§
'() The courts boards within an individual Circuit may from time to time meet together to consider matters relating to the courts in that Circuit area.
412
() Before altering any Circuit area, the Lord Chancellor must consult with the courts boards affected.'.—[Mr. Heath.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 56, in page 3, line 35 [Clause 4], leave out from 'specifying' to first 'the' in line 38 and insert—
No 2, in page 3, line 35 [Clause 4], leave out from 'which' to first 'the' in line 38 and insert—
- '(a) in respect of areas except London, areas which are the same as, or fall entirely within, the police areas listed in Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1996 (c. 16) (division of England and Wales, except London, into police areas), and
- (b) in respect of London, at least five separate areas falling entirely within'.
No. 51, in page 3, line 35 [Clause 4], after 'as', insert
- '(a) in respect of areas except London, are the same as, or fall entirely within, the police areas listed in Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1996 (c. 16) (division of England and Wales, except London, into police areas), and
- (b) in respect of London, fall entirely within'.
'(or in any event no larger than)'.No. 3, in page 4, line 6 [Clause 5], after 'concerned', insert—
'() in particular, to scrutinise, review and make recommendations about the way in which the Lord Chancellor is discharging his duty under section 21 in relation to the courts with which the board is concerned;'.No. 57, in page 61, line 7 [Schedule 1], after 'board', insert
',except the courts board for London,'.No. 58, in page 61, line 18 [Schedule 1], at end insert—
'2A The courts board for London must have—
- (a) at least three members who are judges,
- (b) at least six members who are lay justices, each of whom is assigned to a local justice area the whole or part of which is included in the board's area,
- (c) at least six other members who are persons appearing to the Lord Chancellor to have appropriate knowledge or experience of the work of the courts in the area for which the board acts, and
- (d) at least six more members who are persons appearing to the Lord Chancellor to be representative of people living in the area,
and may have other such members of a description mentioned in subparagraphs (a) to (d) as the Lord Chancellor considers appropriate.'.No. 59, in page 62, line 10 [Schedule 1], at end insert—'(c) the establishment of consultation arrangements with local authorities in the area for which the board acts.'.
§ Mr. HeathNew clause 3 was tabled by Liberal Democrat and Conservative spokesmen, and is a bit of an anomaly, as it deals with circuits. Originally, I had no intention of bringing up the matter, as generally circuits are not a thing of statute—they are an administrative convenience, albeit one whose foundation goes back to the mists of time. I did not think that we needed clear legislation on court circuits in the Bill. However, my view was entirely changed by my hon. Friend the 413 Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke), who passed on to me some disturbing correspondence that she had received from the resident judge at Dorchester, his honour Judge John Beashel, who objected strongly to the way in which the Government have behaved in seeking to amend the western circuit by arbitrarily removing Winchester Crown court from Hampshire and adding it to the south-east circuit. He feels strongly about that, but more importantly, there is unity in the judicial profession on the subject. Indeed, Judge Beashel said in his letter to my hon. Friend:
The judiciary are as one in opining that such a move would be very damaging to the administration of justice.Judge Beashel includes in his correspondence, of which I have copies, a letter to The Times from the chancellor of the dioceses of Winchester and Portsmouth, Mr. Clark QC, and another letter published in a newspaper that could not have been signed by a more distinguished group of lawyers, including Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lord Ackner, Lord Nolan and others.
§ Mr. Mark Oaten (Winchester)rose—
§ Mr. HeathI shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), who has no doubt received representations on the matter.
§ Mr. OatenMay I supplement my hon. Friend's list by adding that that is the view of many judges in Winchester. Indeed, so concerned are they that they have even attended my surgeries to make representations. The general view is: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
§ Mr. HeathI fully agree with my hon. Friend's observation. Having had to countenance the view of the Lord Chancellor as a stripper with a train to catch, the thought of circuit judges queuing up at my hon. Friend's constituency surgery, presumably appropriately robed, to make their representations, is one that will remain with me for some time.
