JUSTICES OF THE PEACE (Hansard, 8 June 1972)

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

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE)
My Lords, I should like to begin by saying how grateful I am to the noble Lord for having agreed to postpone, for my convenience, his two Questions which he first put down for answer on May 18.
There have been no recent alterations to the rules governing the qualification of candidates for appointment as justices of the peace. In June, 1971—a year ago—in the course of a routine examination of the criteria of appointment, I made it clear that the existing restriction against full-time paid secretaries and agents of Parliamentary constituency parties acting as justices of the peace within their constituencies should extend to such officials, whether paid or unpaid, part or whole time. It is not correct to say that they are not eligible for appointment as justices of the peace. They are so eligible except within the Commission covering the constituency concerned. Except for day-to- 406 day contacts with advisory committees and the Magistrates' Association no outside bodies were consulted. I am advised that this was in conformity with the established practice of my predecessors. The changes were published shortly after the time when they were announced. I have received only one complaint that outside organisations were not consulted. This came from a high official of the Labour Party organisation. I did not think such consultation necessary at the time, and I share the view, which I understand was held by my predecessors, that it is not constitutionally desirable that consultation between Party organisations and the Lord Chancellor's Office should take place regarding the criteria for judicial appointments, though of course the Lord Chancellor remains responsible to Parliament for his policies in this regard.

§ LORD BESWICK
My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. May I ask him whether he is aware, when he says there has been no recent alteration, that that is only under his own definition of the word "alteration"? Is it not the fact that, whereas before it was undertood that unpaid part-time secretaries of Party organisations were allowed to hold a Commission, since the noble and learned Lord's intervention they are not so allowed? Is the noble and learned Lord further aware that his action has stimulater a good deal of disquiet and allegations of Party bias in an area where there should be no such disquiet? May I ask him whether he would be good enough to have a look at this matter again?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, as regards the first part of the noble Lord's question, I made it clear in my Answer (if he will refer to it), that when I say there was no recent alteration there has been no recent alteration at all since June, 1971, which is a year ago. There was the alteration in June, 1971, to which I drew attention in my original Answer. It is of course true that for a very long time, certainly before the Commission of 1948, there was a discrimination between agents and secretaries who were paid and agents and secretaries who were not paid; and I made it clear that in the latter part of the 20th century I thought this distinction between "gentlemen" and "players" ought to be abolished. I still 407 think so, because the same suspicion of bias to which the Royal Commission pointed in their Report must, I think, at the present date apply to both classes. The only bias that there could be would be if a Lord Chancellor appointed political constituency secretaries and agents to the Bench to act within their constituencies. That is the only bias there could be, and that is precisely what I am trying to prevent, because I do not think that justice would be seen to be done if I made such appointments. Only the other day I appointed a Labour Party agent to sit as a J.P. immediately outside his constituency; but inside his constituency, no.

§ LORD BESWICK
My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he is aware that had he had some form of consultation he would have found out that, certainly in the Labour Party and I rather suspect in the Liberal Party too, there is a predominance of part-time unpaid agents and secretaries, and that in the Conservative Party, on the other hand, the majority are paid and are full-time? Therefore, by drawing this distinction as between chairmen of political Parties and part-time secretaries he is thereby penalising the Labour Party and those within the Labour movement who would otherwise wish to serve as Justices of the Peace.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I thought I made it clear that I have drawn no distinction at all but I have abolished the distinction. It seems to me that if one is to avoid discrimination one has to choose between abolishing the restriction on all agents or imposing it on all agents alike. All I said was that I would not appoint any political agents for constituencies to sit within their constituencies, and I regard the distinction of whether they are paid or not as being irrelevant for the purposes of my appointment. So far from there being any discrimination in what I have done, I have abolished discrimination.

