Magistrates Appointment Committees (Hansard, 20 July 1988)

The Lord Chancellor
Yes, my Lords.

§ Lord Morton of Shuna
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that short reply. Will he take steps to see that wide publicity is given to the decision that he and his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster have taken?

The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, the answer is yes again.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord say who will be responsible for publishing the lists? Will it be his department or the local advisory committee? Can he say when that is likely to take place?

The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, as your Lordships know, the advisory committees are local organisations, and we have asked them to take steps to make themselves known. About half of the advisory committees for which I have responsibility—95 altogether—will have made their identity public by the end of this year. We have said that all should do so by 1992 for reasons unconnected with another important matter in 1992. On the Chancellor of the Duchy's committees, I understand that it is likely that they will start making themselves more public from the beginning of next year.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, on the question of time, can the noble and learned Lord explain why such a long time is needed to publish? Why wait another three years?

The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, we consulted widely on this matter. We have encouraged local advisory committees to go public immediately. Many of them have done that. However, there are some people who took membership on local advisory committees under a regime when their identity was not public. We felt it right to go to 1992 in order to enable those people, if they wish, to retire from the committees, all of which will be constituted by 1992. I felt that it was reasonable to bring this in gradually. It is a voluntary matter. People have so far done it voluntarily. It will become compulsory by 1992. Those who have taken office on the committees on the understanding that their identity would not be revealed would have the option of retiring from their committee before it happens to their committee. That is, if there are people in that position.
All the indications I have are that this move has been generally welcomed, and I believe that the advisory committees themselves generally welcome it. I do not believe that many people will wish to take advantage of that option. However, in making the change, we thought that we should give people that opportunity; but we expressed the hope that they may be willing to have their names made public as soon as possible.

§ Lord Grimond
My Lords, why has the composition of these committees always been secret? Is it anything to do with the fact that they are believed to have been appointed partly because of their 1313 political affiliations or is there some other reason that they should be secret?

The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I am not a complete repository of the history of these committees, and I do not know exactly why they have not been made known until now. However, it seemed to me to be a good idea.
One of the reasons given when the matter was looked into by an inquiry some years ago was that it might cause people on the advisory committee to be lobbied for particular magistrates. Clearly that would be rather undesirable. That may have been the reason. Certainly it has nothing to do with political affiliations, so far as I know. The Lord Chancellor—and I am sure I speak for my predecessors too—has always been anxious to secure a proper balance as regards political influences. There is no question of secrecy in order to preserve a political interest. I believe it is possible to deal with the lobbying matter in other ways and we have made suggestions about that; for example, that those who lobby in an undesirable way would not be regarded as suitable persons to be magistrates.