To corroborate my hon. Friend's point, however, Judge Brodrick, the resident judge at Winchester—I am sure that he has approached my hon. Friend—and the president of the Council of Her Majesty's Circuit Judges was good enough to produce a briefing paper on the implications of the change. The Government's only argument for changing the western circuit, which has been in existence since time immemorial, although perhaps not in legal terms, is one of bureaucratic tidiness. They want the legal circuits to correspond with the Government office regions.
6 pm
I cannot for the life of me see any logic to that. Even in the broadest terms, I do not see how the administration of justice is improved by it, but I do see the cogent arguments adduced by the judges against the proposals. Taking away Winchester produces a great imbalance between the south-eastern and the western circuit in terms of courthouses and the number of judges, especially judges experienced in particular 414 specialties, and will affect the travel patterns of people who require access to the law courts, especially in Dorset and areas near Winchester but not near the other courts of the western circuit. I see such strong arguments against that that I cannot believe that the Lord Chancellor is serious in his proposals.
I understand that the final decision has not yet been taken, but will be made shortly. If such arbitrary decisions are to be made, we need a mechanism to interact with the Lord Chancellor. The courts boards for a whole circuit area seem the most appropriate means of establishing that mechanism.
It is interesting that the circumstances of Winchester do not seem to apply in Wales and Chester, where the Government are content to allow the anomaly to continue because they say that the legal administrative arrangements are too difficult to disentangle. Exactly the same arguments seem to me as a lay person to apply in Winchester, and my view is supported by members of the judiciary, who have to make the system work. I hope the Minister will give us a simple explanation of such an apparently arbitrary and highhanded decision by the Lord Chancellor, of why there was not prior consultation with those affected, and of what he believes to be the advantages of the proposed arrangement that outweigh the patent disadvantages that have been identified.
There are six other amendments in the group. I shall say very little about amendment No. 56, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) hopes to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. The arguments are principally to do with London, and as a London Member, my hon. Friend has a particular interest.
The amendment revisits the argument that we had in Committee about the size of the courts boards areas. It appears to be the Government's view that the courts boards areas will be coterminous with the present police authority areas for the greater part of the country, and in the case of London will be coterminous with the Metropolitan police area, including the area of the City of London police. I argued in Committee and I argue again today through amendment No. 2 that that is a false reconciliation of the relevant areas.
I am glad that the courts boards areas are not to be bigger than the police authority areas, as was feared in the initial stages of the Bill, but many joint board areas go well beyond the county area for police authorities. I think of my own in Avon and Somerset, as well as the Thames Valley police area and the Greater Manchester area covering a substantial metropolitan area, and similarly in the west midlands. It seems anomalous that simply because there is a single police authority area, there should be a single courts board area for those, whereas for the smaller county constabularies, there should be a discrete courts board area for each—for example, a separate area for Gwent, and another for Bedfordshire.
It makes sense for courts boards areas not to extend over more than one police authority, and thus more than one probation service or other judicial organisation area. I accept that. However, we have reached a point where the areas are too big to properly represent local citizens. It would be far better were we to resile a little from such amalgamations and consider 415 constituent parts of police authority areas. The best example is London, where the situation is rather silly, but the problem exists elsewhere in the country as well.
On amendment No. 3, we are supported by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and his hon. Friends. It would allow for scrutiny of the way in which the Lord Chancellor carries out his duty under clause 21 to consult the lay justices, as we must now call them. That is crucial to the successful implementation of the Bill. It is essential that the Lord Chancellor properly consult the lay magistracy to ensure that what he is proposing through the relevant mechanisms will work in local areas.
The basic level of scrutiny that we suggest in the amendment would provide some sort of check and balance to ensure that the Lord Chancellor keeps to the commitments that he made in the course of discussion of the Bill and in the Bill itself, and that the lay magistracy have a clear avenue through which to raise their concerns if, as I suspect we may find some time in the future, their views are not being taken sufficiently into account.
