Clause 4 - Establishment of courts boards
Courts Bill [Lords]
3:00 pm
Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Shipley, Labour)
It may have escaped the Committee, but I did not design the layout of the United Kingdom, and cannot be held responsible for the nature of communities throughout the country. Some areas require a certain level of focus; perhaps urban areas need a different approach from more rural parts of the country. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to reflect that fact.
Amendment No. 9 is interesting. I have already spoken about some of the changes that we have accepted to clause 4. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) is pushing it a little with the
amendment. I was interested that he said he supported both his amendment and that tabled by the Liberal Democrats. It would be contradictory to insist that courts boards must fit the police board areas but state at the same time that it might be possible to divide them up, as suggested under amendment (a). On reflection, he might not wish to support amendment (a) if he is standing by amendment No. 9.
Amendment No. 9 is too restrictive. It would mean that courts board areas could be altered only in the event of a police authority area changing, and only in a way that preserved co-terminosity with the police authority area. The criminal justice areas will be the building blocks of the courts board areas, and I assure the Committee that thought will be given to their formation.
The amendment would tie the courts boards structure to any future changes to the police areas too rigidly. Under the amendment, only the needs of police authority business would be taken into account, not the business of the courts. It would not allow us to take into account the needs and nature of local communities, as we have in relation to the civil and family business of the court. Why should civil and family court activity fit around police authority business?
While criminal court activities will obviously be a priority for the courts boards, they will look at other issues. The amendment would prevent the merger of two courts board areas, or the creation of two smaller areas, even if such changes were supported by both the boards, unless similar changes were made to the police authority area. It would prevent the alteration of the courts boards' names, unless the police authority area were changed.
Clause 4 ensures that the Lord Chancellor must consult any affected courts boards before making an order to alter their areas. That will ensure proper consultation and parliamentary scrutiny of any changes to the areas. I invite hon. Members not to press amendment No. 9 and amendment (a) to a Division.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 20, in
clause 4, page 3, line 29, leave out from 'Chancellor' to second 'the' in line 34 and insert
'must have regard to the desirability of specifying areas which are the same as—
(a) the police areas listed in Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1996 (c.16) (division of England and Wales, except London, into police areas), and
(b) the area consisting of '.—[Mr. Leslie.]
Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.