§ 2.38 p.m.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government what will be the position, under the arrangements for the compulsory training of new magistrates, of the mayors of boroughs and chairmen of local authorities who, by reason of their office, become magistrates for one year.]
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE)My Lords, persons who sit as magistrates by virtue of holding office as mayors of boroughs and chairmen of county or district councils are not appointed to the Commissions of the Peace by the Lord Chancellor, nor has he power to remove them from office. I cannot therefore require these justices ex officio to undertake to follow a course of instruction and to resign from the Commission if they fail to do so. It will, however, be open to the justices ex officio to take part in the schemes of training which will be provided for the other magistrates under the new arrangements; and I hope that they will avail themselves of these facilities.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, is the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor aware that those of us who 667 warmly welcomed his decision to institute compulsory training for magistrates will be alarmed at this reply? It means that some 2,000 new magistrates every year will not be under obligation to have training at all, and that will virtually destroy the value of his very welcome instruction. Is there, then, no way other than the voluntary retirement, as it were, of these ex officio justices, of allowing the scheme for compulsory training to go forward and have full effect?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I must confess that I cannot share the noble Lord's alarm. There are about 1,600 justices ex officio who are mayors of boroughs and chairmen of county councils. I am sure that they are very fully alive to their responsibilities, and I hope and trust that they will voluntarily take part in the training facilities provided.
§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYEMy Lords, arising out of the reply of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, may I ask him this? If a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council chose to exercise his or her right to sit on a bench, would the Lord Chancellor hope that he or she, too, would submit to a course of instruction?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, the answer to that question must, I fear, be somewhat evasive. It must depend upon the member of the Privy Council.
§ LORD AIREDALEMy Lords, does the noble and learned Lord recollect that as long ago as 1949 a Motion in this House to put an end to the system of justices ex officio was lost by only one vote? I believe there were 23 votes to 24. Is not this the moment seriously to look at this matter again?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I recollect that I was reminded of that fact by the noble Lord in the course of the debate on the Administration of Justice Bill which we have recently considered. He then raised the very same question, and the Amendment to remove mayors and certain chairmen as magistrates ex officio was not pressed to a Division, and I do not think was accepted by the House as a whole.
§ LORD STONHAMMy Lords, can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say what length of time is envisaged for training? Also, is he aware that during his year of office a mayor is likely to be very busily engaged on official duties, and does he think that, with the best will in the world, these magistrates ex officio will therefore be able to undergo the necessary training; and, if so, will not their period of office be exhausted before they have completed it?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I do not think that I can agree with the noble Lord's reasoning. I shall, of course, invite these magistrates ex officio to take part, so far as they can, in the training. But I think it is right to add, and to remind the House, of what was said, I think, in the course of the debates we had recently. Although these magistrates hold office ex officio, and are not of course considered by my advisory committees and not appointed to the Commission by me, I really have had singularly few, if any, complaints about the way in which they discharge their duties.
§ LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETHMy Lords, as one who was first of all a justice of the peace ex officio, as Mayor of Hackney, may I suggest to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that it is not really desirable, as he has not done, to make a mountain out of a molehill? The mayors will not be able to attend their benches a great deal for the same reason as it may be difficult for them to take these courses. After all, the mayor has long been known as the first citizen of the borough, and sometimes as the first magistrate. I did not do any harm to the bench, and I do not suppose other mayors did; but I must say, looking back on it, that I did appreciate having "J.P." after my name.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, without making any admission as to what the noble Lord did when he was a magistrate, I would otherwise entirely agree with all he has said.
§ LORD AIREDALEMy Lords, does not the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, really amount to this: only a little injustice is liable to be done?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORNo, my Lords, I do not think so. We have very 669 often found that some of these magistrates ex officio have been extremely good in the discharge of their duties; and, indeed, in consequence, I have appointed them, and so have my predecessors, permanent members of the Commission.
LORD REAMy Lords, can the noble and learned Lord say whether the proposed course is going to be a residential course or a full-day course for a number of days or weeks, or can it be taken at intervals?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I am not in a position at the moment to give any details of the courses of instruction we propose. I intend to seek the advice of the advisory committee I am appointing with regard to the various types of instruction that can be given. They will vary according to the needs in the different parts of the country. At the moment, I am not in a position to give your Lordships more information about them.
§ LORD LATHAMMy Lords would the noble and learned Lord agree that this is the 11-plus for magistrates?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORNo, my Lords, I would not. I should like to make it clear that nothing is intended to be at all school-masterly about this. This course is designed to assist magistrates, and the majority of them, I am sure, will welcome it, in the efficient discharge of their duties.