New clause 3 on circuits is largely a probing clause to help us better understand the Government's thinking. The proposals on the courts boards encapsulated in amendments Nos. 56, 2 and 57 to 59 are more substantive. The important role of scrutiny is dealt with in amendment No. 3.
§ Mr. HawkinsOnce again, as was often the case in Committee, we make common cause with the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and his hon. Friends. On new clause 3, dealing with circuits, like those hon. Members, especially the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), I have had approaches about the matter. I know the strength of feeling among members of the judiciary and members of the Bar. I am delighted to hear that members of the judiciary have even been attending the surgery of the hon. Member for Winchester. The strength of feeling was reinforced for me when the matter was raised with me by a member of the Bar last weekend while I was at a family wedding. In addition to the views expressed by members of the judiciary and senior members of the Bar, the fact that matters are raised at surgeries and even with Members at social events shows the strength of feeling.
I know Winchester well from my own time in practice. More recently, I had the privilege of sitting with some of the judges there while doing my training for consideration for possible appointment to a recordership, so in relatively recent times I have met some of the judges, just before the proposal was published. Knowing the exceptionally high quality of the judges who sit at Winchester, I understand their concern.
I very much share the extremely strong views expressed by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome on the lack of logic of making this change simply to fit into what in any event Conservative Members would regard as a rather artificial grouping of areas in a Government office area. I could not agree with him more strongly that there is no logic in saying that a circuit area must match the area of operation of a Government office. Often in Committee, on this Bill 416 and on other legislation, I have attacked the Government's mania for change for change's sake and the belief that modernisation is somehow a god that they must aim at in every possible way. This proposal would simply cause damage where there is no positive benefit to be gained whatever.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I would say, "If it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change." This is one of those occasions on which it is necessary not to change. It would be far better for the administration of justice in Winchester and the surrounding area if the Government backed off from this ill considered proposal. The hon. Gentleman says he hopes that the die is not yet cast and that the final decision has not yet been made. I devoutly hope that too.
I remember the angst on my old circuit, the historic Midlands and Oxford, when similarly, not all that long ago, Oxford was removed. There was great concern and sadness about that, but this would be an even worse decision. I am therefore pleased to add the views of Conservative Members to the strong views expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I suspect from the presence in the Chamber of the hon. Member for Winchester that we may hear more about this from him in a while.
Liberal Democrat amendment No. 56 is, in effect, a replacement for the more modest Liberal Democrat amendment No. 2—we will hear about that in due course from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—and we have tabled amendment No. 51 to similar effect, which seeks further security that the court areas should not expand. We debated that at length in Committee, but we and the Liberal Democrats are trying to back up the same concept here.
As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome rightly said, our names appear with those of Liberal Democrat Members on their amendment No. 3 because we agree that clause 5 must provide for a review of what the Lord Chancellor is really up to. We think that it should be clear in the legislation that he must consult lay justices properly under clause 21. For the same reasons as we do not have a great deal of faith in the Government's agenda and their reliability on these matters, we think that this part of the Bill would be a great deal stronger if that provision were written into it.
Liberal Democrat amendments Nos. 57 and 58 are specific London-based amendments to schedule 1. I am rather cynical about the Liberal Democrats' last-minute replacement of their original amendments with some of these London-based proposals. I suspect that it might be to do with the demotion of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey to being only the future failed Lib Dem mayoral candidate. It must be so depressing to know that he is going into something in which he can only ever come a poor third. Nevertheless, Liberal Democrat amendment No. 59 is a sensible measure on consultation with local authorities. That is well worth while.
There is a general theme to these proposals—backing up the concept of putting in the Bill safeguards to ensure that the Government do their consultation with the lay magistracy properly and that they do not 417 tinker with circuit areas for no good reason. I hope very much that the Minister can respond positively to some of the serious concerns expressed by the Liberal Democrats and me.
§ Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey)I am happy to speak in particular to amendments Nos. 56 to 59 and I am grateful for the Minister's courteous response outside the Chamber to the proposal in principle. I look forward to what he will say in response to the amendments standing in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).
These proposals would have been on the amendment paper whether I had continued with the full panoply of responsibility for home affairs, whether I was responsible for London matters for my party in this Chamber or whether I was responsible for neither. The issue came to my attention earlier in the year from people in my constituency and elsewhere in London as important for London. In a moment, I will turn to why the amendments have been tabled and why I hope that they find support among Labour Members.
May I add a word in the context of the wider debate, which my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome introduced? For the record, in my practising years I, too, was a member of the midlands and Oxford circuit. The traditional circuits are not, of course, theologically based or divinely inspired. They were a practical development of a grouping that was convenient for people in terms of carrying out legal work. If people in Hampshire, and in particular in Winchester, feel that they are more naturally linked to their colleagues in the western circuit, it seems to me that they must know best. They do the job day in, day out, week in, week out and year in, year out.
I hope that the Minister will be positive about the joint pleas from my hon. Friends the Members for Somerton and Frome, for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and Conservative Front Benchers. I hope also that we do not go down the road whereby everything always has to follow exactly the same boundaries simply because somebody once decided that they were administratively convenient for something else.
On the London proposals, may I make remarks to the Minister by way of introduction and to explain where they come from? I share with the Government the view that if the criminal justice system is to be accountable, the ordinary people of England and Wales need to be able to have access to it not only when they are defendants, witnesses, called to sit on the jury or as magistrates or, sadly, are victims, but when they want to know whether the system is working.
From the Liberal Democrat Benches, my hon. Friends and I have argued that just as we are coming to a consensus in Parliament that the police should be accountable locally in the boroughs, districts, counties and council areas that we all live in, so it is only right that the other bits of the criminal justice system—the probation service and the Court Service—should also be accountable locally. The courts understand that.
418 The other day, I went to a very good open day at the Southwark Crown court building by HMS Belfast on the edge of the River Thames. It was a Saturday and there was a very large turnout of people who were seeking to ensure in part that the Court Service is more accessible in that way. I also mean that the public often want to know why certain decisions were made. For example, when the police catch someone who has stolen a car for the fourth time, why do the magistrates or the Crown court pass a sentence that might release that person back into the community perhaps to commit the same offence for a fifth time? It seems to me that such accountability has to be achieved when the accountability of the police and the probation service, as well as that of custodial institutions such as prisons or young offenders' institutions, is being addressed.
One way in which we need to think of the structures is in terms of how the Court Service can be seen to be growing in confidence in respect of the community. The second is how the people who run it relate to those who are their customers day in, day out. The proposition behind our original proposal—amendment No. 2—also stands in amendments Nos. 56 to 59, which were tabled by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome. It is simply that London, which has three times the population of the next biggest police area in England and Wales, will not be served appropriately by a courts board with the same limited number of representatives—12—as can be found in the smallest police area and all those in between.
I am not making special pleading because London is the capital city, although that might be relevant, nor am I saying that there might be a special case because we have the central criminal court and the law courts in the Strand as well as the Judicial Committee here and the future supreme court, but I am saying that we have far more courts at all levels in our 33 local authorities. It is just not possible for them to be represented by 12 people. With the best will in the world, it is just not possible. That is not only my view; it is the view of those who share my local bench at Camberwell Green and Tower Bridge.
I have given the Government two options, amplifying the original proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome. Amendment No. 56 asks for five areas; in fact, it states that there shall be five areas. My hon. Friend originally proposed that London should not be required to be a single area, but I want to ensure that we have five areas. The alternative contained in amendments Nos. 57 to 59 would make the courts board for London much bigger and therefore more representative. I have simply allowed for three times as many members as the Government, because London is three times as big as anywhere else.
