Mr David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 121, in

clause 14, page 7, line 15, at end insert—

'(3) If the Lord Chancellor directs the removal of a person's name under subsection (2), he shall give his reasons for so directing.'.

Again, this is partly a probing amendment to help us to understand under what circumstances the Lord Chancellor might direct the removal of a person's name from the supplemental list. However, it is also a little more than that. Under natural justice, a person should be entitled to know why they have been removed from what is essentially an honorific list. Subsection (1) contains a clear requirement for that to happen if a person

''ceases to be a justice of the peace.''

Subsection (2)(b), however, appears to be entirely discretionary on the part of the Lord Chancellor, unless it is intended to qualify the first provision. However, I do not think that it is. Perhaps the Minister could explain under what circumstances the Lord Chancellor would exercise his powers to direct the removal of a name and why he should not be required to give a reason for doing so, given that there are, perhaps understandably, none of the qualifications that apply to the removal of a lay justice from office. Clear grounds must be set out in statute. However, no such grounds are set out in the Bill, which is rather fuzzy as it is currently worded.

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Shipley, Labour)

We have touched briefly on the wonderful issue of the supplemental list. The hon. Gentleman's amendment may have arisen from a misunderstanding. I shall thrill the Committee with a detailed explanation—which I hope is clear and can be followed—of why that is so.

Under clause 13(4) a magistrate may be placed on the supplemental list at his own request. He may do that for various reasons, including, for example, the illness of a close relative. Under clause 13(5) a magistrate may be placed on the list by a direction from the Lord Chancellor on the grounds of incapacity.

Clause 14(2) provides for the removal of names from the supplemental list under the Lord Chancellor's direction, but only if the person's name is on the list as a result of clause 13(4) or (5). However, the removing of a name from the list is not a negative action. Clause 14(2) provides for a change in circumstances, which may mean that the person on the supplemental list would be able to serve again. The circumstances of a person whose name has been placed on the list under clause 13(4) or (5) may change. For example, a person who was previously incapacitated may regain their health and be able to serve again as a magistrate. Clause 14(2) ensures that the Lord Chancellor could allow such a person to continue their valuable service as a magistrate. We need that provision; without it a magistrate would, under clause 12(2), be prevented from serving.

It is unnecessary to provide for the Lord Chancellor to inform a person whose name was being removed under clause 14(2). He could make such a direction only if the person concerned were content for his name to be removed from that list. That would follow a request from that individual. I hope that my explanation gives comfort to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, and that he will withdraw his amendment.

Mr David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful for that explanation. I still think that the clause is not terribly transparently worded. I assume, therefore, that there is no capacity to remove someone from the supplemental list for misconduct, misbehaviour or permanent incapacity.

Mr Boris Johnson (Henley, Conservative)

I do not understand what the purpose of the supplemental list is. Does it list people who are no longer allowed to serve or people who have served and are now receiving a mark of distinction? What is its purpose?

Mr David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman has got to the nub of the issue. The supplemental list is a sort of retirement home for magistrates who are, in a variety of ways, past their sell-by dates. When it is honorific, it is likely to concern someone in the other place, but I should not say that.

Mr Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port & Neston, Labour)

I wish to defend the honour of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) who is a member of the supplemental list. That is an outrageous slur on her character. She is not the only Member of Parliament on it. People in other occupations have gone on to the list because their current occupation debars them. If my hon. Friend retired from her seat,

she would be able to continue as a member of the bench.

Mr David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

I was coming to that precise point. The list has two aspects: one is a way of removing somebody so they are not allowed to serve; the other is a way of keeping somebody in abeyance while they temporarily cannot serve, so that they can return to the active bench at the end of that period. The wording of the clause does not make that distinction in any way, and I do not apologise for the misunderstanding that I was guilty of, because it is possible to construe the provision in exactly the way that I did. The Minister may like to look at the matter again.

It is clearly necessary to have a method of getting someone back on the active roll, as it were, under appropriate circumstances. That is what the Minister is trying to ensure. Can I assume that there is no provision for removing someone from the supplemental list who should jolly well not have been on it at all as they were unfit to practice as a magistrate under any circumstances?

Mrs Angela Watkinson (Upminster, Conservative)

Further to a point that I made earlier, there seems to be a link between people reaching the age of 70 and going on to the supplemental list. I do not include the hon. Member for Lewisham, East in that bracket. There is an implication in clause 13 that being 70 automatically precludes somebody from performing a magistrate's duties. The vast majority of people aged 70 are still in full possession of their faculties, and therefore the vast majority of magistrates are, too. It would be a great mistake to put them out to grass purely for that reason.

Mr David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Lady raises a separate point and one that has troubled people for some time—the question of when people should step down from judicial appointments of any sort when there is an age limit. There has been a lot of regulation about the statutory age of retirement for judicial appointments. Can the Minister comment on that matter?

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs; Shipley, Labour)

Believe it or not, I am assured by officials that the provisions that we are dealing with are a lot clearer that the current arrangements. The key is to bear in mind clause 12(2). That relates to the purpose of the supplemental list—and, indeed, to the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Henley. Further to his point concerning the removal of lay magistrates, the provisions of clause 11 would provide the opportunity to remove people for other reasons. The supplemental list is not the main vehicle to do that. Rather, it is a roll of honour for those who are no longer practising.

Mr David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I now understand that, if somebody does awful things, they are not removed from the supplemental list, but from the lay magistracy under the provisions of clause 11. I now understand the Minister's point and his opaque legislation. We have taken far too long on the rather minor issue of the supplemental list, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

h3Clause 15