§ 3.16 p.m.
LORD JANNERMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will eliminate the delay in granting subsistence allowances to magistrates who live less than three miles from the courts in which they serve the community.]
§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM)My Lords, the Government are fully conscious of the views of magistrates on this matter and would like to make this provision as soon as possible. But, while the expenditure would be comparatively modest, any increases in expenditure, however desirable, are difficult to justify at the present time. The question whether the new allowances may be introduced soon must await decisions on the estimates for the next financial year.
LORD JANNERMy Lords, is that not a most unsatisfactory reply in respect of a Question that has been raised year after year, and in respect of which an Answer was given in another place to the effect that this provision would be made? Is it not rather mean to fail to give a person, who gives of his or her services in such a splendid manner as our magistrates do, the opportunity of at least being able to have a meal, instead of having to rush three miles home and three miles back again before the next sitting? Will the noble Lord please consider this matter, at long last, and provide what it is obviously the duty of the Government to provide?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, as the noble Lord knows, the 1968 Justices of the Peace Act made it possible to reimburse magistrates with subsistence and travelling allowances wherever they lived, and also to reimburse them for loss of earnings. The previous Administration did not feel able to implement these powers because of the financial situation at the time. I would reaffirm that the Government accept that these allowances are extremely important for all magistrates and that it is desirable to introduce both of them when sufficient resources are available.
§ LORD ROYLEMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the very strong feeling among magistrates on this matter, who regard it as petty and mean, in view of the fact that this power has been on the Statute Book so long? Is he aware of the fact that when in Kensington, for example, applications for betting licences are heard, the bookies go round to the Angus Steak House while the magistrates go into Lyon's for a sandwich and coffee?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, I have made it plain that we are sympathetic to the case. The Magistrates' Association have made representations; the legislation has been on the Statute Book for two years—the noble Lord indicated a rather longer period than that. Noble Lords ought to await a decision on the estimates for the next financial year.
§ LORD POPPLEWELLMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware how disappointed we are at his reply? He is not following the recent words of his noble Leader who said that this Government are being 589 very generous. The noble Lord's reply is that the Government are being very parsimonious. Is he aware of the intense feeling that there is among magistrates? A bench may have been sitting for a long period of time and have to adjourn for some sustenance. If a person is outside the three-mile limit his refreshment is provided, but if he is inside the limit he must pay for it himself or must inconvenience the remainder of the bench by travelling home—probably two-and-a-half miles or so—and come back again after an hour or an hour-and-a-half. This rule is interfering with the working of the magistrates' courts.
§ LORD WELLS-PESTELLMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will bear in mind that there are many magistrates—I have sat on two courts where I know this to happen—who live within three miles of the court, but there is no public transport? Therefore they cannot get home and back in the normal lunch period.
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, I have said that we are aware of these considerations. We are not seeking to argue against the case which has been made, very correctly, by magistrates over a considerable period of years. Noble Lords should not take what. I have said this afternoon as being an argument the other way: I have said that we accept the case and we should wail to see what the Estimates contain for the coming year. It is a question of the allocation of resources.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, will the noble Lord consider more fully the obvious grave dissatisfaction that exists on this matter? Will he also contrast this decision with the quite justifiable decision about large increases in pay for judges and the fact that the Government found it possible to reduce income tax?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, I think every question that has been put in this discussion has to a certain extent been based on a misunderstanding. I have said that the case has been accepted, and it was accepted by the Administration of the noble Lord, the Leader of the Opposition. When the Bill went on the Statute Book regulations were not introduced implementing the new powers, because of the financial situation. I have not said that these will not be introduced. 590 What I have said is that I cannot anticipate decisions that will be taken.
LORD INGLEWOODMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question which I do not think is based on a misunderstanding? Can he give us any idea of the approximate cost to the public of these services which he has said we should have difficulty in affording at the present time?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMApproximately £500,000, my Lords, for both allowances.
LORD JANNERMy Lords, in view of the noble Lord's reply, may I ask whether he is aware that the amount allowed for the sustenance of those who already obtain it has been increased in recent times? Is he further aware that this question arose before 1968? It has been before Governments for years, because it is realised by those who seek the services of magistrates that they should at least have the opportunity of getting a meal, if nothing else, so as to prevent their having to rush from one place to another. Will the noble Lord say that he will bring to the attention of his right honourable friend who is dealing with the matter the anxiety of people throughout the country on this issue?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMYes, my Lords. We are well aware of the strong feelings of magistrates. I must repeat that it is the 1968 legislation that is relevant here. There was no power before that to reimburse meal and travel costs for people who lived within three miles of their court, nor was there any power to reimburse people for loss of earnings. Both of those powers have been on the Statute Book since 1968 and both of them, I hope, will be implemented as soon as possible.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, would it not be rather more straightforward on the part of the Minister to give the appropriate answer? Will he ask the magistrates to do what the electricity workers and the Post Office workers have been asked to do; namely, to consider the national interest?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMNo, my Lords. We accept the case here and we hope to introduce these allowances. The question is entirely one of timing, and if 591 noble Lords will be kind enough to wait until next month when the Estimates are published we can then see what the future portends.
§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGERMy Lords, when the noble Lord gave a figure of £500,000, was he referring to the total expenditure on subsistence and travelling of magistrates at present? If so, can he tell us the extra sum by extending payment to those who live less than three miles away?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMYes, my Lords. My figure was for the additional sum. It falls under two heads: it is the addition for subsistence and travelling and the addition for loss of earnings over the whole field. It is those two items taken together.
§ LORD PLATTMy Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that there are few things more infuriating than taking on a really big job for the Government, unpaid, and then being beaten down by 5s. 9d. for your expenses, as I was many times on the Royal Commission on Medical Education?
§ LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, let me say that members of the Royal Commission on Medical Education are not in the same position as magistrates, who are the subject of all these questions.