§ LORD BESWICK
My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord two further questions? Can he justify the appointment of a chairman of a constituency Conservative organisation, which is permitted under his present arrangements, and not at the same time 408 permit the appointment of the secretary, part-time, unpaid possibly, of a Labour Party organisation? May I further ask him whether he is aware that although there would appear to be some justification for barring the spouse of a Member of Parliament from sitting within the confines of the constituency of a Member, there can be no conceivable reason why the spouse of an unpaid part-time local secretary should not be allowed to sit?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, with regard to the first question, I do not think the noble Lord has put it in at all a fair way. The chairmen of Parties, whether they are Conservative Party chairmen or Labour Party chairmen, are not restricted, and that was in accordance with the findings of the Royal Commission. All I have done is to say that the distinction as regards secretaries and agents, between those who are paid and those who are unpaid, is not meaningful in 1972. If I were pressed as to the position of chairmen, to restrict them too, I would of course consider the situation, and it would apply equally to the chairmen of all Parties but the only way in which the position of chairmen has ever been introduced at all into this discussion is to ask me to extend to agents the freedom which is given to chairmen, and on the whole I am not prepared to do that.
I certainly would not draw a distinction between a Conservative chairman and a Labour agent. The chairman must be considered in one category whether he is a Conservative chairman or a Labour chairman, and agents must be considered in one category whether they are Conservative agents or Labour agents. This is the only way in which we can avoid Party bias.
With regard to spouses I have made no change at all, except to this extent, that my predecessors and I have always reluctantly but firmly said that where there is a restricted category—namely, for instance, policemen or solicitors or Party candidates or Members of Parliament or paid agents—in any restricted category the spouse of the restricted person is also restricted. That again has been solely in the interests of justice being seen to be done, and is not and has not been at all inspired by any kind of other motive. As regards my own policy, I made no 409 change in the rule but if we restrict a new category, even in theory, the general operation of the rule regarding spouses applies to them equally with all other restricted categories. I must add that I was Lord Chancellor for 12 months before June 1971. I must have appointed at least a thousand J.P.s during that time, and so far as I know it was never suggested to me by any of the advisory committees that a candidate who was in fact a political agent should be appointed to the Bench, nor do I imagine that any advisory committee would ever have done so, whether I made the rule or not.

§ BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE
My Lords, may I respectfully disagree with the sentiments expressed by the noble and learned Lord—

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS
No!

§ BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE
My Lords, may I respectfully ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether he will reconsider some of his remarks regarding wives? For 13 years I was in a different political Party from my husband. There is no reason at all to assume that a Member of Parliament or an agent should find his wife simply reflecting his point of view. May I ask whether the noble and learned Lord does not think that to assume that the wife, whether the wife of a Member of Parliament, an agent or anyone else, is merely a reflection of her husband's point of view is at this period of time shockingly out of date?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, as regards wives, in fact I said nothing about wives. The rule applies also to husbands. It applies generally, and that is why I used the word "spouse", and I think the noble Lord in his Question also uses the word "spouse". It is not so much that I have expressed any sentiments; all I have said is that my predecessors and I for many years have restricted the spouses of restricted persons in this way. As those who have discussed this matter with me will know, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Baroness has said. But if, for instance, the wife of a chief constable or the husband of a chief of the women's police, or the husband or wife of a solicitor practising before the Bench, were to sit on the Bench, or the 410 wife or husband of a Member of Parliament were to sit on the local Bench, in nine cases out of ten I do not believe that the public would think that justice was being seen to be done. I am not in the least trying to suggest that they are mere reflections of their husbands or wives, as the case may be, but for very many years this has been the rule and I very much doubt whether the public would welcome a change in the more liberal direction in which the noble Baroness has suggested.

§ LORD GARDINER
My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether when he made this change he bore in mind that the Royal Commission in paragraph 140 of their Report carefully considered this question, and unanimously recommended that whole-time paid political agents should be excluded but no other political officials? And secondly, am I not right in saying that, with the exception of himself, every Lord Chancellor since 1948 has followed that recommendation of the Royal Commission.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I not only bore it in mind but I made it clear in both my original and first supplementary Answer that I did so bear it in mind. I specifically referred to the finding of the Royal Commission that paid agents should he restricted in this way and of course their wives. although they did not mention it, but I considered that in 1972 this distinction between "gentlemen" and "players" really is unmeaning in the present political context. Yes, I certainly considered it. It is also for that reason, as I said in, I think, my first supplementary answer, that I did not extend it to chairmen because that again is in accordance with the Report of the Commission. But the noble and learned Lord will not forget that in the very next sentence in paragraph 140 to which he referred the Royal Commission went on to say that there would be other cases from time to time where political bias would be an excluding factor, although they did not at that date suggest that there should be an inflexible general rule.

§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILL
My Lords, could the noble and learned Lord tell me why he does not feel that the wife of the chairman would be suspect?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, the chairman is not restricted; therefore, the wife of the chairman is not restricted—or as it may be the husband of the chairman is not restricted.

