| Draft Maximum Number of Stipendiary Magistrates Order 1999
|
|
The Chairman: Order. We should stick strictly to the subject of the increase of stipendiary magistrates from 50 to 56. Mr. Hawkins: I was about to say that, in those circumstances, it may be that the number of stipendiary magistrates would not need to be increased substantially. It will remain a matter for debate between the parties, both in the House and in another place, as to how large the stipendiary bench will have to be in due course. Having said that the official Opposition welcome the proposal, may I ask the Minister some questions? Will she tell us—either in Committee this afternoon, or by placing the answer in the Library—how much the increase will be in the cost to the public purse of appointing the extra stipendiaries? Also, what would have been the cost if the number had been increased to 60? I hope that the Minister will be able to get that information in due course. Do the Government intend to give a figure for how large they think that the stipendiary magistracy—or district judges magistrates courts—may have to be, if their proposals for changes in mode of trial are accepted by both Houses? That would be relevant to our debates on the Bill in relation to mode of trial. Having put those questions, I am happy to leave the matter there, and once again to join the Minister's tributes to all magistrates, whether lay or stipendiary. Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon): I join the Minister and the hon. Member for Surrey Heath in welcoming you, Mr. Olner, as Chairman of the Committee. I should also like to welcome the Minister again. I welcomed her at Question Time on the Floor of the House and I welcome her as a Minister running her first Committee. The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is a welcoming man. Mr. Burnett: I have done a heck of a lot of welcoming. The order provides for the maximum number of stipendiary magistrates to be increased from 50 to 56, but that raises some important questions. I join the Minister and the hon. Member for Surrey Heath in paying tribute to the excellent work done both by the lay magistracy and the stipendiary magistracy. I shall not dwell on this point, but it is germane that many Members have grave reservations about the Government's proposals to curb jury trials in the criminal justice mode of trial Bill. The Government have invoiced the Scottish legal system as an example, in explaining why change needs to be made. However, the Scottish system has many more professional or stipendiary magistrates. That does not lie well with the Minister's very welcome assurances on the lay magistracy. Mr. Bermingham: Of course, the Scots system is based on Roman Dutch law; it is not based on English law, which is different. How can the two be equated? How can their systems of judgment be equated? Is that not a fundamental fallacy? Mr. Burnett: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. That is another reason why I was surprised that Ministers drew such a parallel. An interesting article appeared in The Times on 9 November 1999, entitled ``Time to lay off lay magistrates''. The article was written by Robert McFarland, who was a member of the Glidewell inquiry into the Crown Prosecution Service. The article presumed, directly and by implication, that the lay magistracy was not democratic or representative, and that it was expensive and ineffective. I was glad to hear the Minister's comments today, as many Members of Parliament view the lay magistracy benignly. Lay magistrates provide a valuable service, and their local knowledge and dedication make them an important part of our communities. Many of us believe that justice should be done—and be seen to be done—locally, and that magistrates courts should be retained in our rural towns. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to answer all my questions in Committee, and I should be happy to receive a written response. If that is not convenient, I should be happy to table my questions in the normal way. I understand that the only payments made to lay magistrates are for travelling expenses and loss of earnings. Will the Minister confirm the rates paid for travelling expenses, and how the calculation of loss of earnings is made? Is there a maximum payment? Will the Minister also confirm the cost of employing a stipendiary magistrate? What income is payable, and in what bands? What national insurance payments, back-up payments to secretaries, travel and accommodation expenses and pension contributions are involved? Will the Minister tell the Committee what qualifications a stipendiary magistrate requires? Lay and stipendiary magistrates now receive considerable training. What training is given, and how much time, annually, do lay and stipendiary magistrates spend on it? Finally, can the Minister provide, now or in due course, statistics to show how many cases are dealt with by, first, the average stipendiary magistrate and, secondly, the average lay magistrate? I appreciate that such raw statistics can be misleading, and that they are only a guide. One case differs from another, but— Mr. Bermingham: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, increasingly, employers do not release persons for magisterial duties? The lay magistracy is therefore becoming more and more confined to a tiny sector of the community. Mr. Burnett: I am extremely grateful that the hon. Member for St. Helens, South has graced this Committee. He makes an important point, which I shall deal with at the end of my speech. Not only do employers sometimes put difficulties in the way of releasing individuals for service in magistrates courts, but there are difficulties in recruiting such individuals. To return to the previous point, the statistics on lay and stipendiary magistrates could be misleading. As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath said, however, it would be useful, in the future, for the Committee and the Minister to see such statistics, although I suspect that she has already seen them. In compiling these statistics, it must be recognised that the stipendiary magistrate invariably sits alone and lay magistrates usually sit in twos or threes. Therefore, where a magistrate sits alone in a single case, he or she should, for statistical purposes, count as one. However, where two magistrates deal with a single case, they should—purely for statistical purposes—each be credited with half a piece. I hope that I am not overcomplicating the point. I wish to raise the important case of Starrs v. the procurator fiscal of Linlithgow, which was reported in The Times— The Chairman: Order. That would be out of order and would stray from the very narrow definition of the statutory instrument before us. Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Mr. Olner. That case is extremely germane to the order, because it is a High Court of Scotland ruling that may have very important implications in the United Kingdom. It determines whether someone who is employed by the executive as a magistrate—the Scottish equivalent is a deputy sheriff—is an impartial judge according to the European convention on human rights, which will form part of our law on 1 October 2000 and will affect the economic funding of judicial systems in the UK. The Chairman: I am told that there is a slight connection, but I should advise the honourable Gentleman not to stray too far down this path. Mr. Burnett: I am grateful to you, Mr. Olner, and I am again grateful to the hon. Member for St. Helens, South, who took the words from my mouth. I shall refer again to the very important case of Starrs v. the procurator fiscal of Linlithgow, which was reported in The Times on 17 November 1999. I raised the matter earlier in the week on the Floor of the House in relation to the order to increase the number of High Court judges. Although it is a Scottish case, it is very persuasive in English law, and I shall give a swift resume of it. Article 6 of the European convention on human rights provides that an individual who is charged with a crime is entitled to a hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. A judge who had no security of tenure, and whose appointment was subject to annual review, was not, according to the court, independent within the meaning of article 6. The Minister has already told me on the Floor of the House that the Lord Chancellor is considering this judgment, especially in connection with deputy judges and assistant recorders in England and Wales. Will she assure the Committee that this judgment could neither weaken nor void the status of lay magistrates and stipendiary magistrates? Finally, we appreciate that in some areas it is difficult to find individuals who are prepared to serve as lay magistrates, and we recognise the need to increase the number of stipendiary magistrates. We also appreciate that, particularly in certain city areas, it is difficult for some lay magistrates to be released from their employment to serve on the bench. We regret that, but justice should be scrupulously impartial and fair. It should also be swift, and we shall support the order.
4.54 pmMr. Bermingham: I shall be brief, because I have made most of the points that I wanted to make in interventions. I welcome the order, but I suggest to the Minister with great care that it is too little and, in some ways, too late. Bearing in mind the Scottish case, we must look again at the question of part-time judges, not simply of recorders and deputy recorders. I am aware that some people are appointed as part-time stipendiary magistrates, and I fear that, horribly, they will fall within the judgment of the Scottish court, were it to be repeated in Europe. I suspect that it will be repeated and that we are not in kilter with European law. As we sail our legal ship into European seas—I mean this not in a political but a legal context— Mr. Burnett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although the Starrs case is a Scottish case, it is very persuasive with regard to the law of England and Wales?
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 1999 | Prepared 25 November 1999 |
