|
Mr. Leslie: I hate to dash the hon. Gentleman's hopes, but I have several reasons for not accepting it. The first point, which is not to be dismissed lightly, is that the Lord Chancellor, like all Ministers, should always act reasonably. In this case, the Lord Chancellor should always have good reason for removing lay justices, and he should not do so lightly or frivolously. The ordinary principles of administrative law require him not to act
Column Number: 80
unreasonably in taking such decisions. As I recall from the many happy hours that I spent debating the Local Government Bill, the Wednesbury principles of reasonableness apply to public administration, so the amendment would add little, if anything.
Secondly, I am advised by those helping to draft the legislation that the amendment would add unnecessary terminology. That would have the further disadvantage of implying that, whereas reasonable grounds are required for dismissal in this type of case, they may not be required in other cases. I would be concerned that, because the phrase ''reasonable grounds'' was not included for other decisions, other could infer that reasonability was less desirable when they were made. That might seem a small point, but I am advised that it is significant.
I hope that those two rather robust arguments will have persuaded the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Hawkins: I think that the Minister is being a little unreasonable, but I shall not pursue the point. However, he and those who advise him must be aware that the reasonable test has been applied to the actions of Secretaries of State and Ministers in many areas of legislation. I have been involved in a number of Standing Committees, as has the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, and we have seen such phrases in Bills.
The fact that all Ministers are under a general duty to act reasonably under the Wednesbury principles does not mean that reasonableness cannot be included in legislation. It is often to be found in legislation, and there is no reason why it should not be included in the Bill. However, I shall not waste the Committee's time by pursuing the point now. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
The supplemental list
Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in
This is a small amendment. It would be helpful if Parliament had a copy of the supplemental list. I see no reason why an updated copy of the list should not be placed in the Library of the House. It is only a small point, but I hope that the Minister will understand that we are trying to improve the provision of information, and the opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. I hope—at this time of day, without much optimism—that the Minister might not resist the amendment.
Mr. Kidney: A supplemental list already exists and this is a measure to preserve it. Can it already be found in the House of Commons Library?
Mr. Hawkins: I do not know, although the Minister will no doubt tell us.
Column Number: 81
When I read the Bill, however, it struck me that keeping the list in the Library and updating it would be a helpful way of increasing parliamentary scrutiny. I shall listen with interest to his reply.
10.30 am
Mr. Heath: I feel that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath is losing heart, which is a sad state of affairs at this time on a Tuesday morning. I cannot believe that the supplemental list will be essential reading for every Member of Parliament, but will the Minister tell us whether it is included in at least one reference volume? I imagine that it probably is and that it is not a discrete item.
Am I right in thinking that the posts of Clerk of the Crown in Chancery and permanent secretary in the Department for Constitutional Affairs are held simultaneously by the same individual? If so, questions about the supplemental list would presumably be open to direct parliamentary scrutiny.
Mr. Leslie: To answer the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, my understanding is that the current Clerk of the Crown in Chancery is, indeed, one and the same person as the permanent secretary in the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Indeed, I spoke about the amendments with him yesterday, and he was most interested to know that we were going to discuss them.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath wanted to make a short and interesting point, but it now means that I must describe the supplemental list and elaborate on some of the existing arrangements. Section 7 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997 provides that the names of lay justices who have retired, or stood down due to age or ill health, can be entered on a record known as the supplemental list, which many former justices of the peace regard as a roll of honour. The list is kept by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery at the headquarters of the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Each commission area has a keeper of the rolls, who holds a record of all serving and supplemental justices resident in their jurisdiction. The Bill maintains the office of keeper of the rolls, but defines its responsibilities in terms of groups of local justice areas, because commission areas will no longer apply.
