Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 33, in

clause 22, page 10, line 39, at end insert—

'(1A) Before making a recommendation under subsection (1), the Lord Chancellor shall consult the lay justices of the local justice area to which it is intended that the District Judge may be assigned.'.

It must be sensible for the Bill to require that, before a recommendation about who is to be a district judge is made, the lay justices who will be working with him should be statutory consultees, as it were; they should have a part to play in the decision making. We hope that the Government will agree that that would be sensible. As I experienced in my years at the Bar, the way that Crown court judges heard appeals from magistrates courts with lay justices sitting either side of them was an important part for those concerned of developing a working relationship in the administration of justice. Senior magistrates got greater experience by sitting with Crown court judges.

If the different parts of the judicial system are to work properly together, surely it is a good idea for lay justices to express a view on who will be appointed as a district judge. That is a small point, and I do not want to take up too much of the Committee's time with it, but I hope that the Minister will understand that the amendment is a genuine attempt to improve the Bill by including the requirement that lay justices be consulted. I will listen with interest to the Minister's response.

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

The amendment would require the Lord Chancellor to consult lay justices before the appointment of the district judge to the local area, as the hon. Gentleman has set out. The intention is that the views of local benches and advisory committees will be sought by the Lord Chancellor before any assignment is made. However, a requirement to ensure that lay justices are made aware of any issues that may affect them is already set out in clause 21, which we have just ordered to stand part of the Bill.

In some circumstances, there may be an urgent need for the appointment of a district judge to meet local needs. The amendment could be an unnecessary constraint should there be such an urgent need. Requiring the Lord Chancellor to consult would unnecessarily fetter powers and cause delays, and we do not want to constrain him in that respect, as he is responsible for the efficient and effective deployment of judicial resources.

We are keeping provisions to appoint to a particular area without consultation, if the Lord Chancellor considers that necessary. Lay justices should not be singled out for consultation. We want to bring the criminal courts closer together. The views of professional judiciary, such as the resident judge and the presiding judges, might also need to be taken into account. At present, district judges are appointed without the requirement for consultation, and that works well. The usual arrangements for discussing appointments in the normal way will be honoured. I

hope that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath recognises that to introduce such a rigid constraint to the clause is not desirable.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

It is helpful to hear some reassurance from the Minister. I know that concerns are sometimes expressed, not least by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), who is not on this Committee, about secret soundings. I see the Government Whip nodding—on many occasions in the Chamber, and no doubt elsewhere, she has heard the hon. Gentleman wax lyrical on that subject. Nevertheless, the Minister's reassurances are of some help. We do not want to constrain consultation, but it is wise for consultation to be wide whenever there are judicial appointments. In light of the Minister's comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

May I ask the Minister a simple question about the appointments procedure for the various types of justices of the peace? Under clause 22, the process is clearly laid out:

''Her Majesty may, on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, appoint a person . . . to be a District Judge''.

Clause 10 states:

''Lay justices are to be appointed for England and Wales by the Lord Chancellor by instrument on behalf and in the name of Her Majesty.''

Clause 24 states, in dealing with deputy district judges,

''The Lord Chancellor may appoint a person'',

and there is no reference to Her Majesty, despite the fact that a deputy district judge has exactly the same functions as a district judge. Why is there a difference? I presume that there are historical reasons for it, rather than any difference in functions under the Bill. It is time that we sorted out such things and had a consistent method of appointment. The judicial appointment process has a degree of internal logic, at least in terms of where the fount of authority lies—all people who act in a judicial capacity are answerable to the Crown—so why in some instances is the Lord Chancellor allowed to act on his own?

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

The clause provides for the appointment by the Lord Chancellor of district judges, and for qualification requirements, payments of allowances and removal from office. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has discovered the traditional barrier in terms of the level at which appointments are delegates of Her Majesty. All appointments are made in the name of the Crown, and they follow the normal arrangements of seniority. Obviously, the more senior members of the judiciary are appointed directly by Her Majesty. There has been an historic and traditional delegation to the Lord Chancellor to deal with the greater volume at less senior ranks. Hence there is a difference between clause 10 and clause 22(1). That is the reason why there is no direct requirement for Her Majesty's personal involvement in those matters, but

all such appointments are made in the name of the Crown. I hope that that helps.

Mr David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

I do not want to pre-empt discussion of a later clause. However, is the Minister saying that a deputy district judge is of lower seniority than a lay justice despite the fact that they are both able to act in the capacity of district judge?

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

My understanding is that a district judge is what used to be called a stipendiary magistrate. Therefore, there is a difference between the district judge and the deputy. The difference between this clause and the one that we shall discuss shortly concerns the volume of appointments, which previously determined the cut-off point for the Lord Chancellor delegating such appointments. It is straightforward that that should be the level at which the Lord Chancellor's direct appointment, delegated from the Crown, comes into effect.

Mr Stephen Hesford (Wirral West, Labour)

Is it not a distinction without a difference? The process is exactly the same. The form of the words is different for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Minister has given.

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

If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall stick with the form of words that I have used. They form the bedrock of the strong case that I have made.

Mr David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

I want to clear the matter up to avoid further debate. Clause 24 does not specify that when the Lord Chancellor appoints a deputy district judge, he does it, as is stated in clause 10,

''by instrument on behalf and in the name of Her Majesty.''

In fact he does, because he is a Minister of the Crown and acting under its authority. Why is that explicit in clause 10, but not in clause 24?

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

My understanding is that the Lord Chancellor makes appointments under clauses 10 and 24, but that Her Majesty makes the appointments under clause 22. The distinction is based on seniority—I do not wish to use the phrase pecking order, although others might wish to characterise levels of seniority thus. That is why the Lord Chancellor has a direct input into these matters. The current arrangements deal with the appointments that come under clause 22. I hope that the Committee will agree that that is relatively straightforward, and that the clause will stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.