§ 3.12 p.m.
§ LORD GARDINERMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government on what grounds they have decided to reject the views of the Magistrates' Association, the Justices' Clerks Society and the Law Society on the future administration of the magistrates' courts.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS)My Lords, because the Government consider that on balance the advantages of the present locally based system of magistrates' courts administration outweigh the prospective benefits of centralisation: a view supported by a number of other organisations not mentioned by the noble and learned Lord in his Question.
§ LORD GARDINERMy Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for that Answer. May I congratulate myself on having the opportunity of being the first to congratulate him upon his new Office? I think there was no Member of your Lordships' House more popular in all parts of the House than the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and I dare say that a good many of us felt that it would be extremely difficult for the Government to replace him by someone equally able and equally popular. We were wrong if we thought that. I am sure that every Member of your Lordships' House will agree that the noble Viscount is equally popular. For some years the noble Viscount and I piloted a massive programme of law reform through your Lordships' House. We never had a cross word; indeed, the noble Viscount made a very significant contribution to the whole of that programme and I congratulate him most warmly on his appointment.
If I may ask two supplementary questions, I can promise the noble Viscount that, kindly enough, my first question will not be whether he agrees with the Government in this matter. My first question is whether I should not have been 465 accurate if, among those who were convinced that the magistrates' courts ought to be transferred to Central Government, I had included not only the Magistrates' Association, the Justices Clerks' Society and the Law Society, but also the Bar Council, the Chiefs of Police, the Greater London Council and the clerks of the peace to boroughs? My second supplementary is: why all this secrecy? Were we not to have open government openly arrived at? Am I not right in thinking that the Government are refusing to publish the views on which they say they acted? If not, will they not publish all the views which they receive so that we may judge for ourselves?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, first of all, I should like very much to respond to the most generous tribute paid by the noble and learned Lord to my noble friend Lord Windlesham and myself. I am very happy to be able to continue answering supplementaries, even after that. To answer his first supplementary question, the noble and learned Lord is quite right: there would have been those organisations to add to his list had he wished to; but there are other organisations on the other side which, I should think, also produced views that carried great weight. As to the question of publishing their reports, I think it was in answer to the debate on the humble Address last year that my noble friend Lord Windlesham set out the situation. He said that it was for those who had sent in their views to publish them if they wished to, and a great number of them have. If there are any particular reports that the noble and learned Lord would like to see, I have no reason to suppose that those organisations would keep them from him. Certainly it is not a matter for secrecy on the part of Her Majesty's Government.
§ LORD GARDINERMy Lords, may I ask whether, apart from the probation officers who are in a rather special position, it is not the fact that the only support that the Government have received is from bodies controlled by local authorities?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, some of them are local authorities, but I do not know that the Central 466 Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees is controlled by local authorities. It seems to me that they are a body of magistrates themselves.
§ LORD GARDINERMy Lords, is it not a fact that the Central Council is well known to be the appointee of local authorities?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSNot as I understand it, my Lords, but I will inquire whether that is so. But at any rate, there are those views on record as well.
LORD JANNERMy Lords, in view of the fact that the organisations referred to in the noble and learned Lord's Question are of people who are actually practising in the courts; that they are people who know what is happening from day to day, and constitute those who really can understand what the position is at present, is it not advisable that further consideration be given to their views by the Government so that they may be properly taken into account and possibly, debated here? May I add my congratulations to the noble Viscount? I have had the privilege of serving under him in the Committee on Consolidation Bills for some years, and it has been a privilege to work with him.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSSMy Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord. Lord Janner, for what he has said. The situation is this. It is true that those who are represented on the bodies listed by the noble and learned Lord have first-hand experience. But so have others, and it is not a question of these matters not having been very fully considered. There was the consultative document sent out, which was very full and argued both sides of the case. All the answers came back. In some cases they were not wholly consistent with each other but the decision, my Lords, has now been taken. I cannot believe that there is any use in further consideration. Very full consideration was given by all those concerned and, quite frankly, I hope that the House will now accept the situation and allow all those concerned to get the system going and to keep it going as best they can, particularly when the local government is reformed in 1974.