My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

• European Parliament (Representation) Act,
• National Minimum Wage (Enforcement Notices) Act,
• Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act,
• Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act,
• Industrial Development (Financial Assistance) Act.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 2, line 3, leave out "business of the courts referred to in subsection (1)" and insert "way in which he has discharged his general duty in relation to the courts"

My Lords, I thank the Minister for responding to the concerns I expressed in Committee. It is a helpful start. I hope the day goes on as usefully.

My amendment in Committee referred to the manner in which the Lord Chancellor would discharge his duty. I was taken to task by the drafting wizard on my own Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who made it clear that the word "manner" was not felicitous. I was trying to find another word. The Government saved me that search by finding the right one. I support the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 2, line 3, at end insert—

"(5) The Lord Chancellor shall discharge his general duty in relation to the courts in accordance with an annual national strategic plan ("the national plan").

(6) The national plan must be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament before the beginning of the year to which it relates.

(7) The national plan may be modified by the Lord Chancellor during the year to which it relates provided such modification is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament prior to its being made.

(8) The Lord Chancellor shall discharge his general duty in relation to the courts in each of the areas specified under section 4(2) in accordance with an annual local strategic plan for each area ("a local plan").

(9) The Lord Chancellor shall submit a local plan to each area justice board established under section 4 containing his proposals for discharging his general duty in relation to the courts in that board's area.

(10) A local plan must be approved by the hoard to which it has been submitted before the beginning of the year to which it relates.

(11) The Lord Chancellor may modify a local plan during the year to which it relates provided such modification is approved by the board to which it has been submitted prior to its being made."

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Anelay has gone to a tremendous amount of trouble with this rather complicated group of amendments, but they are fundamental. Up to a point they overlap and coincide with amendments in the same group tabled by the Government. This breaks new ground, which is necessary bearing in mind that the magistrates' courts are being transferred from the Home Secretary's responsibility to that of the Lord Chancellor.

In basic principle, however, the views put forward by my noble friend Lady Anelay would be workable and are sound. Therefore, I hope that the Government will feel that even if they wish to modify some of the detail, the views that my noble friend Lady Anelay has put forward should be accepted.

My Lords, mention has been made of a difficulty that I have with new Clause 5 which the Government have proposed. To my mind, a perhaps completely novel procedure—if it is not completely novel, it is certainly exceptional—has been adopted for modifying the statutory functions of the boards as prescribed in new Clause 5. It provides that the Lord Chancellor can by guidance supplement the functions conferred on the boards by the statute. I am not aware of any other situation in which guidance has been used as an instrument for amending primary legislation. There is a good deal of talk, as there has been over the years, about the propriety of amending statutes by secondary legislation, but this is a step further. Without the ordinary process for such change, in practical terms, it is difficult to know how a person who is not very familiar with the statutes can in years to come find out the current functions of these boards. I do not think that it would occur to one to look through the guidance issued to find the changes.

My Lords, I have my name to a number of the amendments in this group. From my point of view, and I should think from that of many noble Lords, placing such a huge number of crucial amendments in one group makes it extremely difficult to have sensible and effective discussion of them. I much regret this grouping.

I speak in support particularly of the early amendments in this group in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, my noble friend Lord Goodhart and myself, particularly Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 which make amendments to Clause 1 and would give the new courts boards more significant power. The proposed arrangements, even as amended by the new set of amendments tabled by the Lord Chancellor, do not give any power to the courts boards.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, implied, from the Government's point of view our amendments in this group are a good deal milder than the ones which we debated at length late on the night of 28th January. Many noble Lords who are now in the Chamber took part in that extended and important debate. I believe that these amendments deal with the principal objection raised—with which I can concur or at least sympathise—namely, that there needs to be a separation of powers between the executive under the so-called unified system and the courts boards, that requirement being particularly acute vis-à-vis Crown and county courts, which of course are part of the new aegis with magistrates' courts.

As we all know, justices of the peace have in effect run their own courts and made their own decisions in relation thereto for nigh on 1,000 years. So the amendments at the beginning of the group to which I am speaking keep the board non-executive, but give it one specific power—namely that of approving annual local strategic plans which the Lord Chancellor would be required to produce to them as a subset of the annual national strategic plan that the amendment would require him to produce and have approved by each House.

That may sound a major change from what is already in the Bill, but I do not believe that it is. The Lord Chancellor already has the obligation, under Clause 1(4), to produce an annual report after the event, so to speak. However, in his own new amendment to Clause 5, he gives the new courts boards a duty,

"to consider draft and final business plans relating to those courts".

So the Government seem to have conceded that the preparation in advance of plans which need to be considered by courts boards is already an agreed point. Of course we welcome that. However, we go further and say that those annual local plans need to be approved by the local courts boards.

I should say now that Amendment No. 21 in my name—I have to refer to it now because it is in the same group—requires that those draft plans are draft strategy as well as business plans. I put the amendment forward in a probing way in the hope that the Minister can assure me that the phrase already in their amendment, "final business plans", is intended to be construed widely to include matters of strategy in relation to local courts.

So what these early amendments in the group boil down to is that local plans do not come into effect until approved by each courts board. We believe that that will go a considerable way towards amending what we and very many magistrates—indeed, a growing number of magistrates—see as the principal defect of the proposed unified system. If that approval were part of the Bill, we would expect that, in practice, because of the need for it, there will be a much closer and more effective interaction between the boards and their chief executives. Short of giving the boards decisive powers, which we are no longer seeking, this arrangement gives each board a practical, irreducible assurance that their views really will count.

The Minister's repeated powerful and eloquent protestations throughout the consideration of the Bill and in the very many letters that she has written which I have seen—protestations about proper consultation, proper regard for the views of boards and so on—can provide only, as I am sure she must admit, a limited and temporary comfort. Ministers change. Governments get overthrown. Financial and policy priorities change.

It is because we are dealing with the ancient, established, embedded institution of magistrates' courts that we do not believe the present board arrangements of an advisory and recommendatory nature are sufficient.

I am aware that our amendment requiring approval by local boards provides no tie-breaker for potential deadlock between a board and its chief executive. That dilemma is often found in arrangements for boards of directors in private companies and in certain types of contract. I have come across it many times in my professional life, and there are two schools of thought about it. One school, the more conventional, is that there must be a tie-breaker. The other—the one which we prefer in this context—is that the boards, being as they are composed of a much wider group than most magistrates' courts committees currently are, will in effect have to come to a compromise solution with the chief executive. I believe that they will. However, if the Government consider that to be the stumbling block to this amendment—we shall soon hear whether it is there is time enough for a sensible contrary view with a suggested tie-breaking arrangement to be considered at the next stage.

I should like to say a word about the depth and extent of discontent in the magistracy over these central arrangements, which as I said are not essentially altered by the amendments tabled by the Lord Chancellor. In a nutshell, all the decisive powers of lay justices in running their own courts are being removed. Those powers are, as I said, being replaced by only advisory and recommendatory powers. Therefore, if push comes to shove, and of course it will, the executive agency and its employees will rule the roost in the future. I think that one can reasonably predict that few of the chief officers will have hands-on experience of magistrates' courts, or indeed of any courts. I could give examples of chief administration officers under the present regime who have been appointed to their position without any knowledge or experience whatever of the law or courts. Not merely that but on the new courts boards the magistrates, far from having, as they presently do, a majority, will be entitled only to a single representative. En passant I speak to Amendment No. 25 in the group which stands in my name. A minimum of two on these new boards for magistrates must surely make sense and go a little way towards mitigating their extreme discomfort with, and lack of confidence in, the proposed arrangements.

On 26th April a meeting took place in London attended by 150 people, most of them elected chairs of magistrates' courts Benches, of which there are around 300. So nearly half the chairs of magistrates' Benches attended the meeting. They came from 37 of the 42 magistrates' courts committees. I am sure the House will be interested to know that that extraordinarily—how shall I put it?—responsible, respectable and—

Representative.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I adopt the epithet "representative" and add to it the fact that magistrates are extremely cautious of anything remotely approaching politics. They feel so strongly about what is going on and about the inadequate advocacy of their point of view that they have now formed a national forum which, somewhat late in the day but not too late, will put their views in relation to this and other aspects of the Bill and, indeed, in relation to the many statutory instruments and orders that will follow its enactment.

Whatever the Government may think, there is now a powerful and growing sense that the price to be paid for the new unified service as it stands under the Bill is too high and against the public interest. Whatever the Government may think, there is also a settled conviction that without an amendment such as the one we are discussing—it is fairly minimalist—the morale of lay justices, and hence the retention of justices of the peace and recruitment of quality new ones, will be progressively undermined. There is much anecdotal evidence coming through even at this stage of magistrates throwing in the towel and saying that they are fed up with the bureaucratic demands being placed upon them, let alone the never ending complexities of their role, and also of a failure to attract the very sort of rugged, quality, experienced individuals who make the best magistrates.

It is an irony that we are discussing a measure which will centralise and inevitably bureaucratise the running of the courts in this country at the very same time as the other place is discussing the very reverse process vis-à-vis the NHS. Foundation hospitals are put forward by the Government. in my view broadly correctly, on the basis that the centralised, bureaucratic, managerialist system that prevails within the NHS is simply incapable of delivering the goods, most specifically in terms of its impact on the morale of the staff of the NHS and the doctors. That has never been so low. More and more doctors are retiring at the earliest possible moment. We have a crisis of manpower or womanpower on the wards and elsewhere.

I believe that so much of the thrust of the Bill, especially as regards the inability to see the impact that it is having, and will have, on the morale of the magistracy, is moving in precisely the opposite direction from the insights which underlie the proposals vis-à-vis foundation hospitals. The endless organisational tinkering from on high, which has characterised successive governments' stewardships of the NHS, has yielded less than nothing. As I say, morale is crucial.