§ LORD LEATHERLAND
My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord this question: is he aware of the fact that in many districts it is the chairman who is the active Party boss and that the unpaid part-time secretary of a Party is frequently little more than a clerical officer?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I am not: prepared to say that the secretary of any political constituency Party is little more than a clerical officer. On the contrary, if he were I should have thought that was exactly one of the reasons why one did not want to put a person who was under orders in a judicial position. I do not think it is fair to secretaries to call them that. So far as chairmen are concerned, I am aware that the position differs from constituency to constituency; and that is precisely why I agree on that point, on balance, with the Royal Commission.

§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD
My Lords, as this question has already taken half an hour, may I suggest that it might be pursued by, I was going to say a mini-debate but perhaps a maxi-debate might be better, on some other occasion?

§ LORD BERNSTEIN
My Lords, with your Lordships' permission may I ask of the noble and learned Lord, who said that justice must be seen to be done, that there is no doubt that some people feel—

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS
That is a speech.

§ LORD BERNSTEIN
I will make it a question. Will he also consider that political bias should not be seen or considered?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, that is precisely what I have been trying to convey.

§ LORD BESWICK
May I address one last question to the noble and learned Lord? Is it not clear both from the replies which he gave in letters which extend back now over some period of time, and from his replies to-day, that he 412 was really unaware of the position that existed in the local Party organisations of the Labour Party and had he taken consultation he would have properly understood this? In the light of this misunderstanding might I ask him whether he would at least undertake to have discussions with the parties concerned to see whether some arrangements or corn-promise could be reached?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I do not think I can accept the latter because of what I said at the end of my original Answer. I am advised that it is not desirable for consultation to take place with political Party organisations, although of course I am very open to receive any members of any Party, the noble Lord's Party or any other, who happen to be Members of Parliament of either House. I would certainly undertake to do that. May I say this by way of conclusion to the noble Lord although it perhaps does not arise out of the question: that all the steam would be taken out of this if and when, as I hope, after the next Session, I have had an opportunity to consider the alterations which will follow on the Local Government Bill. I may then be in a position to introduce legislation to abolish the Commission system altogether which will give me a very much greater degree of flexibility than I now possess. I would really suggest that therein lies the possibility of satisfying the noble Lord without interfering with the administration of justice.

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

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
No, my Lords, the procedures now followed are those recommended by the Royal Commission on the Appointment of Justices of the Peace in 1910 and approved by the Royal Commission on Justices of the Peace in 1948. While I am always prepared to consider suggestions for improvement, I do not think there is a case for a fresh inquiry of the type suggested by the noble Lord.

§ LORD BESWICK
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that Answer, although is he aware that the latter part of the last answer he gave to the previous series of questions really answers my Question much more satisfactorily? I was going to ask him whether he does not appreciate that there will be a difference in the situation with the passing of the Local Government Bill, with the extension of the areas of the Commission, and is there not a case now for looking at this matter again? But if he undertakes to have consultations within the reasonably near future, may I ask him whether he is aware that that would go some way to satisfying the request I am making?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
Of course, the noble Lord's Question related to the procedures involved in the appointment of justices of the peace. His previous series of questions related to the criteria of eligibility. My own belief is that the right way forward—I am perhaps talking slightly out of turn—is to abolish the Commission system altogether and that would enable a Lord Chancellor to have complete flexibility within the administrative powers of his office to appoint justices of the peace notwithstanding that their house happens to be on one side of the road rather than the other. If, as I hope, I get to that situation, I do not believe there will be any steam in this at all. In the meantime, any further inquiry would be superfluous. As I said to the noble Lord I am always willing to receive him or anybody else as a Member of Parliament about this or any other matter relating to my Office.

§ BARONESS GAITSKELL
My Lords, would not the noble and learned Lord Chancellor agree that with all these argument ever since the noble and learned Lord Lord Gardiner instituted a new and fairer way of appointing justices of the peace, happily continued by the present Lord Chancellor, things are really not as bad as we might think?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the noble Baroness and I yield to no one in my admiration of my immediate predecessor. I do not think, to be completely accurate, that he did introduce a new system. The system has been developed as I indicated for more than seventy 414 years. What I think my predecessor did was this: right up to the time when he became Lord Chancellor, successive Lord Chancellors—certainly going back as far as my father—had tried to balance the parties inside the local bench but the noble and learned Lord saw that that was not quite good enough and tried to balance the occupations and the social strata from which they came. I have very conscientiously tried to follow him in this, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for perhaps indicating that that was so.