Amendment No. 58 says that there must be at least three members who are judges, at least six members who are lay justices, at least six with relevant experience and six who are representative of the community. That at least gives the huge diversity of communities in the north, south and east, and in central London—people with all sorts of backgrounds and faiths, of all ages and from all walks of life—a chance to begin to be represented. The system will not be perfect, but there will be that chance. Specifying 12 members gives people out on the Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire borders, 419 down on the Kent and Surrey borders, and on the Essex borders, as well as those from inner-London boroughs and the City, no chance of representation.
At the time of the last census, the population of outer London was 4.4 million and that of inner London was 2.766 million. Next came the West Midlands police area with 2.5 million, followed by Greater Manchester with just under that, West Yorkshire with just over 2 million and Merseyside with 1.3 million. Obviously, I did not pluck those figures out of the air; I talked to people about the best possible number of areas for London.
I understand that both the Crown Prosecution Service and the Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority currently divide London into five regions. The London organisation of the CPS has a central criminal court section, and sections for the south, west, centre and north and east combined. Confusingly—this is why we need to rationalise and co-ordinate the arrangements—the Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority has five different regions owing to its historical genesis: the north-east, north-west, southwest, south-east and central regions. Both bodies, however, have concluded that five is the right number.
I think that this should be the subject of the consultation that will follow the paper produced in September. January is the deadline for responses. I hope that we can then secure some agreement. It may be considered logical to have north, south, east, west and central areas for the courts, reflecting the way in which people move. The central area could involve the central criminal court and the law courts in the Strand, for instance.
Amendment No. 59 proposes consultation with local authorities in London—the 32 boroughs and the City. They are proper stakeholders, and I feel that they should be able to understand and be comfortable with the operation of the courts—they are, after all, responsible for increasing amounts of criminal justice under legislation relating to crime and the police that was enacted in the late 1990s. Liaison between police and local government is much better than it was, and I think the same should apply to local government and the courts.
There is one last way out for the Government if they resist the idea of five areas, or the idea of a board three times as big to reflect the population—of the two, I prefer the five-area model—which is the introduction of an overarching board, a sort of supreme court of courts boards, with five subsidiary areas acting as subcommittees. I hope it is deemed helpful rather than confrontational of me to tell the Minister that people I have talked to who are in the know and doing the job think that such a model could work. They would prefer five separate areas, but there is logic in the notion of five sub-committees, as it were, feeding into a central courts board.
This may sound dry in relation to the exciting political issues of our day, but the administration of the courts is all about what we read in the newspapers, once a week if not more often—about people taken to court, people found guilty, people being sentenced. It is all about access to justice locally. It is all about people feeling that they can go to the civil courts easily, and obtain expeditious justice. It is all about whether people feel that justice is delivered on their doorsteps. In a great 420 metropolitan area such as London, the doorsteps of those living in Sutton, Croydon and Bromley are not in Barnet, Hillingdon or Havering. They need to feel that the justice system is working for them, and that the courts they read about in their local paper that are imposing sentences are administered by people whom they know, can choose and can influence.
I ask the Minister to accept that this is about making the Court Service properly accountable in the metropolitan area, just as it will be—I hope—in the rest of the country. People need to feel that they can influence the running of the service, and can tell those in charge if the courts are in the wrong place or open at the wrong times, if there is not the right public transport, or if the provision of probation officers, facilities for the public, magistrates or the right mix of magistrates is not adequate. All that matters hugely to the functioning of the service.
I hope the Minister will assure us that London will be treated differently because of its large size. Above all, I hope we shall have a structure reflecting the diversity of London and allowing it to be reflected in one of the most important parts of the criminal justice system.
§ Mr. LeslieI am grateful to the Opposition Members who tabled this string of amendments relating, in particular, to the courts boards that we hope to set up. They give us an opportunity to look at how they will operate within the overall agency structure of the new unified courts administration. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) was right to say that while these matters may seem dry, in many ways they go to the core of issues picked up regularly by the media: the operation of the courts and how they serve the public, and the criminal justice system in particular.