It is not even as if there is an assurance in the Bill, or in the later amendments of the Lord Chancellor, that the 42 boards, themselves only brought into being under the Access to Justice Act 1999, will be retained. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, rightly said, this is a minimalist amendment that we believe must be placed in the Bill. The logic of so much of the Government's argument with regard to the reorganisation will lead inexorably, many people believe, to ever greater local justice areas justified on the same assumptions of economies of scale, consistency and increased flexibility which underlie the reasoning put forward for this central and unified structure.

The boundary problems between courts about which the Government have made much play—some of it justified, some of it exaggerated—will always exist so long as there are boundaries. One begins to wonder whether the new managerial regime will not over time press for bigger and bigger and fewer and fewer areas.

Many Bench chairmen have said or written to me to the effect that although the unified service will be easier to control, the quality of what is controlled will perforce decline unless the safeguards contained in the amendments proposed by noble Lords from this side of the House are put in place. It is rather like an underpowered car that may be easier to drive but only because it has less punch under the bonnet.

If one really wants independent justices of the peace of the highest quality, one must expect some turbulence from them, some lack of consistency between one court and another and some awkwardness. But surely we are wise enough in this House to realise that there are times when efficiency and effectiveness—the great mantra of this Government—work in opposite directions. Bureaucratic convenience and managerial control may make the paperwork neater and more consistent—several people have pointed out to me some of the micro-criticisms raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, in her speech on 28th January—but the long-term basic effectiveness of magistrates' courts as a whole is undermined through loss of independence, loss of a sense of autonomy and the accompanying loss of esteem. As I say, that is not a. price worth paying.

I am sorry to have spoken at some length but, as I say, we are dealing with a group containing some 20 amendments. If the Government do not listen to me and noble Lords on these Benches, I hope very much indeed that they will take heed of the very many letters which I understand have been written by a great many highly distinguished lay justices on this very set of issues.

My Lords, I wish to address the general debate on this large group of amendments and also specifically to address Amendment No. 22, on which mine is the lead name.

Lord Justice Auld's report recommended that the administration of the magistrates' courts should be merged with the administration of the other courts in England and Wales and that the staff now employed by the magistrates' courts committees should therefore be merged with the staff of the courts agency. We on these Benches accepted that principle. We acknowledge that it is difficult to justify having a single authority for the management of the county courts, the Crown Court and the High Court for the whole of England and Wales in the form of a courts agency but at the same time retaining 42 separate authorities for the management of the magistrates' courts.

The problem thrown up by this proposed merger was how a single national agency could combine sufficient local input into decisions about the administration of the courts. The Bill as it stands and, indeed, as it has stood ever since it was published, gives what are called the court administration councils powers only to make general recommendations.

In Committee amendments were put down in the joint names of the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats to turn the court administration councils into corporate bodies which had management powers over the administration of the courts in their areas. It was recognised that that was a holding operation. We recognised that those amendments would in effect have retained most of the powers of the magistrates' courts committees and, indeed, extended them to the other courts, and thereby the objectives of the Bill would have been defeated.

We have therefore come hack on Report with a more limited group of amendments. I draw particular attention to Amendment No. 2, which provides for what can be described as codetermination. Under it, the Lord Chancellor must produce both national and local strategic plans for the work of the courts agency nationally and in each area. It suggests that the national plan must be approved by Parliament, and the local plans by what we called area justice boards, which I think will now be called courts boards.

The amendment deliberately created a potential deadlock. In order to get the local strategic plan, the Lord Chancellor and the boards would have to reach an agreement. Along with other reasons, that stimulated a response from the Government, who produced their own amendments to Clauses 4 and 5 and a substantial new schedule before Schedule 1. Those government amendments come some way towards what we and the magistrates wanted to achieve. They strengthen the role of the courts boards in the Bill.

One important feature is that the amendments have proved acceptable to the Magistrates' Association. That is something that we have to take into account as an important consideration. However, the proposals are not acceptable to all members of the Magistrates' Association. In particular, they seem to have caused problems with the chairs of the various benches.

Even if we limit ourselves to the government amendments, we can see that they plainly still need strengthening. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, the Magistrates' Association has approved four amendments to the government amendments. The lead name on one of those is hers, that on another is mine, and that of my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury is on the other two. Those are Amendments Nos. 19, 21, 22 and 25.

We certainly support Amendment No. 19, spoken to by the noble Baroness, on the importance of the coterminosity of the areas to be created under the Bill with the existing 42 areas. Most magistrates are anxious that there should not be major interference with the existing boundaries, which have themselves been introduced only fairly recently.

I understand that a merger might be welcome in some areas. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, who is unable to be here, has indicated that there is some pressure for a single courts board to cover the whole of Wales—it is currently split into four areas—and perhaps to include Cheshire as well, to maintain an area based on the old Wales and Chester circuit. Amendment No. 19 is not prescriptive. It would not prevent a merger where that was the wish of the people involved in the area, and we are happy to support it.

My noble friend Lord Phillips explained Amendment No. 21, so I shall turn to Amendment No. 22. The Government's Amendment No. 20 proposes a new Clause 5, the first subsection of which states:

"Each courts board is under a duty, in accordance with guidance under this section … to scrutinise, review and make recommendations about the way in which the Lord Chancellor is discharging his general duty in relation to the courts with which the board is concerned, and … for the purposes mentioned … to consider draft and final business plans relating to those courts".

Subsection (2) then states:

"In discharging his general duty in relation to the courts, the Lord Chancellor must give due consideration to recommendations provided by the boards under subsection (1)".

We believe that that needs strengthening. As an alternative to the original suggestion of deadlock we propose that, if the Lord Chancellor rejects a recommendation as to the final version of a business plan, he must give the board whose recommendations he has rejected written reasons for doing so. I can understand his reluctance to accept the possibility of deadlock, but it is at the very least essential that he give serious consideration to the recommendations of boards about the business plans that affect them.

The need to give reasons concentrates the mind very considerably. The courts agency officer responsible will have to say in writing, "Is this recommendation really unacceptable? If so, why?". He will have to say to himself, "Can I explain the reasons in words that can be understood and accepted by members of the boards?". Ultimately, those reasons would have to stand up to judicial review, so they would have to be serious. I believe that Amendment No. 22 would significantly strengthen the position of the courts boards. Without it, their position is still plainly too weak.

There are two further amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Phillips. Amendment No. 21 has already been mentioned, but we also strongly support Amendment No. 25. The existing magistrates' courts committees are entirely in the hands of the magistrates. Replacing them with courts boards will require only one magistrate. Of course, the remit of the courts boards is wider than that of the magistrates' courts committees, because it includes the other courts. However, the magistrates' courts are plainly the backbone of our criminal justice system. They deal with the great majority of criminal cases that come to trial in this country.

If there were only one magistrate on the board, he might be ill or have some unavoidable other commitment. There could therefore be a meeting of the courts board at which no magistrate would be present. That would be absolutely wrong. The Bill would say that at least one magistrate must be a member of the board, which does not prevent there being more than one. However, we believe that there should be a guarantee of at least two magistrates.

On these Benches, we are very much in agreement with the line taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. We hope that the Government will be willing to accept the amendments proposed to their amendments.

My Lords, I want to say straightaway how grateful I am to noble Lords who have spoken, and to single out the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for their very constructive contributions to the development of the clauses. As the noble Baroness rightly said, we had a very productive meeting following from Committee, and I am very grateful to all those who participated in it.

The Government have listened carefully to the concerns raised in Committee. As a number of noble Lords have said, we have tabled a very substantial package of amendments, which we hope will satisfy those concerned. I am pleased to acknowledge the satisfaction that the noble Baroness indicated to many of the amendments. I will seek to concentrate on those issues that still cause concern. For the sake of completeness, and to make sure that there is clarity on the issue because all the amendments have been lumped together, I shall take a little time to go through where we are.

These amendments rename the court administration councils as courts boards. I know that the noble Baroness and others have found that old name lacking in felicity. But the change to courts boards is not a mere change of name; it is a much more robust statutory definition of their function. The amendments make clear that the boards will have an ongoing role in relation to the courts in their area—scrutinising local plans and reviewing their implementation, and contributing their own ideas. The amendments guarantee that boards will have that role.

The amendments make provision for much more detail to be provided in secondary legislation, through regulations. Our intention is that those regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so that Parliament has the opportunity to examine the detail of the new organisation.

I turn to Amendment No. 18—the proposed new Clause 4. The new clause clarifies the procedure for setting and altering the courts boards' areas; requires that each courts board will be known by a name specified in an order; and provides that a new schedule, setting out the constitution and procedure of courts boards, is to have effect. Provisions about the membership of the boards which are currently found in Clause 4 are set out in this schedule.

The amendment deals with a concern raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, that boards should have a say in what their boundaries are to be. Before making any order altering the boards' areas, the Lord Chancellor must consult those affected; and the original order which establishes the areas will be subject to affirmative resolution, so that Parliament is able to ensure that the area structure is appropriate.

Amendment No. 19, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, proposes an amendment to the new Clause 4. It would require the Lord Chancellor to,

"have regard to the desirability",

of coterminosity with the police areas in specifying the courts boards' boundaries under Clause 4(2).

I understand that there remains a desire to create an express "link" to the criminal justice areas. We do not object to the idea that the Lord Chancellor must bear in mind the structure of other criminal justice agencies in specifying the areas for the courts boards—indeed, as the noble Baroness rightly said, we have already said that the 42 criminal justice areas will be the building blocks of the courts boards' areas. But there are a great many other factors which must also be taken into account—the effective fit with other agencies in the civil and family jurisdictions; the needs and nature of local communities; the volume of workload in each area; and the distribution of court houses.

Participants in discussion groups emphasised the need to take into account the needs of different parts of the country—Wales and London in particular. I am also aware that on the Wales and Chester circuits there is particularly strong feeling because of the historical links between Wales and Chester, and that they may wish to have a joint board. Those are issues that we must take seriously and listen to, because they may affect how matters will be managed.

