§ 39. Mr. Huntasked the Attorney-General what consultations he had on the terms of the instructions recently issued to the South-East London Area Advisory Committee regarding inquiries into the personal and business background of justices of the peace within the area; and by what authority a questionnaire was sent to justices asking them to state, among other things, their political views.
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe consultations between my noble friend the Lord Chancellor and his Advisory Committees are confidential. He has, however, authorised me to say that, to assist him in implementing his policy that justices should be drawn from all sections of the community and represent all shades of opinion, he, like his predecessors since 1948, has asked his advisory committees to inform him of the political complexion of the benches in their respective areas, so that there should be no undue preponderance drawn from any one political party. It was for this purpose that the Advisory Committee for South-East London, which was only set up in 1965 when Greater London was established has approached the existing justices in its areas.
§ Mr. HuntIs the Attorney-General aware that while we all accept the need for justices to be drawn from all sections of the community, a political test of this kind is totally irrelevant to the administration of justice in this country and is highly undesirable, and will he therefore now give instructions for the withdrawal of this offensive questionnaire which is deeply resented by many magistrates in the Bromley area and elsewhere?
§ The Attorney-GeneralCertainly not, Sir. The Lord Chancellor, in his circular to advisory committees, has said that he cannot emphasise too often or too emphatically that the first and much the most important consideration in the selection and appointment of justices is that the candidate should be personally suitable on points of character, integrity and understanding and should be generally recognised as such by those among whom they live and work. Nevertheless, my 1353 noble Friend has faithfully carried out the recommendation of the Royal Commissions of 1910 and 1948 that justices should be drawn from all sections of the population, and that steps should be taken to ensure that no unfair preponderance is given to any particular party. Hitherto it would seem that a preponderance has been given to a particular party.
§ Mr. OrmeWould not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this has happened under previous Tory Administration, and is it not better that it is known openly what are the political affiliations of the applicants?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI should have thought that to achieve fairness, and in the interests of justice, the steps taken are reasonable.
§ Sir J. HobsonWill the Attorney-General draw a distinction between the problem of appointing new justices—I agree with everything that he said about that—and the very unjustified practice of asking justices who have already been appointed to state their political views? Would not he agree that the politics of those who discharge judicial offices should be totally irrelevant to their judgment once they have been appointed? Would he agree also, and make clear, that any justice of the peace who receives this circular is not under any obligation of any sort to answer the questions?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI readily agree that in the discharge of his duties the justice of the peace should not be affected by political considerations, and I believe that this has been the basic approach of the benches. Nevertheless, in order to achieve a proper balance now, it really is not sufficient to direct these inquiries to new justices but to be satisfied that as of now a reasonable balance is being maintained and will be maintained in future appointments.
§ Sir Harmar NichollsWhile not questioning the good intentions behind the attempts being made by the Lord Chancellor, may I ask the Attorney-General whether he is aware that this sort of questionnaire may well bring about a division within the ranks of the magistrates, which has not been recognised up to now? That is the view of magistrates who have been sitting for a 1354 good number of years, of which I claim to be one.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI venture to disagree with that. I do not think that justices, apart, apparently, from those in Bromley, have taken any objection to this. It is a reasonable course, and magistrates have co-operated quite cheerfully in this important exercise in maintaining public confidence in the quality and character of the benches.
§ Mr. WhitakerWould not the Attorney-General agree, first, that there must be a greater proportion of people on the bench who hitherto have not been able to afford the time because they have been earning their living? Nevertheless, would he also agree that there must be a number of suitable magistrates who are not politically active, and therefore would not it be better to appoint solely on grounds of merit and not the nominees of any political party?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI have said that merit and qualification for the job are the primary considerations, but we are a politically-minded nation and politics cannot be entirely detached from a consideration of this matter.
§ Mr. HuntIn view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.