New clause 3 seeks to allow courts boards to meet one another, and also to be consulted on changes to circuit or regional boundaries. Of course we want courts boards to meet from time to time. Our aim in establishing them is not to create exclusive "silos" that never communicate with each other. Guidance will be issued to boards on how they should operate, and the ability to work across boundaries will be a key part of the new system. Boards will need to be aware of that in practice, and will need to consult each other in the same way as neighbouring managers.
Secondly, on the proposal that courts boards should be consulted about any proposals to alter circuit boundaries, I can assure the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that the relevant courts boards would be consulted if we were to change regional boundaries in future. A change to regional boundaries might well have consequences for courts board areas; that is why consultation is already required under clause 4(6). At present, the only statutory requirement is for the Lord Chancellor to consult the Lord Chief Justice.
6.30 pm
Changes to the regional boundaries would necessitate consultation with all the parties who would be affected. If the Lord Chancellor decides to make future alterations to the boundaries, a similar level of consultation will be required, and the views of affected 421 courts boards, as part of the new administration, would be part of that. There is no need to single out courts boards for special consideration in that process, as the new clause proposes; indeed, that would ignore the important views of other groups with a fundamental interest in circuit and regional boundary issues.
Having considered the views expressed by stakeholders on the options for the unified courts administration, we concluded that there should be 42 local areas and that the courts boards should match those. We also decided that there should be a regional tier of management to ensure that the agency can best support civil and family work, as well as the criminal jurisdiction, in dealing with cross-boundary issues and the deployment of the judiciary.
§ Simon HughesThe Minister will have spotted the obvious anomaly that there is to be a London region, but, uniquely, only one board within it. Every other region in England and Wales will have several courts boards. Is not that a strong argument for the amendments?
§ Mr. LeslieThe hon. Gentleman is champing at the bit for me to turn to my comments on London. I assure him that there are good grounds for the conclusions that we have reached; I shall deal with that in a moment.
The Government's policy is that regional boundaries should match those of the nine Government regions and Wales unless there is a compelling reason to the contrary. The 42 criminal justice areas fit within those boundaries. Having accepted that nine regions and Wales are too many given the size of the organisation, we decided that there should be seven regions. It is clear from the comments of the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) and for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), among others, that much attention is focusing on which region will include Hampshire. A decision on whether it will be in the south-east or the south-west region will be made no later than 31 October. We have held meetings with the senior judiciary, representatives of the Bar Council and judges and barristers from the western circuit to assess the potential impact of a move away from the western circuit. We are listening to the views of all interested parties before reaching a conclusion. I do not want to pre-empt that decision, but I have no doubt that whatever the outcome hon. Members will find ingenious ways of raising the issue and cross-examining Ministers to hold us to account for our decision.
Amendments Nos. 2 and 56 propose that courts boards areas should be the same as, or fall within, police authority areas. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey suggests that London should have five courts boards. A balance must be struck between ensuring effective management and addressing community needs in as local and responsive a way as possible. It is our intention that courts boards will provide members of local communities with much more input and influence over the administration of all the courts in their area—not only criminal courts—than they have ever had before. It cannot be denied that there are wide contrasts between communities in all areas, not just London. We must strike a balance between meeting 422 community needs and ensuring a workable management structure. In particular, a courts board area must have a certain core of workload volume, court business and courthouses. Police authority areas strike the right balance in London and elsewhere. They match those used by the probation service and the Crown Prosecution Service, while fitting in with local authorities.
Turning to London, we decided that there should be a courts board at the Greater London level because that is the level at which decisions are taken in the capital. In particular, the Criminal Justice Board brings together the criminal justice agencies, including the Crown Prosecution Service, the police, the probation service and the courts. It is also the basis for the seat of the Mayor of London. If the London area were to be fragmented into freestanding sub-areas, where would the line be drawn? The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey argues that there should be five courts boards in London on the basis of the administrative regions that are employed by the Greater London Magistrates Courts Authority. However, those five will not necessarily automatically be more representative of London's diverse community or include a full range of boroughs. However, I see the sense of the hon. Gentleman's point in the broader sense, and I am happy to assure him that if the London courts board thinks that it needs a further sub-structure in order properly to drill down into local community needs, we will give that close consideration.
