1 Introduction
1. This is the Committee's First Report since its
establishment, in January this year, to scrutinise the work of
the Lord Chancellor's Department and associated public bodies.
It is the result of an early decision that we should undertake
a brief inquiry into the very significant piece of legislation
coming out of the Lord Chancellor's Department which is the Courts
Bill. Although the Bill follows the report of the Auld Review
of the criminal courts, and was prefigured in the White Paper
Justice for All,[1]
it was not itself published in draft and as a result had been
the subject of no direct pre-legislative scrutiny. We therefore
considered that it would be helpful to the House if we were to
produce a brief report highlighting the main issues of concern,
particularly those on which bodies submitting evidence to us have
anxieties.
The Courts
Bill
2. The Courts Bill was introduced in the House of
Lords on 28 November 2002. On introduction, the Bill was 113 pages
in length, consisting of 101 clauses and 7 schedules. The Bill
is due in the House of Commons for Second Reading on Monday 9
June, having been amended in a number of places during its
passage through the Lords.
3. The White Paper Justice for All, which
preceded the Bill, set out the intention to:
"legislate to integrate the management of the
courts within a single courts agency to replace the existing Magistrates'
Courts' Committees and the Court Service. This will build on the
best attributes of both organisations to work to deliver decentralised
management and local accountability within a national framework.
The aim of the new agency will be to enable management decisions
to be taken locally by community focused local management boards,
but within a strong national framework of standards and strategy
direction. It will be accountable to Parliament through the Lord
Chancellor's department."[2]
4. The White Paper recognised that the current fragmented
court framework was divisive, inefficient and lacked national
accountability. Accordingly, the proposals for a unified court
management service requiring the "integration of management
and local flexibility and accountability within a national framework
of national standards" received much support and forms the
basis for the Courts Bill.
5. If implemented, the Bill will make significant
changes to the present court system, including the unification
of the criminal courts and the abolition of the present Magistrates'
Courts Committee structure. It will introduce new courts boards[3]
and make provisions for fines officers and court security officers.
It will also allow courts to make orders for costs against third
parties in criminal proceedings and award damages in the form
of periodical payments in personal injury cases. A central role
is given to the Lord Chancellor under the Bill's provisions, which
place him under a general duty to ensure an efficient and effective
system to support the courts.
Conduct
of our inquiry
6. To assist Members of the House of Commons with
their examination of the Bill, we decided to hold a brief series
of evidence sessions before the Bill reached this House. Following
an announcement by the Committee of its intention to take oral
evidence on the Bill, we received written submissions from a number
of organisations, including:
-
Association of Justices' Chief Executives
-
Law Society
-
General Council of the Bar
-
Magistrates' Association
-
Justices' Clerks Society
-
Central Council of Magistrates' Court Committees
-
Medical Defence Union.
All these submissions were considered by the Committee.
Those which are not otherwise available (from the organisations
concerned)[4]
are published with this Report.[5]
7. Oral evidence was taken from a total of 9 organisations
and individuals over three sessions. They included the Law Society,
the General Council of the Bar, the Magistrates Association, the
Justices' Clerks' Society, Professor Lee Bridges (Legal Research
Institute, University of Warwick) and Nicola Padfield (Institute
of Criminology, University of Cambridge), as well as officials
from the Lord Chancellor's Department. All the oral evidence is
published with this Report.[6]
8. We have not attempted to conduct a detailed or
comprehensive review of the Bill. This aim of this Report has
been to highlight the most important and controversial measures
in time for the Second Reading in the House of Commons. The areas
we have concentrated on are:
-
The scope of the Lord Chancellor's powers, including
issues relating to court closures and accessibility (Parts 1 and
2 of the Bill)
-
Courts Boards (Part 1)
-
Justices' clerks (Part 2)
-
Fines officers (Part 2)
-
Court security (Part 4)
-
Court fees and costs (Part 8).
Further
amendments planned
9. We understand that the Government is planning
to bring forward significant amendments to the Bill as it currently
stands in one area, namely fine enforcement. These may include
amendments enabling wider use of Attachments of Earnings and Deductions
from Benefits within the fines collection scheme, particularly
for offenders with a track record of default. It may also include
the creation of a new offence penalising those who fail to provide
means information and/or the financial details necessary to allow
an attachment order to be made. In addition, the Home Office are
looking at the feasibility of alternative sentences including
unpaid work instead of fines in particular circumstances. The
new amendments and alternative sentences, if taken forward, will
need to be piloted along with those already set out in Schedule
3.[7]
The Committee hopes that these amendments
will be brought forward in time for Committee Stage rather than
Report Stage, and that the timetable for Committee and Report
Stages will allow for adequate scrutiny of provisions which have
not been considered in the House of Lords.
1 Cm 5563, July 2002 Back
2
Ibid, p 148 Back
3
Originally known as "court administration councils",
but renamed by an amendment in the House of Lords Back
4
Eg. Second Reading Briefs Back
5
HC 526-II Back
6
Ibid Back
7
HL Deb, 8 May 2003, col 1256 Back
| 
