|
Mr. Heath: I am grateful for that explanation. I still think that the clause is not terribly transparently worded. I assume, therefore, that there is no capacity to remove someone from the supplemental list for misconduct, misbehaviour or permanent incapacity.
Mr. Johnson: I do not understand what the purpose of the supplemental list is. Does it list people who are no longer allowed to serve or people who have served and are now receiving a mark of distinction? What is its purpose?
Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman has got to the nub of the issue. The supplemental list is a sort of retirement home for magistrates who are, in a variety of ways, past their sell-by dates. When it is honorific, it is likely to concern someone in the other place, but I should not say that.
Mr. Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston): I wish to defend the honour of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) who is a member of the supplemental list. That is an outrageous slur on her character. She is not the only Member of Parliament on it. People in other occupations have gone on to the list because their current occupation debars them. If my hon. Friend retired from her seat,
Column Number: 84
she would be able to continue as a member of the bench.
Mr. Heath: I was coming to that precise point. The list has two aspects: one is a way of removing somebody so they are not allowed to serve; the other is a way of keeping somebody in abeyance while they temporarily cannot serve, so that they can return to the active bench at the end of that period. The wording of the clause does not make that distinction in any way, and I do not apologise for the misunderstanding that I was guilty of, because it is possible to construe the provision in exactly the way that I did. The Minister may like to look at the matter again.
It is clearly necessary to have a method of getting someone back on the active roll, as it were, under appropriate circumstances. That is what the Minister is trying to ensure. Can I assume that there is no provision for removing someone from the supplemental list who should jolly well not have been on it at all as they were unfit to practice as a magistrate under any circumstances?
Angela Watkinson: Further to a point that I made earlier, there seems to be a link between people reaching the age of 70 and going on to the supplemental list. I do not include the hon. Member for Lewisham, East in that bracket. There is an implication in clause 13 that being 70 automatically precludes somebody from performing a magistrate's duties. The vast majority of people aged 70 are still in full possession of their faculties, and therefore the vast majority of magistrates are, too. It would be a great mistake to put them out to grass purely for that reason.
Mr. Heath: The hon. Lady raises a separate point and one that has troubled people for some time—the question of when people should step down from judicial appointments of any sort when there is an age limit. There has been a lot of regulation about the statutory age of retirement for judicial appointments. Can the Minister comment on that matter?
Mr. Leslie: Believe it or not, I am assured by officials that the provisions that we are dealing with are a lot clearer that the current arrangements. The key is to bear in mind clause 12(2). That relates to the purpose of the supplemental list—and, indeed, to the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Henley. Further to his point concerning the removal of lay magistrates, the provisions of clause 11 would provide the opportunity to remove people for other reasons. The supplemental list is not the main vehicle to do that. Rather, it is a roll of honour for those who are no longer practising.
Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I now understand that, if somebody does awful things, they are not removed from the supplemental list, but from the lay magistracy under the provisions of clause 11. I now understand the Minister's point and his opaque legislation. We have taken far too long on the rather minor issue of the supplemental list, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 85
h3>Clause 15
Lay justices' allowances
10.45 am
Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in
Again, I can be quite brief. The amendment is intended to probe the Government on lay justices' allowances. In a debate earlier this morning, I referred to the debt that we all owe the lay magistracy for their dedication. Requiring consideration of allowances at least every five years—one could express that as once a Parliament—would be no bad thing. It is important to encourage people to continue to volunteer for the vital role of justice of the peace. At least reviewing their out-of-pocket expenses every five years would assure anybody who became a JP and provide useful assistance. I am sure that the Treasury mandarins have told the Minister not to concede the point under any circumstances, but it is well worth probing.
Mr. Leslie: I have not spoken to any Treasury mandarins in my short time in my current post, although I may well seek to do so at the prompting of the hon. Gentleman. He is seeking to amend the clause, which relates to the allowances regime available for those who are magistrates, which provides a useful opportunity to record the gratitude not only of the Government but of the whole of Parliament for the immensely valuable work undertaken by magistrates. They do not do it for allowances, but deserve compensation for the sacrifices that they make in fulfilling their roles.
The clause is substantially the same as the existing power under the Justices of the Peace Act and will largely allow the Lord Chancellor to pay and determine allowances. They include allowances for the cost of travelling to and from the place where duties are performed, subsistence allowances for any specified period during which they are required to be away from their normal place of residence, and financial compensation for loss of earnings or social security benefits, or for additional expenditure incurred in the performance of duties.
The amendment would require the Lord Chancellor to review allowances every five years. That provision is not needed in the Bill. First, having a specified time span between such reviews introduces a matter of detail into the Bill that is not appropriate. Secondly, the levels of allowances are in any case reviewed annually, so five years would probably be too long an interval. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that the amendment is not needed and will withdraw it.
Mr. Hawkins: It is useful to have a record of the fact that the Minister recognises, as all hon. Members do, the importance of the work of lay magistrates. I did not really expect him to accept the amendment, but felt that it was important to have the debate, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Column Number: 86
Bill.
Mr. Miller: I am grateful to the Minister and I will take his thanks back home to Mrs. Miller, who is a magistrate of some 20 years standing.
The breadth of the magistracy in the area in which I live concerns me because it is supposed to represent the whole of the community. Over recent years, it has become more difficult to recruit suitable candidates, particularly people from manual occupations, because of the problems of release from work. Some of the bigger employers in the north-west used to wear as a badge of pride their habitual release of people from work to carry out such functions. Recruitment has become more difficult as employment units have become smaller. In small and medium companies, someone with a particular occupation might be the only person doing a certain job.
I recognise that there is no easy solution to that problem. Part of the solution is ensuring that lost-earnings compensation is kept up to a sensible level. Over the years, lost-earnings compensation has tended to be a miserly sum not in keeping with modern well-paid jobs. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister carefully to examine how we can maintain the balance of the bench while addressing some of the difficult problems concerning release to undertake duties such as those of the magistracy. I appreciate that the issue of release is covered in employment legislation, which is another Department's responsibility, but it may be sensible for the Minister to acquaint himself with that legislation to try to find a working balance, so that the problem, which is probably more acute in some parts of the country than others, is dealt with.
Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend raises an extremely interesting issue. I hope that he will pass on my best wishes to Mrs. Miller and thank her for her work as a magistrate in his constituency.
Mr. Miller: Just outside.
Mr. Leslie: Just outside my hon. Friend's constituency. He asked how we can encourage magistrates from diverse backgrounds to come forward to reflect society as a whole, which we want to see. I understand that the magistracy is relatively representative in comparison with other parts of the judiciary. For example, roughly equal numbers of men and women become magistrates, which is welcome.
I should like to make two points to my hon. Friend. First, the existing earnings-loss compensation already recognises those justices who are self-employed as opposed to those who are not, and the changing nature of industry and employment in society. Secondly, it is time that we had a national strategy for the recruitment of lay magistrates, and I will look to announce such provisions shortly. We must aim to target employers and under-represented groups more thoroughly. We must also examine the allowance structure to see whether it affects people volunteering to be magistrates. I hope, however, that my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston will recognise that the clause is necessary to continue the good, existing arrangements.
Column Number: 87
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
| 