As an alternative proposal, the hon. Gentleman suggests that the London courts board needs to be an exception and that it should have at least three times more members than those in other regions. I do not believe that the figure of 21 would be particularly workable. We must strike a balance: a courts board must be not only workable and capable of taking a strategic view, but able to make decisions without having the "large committee" feeling that could result from an excessive number of members. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his ingenuity in arguing for three times the membership for the London courts board, but even that figure would not necessarily include everyone he would want to have a seat. Having seven members on each courts board is a realistic and workable starting point, but the Bill offers a great deal of scope for adding more members if that is deemed appropriate. In practice, therefore, if the London courts board, in common with those in the rest of the country, thinks that it needs more members, the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State will be happy to consider it.
§ Simon HughesCan the Minister put on the record the balance of the representations that he has received on the London issue? If not, will he do so in writing? Will he further undertake that in the course of the consultation he will not only read, but have his opinion influenced by, the balance of views that are expressed? He knows as well as I do that there is a strong feeling that we need a structure that works for the whole community across London.
§ Mr. LeslieThe hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to pay close attention to the particular circumstances facing a London courts board, but it is important that it is able to match the boundaries of the 423 Crown Prosecution Service, the probation service and the Greater London Authority. I will ensure that we have further opportunities to consider the matter.
§ Mr. HeathWill the Minister turn his attention for a moment to the royal courts of justice? The Lord Chief Justice believes that he has an agreement with the Lord Chancellor that there will be a special arrangement for the royal courts of justice. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case?
§ Mr. LeslieI am afraid that I do not have the minutes of any meeting between the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor regarding the situation of the royal courts of justice in respect of a London courts board. It is an interesting point. I shall discuss it with my noble Friend and write to the hon. Gentleman.
Amendment No. 59 seeks to establish that regulations will be made in terms of how courts boards should liase with local councils. To single out local authorities for special legislative treatment is questionable. Many other agencies and groups, including the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, have a key role to play in the administration of justice in a local area. It would be better management practice to establish good links with all of those groups. The Lord Chancellor will require agency managers and the courts boards to consult and to take account of their wider stakeholder base, and they must make sure that arrangements are put in place to ensure that that happens. That will of course include local authorities, as a good partnership will be vital in policy areas such as children, housing and tackling antisocial behaviour, to name but three. As the guidance that we issue will make clear, that will be critical in the case of London as well, but we do not need to allow the boards the freedom to consider just local authorities. However, they should have the freedom to reflect the need to consult a much wider area. I therefore hope that hon. Members agree that this amendment is not necessary.
Amendment No. 51—under the terms of which, courts boards would not exceed the size of police authority areas—is too restrictive. We have announced that from the start of the new agency, courts board areas and agency managerial units will match the 42 police authority areas. However, it is theoretically possible that when matters have bedded down—I am not prejudging the issue—it might make sense to join up some areas, given that work moves across their boundaries frequently. It would be wrong to close off that option simply because of the legislative obstacle that this amendment would constitute. It is also important to remember that courts boards will not be concerned with criminal business alone; they will have a wider remit, including civil courts, family courts and so forth, so simply to restrict them to police authority areas is not the right approach. The consensus may well be reached that merging areas is the right way to proceed, and it would be wrong if courts boards were to discover a legislative obstacle that prevented them from doing so. As I said, we intend at this stage that the courts boards match the 42 police authority areas, but at the moment it would be wrong to include such a fettering amendment.
