Courts Bill [HL]

Part of the debate – in the House of Lords at 4:24 pm on 10 February 2003.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns Conservative 4:24, 10 February 2003

I am grateful for the Minister's response. We do not question her openness at all. The difficulty is that we have just one opportunity to obtain clarity on the face of the Bill, which, at the moment, there is not. It is no reflection on any comments made by the Minister that we press these amendments. As Members of the Opposition, it is right for us to respond to views put from outside the Committee and to take the opportunity that discussing the Bill gives to press such matters.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his support of Amendment No. 50C. I note the objection raised by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, to Amendment No. 51. I accept his point and that of the Minister. I was intrigued at the Minister's comment that I had noticed the problem with my own amendment. Indeed, I noticed the difficulty with Amendment No. 50A. It would be unwise to press for agreement from all local justices to be placed on the face of the Bill. However, I do not have such difficulty in attempting to persuade the Government with regard to Amendment No. 50C.

The Minister said that in practice magistrates will continue to be consulted. If that were placed on the face of the Bill, it would reflect what is currently in statute. Therefore, it is not a case of adding minute detail.

I refer briefly to an e-mail that I received from Mr Sid Brighton of the Justices' Clerks Society on 31st January. He points out that if the current statute is to be reflected, the views of all justices assigned to the local justice area should be sought. Their objection to the consultation to which the Minister refers—the consultation that the Government intend with the Bench chairmen or deputy chairmen—would be too restrictive because there would be a question as to where the mandate was obtained.

I accept that the Minister is listening. However, I take the opportunity provided to register my discontent with the lack of clarity on the face of the Bill. I therefore want to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.