|
Norman Lamb: I appreciate that there may be concerns in some quarters about the creeping influence of the Lord Chancellor. I recognise that clause 59(5) makes it clear that the inspectors cannot inspect the making of judicial decisions or the exercise of any judicial discretion.
Perhaps the Minister could place on record the absolute importance of the separation of powers, so that it is clear that we are talking only about the administration of the courts, and the measure cannot impinge any further, on to judicial discretion.
Mr. Leslie: I do not often say this, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: he has hit the nail on the head. Clause 59(5) does indeed ensure that there will be no transgression into
''making judicial decisions, or . . . exercising any judicial discretion.''
The measure is about the administration of the courts system, and there is no justifiable reason to exclude the High Court from the wider inspection regime.
9.45 am
Amendment No. 68 would explicitly include in the Bill the fact that the annual report from the chief inspector should
''highlight best practice and catalogue inefficiences.''
We do not need to include that. For a start, I believe that the inspectorate and the chief inspector can be
Column Number: 137
trusted to do a good job in respect of the nature and content of their annual report. Also, there will be an opportunity for the Lord Chancellor's officials in the Department for Constitutional Affairs to give guidance. As has been stated, we want both the good and the bad to be brought out in the annual report.
If the intention of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath in tabling the amendment was to seek a commitment that we would make sure that all aspects, not just the positive, could be touched on in an annual report, I certainly give him that assurance. I do not believe that mentioning that specific aspect of the editorial content of an annual report in the Bill would be right. That would be rather inflexible. I believe that guidance can deal adequately with the content of the annual report. On that basis, I must urge the Committee to reject all four of the hon. Gentleman's amendments, but I hope that they have at least given us the opportunity to touch on several aspects of the importance of the inspection process.
Mr. Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister for a number of things that he has said. It is helpful to have on record the fact that the annual report will highlight best practice and catalogue inefficiences, as we wanted it to. If the report started not to do that, people could refer back to what the Minister said today, which will be recorded in Hansard. Likewise, the Minister has given a firm and categorical assurance this morning about the inspectorate reporting on information technology services. The debate has been useful in getting those matters on the record.
As the Minister will probably appreciate, I was not quite as impressed with what he said about the money side of things. He is clearly still leaving the door open for the inspectorate to grow too much, and for too much taxpayers' money to be spent on it. Nevertheless, we recognise that the inspectorate will be doing an important job. As the Minister rightly said, we wanted to probe the issue, and at least some of what the Minister said can be referred back to. I take his point about amendment No. 67. He says that we could have included all the other courts, too. We were using the High Court to probe the subject. We have had a useful debate, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 59 to 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 64
Power to alter judicial titles
Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 69, in
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 100, in
Column Number: 138
Mr. Hawkins: This point can be shortly stated. We wish to ensure that the Lord Chancellor has regard to the recommendations of the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Family Division and the Vice-Chancellor. That obligation should be clearly stated in the Bill. Amendment No. 100 would make the same provision for Northern Ireland. There is no good reason why the Lord Chancellor should not be obliged to have regard to the recommendations of the most senior figures in the judiciary under the Bill. I will listen with interest to the Minister's comments on that matter.
Mr. Leslie: As the hon. Gentleman has said, the amendment would expressly require the Lord Chancellor to ''have regard to . . . recommendations'' of the heads of division following consultation with them before exercising his order-making power to amend judicial titles in England and Wales. Amendment No. 100 deals with the Northern Ireland situation.
I am advised that the amendment is unnecessary. As a matter of public law, there is an express statutory requirement to consult. It follows that the Lord Chancellor must already take the results of that consultation into account before making his decision—in this case, before making the relevant order. A number of judicial decisions have shown what is required where there is a requirement to consult, and they make it clear that the decision maker must take account of the results of the consultation. Otherwise, his or her decision may be open to challenge.
Hon. Members will clearly recall the comments of Lord Justice Simon Brown in the case of Regina v. Devon county council ex parte Baker in 1995. Drawing from earlier authorities, he described the request for consultation as including,
''that the product of consultation must be conscientiously taken into account in finalising any . . . proposals.''
Notwithstanding that clear legal position, I assure the Committee that the Lord Chancellor will take into account the views of the heads of division in respect of any amendments to judicial titles in England and Wales. The Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland will do so in the case of amendments to judicial titles in Northern Ireland, before making orders under the sections. That matter is enshrined in general principle and I am happy to confirm it explicitly in respect of the power to alter judicial titles. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.
Mr. Hawkins: In the light of the Minister's clear assurances, I am happy to do so. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 66
Judges having powers of District Judges
(Magistrates' Courts)
Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 70, in
clause 66, page 31, line 20, leave out from 'matters' to end of line 21.
Column Number: 139
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 71, in
clause 66, page 31, line 30, leave out subsection (4).
Mr. Hawkins: We are considering an important part of the Bill that deals with the way in which family matters are considered. There is a number of further such issues to which we will return. I have detailed knowledge of them because during my years of practice at the Bar I worked in family law. The purpose of our amendments Nos. 70 and 71 is to question the Minister about whether it is wise to extend so widely the jurisdiction over family matters. These are specialised areas—too specialised to have the general extensions that are set out in clause 66(1)(b) and subsection (4).
The safeguards that we need are not sufficiently set out in the Bill. I am probing the Minister about that, and I will listen with interest to what he says in response. If every holder of a judicial office as specified in subsection (2) has the powers of a JP who is a district judge in relation to family proceedings, that will be too wide. Specific skills are involved in hearing family law cases. Therefore, the Bill should not give a general power that is very wide.
I am not suggesting that, in practice, all holders of judicial office will find themselves hearing family cases, but I am sure that the Minister is well aware from the briefings that he has had in his short time in his new position that there are great sensitivities about family proceedings. The fact that so much parliamentary time has recently been taken up with issues such as domestic violence reinforces that point.
There was a time when I found myself regularly doing a number of tragic domestic violence cases. Domestic violence injunctions are a particularly harrowing aspect of the law. Back in the days when I was in practice, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, some judges were much better at hearing those harrowing matters than others.
I am sure that the Minister understands the spirit behind what we are doing. It is worth while to query the provision, to hear what the Minister has to say and for that to be on the record. These are probing amendments. We want a categoric assurance from the Minister on what is an important issue.
Norman Lamb: I should take this opportunity to declare an interest: I am a member of the Law Society and a solicitor.
I do not have enormous experience in this area but I share the hon. Gentleman's concerns. It is a specialist area and specific sensitivities are involved, and the transfer across may not always be appropriate. I would be interested to hear from the Minister how he expects the measure to work in practice. Will there be a list of specified judiciary who will be appropriate for transfer across?
| 
