Courts Bill [HL]

Part of the debate – in the House of Lords at 3:30 pm on 10 February 2003.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, Parliamentary Secretary (Lord Chancellor's Department) 3:30, 10 February 2003

We are sympathetic to the amendment, although not to the precise terms in which it is framed. The Magistrates' Association has put its views to us on this and related matters.

The amendment as drafted does not fully reflect the policies we have developed, partly in response to concerns raised with us by the Magistrates' Association. I am grateful for this opportunity to set out our thinking and to outline our proposals for government amendments.

We seek to address several related concerns. The concern about the lack of statutory backing for Bench training and development committees was hinted at by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and other noble Lords. Given the importance of these activities, there is also concern over whether the Bench training and development committees will be able to achieve all that they and we would like them to.

Those activities include, as many Members of the Committee know, managing the Bench appraisal and mentor scheme, identifying training needs, referring those magistrates deemed not to have demonstrated the required level of competence to advisory committees, and responsibility in relation to magistrates qualified to preside in court. At present, only that last activity appears in primary legislation.

There is concern—a matter highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford—about the grounds on which magistrates may be removed from office. The current Act gives the Lord Chancellor a broad power to remove magistrates by instrument and the grounds are not specified. The Bill sets out certain grounds for removal that sit better with today's human rights considerations. However, the concern is that setting out specific grounds for removal can render arguable grounds which are not expressly mentioned; for instance, the ground of persistent failure to attain the necessary competence. That is touched on by the second part of the amendment. Currently, there is a set procedure whereby magistrates can be removed from office on that ground. It involves referral by Bench training and developmental committees.

Additionally, there is a related concern that the Bill should contain express provision for general magistrates' courts training. A number of noble Lords have highlighted that issue. I do not think that the amendment bears upon that.

We have accepted all those concerns and plan to bring forward amendments at Report to cover them. Their exact form is still under consideration, but we are contemplating a power for the Lord Chancellor to require lay magistrates to undertake training and to make arrangements for that training, and probably other developmental activities, such as appraisal schemes. The details need to be explored further. However, we expect that the provision will include or go alongside a power to make rules regarding the establishment of magistrates' committees for the purpose of carrying out, among other things, functions relating to training and development. That would cover the Bench training development committees. Having outlined our intention in that way, I hope that the noble Baroness will be content.