|
Mr. Heath: I think that the Minister is agreeing with me that the local justice areas should be entirely within a single courts board area. All he is saying is that one is established before the other. Would he find acceptable an amendment to the definition of the courts boards areas that ensured that they covered a whole number—an integer—of local justice areas? If that were done, there would not be the problem of local justice areas straddling the borders of courts boards areas. I think that he and I would agree that that would not be conducive to good administration.
Mr. Leslie: That may well be the effect of the final product, as we move from the transitional phase, during which we simply replicate the petty sessions areas, to the new system. However, other matters must be taken into account when considering courts boards areas, given that those do not just relate to magistrates courts issues. We must consider that in more detail, although that is not to say that there should not be widespread consultation on such matters. Subsection (6) already provides for consultation with the relevant courts board, in the event that boundary changes were
Column Number: 70
to be given further consideration after the first transitional phase.
Amendment No. 119, tabled by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, would ensure that
''No local justice area may include areas which form part of more than one area established under Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1996''.
That is similar to amendment No. 118. The intention behind amendment No. 119 is that such an area should not straddle more than one criminal justice service area, apart from in London, where there are the classic anomalies of the City and metropolitan boundary areas. That is the current position with petty sessions area boundaries and it will also apply initially to those of local justice areas. We expect that such boundaries will be included within those of a criminal justice service area. However, we do not want to commit to ensuring that in the Bill. It is important to remember that magistrates courts also hear civil and family cases, not just criminal cases. The organisation of local justice areas is not solely reliant on the needs of the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, and to tie it to the considerations of criminal justice service areas would be, in a sense, to pre-empt and negate considerations that may be necessary in respect of civil and family cases.
Given the wider responsibilities of the magistrates courts system, it would be wrong at this stage to include such restrictive amendments in the Bill. However, I assure Committee members who have raised particular points that if we can keep the boundaries structures simple and clear, that will be our intention. I understand entirely that the amendment was tabled to try to ensure as great a level of coterminosity as possible, but I hope that it will, for the time being, be withdrawn.
Mr. Hawkins: I think that the Minister understands entirely what we are aiming at. I do not want to prolong the debate, but I would have preferred it if something along the lines of my amendments and those of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome were included in the Bill. I understand that we are not really falling out on an issue of principle. We are simply talking about the mechanics of the Bill. The Minister has given some helpful reassurances, which are now on the record. In the light of those, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Appointment of lay justices etc.
Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in
I hope either that the Government will not resist this amendment on such an important matter, or, even if they feel that they must, that they might table a similar Government amendment. We on the Conservative Benches think that it is important that
Column Number: 71
there be some scrutiny by both Houses of Parliament of how lay justices are to be trained.
Earlier in our proceedings reference was made to the fact that in this country we are tremendously fortunate to have about 96 or 97 per cent. of criminal cases dealt with by amateur volunteers—people who devote their lives to public service as justices of the peace. Without their dedication, we would not have such a highly regarded legal system. When I talk to people in other countries, they are amazed that we are fortunate enough to have a system that relies so heavily on volunteers, which of course can save Governments of any party a huge amount of money—it would be much more expensive for the taxpayer to transfer to an entirely professional judiciary.
Although we have volunteers who do all that work as justices of the peace, Parliament needs to have sight of the content of their training courses. I cannot see why there should be any opposition to that. We are saying not that Parliament should interfere, but simply that it should see what is on the syllabus.
I used to have great concerns about a completely different matter many years ago, which was how teachers were trained. I was suspicious about some of the things that were in the teacher training college syllabuses, but, fortunately, when we were in government my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), then Secretary of State for Education, looked at what was in the syllabuses and got a lot of the political correctness taken out. However, that is a different matter and we are not talking about that here. We are talking about Parliament having a view about what is going to be in the syllabus, as I have called it, for training lay justices. The point is shortly stated, but it is nevertheless an important one and I hope that the Government will not seek to resist the amendment.
Mr. Leslie: Subsection (4), as the hon. Gentleman has rightly pointed out, enables the Lord Chancellor to make rules about lay justice training. The amendment seeks to impose an unnecessary restriction on the potential ability of the Lord Chancellor to train lay justices. I am concerned about the amendment. Although I can understand the natural curiosity of the hon. Gentleman, he is insisting that the contents as well as the rules of the training courses should be laid before both Houses of Parliament, which is a slightly worrying suggestion to make. Doing so would be a little excessive and perhaps an unprecedented level of parliamentary scrutiny. We obviously want to see training for lay justices up and down the country, but we also feel that the basis of that training should have a degree of independence.
Angela Watkinson (Upminster): I wonder whether I could press the Minister on the eligibility of those who are trained. The high cost of training magistrates must be borne in mind, and there needs to be an assurance that a significant number of years of service could be had from a trained magistrate to justify the cost of that training. However, I have heard of cases where older people have been refused on the ground of age, and it
Column Number: 72
would be a pity if their experience and wisdom, which come with age, were lost to the magistracy.
Mr. Leslie: As I get older and wiser about these matters, I realise and appreciate the benefits that can come from age and experience. I have had about 15 or 16 days' experience in the field of courts and the wonderful world of the Lord Chancellor, and I feel that great experience should never be thrown away lightly. I will look at whether there are any bars to training that unnecessarily discard experience. I am sure that the system does not do that, but I hear what the hon. Lady says.
There needs to be a degree of independence in the training process. The Judicial Studies Board manages the training of lay justices on behalf of the Lord Chancellor, and it does so well. It is an important aspect of the magistracy's judicial independence that such training should be seen to be free from outside—and particularly political—interference.
Certain training courses need to be prepared quickly—perhaps in response to legislative change—and the amendment would delay or fetter the process of changing or preparing them: their content would need to be laid before Parliament on every such occasion. I am not aware of the contents of training courses in any other field of public life needing to be laid before Parliament.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath says that he does not wish to interfere with the content of such courses, but if we were to have a provision stating that their contents should be laid before Parliament, that would implicitly suggest that Parliament may wish to debate the contents, or even to give approval of them, and that would be the wrong avenue to go down. Because of those concerns, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Hawkins: I am disappointed with the Minister's response because having the contents of the training laid before Parliament is an important matter. We might need to return to the matter on Report. The Minister helpfully suggested that he will look at the important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), and I hope that he will also continue to keep this matter in mind, so that at the same time that he is exploring my hon. Friend's concerns about older people being considered as magistrates, he will look again at whether it would do any harm for the Bill to state that the contents of the training should be laid before Parliament. That is not an excessive request, but as I do not wish to prolong the debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
| 
