|
Column Number: 097
Standing Committee D
Tuesday 1 July 2003
(Afternoon)
[Mr. Bill O'Brien in the Chair]
Ordered,
That the Order of the Committee of 26th June 2003 be amended as follows—
In the Table—
(a) in the entry for 1st July, in the second column, for ''Clauses 46 to 65, Schedule 5; Clauses 66 to 85.'' substitute ''Clauses 46 to 57.'';
(b) in the entry for 8th July, in the second column, for ''Clauses 86 to 94;'' substitute ''Clauses 58 to 65, Schedule 5; Clauses 66 to 94;''.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
Clause 27
Justices' clerks and assistant clerks
Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 34, in
2.30 pm
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment No. 37, in
Amendment No. 35, in
clause 27, page 12, line 28, leave out 'or'.
Amendment No. 36, in
Amendment No. 38, in
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): Before the break, I think that I had dealt with amendments Nos. 34, 37 and 38, which were largely about the process of appointment of justices' clerks and their assistants. My concern was that the amendments would be undesirable in terms of normal civil service employment practices.
I now want to consider amendments Nos. 35 and 36, tabled by the official Opposition. Amendment No. 35 is largely a paving amendment for amendment No. 36, which would result in the Bill stating:
''A person may be designated as a justices' clerk''
if he or she is appointed
''with the agreement of the chairman and deputy chairman of the local justice area.''
Column Number: 098
I have a number of concerns about that proposal. The amendment would require the Lord Chancellor to hold such consultations before making the appointment, and that would be impractical, as it would require him to decide on the area to which he would assign the clerk before the appointment, and then to consult the local bench on the appointment. That would severely restrict the flexibility that a new courts agency would achieve, and the new business processes that we want put in place.
It would also be undesirable for the chairman and deputy chairman of an area to be able to veto staff appointments made by the Lord Chancellor; there will be ample opportunities for normal consultation, as we said earlier in our proceedings. Clause 21 gives the Lord Chancellor the duty to take reasonable and practical steps to consult lay justices on matters affecting the performance of their duties and to ascertain their views on such matters. I assure the Committee that magistrates will be consulted on such relevant matters—for example, before a change in the assignment of a justices' clerk to an area. Clause 27(4) gives the Lord Chancellor the duty to consult the chairman or his or her deputy on the lay justices assigned to the area.
I hope that in the light of my comments, and those that I made before we adjourned this morning, the amendment will be withdrawn.
Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): Welcome back to the chairmanship of our proceedings, Mr. O'Brien. I am grateful to the Minister for what he has put on the record, before and after the Adjournment, and in the light of his reassurances, I am content to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 39, in
clause 27, page 13, line 7, at end insert—
'( ) Before the Lord Chancellor takes steps to remove a justices' clerk from office he shall—
(a) consult the justices for the relevant local justice area,
(b) consult the courts board for the area which includes the relevant local justice area, and
(c) consider any recommendations made to him by the justices, the courts board or the justices' clerk who is under notice of removal.'.
This amendment would have a slightly different effect.
We were talking about consultation before people were appointed, but we are now talking about the need for some level of protection before anyone is removed from the position of justices' clerk. It would be helpful if there were consultation with both the lay justices and the courts boards before the removal of a justices' clerk was contemplated. Their recommendations, or any representations by the clerk, should be considered.
I hope that the Minister will understand that we are trying to provide a level of employee protection in the Bill, and I will listen with interest to what he has to say on the subject.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): I welcome you to the Committee this afternoon, Mr. O'Brien. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for North
Column Number: 099
Norfolk (Norman Lamb), fresh from his travails on the Finance Bill Committee. He will, no doubt, return there in the near future.
I agree with the view expressed by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), but not with the precise wording of his amendment—I hope that he can live with that. There seems to be a need for some sort of protection for justices' clerks, beyond that which is available through normal employment protection. They have a judicial function, if not a judicial post, so it seems appropriate that something should be laid down in statute regarding the process of their removal.
My only quibble with the hon. Gentleman is the wording of paragraph (c) of his amendment, which states that the Lord Chancellor shall
''consider any recommendations made to him by the justices, the courts board or the justices' clerk who is under notice of removal.''
It occurs to me that a recommendation from the person who is about to be sacked might be that he should keep his job. ''Representations'' would be a better term.
Mr. Hawkins: Of course I am not wedded to my wording. It might interest the hon. Gentleman to know that in the long watches of the night when I was preparing today's speeches on the amendments, I thought the same thing. I should have included the words ''or representations by'', which is why I used the word ''representations'' rather than ''recommendations'' when I spoke to this group of amendments. If I had not drafted them late at night, I might have included those words.
Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman must get to bed earlier—but his argument does not detract from the case that he has made, which I support. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
Mr. Leslie: The amendment would require the Lord Chancellor to consult both the justices of the relevant local justice area and the courts boards covering that area, before taking steps to remove a justices' clerk from his or her post. It would also require the Lord Chancellor to consider representations made by the justices, the courts boards or the justices' clerk himself or herself before taking such a step. While I understand the motivation behind the issue—given that the posts are important and that it is necessary to take great care over such matters—the amendment is undesirable. It would require the employer—the Lord Chancellor—to consult widely on what might be sensitive staffing issues and personnel matters.
For example, it might be inappropriate to consult the courts boards on the assignment, or removal, of a justices' clerk, when they might have a strategic role in local statutory matters. They will not be the employers' body, nor will they represent the interests of local magistrates. In the event of a clerk being removed from his post, there would be nothing to prevent local courts boards, magistrates or justices' clerks themselves from making such representation to the new courts agency. That is what I imagine will be normal and likely, should those organisations and bodies choose to do that.
Column Number: 100
In the course of employment it can happen that certain individuals need to be removed from their posts for very delicate and sensitive reasons, so such widespread consultation may not always be appropriate.
However, I assure the Committee that in practice, magistrates will continue to be consulted about decisions that affect them, including the assignment or removal of a justices' clerk. Clause 21 gives the Lord Chancellor a duty to take reasonable and practical steps to consult on matters affecting the lay justices and the performance of their duties, and to ascertain their views on such matters. We tabled amendments in the other place to make it clear not only that justices' clerks are to be assigned to particular local justice areas, but that the chairman of the justices must be consulted before a clerk's assignment is changed. That consultation matters, not the wider question of a person's employment or suitability for employment by the new agency. Justices should not be prevented from expressing views on such matters, but they should not have a natural entitlement to do so.
Norman Lamb (North Norfolk): If chairmen of the justices are to be consulted on changes to assignments, surely it would be appropriate for them to be consulted on proposed dismissal. Consultations can certainly be on a confidential basis, and it is appropriate that they should be. According to normal employment law principles, for a dismissal to be fair, those people ought to be consulted. Best practice must dictate that the Lord Chancellor, based at the centre, should be consulting at local level before dismissing a clerk under such circumstances.
|
