The courts are an essential public service and the way in which they are run is of relevance to everyone. Although the majority of people do not come into contact with the courts, they provide services which all of us may need one day. People are entitled to expect a court service that meets their needs. That is why, in creating a unified administration for all the courts in England and Wales, we are establishing community focussed Courts Boards.
The Courts Boards will provide a vital local input, to ensure that the courts administration is run in a way that meets the needs of their area. They will draw on their experiences to encourage innovation in the way that services are delivered. It is vital that we identify the right people with the right skills and abilities to become members of Courts Boards, members who represent the rich diversity of the local communities served by the courts. It is essential, therefore, that the selection process is open, transparent and fair.
In order to ensure that Courts Boards have a strong role, we are giving them a statutory basis. We want to use secondary legislation to define their constitution and their procedures, to ensure that the framework within which they operate is clear.
It is important that we have as wide a range of views as possible, both from those within the courts communities, and others. I look forward to hearing your comments.
Christopher Leslie MP
Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs
This paper sets out for consultation the arrangements for the constitution and procedures of Courts Boards. Courts Boards will be established as part of the unified courts administration, as a means of ensuring local involvement in the way the courts are run. They will be established under the Courts Bill, which is currently before Parliament.
The consultation is aimed at individuals and groups with an interest in the administration of the courts in England and Wales. A list of those organisations which have been sent a copy of the paper is included in Annex B. The list is not exhaustive and comments are welcomed from any group or individual who hold a view on the issues in this paper.
This consultation is being conducted in line with the Code of Practice on Written Consultation issued by the Cabinet Office. It falls within the scope of the Code. The Code criteria set out in Annex E have been followed.
An initial impact assessment on the issues discussed in this paper did not indicate any impact on business, charities or the voluntary sector. Consequently, no formal Regulatory Impact Assessment is attached to the current consultation document. We will, however, review the position in the light of responses.
Please send your response by 5 January to:
Jillian Kay
Department for Constitutional Affairs
Unified Courts Administration Programme
3N3
Southside
103 Victoria Street
London SW1E
Tel: 0207 210 2089
Fax: 0207 210 1692
Email: Jillian Kay
Representative groups are asked to give a summary of the people and organisations they represent when they respond.
The Department may wish to publish responses to this consultation document in due course. Please ensure your response is marked clearly if you wish your response or name to be kept confidential. Confidential responses will be included in any statistical summary of numbers of comments received and views expressed.
Further copies of this consultation paper can be obtained from Felicity Purdy at the above address or by phoning 020 7210 1826.
In July 2002, the Government published its White Paper Justice for All, which announced the intention to legislate to integrate the management of the courts within a single courts agency to replace the Magistrates' Courts' Committees and the Court Service. The White Paper defined the clear guiding principles which will underpin the new agency: integration of management and local flexibility and accountability within a framework of national standards.
We wanted to embed the role of stakeholders and local community representatives in the new organisation. We therefore decided to establish local statutory Courts Boards. The Courts Boards will work in partnership with a new executive agency.
The legislation which will enable us to establish the new agency and the Courts Boards, the Courts Bill, has been debated in the House of Lords and has completed Committee Stage in the House of Commons. We anticipate that the Bill will receive Royal Assent in November. Our intention is that the new agency will be established in April 2005, with a period of shadow running before that. We intend that the Courts Boards will be in place in shadow form from October 2004.
Before the Courts Boards can be established, we need to decide on a selection process, which will comply with Code of Practice on Public Appointments, and will support the Government's commitment to diversity in public appointments. We also need to set out the procedures which they should follow. We need to draw up regulations covering the key aspects of constitution and selection. We are also working on the guidance which will be given to Courts Boards - the main aspects of it are described in the paper.
We have developed the proposals in this paper following discussions with a range of stakeholders. We held a series of regional discussion groups between January and May of this year involving magistrates, judges, court staff and court users. A report of the regional discussion groups has been published and is available on request. In June, we held a conference for Bench and Branch Chairs. We have also held discussions at national level with representatives of the magistrates' courts community and with the judiciary.
