§ 30. Dr. Tony Wright (Cannock Chase)What plans he has to review the retirement age for magistrates. [84158]
§ The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Keith Vaz)The Lord Chancellor has no plans to review the retirement age for magistrates, which is 70 years of age, and broadly the same as for all holders of judicial office. The Lord Chancellor recognises the important contribution that older people can make and, for that reason, increased the upper age limit for appointment to 65 in 1997.
§ Dr. Tony WrightI add my voice to the general congratulations offered to my hon. Friend.
I applaud the Lord Chancellor for moving the appointment age of magistrates from 55 to 65 two years ago, but does he not now need to take the next logical step and shift the retirement age? It surely makes no sense to recruit good, active people in their sixties if they are then forced to retire from the bench at 70. Having done one good thing, it is now time to do another.
§ Mr. VazI thank my hon. Friend for his support for the Lord Chancellor's decision. As he knows, the retirement age of 70 for lay magistrates was approved by Parliament in 1968. The Lord Chancellor values the contribution that older people have made to the bench, but it is right that the bench should be as representative as possible of society as a whole. That is why the Lord Chancellor feels that the retirement age of 70 is appropriate, and it means that many people serve beyond the normal retirement age. A recent campaign to recruit more magistrates resulted in 14,000 inquiries. I think the whole House wants to see a bench that is truly representative of society. That is why we believe it is appropriate to keep the retirement age at 70.
§ Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)Does the Minister acknowledge that 30 years is a long time in politics and that it is not too soon to review the retirement age as the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) suggests? Many people over the age of 70 can continue to give good judicial service. They should leave the bench not because of their age but because they wish to do so or because of their evident unsuitability.
§ Mr. VazThe right hon. Gentleman knows that it is important to have an age limit, otherwise there is a risk that people will go on for ever—and that would not be appropriate. It is important to attract more young people into the magistracy. The Lord Chancellor normally appoints people aged over 27 and the age, ethnic and gender profiles have changed enormously in the past two years. I take the right hon. Gentlemen's point—it is a serious one—but I am sure he will agree that it is important that the bench should represent and reflect society.