JUSTICES OF THE PEACE: APPOINTMENT (Hansard, 15 March 1971)

§ LORD SHINWELL
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE)
My Lords, the first and basic consideration is suitability in point of intelligence, character and experience. The second, which is of almost equal importance, is that the Commission as a whole should be able to offer in every locality a bench covering as comprehensive as possible a range of justices, broadly representing all social classes and sections of opinion and an adequate balance between the sexes.

§ LORD SHINWELL
My Lords, presumably I may ask the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack a supplementary question, since he has overall jurisdiction in these matters. Is he aware that for several years now there have been criticisms, not only of the 236 criteria adopted by advisory committees in the appointment of justices of the peace but also of the qualifications of the advisory committees? Is he further aware that the language he has used in reply to my Question is somewhat vague, ambiguous and generalised in character; and in the circumstances, as I prefer not to ask him any further questions, may I ask him whether he would look into the matter rather more thoroughly and advise me of the result at a later stage?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I do not think my Answer was anything like as ambiguous as the noble Lord's supplementary question; but if there is any other individual piece of information that I can give to the noble Lord, I will of course give it to him.

§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER
My Lords, my recollection is that the Royal Commission recommended that justices should be able to follow the proceedings in court. May I ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether it is proposed to make any advance on this requirement?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, again I am not sure what the noble Baroness has in mind. If by that she means that justices should have both the hearing and the intelligence to follow the proceedings, I wholeheartedly agree with her; but I do not see how we can advance on that.

§ LORD ROYLE
My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord consider the possibility of making advisory committees statutory, like every other committee of magisterial benches? Would this not rather widen the selection and at the same time perhaps do away with suggestions that everything is hole-in-the-corner with regard to the appointment of magistrates?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I will certainly look seriously into any suggestion the noble Lord makes, but I cannot see what difference it would make whether the advisory committees were statutory or otherwise. There can be no suggestion which is justified either that the appointment of justices is hole-in-the-corner or that the advisory committees are not as well balanced and as wide as we can possibly make them in view of the availability of suitable candidates to fill them. I suppose the great 237 majority of the justices serving at the present time were appointed by my predecessor, and I have heard no serious criticism of the way he was doing it or of the way that I have done it since, which is the same way.

§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER
My Lords, following the noble and learned Lord's answer to myself, may I ask him whether it is not the business of the justices to take part in, and indeed the business of their chairman to conduct, the proceedings in court; and if it is not their business to conduct the proceedings in court, whose business is it?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I should have thought the answer was "Yes" to both parts of the question.

LORD JANNER
My Lords, may I ask whether consideration of the qualifications of persons for appointment as magistrates ever takes into account at the present time their ability to understand or to appreciate conditions in various localities, so that at least they will have the opportunity, when they sit in the courts, of knowing the areas and the kind of people with whom they are dealing?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
Yes, my Lords, in all cases; and they live there.

§ LORD SHINWELL
My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord, since he seems to be satisfied with the present situation as regards the appointment of justices of the peace, whether his mind is completely closed to any consideration at all which might lead to an improvement?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I will consider every possible suggestion which is made to me—as indeed did my predecessors. The present criteria were laid down by two Royal Commissions. Both my predecessor and I have been prepared to consider improvements and we are constantly making them.

§ BARONESS SEROTA
My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord agree that the practice of the Inner London Advisory Committee in interviewing all applicants 238 who are being considered for appointment to the Commission has been a beneficial one, both in avoiding the "hole-in-the-corner" accusations to which my noble friend Lord Royle referred and also in improving the quality of those persons who, as a result, are recommended to the Lord Chancellor?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I am wholly in favour of interviewing those who have a chance, at any rate, of succeeding in their applications. What is inevitable is that of a large number of applicants, all good, there are some who are better than others. In view of the limited number of vacancies there are disappointments; and it is sometimes invidious to give reasons.

§ BARONESS SEROTA
My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's answer. In the light of that, will he consider recommending that the various committees in different parts of the country should consider following the practice carried out in London?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I think the noble Baroness will find that this practice is followed in many parts of the country. But I will look into the matter.

§ LORD SLATER
My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that apart from their judicial responsibilities magistrates have certain other duties attached to their office, one of which is that of signing particular documents; and that people in some areas are denied the opportunity of presenting such documents because of the many miles of travel involved? Can this be looked into?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, if the noble Lord will give me particulars of any place where this is true I will look into it.

§ LORD GARDINER
My Lords, is it not a fact that there are practically no documents that are required to be signed only by a magistrate and that most can be signed by any barrister, any solicitor, any doctor, any police officer and, in some cases, any trade union official?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is quite right, but it is convenient at times to have a magistrate living close to one. I will look into any evidence of hardship that is brought to me.

§ VISCOUNT DILHORNE
My Lords, however convenient it may be to have a magistrate living nearby, would not the noble and learned Lord regard it as unjustified to appoint anyone to the office of magistrate solely to sign documents?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
Yes, my Lords, if it were solely to sign documents. At the same time, I think it would be discourteous of me not to examine any evidence which the noble Lord on my left brought to my attention.

§ LORD LEATHERLAND
My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord not aware that, in the opinion of some people who have served for twenty years on advisory committees, on the whole these committees work very well indeed? Is he not further aware, however, that in a few parts of the country what we might call the social representation on these committees is not as even as it might be?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, it is certainly my opinion that these committees work very well. I ought at some stage in this series of questions and answers not only to say that but also to express my gratitude to them. As regards social representation, I have more than once said, as indeed has my predecessor, that the widest possible selection of applicants is needed for what may well be onerous work.

§ BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER
My Lords, in view of the interest shown in my noble friend's Question and the fact that it is over twenty years since the Royal Commission reported, does not the noble and learned Lord consider that it is time now to appoint a Royal Commission to look into the whole organisation of magistrates' courts, as has been recently done in relation to the higher courts?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, that is a somewhat different question. The Question relates to the appointment of magistrates; what the noble Baroness has now raised is the future of magistrates' courts. It is clear that when we have digested the Courts Act, the next item for consideration will be the future of the magistrates' courts. Since this is not my Departmental responsibility but that of the Home Secretary, I shall have to take counsel with my right honourable friend before giving an answer 240 as to the proper way to investigate this matter.

VISCOUNT MONCK
My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that when, some two years ago, I asked for an additional member for the bench on which I sit, I was officially informed that the name submitted should be that of someone whose views of politics were Labour?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, obviously I am not aware of it because two years ago I was not Lord Chancellor; but to be fair to the noble and learned Lord who preceded me and who sits on the Opposition Benches, I do not think he ever proceeded on a Party basis as regards the appointment of magistrates. On the whole, all Lord Chancellors like to have the bench balanced as much as may be—with a good leavening of independents, too; because it is not satisfactory that people in a locality should see the composition of the bench overwhelmingly representative of one Party rather than another.