This paper draws on these discussions and makes the following proposals:
Each Courts Board should initially consist of the statutory minimum of 7 members - a judge, two magistrates, two members of the local community, two people with experience of the work of the courts in the area. We will review this in consultation with Board Chairmen at a later stage, in the light of experience in running the Boards, and their assessment of local needs.
The maximum number of members should be 12, and a quorum should be four members.
Members should be selected for their personal skills and qualities, not as representatives of any organisation.
Steps should be taken to attract a wide and diverse pool of candidates.
The judge should normally be either a Resident Judge, a Designated Civil Judge or a Designated Family Judge with responsibilities in the area.
The magistrate posts should be open to all the magistrates in the area, including those who serve as Bench Chairmen or have served on MCCs.
The judge should be appointed on the recommendation of the Senior Presiding Judge.
The other members should be appointed on the recommendation of a panel, consisting of the local chief officer, an independent assessor and a member of the Courts Board. For initial appointments, the third member should be a local person with relevant experience.
Members should be appointed for terms of up to three years, and serve no more than three terms.
In addition, the paper seeks views on:
whether members of Courts Boards should receive remuneration;
how the Chairs should be selected;
what aspects of constitution and procedures should be set out in secondary legislation.
In July 2002, the Government published its White Paper Justice for All, which announced the intention to legislate to integrate the management of the courts within a single courts agency to replace the Magistrates' Courts' Committees and the Court Service. The White Paper defined the clear guiding principles which will underpin the new agency: integration of management and local flexibility and accountability within a framework of national standards.
We wanted to embed the role of stakeholders and local community representatives in the new organisation. We therefore decided to establish local Courts Boards. The Courts Boards will work in partnership with a new executive agency.
Courts Boards are a means of involving key stakeholders of the courts - magistrates, judges, lay and professional users of the courts - and members of the local community- in the way in which the courts are run. Courts Boards will not be involved in any judicial decisions - for example, sentencing decisions - but they will offer an opportunity for local people to contribute to decisions like:
The benefits of opening up these decisions, rather than taking them behind closed doors, are:
The role of the Courts Boards is defined in the Courts Bill: to scrutinise, review and make recommendations about the way in which the courts are being run in their area; and in particular, to consider draft and final business plans. They are required to perform this function in accordance with guidance provided by ministers.
There will be 42 Courts Boards - one for each of the local management areas of the new agency, based on the criminal justice areas. We are considering how the Courts Board for London should operate, given the size and diversity of the area. Courts Boards will work with the local chief officer, a civil servant with responsibility for running the courts in the area, to agree the strategy for the way in which the courts should be managed.
7. The guidance will define the Courts Boards' core functions as:
The guidance will require them to perform their functions in line with the following principles:
We expect Courts Boards to meet at least four times per year, to allow them to take a strategic overview of the work of the courts. The local chief officer will attend the meetings and provide papers - for example, the area's draft plan or a quarterly performance report.
Consideration of the business plan will be a key part of their role. The plan will be formulated by the local chief officer, taking into account the views of local stakeholders. It will set out the local chief officer's plan for delivering national strategy for civil, family and criminal business in their area. He will be responsible for ensuring that the plan is consistent with national objectives, and with any joint objectives set by the local criminal justice board. He will present the plan to the Courts Board for scrutiny. Their role is to consider the plan, to probe the local chief officer on his reasoning and, where appropriate, to recommend changes. A further meeting should be arranged if necessary to agree the plan.
Once the plan has been agreed, it is the responsibility of the local chief officer to deliver it. He, and if necessary members of staff in his area (like Justices' Clerks, or Court Managers), will attend meetings of the Courts Board to present and explain performance information, and to seek their recommendations about any action that needs to be taken.
Examples
|
In presenting the draft plan, and in discussing performance, the local chief officer will be prepared to explain the policy and reasoning behind it. It is his responsibility to devise a plan that has the support of his Board, and to deliver it. There may, however, be times when the local chief officer cannot make the changes to a plan that a Courts Board proposes - for example, because they are inconsistent with national policy, or because he does not believe that the resources are available to deliver it. If this is the case, he will give the Board a full explanation.