The implication of this amendment is that the link to the 42 areas is the single most important factor and an end in itself. With the greatest respect, it is not. The single most important factor is that the structure chosen must support the effective and efficient administration of the courts—it must enable us to deliver a better service across England and Wales. That must be the overriding criterion. In order to do so, we must take into account the sensitivities and needs of those in different areas of the country and try, if we can, to give effect to the voices that we are hearing in regard to those issues.

Our amendment provides that the order specifying the areas will be by affirmative resolution, so that Parliament can ensure that the structure selected is appropriate—bearing in mind all the criteria I have mentioned—and so that Members of this House and another place will have an opportunity to have their say.

I gently suggest that the amendment suffers from the same defect as one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in Committee: it refers to the police areas, implying that the courts boards should share the same boundaries as the police. I know that the noble Baroness's intention is that courts boards should share the same boundaries as most of the criminal justice agencies—that is to say, the 43 police authority areas, but with the Metropolitan and City of London police areas treated as one.

New Clause 5, proposed in government Amendment No. 20, sets out a more robust statutory definition of the role of the courts boards—to,

"scrutinise, review and make recommendations",

about the way in which the Lord Chancellor is discharging his duty, and in particular to scrutinise draft and final business plans. This puts into statute what we had set out in a published statement; namely, that the boards will contribute to the development of local strategy and keep the delivery of that strategy under review. So I am happy to confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, that his analysis of that point is correct.

The amendment makes clearer how guidance issued to the boards will be used: to explain how they should carry out their functions, in particular their role in relation to local business plans. That aspect of the role is fundamental. It enables the boards to influence priorities and the way in which resources—staff, estates and financial resources—are used to deliver services in their area.

The new clause does not include the limitation of courts boards' remit to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser, objected in Committee. This clarifies our intention that courts boards will have a local focus, but that they should be able to influence the national framework within which they work.

Amendment No. 21, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, seeks to amend proposed new Clause 5. It would require courts boards to scrutinise draft and final "strategy" and business plans. As I have said, our intention is that final business plans will set out how resources will be used to run the courts in the area to improve performance and to deliver services which meet local needs—in other words, the strategy for the area. They will include the area's estate strategy; its staffing structures, and its recruitment and retention strategy; spending priorities for the year; and any local projects.

In the light of that clarification, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to press his amendment. I note, if I may respectfully say so, a thumbs up from the noble Lord, so I have taken that as his assent.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for her remarks. However, all the examples she gave related to financial matters. I was seeking clarification on whether this would include policy issues as well as financial and estate matters—as I thought she was saying.

My Lords, "strategy" will include the broad spectrum. We have no difficulty with the issues that the noble Lord raises as regards local areas.

Amendment No. 22, standing in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Thomas of Gresford, seeks to amend the proposed new Clause 5. It would require the Lord Chancellor to give written reasons to a board if he were to reject its recommendations on a final business plan.

I believe that what the noble Lords want to achieve is to create an additional incentive to encourage the Lord Chancellor to think carefully before rejecting a board's views. I reassure the noble Lord that there is already a very clear incentive in the Bill: one of the reasons for giving the boards a statutory identity was to give them their own "voice"; I do not doubt that they will be quick to object if they feel that their views are being unfairly disregarded.

We intend that boards and chief officers will work in partnership to develop the plans for their area—that requires a certain amount of freedom for each party to contribute and to discuss the plans. At what point would we consider that a recommendation had been "rejected" for the purposes of this amendment? Would that be when a chief officer first rejects it, or when the national chief executive gets involved? Must the Lord Chancellor personally issue the rejection? Or should written reasons be provided at every stage of the process? That sort of relationship does not sound much like a partnership.

We have provided in new subsection (5) that the procedures to be followed in relation to business plans are to be set out in guidance; I would fully expect that to provide that, if the Lord Chancellor were to finalise a business plan without the agreement of the courts board, the board would be entitled to an explanation in writing. Giving written reasons is an appropriate matter for such guidance rather than for the Bill itself. Other matters which the guidance might cover could be the length of time that courts boards should be given to consider draft business plans; the information that boards need; and guidance on when they should take their recommendations to the agency chief executive or even to the Lord Chancellor personally. It could also define a whole range of circumstances in which boards would be entitled to an explanation about what the Lord Chancellor intended to do with their recommendations, and not only their recommendations about business plans. There may be other matters about which they want a written explanation and they should rightfully be entitled to that.

Within that context, it would seem rather odd to single out one aspect of the procedure for inclusion in the Bill and to leave the other aspects to one side. That would be a productive way of responding to that issue. Our intention is to have the draft guidance available when the regulations will be debated so that Members will have the opportunity to scrutinise the whole package.

In light of the assurance that that is one of the matters that would be included in the guidance I hope that the noble Lord will not press the amendment.

I turn to government Amendment No. 24, which contains a new schedule. The amendment creates a power to make regulations about the appointment of members of courts boards; the selection of chairmen; terms of office and provisions about resignation, suspension or removal from office; the procedure of boards; and the validation of proceedings in the event of a vacancy or defect in appointment. I hope that the House will be content that the opportunity for scrutiny of such regulations means that the Lord Chancellor will not have unbridled power to appoint and remove members from the boards on a whim.

The amendment contains a redraft of the categories of membership. It makes it absolutely clear that the numbers set out in the Bill are minima not maxima. It provides that lay justice members must be assigned to a local justice area that is at least partly in the board's area. That point was drawn from an amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, who is in his place. It provides that all board members must be selected from one of the Bill's four categories. The Lord Chancellor would not therefore have discretion to appoint members who do not qualify under those categories.

I turn to Amendment No. 25. The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, proposes a further amendment which would require a minimum of two magistrates. I make no apology for repeating what I said many times in Committee; that is, that the Bill sets out a framework so that there can be variation between local areas. The discussion groups that we have held so far have been unanimous in their agreement that one size does not fit all. It is likely that many of the courts boards will have more than one magistrate among their membership, but we do not believe that that should be prescribed as the minimum.

The courts boards are not intended as a replacement for proper channels of communication and consultation between magistrates and the administration of their courts. That is why we have tabled an amendment to Part 2, which guarantees that those channels will be established. Magistrate members of the courts boards are not intended as "representatives" of local Benches. A minimum of one, along with a minimum of one judge, is therefore appropriate.

I turn to specific issues raised by the noble Baroness and others. The noble Baroness asked whether we would be kind enough to put the legal advice given to her in the Library. Yes, we will do so very willingly. I thought that that advice was already in the Library but I am delighted to confirm that if it is not there, we shall certainly ensure that it is there.

The noble Baroness also asked me to highlight and place on the record some of the features of that letter. I am happy to do so. It is an important principle of administrative law that a public authority to which the function, power or duty has been given by Parliament, cannot delegate that power. Where functions that are entrusted to a Minister of the Crown are performed by officials who are employed in the Minister's department, including any agency that has been constituted within the purview of the department, there is generally in law no delegation because the officials and decisions are constitutionally those of the Minister. That is the Carltona doctrine. Decisions made within departments are susceptible to being challenged by way of an action of judicial review which names the relevant Minister as the defendant.

In amendments dated 31st March 2003, Clause 1 remains in place—I refer to the noble Baroness's approach. The Lord Chancellor has the statutory function and duty of running the courts. The new clause that was proposed but which has now been abandoned provided that he must establish a courts agency that would be responsible for the administration of all the courts. Those two provisions are mutually incompatible. Statute cannot give the same function to two separate bodies. Parliament does not know whether to hold the Lord Chancellor or the courts agency to account. An aggrieved person seeking judicial review does not know whether to challenge the Lord Chancellor or the courts agency for acting unlawfully in the course of the responsibility for running the courts. We have set that out more fully, but that is probably the kernel of what is in the letter.

The noble Baroness and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, also raised the issue relating to guidance. The guidance would not amend primary legislation. It can only specify supplementary functions, which supplement the five subsection (1) functions. The amendment provides that the guidance will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. We hear what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said about that. The Government are absolutely committed to getting the phrasing of that correct. I am more than willing to look at the way in which it is currently phrased to ensure that the concern that the noble and learned Lord raised is addressed. We say that, although this is a new and unprecedented departure, it is merited in this regard for the reasons that I gave on the previous occasion. In view of the length of time for which I have now been speaking, noble Lords will be relieved to hear that I am not going to repeat all that was said last time.

I have already dealt with the issue in relation to the business plan raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I may have to deal with a few additional issues raised by him because the noble Lord talked of the tiebreaker and about the boards of directors. Perhaps I may respectfully say that the board and the local chief executive system are very different. Making clear how decisions will be taken and where the buck will stop—to put it colloquially—concerns accountability to Parliament, as I have just sought to indicate.

I also want to lay to rest the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in relation to senior court managers and who will get the post of chief officer. We have a cadre of very good people working within the service. I would go so far as to say that there are extremely good staff in the Court Service and in magistrates' courts. I am sure that they will have an excellent chance of putting themselves forward for such appointments. I do not believe that the noble Lord need be concerned that the talent will not be there from which to make a good choice.

The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, also raised the issue about fewer and fewer areas. I was not clear whether that was about the courts boards areas or the local justices areas. If it is the first, I do not know whether he is saying that we should not necessarily follow any changes in the police areas. I have tried to explain that we believe that there are other factors that need to be taken into account and that we would seek to reflect them.

I have already dealt with the issue of coterminosity, but if the noble Baroness feels that further assistance on that point is necessary at this stage I shall be happy to say more. Unless she indicates that that is necessary I shall move on.

The magistrates' views were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. Effectiveness and efficiency of the courts and the way in which they work are matters of real importance to those who appear before them. To have access to justice assured and delivered in a way that creates equality across the country is a matter of great importance. We believe that what we have done assures that.

I was disappointed that the noble Lord felt that magistrates were throwing in their hands. We have done a great deal to ensure that their proper concerns were addressed. As I have said on a number of occasions before, particularly in Committee, the basis upon which those on all Benches have taken this matter forward has been very similar. We wish to achieve the same end. We have been struggling with the best way to achieve that. We have been able to do a huge amount of good work together to ensure that that has been achieved.

I believe that I have now dealt with all the issues that have been raised, including those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. If I have not addressed some issues I shall be more than happy to deal with them.

My Lords, perhaps the Minister will clarify a matter in relation to Amendment No. 24, a government amendment that deals with the constitution and procedure of courts boards. In relation to the composition, paragraph 2 makes it clear that one member should be a judge, one a lay justice and then we find that two members should have,

"appropriate knowledge or experience of the work of the courts",

and two more members should be,

"representative of people living in that area".

I find sub-paragraph (c) puzzling. Are those with,

"appropriate knowledge or experience of the work of the courts",

the officials of the courts or the local police? Whom have the Government in mind?

My Lords, for the membership of the courts boards we intend to have as wide a representation of the local area as possible. We have not prescribed that they could not be someone in the employ of the authority, but the intention is that they would be independent people who would be able to give an additional flavour. Guidance will be given. I shall certainly see what further clarification I can give on that issue. The whole idea of making them inclusive is to include those who may be involved in the area but who may not be directly involved in the courts, so that a different dimension is brought in.

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. It may have taken just over an hour but I believe that it is an hour that has been valuably used. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for the care and attention that she has paid to the amendments to government amendments and generally to the arguments put by noble Lords. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Renton for his late intervention and for eliciting further explanation about membership of courts boards. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that she will consider this matter and perhaps send more information to noble Lords. Further clarification for Third Reading may benefit all.

I am also grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern for raising his concerns on Clause 5. I am grateful to the Minister for saying that she will look at that again. I shall consult with my noble and learned friend as to what he may wish to do by way of clarification at Third Reading.

It would not be right for me to draw any conclusions on behalf of the noble Lords, Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Goodhart, both of whom are well able, as experienced lawyers and advocates, to put their own case. Suffice it to say that I agree 100 per cent with every one of the arguments that they adduced.

On Amendment No. 19, the Minister did her best to shoot my fox. At the moment I see it as wounded, but I am on the side of the fox and I shall take it to the vets between now and Third Reading. I believe that it is vital to consider the size of courts boards because only within that will we guarantee the local delivery of justice. As I have made it clear that I shall take further action for clarification and I shall possibly press the matter at Third Reading, I shall not go into detail now. I take note of all the arguments put by the noble Baroness, but I undertake, twixt now and 19th May when, currently, we are told that Third Reading will take place, to consult both the Magistrates' Association and the Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees. At this stage I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 2.

moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 2, line 9, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—

"(2) The civil service pension arrangements for the time being in force apply (with any necessary adaptations) to persons appointed under subsection (1) as they apply to other persons employed in the civil service of the State.

(3) "The civil service pension arrangements" means—

(a) the principal civil service pension scheme (within the meaning of section 2 of the Superannuation Act 1972 (c. 11)), and

(b) any other superannuation benefits for which provision is made under or by virtue of section 1 of the 1972 Act for or in respect of persons in employment in the civil service of the State."

My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 5, I must inform your Lordships that, if it is agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 6 for reasons of pre-emption.

moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 2, Line 14, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—

"(4) Subject to subsections (5) and (6), the Lord Chancellor may enter into such contracts with other persons for the provision, by them or their sub-contractors, of officers, staff or services as appear to him appropriate for the purpose of discharging his general duty in relation to the courts.

(5) The Lord Chancellor may not enter into contracts for the provision of officers and staff to discharge functions which involve making judicial decisions or exercising any judicial discretion.

(6) The Lord Chancellor may not enter into contracts for the provision of officers and staff to carry out the administrative work of the courts unless an order made by the Lord Chancellor authorises him to do so.

(7) Before making an order under subsection (6) the Lord Chancellor must consult—

(a) the Lord Chief Justice,

(b) the Master of the Rolls,

(c) the President of the Family Division, and

(d) the Vice-Chancellor, as to what effect (if any) the order might have on the proper and efficient administration of justice.

(8) An order under subsection (6) may authorise the Lord Chancellor to enter into contracts for the provision of officers or staff to discharge functions—

(a) wholly or to the extent specified in the order,

(b) generally or in cases or areas specified in the order, and

(c) unconditionally or subject to the fulfilment of conditions specified in the order."

My Lords, Amendment No. 6 in this group stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford. It is virtually identical to part of the new amendment introduced by the Government. Therefore, I obviously welcome what the Government have done and I shall not be moving my amendment. I also understand from correspondence that the unions involved in this are content with the new arrangements that have been made. So I am happy to support all the amendments in the group.

My Lords, I welcome the government amendments. As a result of seeing those, I withdrew my amendment to Schedule 1, which went rather broader than the government amendments. However, it was intended only as a device to try to stimulate debate. The Government not only have the debate but the amendment. I support them.

moved Amendment No. 18:

Leave out Clause 4 and insert the following new Clause—

moved Amendment No. 20:

Leave out Clause 5 and insert the following new Clause—

moved Amendment No. 23:

After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—

"DUTIES OF A JUSTICE

( ) The Lord Chancellor shall consult the magistrates for local justice areas on any matters relating to the duties of a justice.

( ) Rules may make provision for the purposes of this section."

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Seccombe, for their amendment, whose aim I entirely support and agree with. The partnership between judges, magistrates and the agency is fundamental to the work of the courts; therefore, good communication at all levels is essential. However, the noble Baronesses' amendment places an unqualified obligation on the Lord Chancellor to consult magistrates. Such a broad remit would have left the noble and learned Lord open to judicial review for, for example, not consulting every individual magistrate. Our amendment offers magistrates a guarantee that they will be kept informed of matters affecting them, and they will be given the opportunity to give their views.

I am particularly grateful to the Magistrates' Association for its constructive discussion of the matter and its support for the amendment. I n due course, I shall beg to move Amendment No. 50.

My Lords, I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 24:

Before Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule—

moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 24, Amendment No. 25:

Line 8, leave out "one member who is a lay justice who is" and insert "two members who are lay justices who are"

moved Amendment No. 26:

Page 54. line 11, after "with," insert "or are otherwise attributable to"

moved Amendments Nos. 27 to 31:

Page 54, line 23, at end insert—

"( ) Without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (b) of sub-paragraph (1), any property, rights or liabilities are to be treated as falling within that paragraph if the Lord Chancellor issues a certificate to that effect."

Page 54, line 26, at beginning insert "In this Part of this Schedule"

Page 56, line 13, leave out from beginning to end of line 44 on page 57 and insert—

moved Amendment No. 33:

Page 5, line 7, at end insert—

• "(1A) The Lord Chancellor shall appoint such a number of lay justices as appears to him to be appropriate for the purposes of discharging the work of the magistrates' courts.
• (1B) To assist him in discharging his duties under subsections (1) and (1A). the Lord Chancellor shall publish within six months of Royal Assent a national recruitment strategy for the recruitment of lay justices."

My Lords, I rise briefly to support these sensible and constructive amendments.

My Lords, the first of these amendments to Clause 10 would require the Lord Chancellor to have a duty to appoint as many lay justices as necessary for the magistrates' courts effectively to carry out the work. As I said in Committee to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, we believe that such a provision in statute is unnecessary and indeed inappropriate. The effective running of the courts requires an appropriate number of magistrates. It is therefore implicit that the Lord Chancellor is under a duty to try to appoint sufficient justices for this purpose.

Furthermore, the duty to appoint magistrates implies taking the best measures one reasonably can in the prevailing circumstances to appoint the right numbers and the right calibre of justices. There is a balance to be struck between these two necessary aims. Putting in statute a provision that suggests that the Lord Chancellor appoint as many justices as necessary to run the courts would inappropriately emphasise numbers over calibre. If a court were to hold that the Lord Chancellor had not complied with his duty to appoint enough magistrates and ordered him to do so, would it be satisfactory if this could be done only by appointing unsuitable people? I know that that is not what the noble Baroness would want.

The second part of the amendment sets out that the Lord Chancellor should produce a national recruitment strategy for lay justices within six months of the Courts Bill having received Royal Assent. In Committee, I said that we are committed to a national recruitment strategy for lay justices. However, this level of detail on a one-off piece of administrative work, and its timing, is not appropriate for primary legislation. If all departments were to sign up to their administrative programmes in this fashion, the legislative machinery probably would be overwhelmed.

I said in Committee that we were hopeful of publishing the strategy this year—that is, within six months of the Royal Assent time period. Of course I note the concern of the noble Baroness on this issue. I think that I am confident enough to restate the hope as an undertaking. I hope that that is helpful. On that basis, I trust that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for his support. The point of bringing this amendment before the House was to ensure that we retain the present balance of district judges and lay magistracy and that we do not drift into different proportions. I accept the assurance and the undertaking that the Minister has given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 34:

Page 5, line 14, at end insert—

"(4) Rules may make provision about the training courses to be completed before a person may exercise functions as a lay justice in any proceedings or class of proceedings specified in the rules.

(5) Subsection (3) is subject to section (The supplemental list) (entry of names in the supplemental list)."

My Lords, in supporting the government amendments, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 46 tabled in my name. I raised this matter in Committee and the amendment has been tabled as a result of consultation with the Magistrates' Association.

It is essential that a clear commitment is set out on the face of the Bill to provide adequate training for lay magistrates, along with an ongoing commitment to ensure that the highest possible standards are upheld. In Committee the Minister accepted the thrust of our amendment, and I am pleased that the Government have tabled an amendment which fulfils the criteria we had proposed. As a consequence, I shall not move Amendment No. 46 when we come to it on the Marshalled List.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 35:

Page 5, line 14, at end insert—

"( ) This section shall have effect subject to section (Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Lancashire)."

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend, who has spoken so eloquently and convincingly on this issue. He is right to put the Auld report in context. I respectfully point out to the Minister that she did not quote all the relevant sections of the Auld report in the letter that she wrote to my noble friend on 14th February and which she copied to me. Now that my noble friend has read in full the relevant sections he has put the matter more fully into context. He has done the House a service in reminding us of the words in the Auld report.

As I understand it, it is to be a decision for the Prime Minister. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness could indicate the extent of the discussions that have been held with the Prime Minister. On several occasions I have heard him refer to the "importance of history". I even recollect a phrase he used—which he asserted was not a cliché—when he said that he could feel the hand of history on his shoulder. The hand of history is now on the shoulder of the noble Baroness. As my noble friend pointed out, this subject has a long history. Chancellors of the Duchy have made these appointments since the 14th century.

There have been two major occasions since the 14th century on which close scrutiny and consultations were carried out. One was in 1948, when a Royal Commission was appointed formally to examine what was described at that time—no doubt by a Minister equally inspired by the Treasury to move for uniformity—as an "anomaly". That Royal Commission concluded that the existing system should continue as opinion in Lancashire favoured doing so and it seemed that little damage would be caused as a result.

There was then a consultation in 2000, only three years ago. As I have pointed out to the Minister on more than one occasion, the list of those consulted was enormous. It included all Members of Parliament; a range of political parties; a range of representatives of local government; a range of legal representatives; and all former Chancellors of the Duchy. We spent some time and effort in responding to the consultation initiated by Marjorie Mowlam, who concluded—as had the Royal Commission—that the weight of opinion was strongly in favour of continuing this practice by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

The noble Baroness said that the majority of respondents supported the retention of the Chancellor's role and added the words "at that time". With my noble friend I have sought to re-examine the issue with a number of people who were consulted at that time. All of those to whom I have spoken told me that they had not been consulted again and that they had not changed their mind. Although the Minister may say that the respondents "at that time" supported the Chancellor of the Duchy, I am not aware of anyone who has changed their mind since the last consultation.

My noble friend has done the House a great service in raising this issue again. I very strongly support him.

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for speaking to the amendment with such charm and eloquence. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that I do indeed feel the hand of history pressing heavy on my shoulder.

I very much regret that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, believes that the Government have a sad contempt for history. I sincerely wish to disabuse him of that view because we have a high and proper regard for the value and importance of the lessons of history. That can be seen through a proper scrutiny of what the Government have done.

In what I say next I cast no aspersion whatever on the previous incumbents of the Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster or on the present incumbent, who is greatly esteemed by us all. He follows a long tradition of high quality Ministers.

I say straightaway that I cannot accept the amendment and will resist it. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is right. There will not be a unified criminal court. But there will be a unified administration of the courts—a significant distinction which Sir Robin Auld commended. In order to deliver on a unified court administration it will be important, as we have established, that the procedures for appointing magistrates are common across the country.

The noble Lords have proposed amendments that seek to reinstate the responsibilities of the Duchy of Lancaster in regard to the appointment and removal of magistrates in the Duchy area. In Committee, we had a short exchange on an earlier amendment and, as the noble Lord said, we have had, through correspondence, many exchanges in relation to this amendment. As I said then, I hope that we have demonstrated our regard for the magistracy and that we have been sympathetic to its concerns.

I know that noble Lords are concerned that the transfer of the Duchy's responsibility is unwelcome to sonic magistrates in the region. At Second Reading, several noble Lords spoke out in similar terms in regard to the supplemental list. We made no bones about accepting the list's reinstatement. But the current split between the Duchy and the Lord Chancellor is more difficult to retain.

As outlined in Committee on 4th February, the Lord Chancellor is committed to a national recruitment strategy for lay magistrates, an issue we have discussed today. This is a vitally important step which is intended to raise the profile of the lay magistracy and to ensure that magistrates represent the communities they serve. It will apply across the jurisdiction. Providing the Lord Chancellor with responsibility for the appointment of all magistrates in England and Wales complements that strategy and should be seen as part of the Auld package of reforms.

The current split of responsibility is anomalous even under the current system. It does not apply to professional judges. It does not apply to other ancient Duchies. It is claimed that the Duchy magistrates are treated differently—or rather, I should ask whether that is the claim, because I do not believe that it ever has been the case that the Duchy magistrates are treated differently from the way in which magistrates are treated in other areas. Indeed, I do not believe it to be so, or that that makes the split indefensible. I do not know whether it is suggested that they are treated similarly. If so, the Bill should not prejudice them.

Transferring the Duchy's responsibilities does not realistically affect the local connection. Both the Lord Chancellor and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster appoint magistrates on behalf of her Majesty the Queen. Offices currently based in London are processing the recommendations of advisory committees. In both cases, advisory committees are the most meaningful links to local communities. There is no suggestion that the role and responsibilities of advisory committees would undergo change as a result of the delegated appointing authority moving from one ministry to another. The local connection would be fully preserved.

In any event, however arguable the split may be currently, under the other changes made by this Bill, it will not make sense at all. There will be a nation-wide unified administration. There is to be a single commission area; magistrates will have a national jurisdiction—as do professional judges. I ask rhetorically: how can it be right that two Ministers should appoint or remove magistrates, according, presumably, to the area to which they are first assigned on appointment but they retain national jurisdiction?

I turn to consultation—an issue upon which I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and one that has been raised again this morning. As I said in my letter, the noble Lord is right to say that there was a consultation exercise on the transfer of these responsibilities in 2000. Although a number of respondents saw the case for change, the majority of respondents at that time supported the retention of the role of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. So the matter was not pursued at that stage.

The possibility of transferring responsibility was then raised again by Sir Robin Auld in his authoritative review of the criminal justice system. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, read out the recommendation made by Sir Robin, two parts of which I should like to emphasise. First, he specifically said:

"In the event of the establishment of a unified criminal court the present division of responsibility … between the Lord Chancellor's Department and the Duchy of Lancaster should be reviewed".

At that time he envisaged that, in the creation of a joint unified criminal court, there would be a joint administration to manage the court. He then went on to say that,

"there would be little justification or practical sense in preserving the anomaly",

if that unification took place.

With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I do not believe that one can separate the two and say, "You didn't have a unified criminal court, so that idea goes out of the window". The nature of the unification was to enable the courts' administration to act together, one would have a greater flow from one court to another, and there would be a degree of synergy. That is what we are trying to create with a unified administration.

The Government sought comments on Sir Robin's report. The responses that I have seen do not suggest to me a unified rejection of this proposal even from within the Duchy area. In fact, of the several specific responses on the point, Duchy and non-Duchy, the substantial majority support a review of the split. There are several further responses, which, without mentioning the Duchy. express general support for Recommendation 8. The latter include the Duchy's Advisory Committee for the Metropolitan Petty Sessions Area of Trafford.

I can provide details in that respect, if required. The Merseyside Magistrates' Association said that it wished to support the status quo, for reasons of local tradition. But one Duchy Bench—North Sefton—supported a review of the current split. The Greater Manchester Magistrates' Court Committee also responded and supported a review of the split. I have not found other local MCCs or advisory committees expressing a view in favour of the split. Therefore, on a less local note, the Association of Justices' Chief Executives thought that the Auld review provides an opportunity for consolidating these responsibilities under the Lord Chancellor.

Although the Government have stopped short of establishing a unified criminal court, they have decided to unify the management of the courts and provide much closer alignment between the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court, and to provide a national jurisdiction for magistrates. The transfer from the Duchy of Lancaster to the Lord Chancellor is fully consistent with those changes.

I know that this is an emotive rather than a strictly practical issue. However, I hope that I have explained why we do not believe that the amendment can reasonably be accepted. I believe that there is now an outline agreement with the Duchy Office that will, or may, provide a solution to one of the issues taxing Duchy magistrates. In the event of amalgamation, the Lord Chancellor's Department has agreed to supply the Duchy Office with a list of all new appointments of lay magistrates in the County Palatine so that the Duchy Office can issue a certificate or letter to those magistrates thanking them for volunteering their services to local justice in the Duchy. That will be in addition to the letter of appointment that will be signed by the Lord Chancellor.

In approaching the matter in a practical way, we hope that the link between the Duchy and the magistrates appointed in the Duchy area will be re-emphasised and highlighted; and, indeed, that it may go some way towards meeting the emotional concerns—I say "emotional", but there is an issue of sentiment and connection involved against which we do not wish to trespass. I hope that that practical way of dealing with the process will enable us not only to achieve the unification that will inure to the benefit of all the people in the Duchy of Lancaster but also to ensure that the link will be preserved in a way that many may feel is both complementary and pleasing. I trust that noble Lords will feel satisfied with my response.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her gracious and emollient reply. On 20th January, I disturbed the tranquillity of the proceedings by pointing out that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had, in recent years, grasped to his bosom a number of new responsibilities. Here is one that he need not have treated in that way. I am saddened by his determination to do so against the wishes of local people. But there it is; I have to accept the position.

Perhaps the noble Baroness could suggest to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that both he and she would be showing their respect for history by considering his making of appointments in the Duchy area in the name of the Chancellor of the Duchy. That is a matter that the noble Baroness could consider before Third Reading. I do not think that anything would be gained by pressing the matter to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

My Lords, I believe this to be a convenient moment for a break in our proceedings on the Bill. I beg to move that the Report stage be adjourned until after Starred Questions.

My Lords, before business begins, I take this opportunity to inform the House that I will be undertaking a ministerial visit to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia from Monday 19th to Thursday 22nd May, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

My Lords. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest as I am a patient of such a practice.

The Question was as follows: To ask Her Majesty's Government what provision will be made under the proposed new general practitioner contract to ensure continuance of general practitioner health centre practices on university campuses.

My Lords, the proposed new contract for general medical services has been negotiated between the NHS Confederation and the General Practitioners Committee of the BMA. If accepted by the profession, the new contract will provide health centre practices on most campuses with the same method of funding and earning opportunities that will be available to all GMS practices.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but my concern is that a situation may arise, as it did in dentistry, whereby the BDA accepted and agreed a contract which has resulted in the total destruction of dentistry in the capital and in many other parts of the country. The Imperial College health practice, of which I am a patient, has 11,000 students and about 1,000 to 1,500 local people, young and old. It runs a model practice. I am told by the doctors there that under the new weighting of young people, which will be greatly reduced in terms of expenditure for each young person requiring health care, they will not find it viable. They claim that the same situation will exist in Bristol, Reading, Southampton, Sussex, York and possibly other areas. What can be done about this?

My Lords, I can give the noble Baroness and the practice concerned solid assurances that there is no question that the practice will not be viable. The noble Baroness is quite right that the formula has been changed. It is now redistributive; it has been driven by the profession and by the NHS Confederation so that the new contract will reflect the real workload of doctors where their patients are more elderly or more sick. University practices, where there are young people, will have a different basis for calculation too, but the minimum practice income guarantee will guarantee that they will not lose out on their current earnings. That guarantee is not time-limited and it will be in place for whatever length of time is necessary. Not only will the guarantee be there and be sound but under the proposed contract, if it is accepted, new practices will be able to organise their workload more flexibly and earn additional money by bidding for additional enhanced services. In the case of universities, that might include sexual health or sports injuries.

My Lords, the Minister is implying that this is essentially a communications issue, and that the new GP contract, with its minimum guarantee payments, which is a very important contract, will guarantee existing levels of income. But it was only on 17th April that the chairman of the British Association of Health Services in Higher Education complained that its letters to the negotiators had not been effectively answered and it was concerned that student health practices will remain disadvantaged in the short and medium term, such as that the only option will be cuts in staff, including nurses and doctors. Clearly, communication has not been good enough. What does the noble Baroness say about that?

My Lords, I certainly repeat my reassurances in relation to the issues that the noble Lord has raised. There was some difficulty originally with the communication from the British Medical Association because, in the press of time, incomplete information was given. But I can assure noble Lords that when it is appropriate, we will place a full set of papers in the Library to give everyone as much information as possible. In addition, the BMA website now includes a very full and clear account of the contract and what it proposes.

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that these general medical practices on university campuses not only play an important part in offering medical services to university staff and students but many fulfil a vital teaching role as many medical students receive experience of general practice in such practices? Is this not something that must be preserved at all costs?

Yes, my Lords, I entirely agree, and there is no threat to them.

My Lords, the Minister said that the minimum practice income guarantee would be in place for as long as was necessary. Who will decide when it is no longer necessary?

My Lords, the contract is radical; it puts 33 per cent more money into primary care. Because it is radical and new—it is a departure from tradition—we will be watching its progress and it will be under review from October 2004. I predict that every practice will be able to call on that review process.

My Lords, I declare an interest as a doctor practising in Wales. Could the Minister explain why general practitioners in Wales do not have the same concerns as those in England? Indeed, the expansion of academic general practice in Wales is generally being encouraged. What are the Government doing to cope with the anxieties that have been expressed by general practitioners in England and how are they being dealt with?

My Lords, I know that in Wales and in Scotland the professionals have welcomed the new contract. We very much hope that on 14th May, when the BMA has its own meeting, the contract will receive a similar welcome, because we believe that it will bring immense benefits. To reassure practitioners, we are encouraging the fullest possible information about the contract, and that information will be as clear as possible. The NHS Confederation website also offers a very clear explanation of the new contract. I hope that, between the BMA and the NHS Confederation—the two parts of the negotiating arrangement—general practitioners will be very well informed.

My Lords, does the noble Baroness accept that while it is true in the general population that elderly people make bigger demands on general practice than young people, students are in a rather different position, partly because they often live in hostels where infections can spread very fast—we have several examples of that—and also because they often suffer from stress and emotional problems, which take them to their GP? Could not the Government reconsider the formula, particularly in relation to students in university hostels and campuses?

My Lords, I have already said that there will be absolutely no difference in the treatment of university health centres. Indeed, the health centres will be able to contract in to do other sorts of work which will assist the students. In that context, the noble Baroness probably knows the Universities UK report which came out last November. It is extremely positive and has received positive responses from the DfES on student services as a whole. A directory of good examples of innovative practices for student support is about to be published. In addition, the National Service Framework for Mental Health puts a lot of emphasis on the mental health needs of young people.

My Lords, while welcoming the 33 per cent increase in expenditure in this field to which the noble Baroness has referred, can she say where the money is coming from and how much it is in cash terms? Is it another case of robbing Peter to pay Paul, or is it new money?

No, my Lords, it represents £1.9 billion of new money.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, we deplore the looting of Iraq's museums and have taken steps to ensure that looted items are apprehended and returned. The UK is a signatory to the 1970 UNESCO convention, and the Government are supporting a Private Members' Bill which will strengthen UK law in respect of trade in illicit antiquities. We have also secured the help of the UK art trade in identifying looted material, and are working with international bodies to establish a database for stolen items. We have alerted Customs to the need to enforce the current embargo.

My Lords, I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Blackstone is answering the Question. In fact, we have heard only in the past day or two that a substantial cache of items has been recovered in Iraq, but very much more remains to be found.

Are the Government taking steps, together with the United States, to strengthen the search for items within Iraq, before they are exported on to the international market? Is consideration being given to a reward system? I am aware that that would be difficult, because some items have already been returned freely, and the people who returned them would have to be considered in any compensation. An amnesty has been announced, but that might be an additional incentive.

My Lords, in response to my noble friend's final question, I am not sure that consideration has been given to providing rewards for people who return looted material. However, an amnesty is in place, and that is probably the right route to take at present.

Some good news is coming out of Iraq. Some of the goods that were stolen or looted from the museum in Baghdad appear to be in safe hands. However, the picture is still very unclear. It is not known exactly what has been taken. Donny George, the head of research in the museum in Baghdad, was in London last week. He estimates that probably around 10 per cent of the museum's collections have been stolen, looted and vandalised in some way. As there were 170,000 items in that museum, that amounts to some 17,000 items.

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the repeated attempts made by my noble friend Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn to forewarn her Majesty's Government as early as February this year of the potential risks to archaeological sites and antiquities in Iraq in the aftermath of military intervention? Those attempts were entirely frustrated by the Government's failure to provide an adequate reply.

Does the Minister agree with the Illicit Antiquities Research Centre at Cambridge University that it would make sense to establish a UNESCO-approved repository for Iraqi material, which could be kept in safe storage and returned to Iraq when the situation there has stabilised?

My Lords, the Government welcome any attempts to provide a repository of that sort. We are working closely with international organisations, such as UNESCO, Interpol and ICOM—the International Council of Museums—to secure as best we can any items that have disappeared and eventually to return them to Iraq.

I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, was concerned about what might happen in the event of military conflict. I am sorry if he believes that his attempts to warn the Government were frustrated; I do not believe that they were. Our military in Iraq were given clear information about those possibilities and did their best to ensure that, in the southern part of Iraq, where the UK military were based, the kind of looting that occurred in Baghdad did not take place.

My Lords, we welcome the Government's support for the Private Members' Bill being put forward in another place by my honourable friend Richard Allan and the response of the DCMS in sending members of the department to Baghdad. However, will the Minister ask our Armed Forces whether they will supply transportation to members of the Iraqi Department of Antiquities in the Basra sector, and ask the Americans to do the same? Not only artefacts were looted in Baghdad; the entire fleet of vehicles that the Department of Antiquities used to get round in to monitor all the other sites was also taken.

My Lords, coalition forces obviously have an enormous number of demands on their transport fleets, so I could not possibly give a guarantee as to the availability of vehicles of any kind for work of that sort. I am willing to pass on that request, but it will be a matter of establishing what the priorities are for transport.

My Lords, while welcoming the initiative of my noble friend, will she comment on the outcome of a valuable initiative by Neil MacGregor, the director of the British Museum? He got together a consortium of international museums and alerted them to the problems that we now face.

Will the Minister also comment on the surprising indifference to the protection of museums, as well as banks and government offices, in the closing stages of the conflict?

My Lords, like all noble Lords, I am enormously grateful to the intervention of Neil MacGregor, the director of the British Museum. He has been stalwart in the work that he has already undertaken to try to support his colleagues in the museum in Baghdad. I am sure that that will apply to other museums where that might be helpful at a later time. He has put together a consortium of archaeologists from museums in France, Germany and from the Hermitage in Russia, as well as from the United States, under the auspices of UNESCO. Their work over the next months will be of enormous importance.

My Lords—

My Lords, I am afraid that we are out of time.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, we have increased the number of speech and language therapists employed in the National Health Service by 17 per cent since 1997, and the number of people in training for those professions by 21 per cent since 1999–2000. We are encouraging service redesign by improving and developing joint working between health and education, and by developing the roles of support staff in order to make the best use of professional skills.

My Lords, in declaring an interest as a past president of the Royal College, I thank the Minister for that very encouraging reply. Would she agree that early assessment and intervention are important for anyone suffering from language impairment, but especially so for children and vitally so for pre-school children?

Has the Minister seen the recent report by Maria Luscombe, which shows that a child of three will wait somewhere between six months and two years before therapy can even start? Two years is a long time when you are three, is it not, when you know that your peak period of language development is slipping away and when your anxious parents know that also slipping away is the chance of a decent education?

My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord; I could not disagree with anything that he said. Obviously, delay with such young children is crucial. Having recruited an additional 810 new speech and language therapists, we hope that we will be able to make an impact on the figures. Part of the challenge is that, because so many initiatives have been put in place, such as Sure Start, which depend on hacking-up contact with children and families with such provisions as speech and language therapies, we have more speech and language therapists but a steady vacancy rate. That is a challenge, and that is why we are glad to see an increase in training places.

My Lords, we should bear in mind the fact that the Sure Start scheme is run by the Department for Education and Skills. The SEN code of practice says that,

"since communication is so fundamental in learning and progression, addressing speech and language impairment should normally be recorded as educational provision unless there are exceptional reasons for not doing so".

Clearly, there are unacceptable waiting times for those services. To achieve joined-up provision, is it not time that provision of and responsibility for those services was handed over to the DfES?

My Lords, the noble Lord raises complex, sensitive and indeed historic issues. The Department of Health and the DfES are working closely and collaboratively to develop a plan to facilitate more joint working. We very much look forward to the outcome of that. Speech and language therapy is very fertile ground for joint working. There is no excuse why the workforce confederations and the local education authorities should not be working more closely together. Children's trusts, for example, will create opportunities for such work. We have some extremely good practice. Mansfield District PCT, for example, has an early intervention programme, and Amber Valley has a jointly funded speech and language therapy post. I shall write to the noble Lord—and anyone else who is interested—and give some examples of that good practice. It is such an important programme and direction in which we should go.

My Lords, as the patients include people recovering from strokes and severe head injuries, does the noble Baroness agree that this therapy is much needed to help them resume life in the community?

My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord. The National Service Framework for Older People draws attention to the need for better and more extensive therapy services for stroke victims. Just as it is important to intervene promptly with children, it is extremely important to intervene promptly and build up the confidence of the stroke victim who has lost his capacity for speech.

My Lords, I also declare an interest as a past president of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. When I was there, I learned that the need for speech therapy for children and for adults arose from many different causes. As a consequence, responsibility was divided between Health, Education and Social Services—with inevitable confusion, some overlap and many misunderstandings, all of which contributed to the delay mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk. So far as I can see, the joint working to which the Minister referred has not been outstandingly successful. The efforts so far at co-operation, co-ordination and unification also have not been dazzling. Will the Government therefore come up with different initiatives from the ones that we have had so far?

My Lords, we shall certainly be looking at good practice where it exists to see how we can universalise it and encourage other local areas to adopt it. The noble Lord is quite right. The need for joint working was a theme running throughout the report from the Audit Commission last November on special needs. Clearly we want to take more effective action.

My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who has suffered two strokes. In undertaking the invaluable work that my noble friend has indicated, will she look at the practice of the Royal Free Hospital in Hampstead where there is absolutely no waiting time at all? Does she agree that although the issue which has been raised is extremely patchy, the best is not necessarily the enemy of the good?

My Lords, I am delighted to hear of the noble Lord's positive experience. In overcoming his own difficulties he is an example to many of us. I think that he is an inspiration to all of us. I certainly take the point about the Royal Free and how much we can learn from best practice. The NHS is a learning organisation and we want to learn across the whole organisation.

My Lords, if I may, I should like to press the Minister further and refer back to the points on children made by the noble Lord. Lord Quirk. He is perfectly right that three year-olds have a very short time in which to have this remedial work, which will affect not only their educational but possibly their behavioural performance when they get into school. It is such a crucial issue. The Minister talked about what is happening in the future. What hope for the next two years can she offer parents whose children are currently being diagnosed with problems in order to redress the problems that are here and now?

My Lords, in the past three years the number of people in training has increased from 457 to 553. Next year we are expecting even bigger increases, to almost 600. People want to become speech therapists. It is our responsibility to enable them to do so and to ensure that we cut down the delays.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, at their recent summit, the heads of state and government of France, Germany, Belgium and Luxembourg agreed proposals for a European security and defence union, whose members would commit to go,

"faster and further in strengthening their defence co-operation",

including making a commitment to bring,

"mutual help and assistance in the face of risks of all natures".

The St Malo accord did not envisage such commitments, and Her Majesty's Government do not, and will not, support any proposals which might lead to common defence within the EU framework.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear and in some ways reassuring reply. However, in a way it does not completely answer the doubts and the questions. Does not the new agreement which has been announced involve setting up a completely independent European Union military headquarters which is to be located at Tervuren in the suburbs of Brussels? Did not the letter of intent for the St Malo agreement specifically rule out that kind of thing? Has not the new agreement been roundly condemned by the United States and by the Prime Minister here, whereas the United States grudgingly accepted the St Malo agreement because it was going to be within the embrace of NATO? It is difficult to see. Can the Minister explain how the approaches in these two completely different philosophies of the defence of Europe can be reconciled? How can they coexist? Is it not time that we review the St Malo agreement to see whether it fits in with the preconceptions of France and Germany as they face their new defence ambitions?

My Lords, the noble Lord is right when he says that the Brussels summit on 29th April went too far. It went too far in two particular ways. One was the attempt to duplicate NATO's work, and the other was the European security and defence union idea for those countries which commit themselves, as I said, to bringing,

"mutual help and assistance in the face of risks of all natures".

However, we do not think for one moment that that takes away from the strengths of the European security and defence policy as first thought out and discussed at St Malo. That was and remains an appropriate policy for this country and for the European Union.

It is for that reason that we regret that the meeting was held between those four countries—our four partners—on 29th April. I should add that that meeting did make sensible comments about NATO as the basis of the European collective defence and the only organisation capable of delivering it. It also discussed—perhaps not exactly in the terms that we would like—and commented on improving the European military capability which, after all, is really the crucial question.

My Lords, further to the Minister's reply, what efforts are the Government making to create new European military capabilities to meet the challenges set by the Prague summit and the requirements in the Helsinki headline goals?

My Lords, we are making progress on improving military capabilities. It is being taken forward within the European Capabilities Action Plan—ECAP—which is addressing capability shortfalls against the targets set in the Helsinki headline goal. Defence Ministers from member states will soon be considering proposals to meet those shortfalls. The United Kingdom will be looking for member states to make firm commitments to improve capabilities, including the implementation of short-term solutions to fill gaps until a longer-term programme is delivered.

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the four countries concerned discussed these proposals in NATO and, if so, what was the reaction?

My Lords, I do not believe that the four countries discussed their proposals with NATO so I am afraid that I am not able to tell the noble Lord what NATO's reaction might have been, although I think he and I can guess.

My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government be able to give an assurance to the colleagues that they are talking to about further defence that there will be no reduction in Her Majesty's Government's contribution to defence?

My Lords, as the noble and gallant Lord knows, last year's Comprehensive Spending Review contained the largest increase in defence spending for many years. I cannot guarantee that defence spending will remain as it is or be increased in the next review. I should be foolish to do so. However, I believe that all that has happened during the course of the past couple of years, and in particular in the past three months, indicates that the last thing that should be reduced is defence spending. If I may say so, that also goes for our European colleagues.

My Lords, although I strongly support the key point made by my noble friend Lord Howell, the success of any defence cooperation is also critically dependent on the compatibility of equipment and the compatibility of systems. Did the Minister notice the very interesting article in The Times written by General Wesley Clark? He commented on some of the lessons learnt in Iraq and on the great success of, and the tremendous respect he has for, British troops and the quality of our personnel, but he also expressed great concern about our ability to remain compatible with the Americans given the scale of our equipment and its level of sophistication. If there is to be close co-operation in these areas—irrespective of whether the United Kingdom, the United States or any other defence alliance is involved—as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, said, there will need to be a sustained level of defence expenditure.

My Lords, I cannot disagree with what the noble Lord says, especially given his vast experience in these fields. I read the article to which he refers. There is much truth in it, although it ought to be said that the equipment that the UK forces used in the recent conflict in Iraq by and large proved to be extremely successful. We welcome the recognition in the summit I mentioned of the importance of strengthening European defence capabilities, including the acceptance of a British proposal that the European Union should have an agency to focus primarily on the development of defence capabilities. That matter will be discussed again shortly.

My Lords—

My Lords, I am afraid that we are well beyond time.

moved Amendment No. 36:

Page 5, line 16, leave out subsections (1) to (4).

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 44 and to support government Amendments Nos. 39, 40 and 41.

The amendment provoked much debate in Committee and, I am pleased to say, received much support. I shall not take up time going over old ground on the amendment except to say that I stand by my previous comments on the matter. I believe that the abolition of the list would be a mean-spirited act which would serve no purpose.

I am therefore very grateful to the Government for tabling their amendments which fulfil the function we sought and ensure that the Supplemental List will continue to provide recognition of those who have selflessly given up their time to fulfil a role in the community.

I say rather flippantly that in an idle moment I put a few figures together. If one considers that each daily session is four hours minimum, and that on average magistrates do 40 sessions per annum—which is 160 hours per annum—over 15 years that would be 2,400 hours. If one considers that the maximum number of hours that can be ordered under one community service order is 240, that means that over 15 years magistrates perform at least the equivalent of 10 maximum community service orders. That is surely a worthwhile contribution to the community.

In Committee I said that I looked forward to returning to the issue and that I hoped that I would hear wonderful news. I am pleased that I have heard just that. Having mentioned the phrase "mean-spirited", I wish to add that in no way do I accuse the Minister of such feelings. Indeed, I pay tribute to the generous way in which she has responded to my amendment and to the part she has played in bringing forward the government amendments that are before us today.

My Lords, I am happy to support the government amendments. They constitute an entirely harmless and almost cost-free method of acknowledging the admirable service which many justices of the peace have performed by continuing to allow them to describe themselves as justices of the peace when they are no longer sitting as members of the court. That is entirely welcome. I am very glad that the Government have given way on the matter.

My Lords, I cannot speak for my noble friend Lord Tenby, but he would want someone from the Cross Benches to thank the Government for that concession.

moved Amendment No. 37:

Page 5, line 33, leave out second "or" and insert—

"( ) on the ground of a persistent failure to meet such standards of competence as are prescribed by a direction given by the Lord Chancellor, or"

My Lords, how often has the Lord Chancellor's current power been exercised?

My Lords, I do not have specific numbers at the moment. I can certainly tell the noble Lord that it has been very rare indeed. It is not a frequently used power, but there may be occasions when it proves necessary. That is why the power has to be there. I shall be more than happy to write to him to give him whatever figures we have available, if they are available.

My Lords, I am slightly anxious about the wording of the amendment. It suggests that the second "or" in line 33 should be left out, and then that certain words should be inserted. If the second "or" is left out, the amendment seems to mean that "misbehaviour" is defined,

"on the ground of a persistent failure to meet such standards of competence",

and so on. The Minister will know very well that "incapacity or misbehaviour" is a phrase commonly found in the grounds for dismissal of public officers of various kinds. Indeed, it is to be found in Clause 17 in relation to district judges and Section 24 of the Courts Act 1971 in relation to circuit judges.

If the Minister feels the need to add another ground for removal of a lay justice, I can quite understand that. However, if the result of agreeing to the amendment is to limit "misbehaviour" so that it no longer applies to committing criminal offences, for example, it would seem as though the drafting had gone all awry. I hope that I have misunderstood the Minister, but I am slightly anxious about the wording of the amendment.

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the amendment. We understand that it meets the requirements of the Magistrates' Association, as the Minister said.

My Lords, I do not think that one can be too careful in considering legislative powers to remove judges; of course, justices of the peace are judges. I think that I am right in saying that a High Court judge can be removed only by Parliament itself. Although the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, refers to the power of removal of district judges under Clause 17, that does not include a provision such as that inserted by the amendment.

Perhaps I have an excess of concern about preserving the independence of justices of the peace, but I think that the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton, is very germane. I had a few words with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, about the amendment before he had to go elsewhere. He was unaware of occasions during his tenure as Lord Chancellor of having to remove on the grounds specified in the amendment.

The other question that occurs to me—I would be grateful if the Minister were to comment on it when she winds up the debate—is to ask who will judge persistent failure. Obviously the Lord Chancellor will have to act on the basis of reports, but who will compile those reports? Will the person about whom they are drawn up have any possibility of commenting on them, in order to defend himself or herself against the charge of persistent failure to meet standards of competence?

So far as I am aware. the existing prerogative power has worked perfectly well over very many centuries. Is it really necessary to make the amendment? I hope that no one will think that I am beginning to cast aspersions—I am plainly not—but extreme caution is called for about such matters. It occurs to me to ask whether putting a power in the Bill on a quite different ground from any existing one might not create a legislative tool that an unscrupulous or biased Lord Chancellor might be inclined to use in the case of a justice of the peace who gave him or her extreme stress or distress.

My Lords, I want to ask the noble Lord a question before he concludes his remarks. He referred to the noble Lord, Lord Clinton. I have looked around and I cannot see him. Was he referring to me?

My Lords, I apologise. I meant the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, whom I have known for so many years. That was a rather late intervention, I thought.

I wonder whether one is putting a legislative tool in the way of potential misuse, especially as, in the circumstances conjectured, there seems to be no guard for the justice of the peace who will be removed. I would be interested to hear what the noble Baroness has to say.

My Lords, I want to follow up on what was said by my noble friend Lord Phillips—Lord Phillips of Sudbury, I should point out. The amendment provides that the Lord Chancellor will prescribe in a direction the standards of competence required. Those directions, which will obviously be general directions, do not require any parliamentary procedure. As I understand it, the Delegated Powers Committee, which has just reported on the government amendments, has not suggested that they should.

On the other hand, it certainly seems that publicity is required for the directions, so that people learn what the prescribed standards are. Therefore, would it not be appropriate to require that directions should at any rate be laid before Parliament, even if there were no parliamentary process for their approval?

My Lords, I shall try to deal with all the issues raised. I shall first further clarify an answer that I gave earlier. We do not think that the power has ever been exercised. Generally, the experience has been that magistrates in these positions tend to resign. But we shall certainly make the trawl to ascertain the real position.

This provision is supported by the Magistrates' Association, primarily because it has a real and a proper interest in making sure that the highest possible standards are maintained by those who discharge this very important function. That is a view with which we concur.

Before responding to the points made by the noble Lords, Lord Phillips and Lord Goodhart, perhaps I may deal with the matter referred to by my noble friend Lord Borrie. The "or" does not add a paragraph to the subsection. What it does is to create a new ground—hence "(a), (b) 'or' (c)". Stylistically, given the way in which the Bill is drafted, when alternatives are put forward the "or" comes immediately prior to the final paragraph. I hope that that clarifies the point.

Safeguards will apply to the removal of magistrates. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, mentioned, there is a procedure set out in directions to the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee. We believe that this provision is compatible with Article 6. It is also open to judicial review if needs be.

The competencies already exist. They are known as the magistrates' national training initiative competencies. Recently, they have been revised in consultation with the Magistrates' Association. It is envisaged that these would be formalised, so that the appraisal system would be administered by the Judicial Studies Board against clear competencies. Appraisal results will be considered by the Bench training and development committees, by advisory committees and by the Lord Chancellor. So there is a clear structure against which any lack of competence would be set out before any suggestion of removal.

The recollection of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, as reported by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is probably right. We do not recollect any occasion when it has been used under this Administration either.

I hope that that satisfies your Lordships—first, that this is a perfectly proper clause; secondly, that the competencies will be properly defined; and, thirdly, that there will be a proper system through which they will be applied. I hope that noble Lords will be content with that response.

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask whether the magistrate who is being removed will have an opportunity to know about that, and to make a response before the decision is taken?

My Lords, of course it will be very important that all magistrates who are trained are trained properly. They will be assessed. In accordance with the rules of natural justice, if action is to be taken against a magistrate that magistrate should properly be told the reason for the action and given an opportunity to make a response. If the proper procedures were not adopted, as I said earlier, it would be open to that magistrate, were he or she so minded and there were grounds on which to justify it, to take the decision to judicial review.

I have attempted to set out as clearly as I can the process that will be adopted for the assessment. I know that the magistrates' courts association is very pleased that the Judicial Studies Board will become involved in the issues of training and competencies, because these are matters about which it feels fairly strongly. It wants to make sure that magistrates receive the proper training that they need, that their competencies are enhanced to enable them to continue to discharge their duty with the propriety that all would wish.

My Lords, I hope the Minister will forgive me for intervening again on a small point. Following the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, stylistically, if one is going to remove the second "or" and place it as the Minister says, and if that is perfectly correct, one ought also to take out the first "or" and put a comma there.

My Lords, I can assure your Lordships that the drafting pecularities will be addressed. But I am told that the draftsmen are content with the perfection that is currently before your Lordships.

moved Amendments Nos. 39 to 41:

After Clause II, insert the following new clause—

"THE SUPPLEMENTAL LIST

(1) A list, to be known as "the supplemental list", must be kept in the office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.

(2) A lay justice whose name is entered in the supplemental list is not qualified as a justice of the peace to do any act or to be a member of a committee or other body.

(3) No act or appointment is invalidated by reason of the disqualification of a lay justice under subsection (2)."

moved Amendment No. 42:

Page 7, line 1, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—

"(c) the fact that a lay justice assigned to the area has ceased to be a justice of the peace or that his name has been entered in or removed from the supplemental list."

moved Amendment No. 45:

After Clause 15, insert the following new clause—

moved Amendments Nos. 48 and 49:

Page 8, line 24, leave out "14 and 15" and insert "10, 14, 15 and (Training, development and appraisal of lay justices)"

Page 8, line 25, leave out "14 or 15" and insert "10, 14, 15 or (Training, development and appraisal of lay justices)"

moved Amendment No. 50:

After Clause 16, insert the following new clause—

moved Amendment No. 51:

Page 8, line 37, leave out from "1871 (c. 48)" to end of line 38.

moved Amendment No. 52:

Page 9, line 16, leave out from "1871 (c. 48)" to end of line 19.

moved Amendment No. 53:

Page 10, line 17, at end insert ", and

(c) appointed after consultation by the Lord Chancellor with the chairman or chairmen and deputy chairmen of the justices assigned to the local justice area or areas to which the Lord Chancellor intends to assign the justices' clerk."

My Lords, I shall begin with Amendment No. 54. It will place on a statutory footing the assurances that I endeavoured to provide in Committee; namely, that justices' clerks will be assigned to local areas and that the local Bench chairman or deputy chairmen will be consulted before the Lord Chancellor changes a clerk's assignment and assigns him or her to another area.

My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor proposed the amendment. Its principal effect will be to put beyond doubt the fact that justices' clerks will be assigned to local areas, and confirm the duty on him of consultation.

We have listened carefully to the persuasive arguments put forward in your Lordships' House. My noble friend Lady Scotland met representatives from the Justices' Clerks' Society. The society's main concern was a perceived threat to the independence of its members. It has been argued that the Bill as drafted could give the Lord Chancellor free rein to move a justices' clerk around the country pretty much at will if he did not like the advice that that clerk was giving. Despite the assurances we have given that that will not happen in practice, I well understand the society's concerns.

I also reaffirm that the Government have a regard for the close relationship that can exist between Benches of magistrates and their justices' clerks. Amendment No. 54 addresses those concerns by requiring the Lord Chancellor to assign clerks to specific areas and to consult the local Bench before changing a clerk's assignment. The Lord Chancellor would not, therefore, have the alleged free rein to move clerks at will. I can confirm with some confidence that the Justices' Clerks' Society is happy with the changes that we are proposing. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, nods her head in assent.

We were grateful for the important debate that we had last time and, as the noble Baroness said, to the 97 who have, despite losing the vote, prevailed on this occasion by persuading us of the strength of their feelings and the merit of their argument. In light of that and the amendment that we have tabled, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment. I will move Amendment No. 54 at the appropriate time.

My Lords, I shall not detain the Government for long after this agreement across the Chamber. I am aware—and want to state this clearly and not simply by nodding my head—that the Justices' Clerks' Society welcomes the government amendment. I will not proceed with my amendment. I place on the record my thanks to the Justices' Clerks' Society for its briefings throughout the passage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 54:

Page 10, line 22, at end insert—

"(2A) The Lord Chancellor—

(a) must assign each justices' clerk to one or more local justice areas, and

(b) subject to subsection (2B), may change an assignment so as to assign the justices' clerk to a different local justice area or to different local justice areas.

(2B) Before changing an assignment of a justices' clerk so that he is no longer assigned to a local justice area, the Lord Chancellor must consult—

(a) the chairman of the lay justices assigned to that area, or

(b) if it is not possible or not practicable to consult the chairman, the deputy chairman or such of the lay justices assigned to or acting in the area as appear to the Lord Chancellor appropriate."