| Courts Bill [Lords]
|
|
Norman Lamb: I support the comments made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. I speak from experience as a solicitor and, in my early years, as a solicitor in local government, so I am aware of the rights of audience of legal executives in the range of courts described by the hon. Gentleman. Although legal executives may not have the same breadth and depth of training across the range of legal provision as solicitors and barristers, none the less their expertise in the areas in which they specialise is often deep, and well worth acknowledging by giving them a role on the committees that will be established under the Bill. The Minister ought to respond to the amendments by considering them seriously and giving the fellows of the Institute of Legal Executives the standing that they deserve by allowing them to contribute to the rule-making process. Mr. Leslie: The nature of the work of legal executives is important in ensuring that the legal system in its broadest sense works smoothly and effectively. As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath suggested, I wish to take the opportunity to put on record my thanks to the Institute of Legal Executives for provoking the debate. I understand that it prompted the hon. Gentleman to table specific amendments for discussion in Committee. It is perfectly legitimate that he has done so, but the amendments are not necessary. I shall not distinguish between the different natures of criminal, family or civil procedure rule committees, because the reason why the amendments should not be accepted applies to differing circumstances.
10.30 amFor a start, the membership of the committee is already capable of ensuring a broad range of representation, comprising not only the judiciary, the legal profession and the voluntary sector, but individuals from other organisations with particular experience in various jurisdictions. I recognise that important and excellent work is undertaken by legal executives throughout the country, but it would be a Column Number: 149 leap to say that the currently suggested members of committees, especially solicitors, could not bring the full coverage of specialist knowledge or value to the process of making procedural rules, and that we would need specifically to make legal executives part of the membership. Those whom we envisage as members of the rules committees will be capable of covering such specialist work adequately.For example, the civil procedure rule committee will be made up of practising solicitors who have direct experience of the processes in which legal executives become involved. Such people are capable of representing that cadre of interests on the committee. The strategic purpose of the committees is to produce procedural rules that benefit the administration throughout the criminal, family and civil jurisdictions. That requires a broad understanding of the justice system, as well as an understanding of the details of specific court procedures. Adequate specialist interest will be represented. If a committee is discussing an issue that requires the specific input of legal executives, there will be nothing to prevent it from asking representative organisations for their views or advice. The opportunity for the committee to consult different organisations, including the Institute of Legal Executives and representatives of legal executives in general, will exist. It is possible for committee proceedings to be informed by consultation and dialogue with organisations such as the Institute of Legal Executives. Simply because the committee's membership may not explicitly comprise legal executives, that would not preclude their views from forming part of its consideration. Norman Lamb: Will the criminal procedure rule committee have a role in determining rights of audience before courts? Mr. Leslie: I understand that that will not be the remit of the criminal procedure rule committee—inspiration has struck me just at the right moment, as members of the Committee may have noticed. It would not be right to lose the flexibility of the membership of the committee as set out under the Bill. If circumstance change in future, it is possible that we could alter membership if something was so transparently obvious and we had missed a particular set of expertise from membership of the committee. At present, the composition lists strike the right balance, and in view of the obvious respect that the Committee has shown to the work of legal executives, I hope that hon. Members consider that we have struck the right balance. Mr. Hawkins: I am disappointed with the Minister's response. It is not good enough to say that solicitors can deal with such matters. As I made clear, there are many cases in which legal executives do so. They are so much in control of the case at the sharp end, that in many cases their expertise is different from that of solicitors. Given the way in which the rules committees will operate, they would have specific expertise and skill to offer, and it is important to state that in the Bill. I shall therefore press amendment No. 138 to a division when the time Column Number: 150 comes—but I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No 137.Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 72, in
'one of whom must be from an organisation which represents victims of crime'.
Mr. Hawkins: We are now on to a different subject. I wish to include a requirement in subsection (2)(k) that the people who will be undertaking the work represent voluntary organisations, rather than merely appear to do so. Amendment No. 27 would ensure specific representation for those who are working on behalf of victims of crime. For many years I have worked with Victim Support, as other hon. Members have, including my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson). Far too often in our criminal courts, the interests of victims are forgotten. I therefore felt that it was important to amend the clause so that it would be clear that the interests of victims of crime would be represented. That is what the amendment seeks to achieve. My argument can be shortly stated, but the brevity of my remarks should not suggest that I do not feel strongly about it. The Bill deals with the way in which courts will be administered in the future, and if we do not include specific requirements to ensure that the interests of victims of crime are looked after, we will have missed a great opportunity. Conservative Members feel strongly about that matter, and I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment, or something akin to it. Angela Watkinson (Upminster): I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath on amendments Nos. 72 and 27. Amendment 72 would leave out the words ''appear to'' from clause 70(2)(k). Nowadays, many people of good standing and long service—school governors, for example—are required to take passports to schools to prove their identity to people who have worked with them and known them well for many years. The Lord Chancellor should therefore be able to ensure that people appointed to the criminal procedure rule committee are indeed representatives of voluntary organisations, rather than merely appearing to be so. That is a small point but an important one. Amendment No. 27 would ensure that one of the people representing voluntary organisations was specifically involved with victim support. There is a perception among the general public, most of whom never come into contact with the courts, and victims of crime, some but by no means all of whom come into contact with courts, that the rights of offenders often take precedence over the rights of victims of crime. The presence of an organisation such as Victim Support would add overt confidence to the system, so I hope that the Minister will support the amendment. Column Number: 151 Norman Lamb: I am pleased that voluntary organisations are to be represented on the committee. That makes eminent sense, and it is an advance. I want to press the Minister on what on earth is meant by the words ''appear to''. They seem bizarre, and would be much better left out. On the issue of representation for victims of crime, there is, as has been said, the feeling that victims are ignored as part of the process. That has improved a little of late, and there is now more recognition of their clear and important interest in the process. It is eminently sensible that they be represented by at least one person on the committee. Mr. Leslie: The hon. Member for Surrey Heath did not speak in depth about amendment No. 72, but the hon. Member for Upminster focused on it. It will therefore be useful to deal with the two amendments in the group separately. I shall explain why the interesting words ''appear to'' are included in the clause. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) gently reminded the Committee about that very matter last week. The reason why the phrase appears in the provisions is to avoid arguments about who is and who is not a representative of a particular organisation. For example, if the president of an organisation proposed a named individual, who was not an elected officer, to represent the organisation, there might be an argument if the clause said that the person concerned ''must'' represent the organisation. The clause says ''appear to'' to ensure that particular individuals can be put forward without getting into formal legal arguments about whether someone is a representative in the strictest sense of the word. That is why an individual who is not necessarily an officer with an executive capacity can be nominated or suggested by a particular body. That is the explanation that I have been given, and I hope that hon. Members can live with it.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 8 July 2003 |
