CLAUSE 1.—(Establishment of supplemental list, and limitation of powers and duties of justices entered thereon.) (Hansard, 26 June 1941)

§ Mr. Mander (Wolverhampton, East)
I should like to ask the Solicitor-General one or two questions. There is a certain type of justice who, while he enjoys occupying a position of dignity, does not attend regularly to his duties. There are cases in which they do not attend at all. I should like to know whether it is intended to deal with such cases under this Measure or whether it is intended to deal with them more drastically, as I think they ought to be dealt with, by removing those justices from the list of magistrates. It is difficult to see how they would come within the definition of the words in Clause 1, by reason of his age or infirmity or other like cause. I do not know that the negligence of a person who cannot be said to be old, really is "a like cause." I do not know whether this is a matter with which the Lord Chancellor is going to deal in the same way as Lord Hailsham did and whether, after due notice, these magistrates will be informed that they cannot continue to occupy the position of dignity, unless they do their work and that they will be removed from the roll of magistrates. I am referring to cases where a man is on the spot and is perfectly well and "there is nothing to prevent him performing his duty. I should also like an explanation of the words in Subsection (4): more conveniently designated in some manner other than the entry of their names in the supplemental list. Does that mean by starring their names or something of that kind?

§ Mr. Ammon (Camberwell, North)
I understand that the Bill, in effect, recalls from the shelf justices who have been relegated there, even under the order of Lord Hailsham, by reason of age or infirmity, or even for not attending to their duties, 1176 as far as going to court is concerned, and that they are now being called in to perform such minor offices as signing forms, witnessing signatures, taking affidavits and that sort of thing. I imagine that that is really the purpose and intention of the Bill. Also I think there is some difficulty in removing people wholly from the bench. They are allowed to keep their title even after they have ceased to function in the ordinary way. Further, there are differences of procedure in various parts of the country as to the functions that a justice of the peace may be called upon to perform. The duties are not so onerous in London as in the Provinces. A justice does not do much of the ordinary magisterial work, except in petty courts, dealing with such things as rate summonses, education summonses and so forth. The rest of his duties are mainly confined to the licensing bench or to the witnessing of attestation forms. I imagine that this is really a call-back to these minor services, of those justices who may, for the time being, have been set apart because for various reasons they were unfit to perform the full duties appertaining to the office.

§ Sir Geoffrey Ellis (Sheffield, Ecclesall)
There is one matter that appears to have been left out of the Clause. It would be safer to make it clear that members of an appeal committee must not be on the supplemental list.

§ Mr. Price (Forest of Dean)
A point I wish to bring forward arises under Subsection (3) of Clause 1, by which the Lord Chancellor will have power to remove from the list of acting magistrates those who by reason of age or infirmity or other like cause do not do their duty. There is no ambiguity about age or infirmity, but the words "other like cause" are a little ambiguous. There are many magistrates whose names, we think, should be removed who do not attend for any reason, but there are also other magistrates who would like to attend but who are very busy people and cannot always find time to do so. Therefore, one hopes that a certain amount of discretion will be exercised by the Lord Chancellor and that he will inquire as to the reason for non-attendance. I hope we shall have an assurance from the Solicitor-General that such inquiry will be made before a man is removed from the acting list.

§ Dr. Peters (Huntingdon)
I should like to support what has been said by my hon. Friend opposite. As a solicitor of more years standing than I like to remember I must say that I have known justices of the peace who for 10, 15 or more years have never taken any active part in the duties of a magistrate. They have simply had the designation of justice of the peace. In one case in my own constituency a justice of the peace lives immediately opposite to the police court, but not for 20 years have I seen him in court, nor have I seen his signature upon a summons. As to the point about the ambiguity of the phrasing of Sub-section (3) of Clause 1, perhaps the learned Solicitor-General may be able to give some explanation on the point and, if it is not satisfactory, say whether an Amendment later would be accepted.

§ The Solicitor-General (Sir William Jowitt)
I have been asked various questions, and I will do my best to reply to them in the order in which they were asked. First, I was asked by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) and by other hon. Members to say something about the case of the man who habitually and for no adequate reason neglects his duties and does not attend to them at all. That case does not come within the purview of this Bill. The hon. Member for East Wolverhampton said, and I think said rightly, that you could not say that that class of person is removable by reason of age or infirmity or other like cause. Therefore, he does not come within this Bill, and I confess that I think his case needs a different and more drastic method of treatment. My noble Friend authorises me to say that the course he proposes to take, following precedent, is in proper cases to ask the magistrate to resign from the commission. In that way we shall succeed in ridding the list of what is a mere name and nothing else. If in such a case a magistrate who had been asked to resign refused to do so and neglected to answer the request, then my Noble Friend would have no hesitation in exercising the power which he has to remove the magistrate from the commission altogether.

§ Mr. Price
Would that be removal from the acting list to the non-acting list?

§ The Solicitor-General
No, that would mean removal from the list altogether. 1178 The only way in which a man can be moved from the one list to the other and yet for him still to remain a magistrate is by way of the powers under this Bill which relate to age, infirmity or other like causes. We wanted to make the phrase wide enough and so the words "other like cause" were introduced with the idea of covering all the cases we want to cover.
Then an hon. Member asked me the meaning of the words in Subsection (4) about names being "conveniently designated." What has happened in London is really the reason for the action we have taken. A plan was devised, for London which avoided what was thought to be the indignity of a separate list. The names of the magistrates are all on one list, but the names of the acting magistrates have appended to them the name of the division for which they sit. If a magistrate's name on the list has no division appended to it, it means to say that he is not an acting magistrate but is on the supplemental list. London was anxious to retain that procedure, and so long as we get what is in substance and fact the two lists it does not matter in which way it is done, provided there is no ambiguity.
The hon. Member for North Camber-well (Mr. Ammon) rightly appreciated the scope and object of this Bill. While the Lord Chancellor has, of course, absolute power to remove a man altogether from the commission, and in proper cases would not hesitate to do so, it is very hard to apply that drastic treatment to a man who has for many years rendered yeoman service and now suffers merely from advancing age, or deafness, or something of that sort, which perhaps he himself does not realise. In such a case, if the magistrate is not willing to go on to the supplemental list the Lord Chancellor can put him on. He retains the dignity and status of a justice of the peace and is not put into the category of those who have done something disgraceful, but at the same time he does not have the right to sit in judgment on his fellow citizens.
The hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield (Sir G. Ellis) asked about the appeals committees. Appeals from the summary courts to Quarter Sessions are now more generally heard by appeals committees, and he asked me whether they are covered. I think they 1179 are, and I am advised that they are, but I would call his attention to the definition in Sub-section (5) where he will see that the expression "court of quarter sessions" includes any committee by which the powers and duties of such a court are exercised by virtue of any Act. I think that to the best of my ability I have now answered the various questions which have been raised.