Under amendment No. 3, courts boards would have a particular duty to monitor how well the Lord Chancellor consults magistrates. Courts boards already 424 have a statutory duty to scrutinise, review and make recommendations on the way in which the Lord Chancellor is discharging his general duty. An essential component of that duty will be to scrutinise the way in which the new agencies work with all of their stakeholders: magistrates and judges, lay and professional court users, and members of the local community. There is no need, therefore, to create a link between clauses 5 and 21. It would be wrong to single out magistrates and only partially to reflect courts boards' wider role; to do so would imply a narrower role for courts boards than we currently envisage. They will be concerned not just with local magistrates courts, but with the needs of local areas in their entirety, and of the entire courts system. For that reason, amendment No. 3 would be an incorrect route to take.
Clause 21, which was included in the Bill with the backing of the Magistrates Association, already includes a duty to build effective lines of communication with all stakeholders. It guarantees magistrates that, in terms of what affects them in the performance of their judicial duties, proper lines of communication will be established between them and courts' administration. It is unnecessary to go further by giving special prominence to magistrates in respect of the duties of courts boards. We are discussing with the Magistrates Association what clause 21 means in practice, with a view to identifying the key issues and some guiding principles for magistrates and managers. The balance that the Bill strikes is therefore the right one, so I ask hon. Members to withdraw the new clause and related amendments.
§ Mr. HeathI am grateful to the Minister for his courteous and detailed reply; to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins); and to my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) in particular for his comments in support of the amendments. I accept that we are not going to agree on the need for the courts boards to monitor the Lord Chancellor's performance in respect of clause 21, but I still feel that it is desperately important that they do so. Irrespective of whether we pursue the matter through legislation, I hope that the clear understanding exists that one of the courts boards' functions will be to express concerns that feed through the system to them, from magistrates and lay justices, about what is happening in a particular courts board area, and that that will include the degree to which the Lord Chancellor, or his successor in title, is working with—or against—the interests of local justice in that area.
I hear what the Minister says about the arrangements for the western circuit, but he will not have satisfied those who feel strongly about this issue, particularly the judicial interests involved. He said that there is no need for the courts boards—either en bloc or individually—to have a specific remit to look at this issue because they will be consulted as a matter of course. He also said that at the moment, the only statutory consultee is the Lord Chief Justice. It is interesting to note that the Lord Chief Justice was the one correspondent whom I did not mention in my introductory remarks, so let us correct 425 that omission. His letter to the Lord Chancellor makes his opinion very clear:
While writing to you, I should make it clear that I personally have the greatest concerns about the possibility of Hampshire not remaining part of the Western Circuit. I, of course, accept you have concerns as to the importance of regional Government, however, regional justice is also important. To include Hampshire as part of the South Eastern Circuit would make that circuit, which is already very large, excessive to manage from a judicial point of view. More seriously, if Hampshire were to be moved from the Western Circuit, the delivery of justice on that circuit could be seriously undermined.The Lord Chief Justice could not have expressed his concerns in a more open and considered way. I hope that when reaching a decision, account is taken of those concerns. One thing that the Minister said was absolutely right—if such account is not taken, Members of this House will find ways to raise the issue with him and to make his life hell. The danger is that bureaucracy will triumph over common sense and the interests of the judicial system.On the size of courts boards, the Minister seemed to be edging towards the position set out so well by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. He recognises that there is a desperate problem with London. It makes no sense to have a single authority area for London, so he is edging towards a solution that involves a single courts board for the entire metropolitan area, and an airy-fairy, rather nebulous arrangement below it that will have no clear remit or structure, and which will not achieve what we want it to achieve. Such a structure would be better than nothing, so let me not argue against what the Minister may, or may not, be edging towards. However, my hon. Friend's proposal is a much more sensible suggestion, dealing as it does with London's different localities by giving them a proper voice. Indeed, such an approach is normal for those areas that, by happenstance of history, have small shire constabulary areas.
I was somewhat concerned that the Minister appeared not to know about the correspondence on the royal courts of justice. However, he said that he will write to me on that specific issue, and I am grateful to him. Nevertheless, this House should be able to express a view on the courts boards for London, with which amendment No. 56 deals. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw new clause 3, but I shall ask the House to divide on amendment No. 56.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.