is great potential for much more contact with the higher
judiciary and vice versa, which can only improve a consistency of approach to judicial decision making. For magistrates courts, there is an existing special relationship with justices' clerks, who must be part of any judicial consultative group.Secondly, is there an adequate number of justices? If not, what can we do to address that and how many will be required? Any new system of court administration will depend heavily on those foot soldiers of the whole process, the lay magistracy, so we must have the appropriate number in appropriate places who are appropriately trained and appropriately committed. However, the number of justices has decreased dramatically over the past few years. Now, the magistracy is approximately 3,000, or some 10 per cent., under strength.
We know that the Lord Chancellor's Department has a national recruitment strategy, but it has to be backed up with resources, particularly those aimed at encouraging employers to allow their magistrate employees time off work. Inability to have time off for bench duties is a huge disincentive to applying for the magistracy and the most common cause of resignations.
The Bill is a major step towards modernisation, transparency and justice for all. I support its core conclusions and its core clauses, and I believe that the improvements made to it enable it to be a measure that I can support. I commend the Bill to the House.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |