Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]

I should say that I really wish to oppose the Question that Clause 4 should stand part of the Bill for similar reasons to those we have just discussed and which I shall not rehearse again. Let me put on the record, however, that we recognise that lay justices play an enormously valuable and important role and that they are very much part of a local community. They are drawn from the local community and for a very long time there has been a pressing need to make them much more representative of local communities than is normally the case. I certainly accept enthusiastically any activity that a local authority can undertake to help to promote these issues. I have no problems with any of that, and I do not need to be told how important it is. Again, however, it should not be the duty of a local authority to do it. If the Government feel the need to legislate in this area, let them do so. Otherwise it is the duty of the magistrates’ authorities, not the local authorities, to promote these issues. I do not want to exaggerate this, but I see some dangers in a local authority doing that, given the interrelationship between local magistrates and local authorities. A great deal of a local authority’s work—it is not often very much publicised, unless something goes very wrong—is with and in relation to magistrates’ courts. There might be some cause for concern if a local authority has a duty to be promoting and trying to get people engaged as local magistrates at the same time as it has to use those magistrates’ courts for its proper business. I do not want to exaggerate that or suggest that it is a major problem, but it is a small issue. Amendment 62, which clearly would not apply if I were successful in removing this clause, says that if the clause is to remain part of the Bill, the duty of the local authority in this respect should be limited to those functions of a public nature that are actually related to the work of the local authority. In other words, it is not the whole wide-ranging role of a magistrate in the criminal justice system, but that which particularly relates to the local authority. It is a limiting amendment on the powers of Clause 4, should it remain in the Bill. Amendment 64 is consequential on Clause 4 not remaining in the Bill and, as today the clause is likely to stand part, I shall not move Amendment 64 when we get to it.