Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) (Family Proceedings) Order 2011

My Lords, I support the instruments wholeheartedly. I thank the Minister for his succinct introduction, but I have several queries. Paragraph 4, ““Legislative Context””, of the helpful Explanatory Memorandum to the Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) (Family Proceedings) Order 2011 states: "““appeals in non-adoption cases from the decisions of a district judge of the High Court and from a district judge of a county court would be to the Court of Appeal””." Is the Minister able to define these differences? Is there a district judge of a magistrates’ court that would be separate from those instances on which I have asked for clarification? Paragraph 8, ““Consultation outcome””, of the Explanatory Memorandum states: "““A total of 45 responses were received to this consultation””." I thought this query worthy of being raised because, when one considers the vast number of magistrates’ courts, 45 seems rather a small number. In the spirit of debate, one is perhaps entitled to query and to seek reassurance that the consultation process has been widespread, comprehensive and effective. I presume that, of those 45 responses, the Magistrates’ Association of England and Wales put in its views and was consulted. It is reasonable to ask what form of consultation existed with that very distinguished body. Included in the 45 responses, is it reasonable to assume that the association for magistrates' clerks and executives—whatever name it now has—made a major submission? I would be surprised if it did not. Perhaps answers can given in these proceedings. The Minister is distinguished and is of a senior rank so, given that these instruments deal with magistrates’ courts, let me take this opportunity to ask him: is the magistracy secure? What future does he see for it? There have been many court closures and magistrates’ courts have been closing for years now. In Wales, it is getting harder to afford transport to the remaining courts. This is a worthy question in consideration of these instruments. I would not want to embarrass him by asking how many magistrates’ courts have been closed throughout England and Wales, unless he can speedily provide that answer. Given the many scheduled closures of magistrates’ courts, in this debate it is relevant to ask whether we shall have the means to facilitate what these instruments are designed to facilitate. There has been an increase in the number of district judges who sit in magistrates’ courts. I do not know the percentage of the increases or the numbers, but against that fact I ask: does that development of giving more work to district judges presage fewer justices of the peace? Is there a downgrading of the justice of the peace in the system of law which the Minister heads, administers and, I presume, greatly respects? Does he agree that magistrates’ courts do a splendid job? Does he agree that three people of consequence and three people of the local community are well qualified to dispense local justice? Such people have dispensed such justice for centuries and, in facilitating these instruments, it would be rather nice if the Minister could give some reassurance that he convincingly backs magistrates’ courts.