If, however, following these discussions, the Courts Board is unhappy with the local chief officer's explanation, it is open to them to contact the regional director. He may be able to broker a compromise. If, however, he is unable to propose a solution, the Courts Board can ask him to refer the matter to the agency's Chief Executive. Ultimately, if a Board is dissatisfied with the way in which their recommendations have been handled, they can make representations to ministers. If ministers do not accept the Board's recommendations about the area's business plan, they have a statutory right to written reasons.
It is essential that Courts Boards should add value to the way in which the courts are run. We will keep the success of the partnership between the agency and the Boards under review, so that we can take any steps that are necessary - like providing additional guidance, or training to Boards or local chief officers - to ensure that the Boards are able to reach their full potential.
Courts Boards will operate in a complex environment - the work of the courts has an impact on a wide range of groups and individuals. The local chief officer will be a member of a number of executive bodies - like local criminal justice boards - and will have a role in consulting with various stakeholder groups about the work of the courts in the area. The local chief officer will act as the link between these different bodies. So, for example:
it is the responsibility of the local chief officer to ensure that he takes into account the full range of stakeholder views in formulating the area's plan, and before presenting it to the Courts Board;
Courts Boards are not a substitute for existing bodies - like court user committees, for example, and we expect these bodies to continue to exist under the unified courts administration;
the local chief officer will be a member of the local criminal justice board, which is an executive body. He will be responsible for the magistrates' courts and the Crown Court centres in the area. It will be the local chief officer's responsibility to keep the Courts Board informed of any decisions made by the criminal justice board and to represent the views of the agency and the Courts Board in the criminal justice board. This will be similar to the way in which Justices' Chief Executives operate now, acting as the link between their MCC and the criminal justice board.
Courts Boards should, however, seek to establish a relationship with key stakeholders in their area, by inviting representatives to their meetings and inviting them to raise concerns or issues for discussion. We will provide them with guidance on this aspect of their role.
This section sets out our proposals about:
The purpose of Courts Boards is to give stakeholders and members of the local community a say in the way in which the courts are run to achieve improvements in the local service we offer. Members of Courts Boards will need to have a range of personal qualities to perform their role effectively, including good judgement, the ability to scrutinise proposals and challenge assumptions and good communication skills. Some members should have some relevant knowledge and experience, for example, as members of the legal professions; or as volunteers in justice related organisations, like Witness Support and Citizens' Advice. Members will need to have, or to acquire, an understanding of the work of the courts organisation.
Although many of the members will be involved in organisations that operate in the justice system, they will be selected as individuals, not as representatives of those organisations. The Courts Boards will not be a substitute for communication between interested organisations and the new agency.
Under the Courts Bill, each Courts Board must have a minimum of seven members:
The Bill provides for some flexibility so that membership can vary from area to area. We propose that initially the minimum number - seven members - should be appointed in each area. We will review this in consultation with Board Chairmen at a later stage, in the light of experience in running the Boards, and their assessment of local needs. In order for Courts Boards to work effectively, we believe that a maximum number of members should be set. We propose that the maximum number should be 12, regardless of the size of the area covered. Based on the experience of those working with MCCs at the moment, we propose that a quorum should be four members.
| Q1: Do you agree that only the minimum of seven members should be appointed to each Board in the first instance? Q2: Do you agree that the maximum number of members should be 12? Q3: Do you agree that the quorum should be four members? |
A key function of the courts administration is to support the work of the professional judiciary in the courts. The partnership between judiciary and administration is essential to the proper administration of justice. Judges have a unique perspective on how decisions about how the courts are run have an impact on the delivery of justice. Through their work in court and outside it, in chairing court user groups, for example, they have experience of the way in which decisions about the courts administration impact upon users of the courts. They will therefore be essential members of the new Courts Boards.
We propose that there should be one judge on each Courts Board. He or she should be a Circuit Judge, normally drawn from the Designated Civil and Family Judges, and Resident Judges in the area. Judges in these roles are uniquely placed to comment on the way in which the courts are run because of the overview which these roles give them.
