Clause 22 - Appointment etc.
Courts Bill [Lords]
11:00 am
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.