I am afraid that the amendment is unnecessary and slightly impractical. It is the responsibility of keepers of the rolls to inform the secretary of commissions when a person on the supplemental list dies. Unfortunately, keepers must rely on the deceased's relatives to notify them, and many deaths go unrecorded. Understandably, even relatives who know of the procedure often overlook what is a relatively minor matter in comparison with the more pressing issues that they face. With the best will in the world, therefore, it would be slightly difficult to keep a completely up-to-date copy of the supplemental list available. That would negate one of the main intentions behind the amendment.
Furthermore, we consider it inappropriate and unnecessary for Parliament to hold a copy of the list, because it is essentially a record of local appointments. We do not retain lists of comparable voluntary
Column Number: 82
workers in, for example, the Territorial Army or the Royal Naval Reserve. Nor do we retain lists of school governors, special constables or lifeboat crews, and I can see no valid reason to make an exception for former lay justices. Given the sheer scale of the task, the length of the list and the difficulty in ensuring that it is regularly updated, the amendments would be particularly burdensome. Few hon. Members may have looked at the supplemental list, but I am sure that it will be accessible, under normal freedom of information arrangements, to those who want to see it in the bowels of the Department for Constitutional Affairs building. I hope that Committee members will not require it to be put in the House of Commons Library.
Mr. Hawkins: The Minister may have misheard me. I did not claim that the matter would be interesting, although I certainly said that it was a small debate. Nevertheless, it was useful for those points to be put on the record. Perhaps the permanent secretary is still Sir Hayden Phillips, with whom I had the great pleasure of working when he was permanent secretary at the Department of National Heritage, when my party was in government and I was parliamentary private secretary there. I am delighted to know that the position of Clerk of the Crown in Chancery is in such safe hands. It was helpful for the minister to put the full position on the record. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Removal of names from the supplemental list
Mr. Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 121, in
Again, this is partly a probing amendment to help us to understand under what circumstances the Lord Chancellor might direct the removal of a person's name from the supplemental list. However, it is also a little more than that. Under natural justice, a person should be entitled to know why they have been removed from what is essentially an honorific list. Subsection (1) contains a clear requirement for that to happen if a person
''ceases to be a justice of the peace.''
Subsection (2)(b), however, appears to be entirely discretionary on the part of the Lord Chancellor, unless it is intended to qualify the first provision. However, I do not think that it is. Perhaps the Minister could explain under what circumstances the Lord Chancellor would exercise his powers to direct the removal of a name and why he should not be required to give a reason for doing so, given that there are, perhaps understandably, none of the qualifications that apply to the removal of a lay justice from office. Clear grounds must be set out in statute. However, no such grounds are set out in the Bill, which is rather fuzzy as it is currently worded.
Column Number: 83
Mr. Leslie: We have touched briefly on the wonderful issue of the supplemental list. The hon. Gentleman's amendment may have arisen from a misunderstanding. I shall thrill the Committee with a detailed explanation—which I hope is clear and can be followed—of why that is so.
Under clause 13(4) a magistrate may be placed on the supplemental list at his own request. He may do that for various reasons, including, for example, the illness of a close relative. Under clause 13(5) a magistrate may be placed on the list by a direction from the Lord Chancellor on the grounds of incapacity.
Clause 14(2) provides for the removal of names from the supplemental list under the Lord Chancellor's direction, but only if the person's name is on the list as a result of clause 13(4) or (5). However, the removing of a name from the list is not a negative action. Clause 14(2) provides for a change in circumstances, which may mean that the person on the supplemental list would be able to serve again. The circumstances of a person whose name has been placed on the list under clause 13(4) or (5) may change. For example, a person who was previously incapacitated may regain their health and be able to serve again as a magistrate. Clause 14(2) ensures that the Lord Chancellor could allow such a person to continue their valuable service as a magistrate. We need that provision; without it a magistrate would, under clause 12(2), be prevented from serving.
It is unnecessary to provide for the Lord Chancellor to inform a person whose name was being removed under clause 14(2). He could make such a direction only if the person concerned were content for his name to be removed from that list. That would follow a request from that individual. I hope that my explanation gives comfort to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, and that he will withdraw his amendment.
|