We do not think that it is necessary to have one judge from each jurisdiction. It will be for the local chief officer to ensure that he seeks the views of different judges in his area in formulating his plans and proposals, before presenting it to the Courts Board and to ensure that the needs of judges at all levels are met. The judge's role on the Board will not be to represent a particular jurisdiction but, with other Board members, to consider the needs of all the courts' business.
| Q4: Do you agree that the Designated Civil, Designated Family and Resident Judges are the appropriate judicial members for Courts Boards? |
The relationship between the courts administration and the magistracy is equally important. As volunteers, and part-time members of the judiciary, magistrates offer something different to the Courts Boards - as well as their knowledge and experience of how the courts are run and the impact on court users, they bring with them considerable wider experience.
We will look for magistrates who are assigned to a local bench, and who can demonstrate the necessary personal skills. We are not necessarily looking for people who have, or have had in the past, a "management" role in the courts, either on Magistrates' Courts' Committees, or as Bench Chairmen, although these people are encouraged to put themselves forward.
Magistrate members of the Courts Boards will not be expected to "represent" the interests of a particular bench. It will be the local chief officer's responsibility to ensure that there is proper communication.
| Q5: Do you agree that the magistrates' posts should be open to all magistrates who can demonstrate the personal qualities required, including Bench Chairmen and current members of MCCs? |
We believe that people who use the courts regularly - for example, as barristers or solicitors, representing their clients; as advisers to witnesses who are involved in court proceedings; or lay advisers in the civil and family fields - would welcome the opportunity to have more of a say in how the courts are run. We will be looking for people who have something to offer, not as representatives of their organisations, but as individuals who can use their experience to make a contribution to strategy for the area. Many of those who have regular contact with the courts in their working lives are committed to improving the way the system works and will be well placed to encourage managers to think innovatively.
| Q6: What kind of "knowledge or experience" of the courts should individuals be required to demonstrate? |
We are also seeking members who, while perhaps having no relevant experience of the work of the courts, have an understanding of the community served by the courts - perhaps by living and working in the area; or by being actively involved in community groups. They, like other members, will have to demonstrate what sort of contribution they will be able to make to the Courts Board, based on the selection criteria. We would welcome people who have performed a similar local governance role in a different sector, and will be able to pass on valuable lessons.
| Q7: How should members of local communities be required to demonstrate that they are representative of people living in the area? |
Appointments to the Courts Boards are public appointments. The Government has made two fundamental commitments in relation to public appointments:
Appointment on merit, using fair selection procedures which recognise non traditional career patterns as suitable qualifications;
Equal representation of women and men in public appointments, pro rata representation of members of ethnic minority groups and increased participation of disabled people.
The Department's goal is to increase year by year the proportion of non-judicial appointments held by women and members of ethnic minorities. The Department will work towards an ultimate ratio of 50:50 representation of women and men, and pro-rata representation of members of ethnic minorities, within the overriding principle of appointment on merit.
The selection process will comply with the Code of Practice on Public Appointments, which is produced by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments. The Code of Practice sets out the regulatory framework for the public appointments process and is based upon seven principles as recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. It sets out the steps that should be followed in order to ensure a fair, open and transparent appointments process that produces a quality outcome and can command public confidence. The principles which underpin the Code are:
The first step is to attract candidates to apply for appointment to the Courts Boards. We must attract a wide pool of candidates in each area. We intend to develop a strategy over the next few months for attracting candidates, including candidates from under represented groups. This is likely to include advertising locally and nationally and contacting relevant organisations who might encourage members to apply. We will ensure that information about vacancies is made widely available and is accessible to members of the public.
| Q8: Do you have any suggestions on how we can attract a diverse pool of candidates to apply? |
The selection criteria will be agreed with ministers before the selection process begins, based on the skills and experience described in the last section. Role and person specifications will be drawn up for each post, which will cover the terms and conditions of appointment, including the likely time commitment, and the qualities, experience and skills which are sought.
| Q9: Do you have any comments on what the selection criteria should be? |
Candidates will be asked to complete an application form, which will ask them to demonstrate why they are suitable. We will make clear that examples from non traditional work experience, like volunteer work, are appropriate. The application forms will be sifted, and a shortlist of candidates will be called to interview.
It is important that there is a local element in the selection process. Interviews will therefore be held locally, in each of the Courts Board areas. We propose that the panel will consist of three people: the local Chief Officer, an independent assessor, and one other person. For future rounds of appointments, the third panel member will be an existing member of the local Courts Board, although this will clearly be impossible for the first round. We therefore propose to call on local experience, so the third member might be, for example, someone who is involved in the Lord Chancellor's advisory committees; or a member of the MCC selection panel. We will ensure that all panel members are trained in the Department's diversity policy.
The panel will make a recommendation to ministers, offering a choice of candidates, ranked in order of merit. The final decision on appointments rests with ministers.
We propose a different process for the selection of the judge member of each Courts Board. The number of judges in each area who hold the post of Resident Judge, Designated Civil Judge, or Designated Family Judge is quite small. A full selection panel process would therefore be disproportionate. We propose that appointments in each area should be made by ministers on the advice of the Senior Presiding Judge or the Deputy Chief Justice. In making their recommendations, they will consider which judges are best able to meet the selection criteria, consulting with the Presiding Judges responsible for each area. This is consistent with the way in which Resident Judges, Designated Civil Judges and Designated Family Judges are appointed. We will be discussing our proposals with Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments (OCPA), in order to ensure that the selection process complies with the Code.
| Q10: Do you agree with the proposed selection processes? |
The role of Chair of the Courts Board is an important one, which will require additional skills: chairing meetings to bring the Board to a corporate view; representing the Board to ministers and senior contacts in the agency. It is essential that the Chair has the right skills to perform this role, and has the confidence of other members of the Board.
With this in mind, we have identified a number of options for the selection of Chairs:
The Chair should be selected by ministers on the advice of the local panel. Applicants to the Courts Boards should be asked to specify whether they also wish to be considered for the post of Chair;
The members of the Board should elect a Chair;
The members of the Board should elect a Chair, within constraints set by the minister - that they must have been recommended as suitable to chair the Board by the interview panel; or that they must be drawn from one of the four categories of membership set by the Bill: the judge; the magistrates; people with knowledge and experience of the work of the courts; people who are representative of the local community.
| Q11: How should the Courts Board Chairs be selected? |
This section sets out our proposals on:
We propose that the term of office should be up to three years, and that members should be able to serve a maximum of three terms. This complies with the OCPA code, which requires that no one should serve more than ten years on a board. The provisions on MCC membership permit members to serve for a maximum of nine years. We propose that initial terms of appointment should vary, so that re-appointments are staggered.
| Q12: Do you agree that the term of office should usually be three years, renewable twice? |
All such public bodies must have a code of practice which forms part of members' terms and conditions of appointment. The code will set out the standards of conduct expected of board members. It must require members to adhere to the Seven Principles of Public Life (as drawn up by the Committee on Standards in Public Life), to draw up a register of interests and to abide by rules on political activity.
| The seven principles of public life Selflessness Integrity Objectivity Accountability Openness Honesty Leadership |
| Q13: Are there any particular requirements that should be included in the Courts Board code of practice? |
Where an individual member of a Courts Board fails to perform the duties required of them in line with the standards expected in public office, it must be open to ministers to terminate their term of office early. In line with other public bodies, we propose that ministers should be able to remove from office a member who:
| Q14: Do you agree with these reasons for removal from office? |
It is important that people should not be discouraged from applying for appointment to Courts Boards because of the expense involved. Members will receive their out of pocket expenses. We propose to offer both travel expenses, and child care or elder care to individuals who need it.
We would welcome views on whether, in addition, members should receive remuneration. The magistrates' courts community has a strong tradition of volunteering, and many of those who commented during the discussion groups argued that that principle should apply equally to the Courts Boards. Others, however, believe that offering remuneration would encourage applications from a wider range of individuals. The benefits of offering remuneration have to be balanced against the cost which will be taken from the overall budget of the unified courts administration.
The position in other public appointments varies. For example, members of police authorities can claim an annual allowance; whereas members of MCCs can claim only expenses and an allowance for loss of earnings. Many do not claim any form of payment.
| Q15: Should an allowance for loss of earnings or remuneration be offered to members? |
We recognise that membership of a Courts Board will be a challenging role. We recognise that different individuals will need different amounts of support and training to undertake this role. We will ensure that all members are provided with appropriate induction and training, to help them perform their role effectively.
The Courts Bill includes a power to make regulations about the constitution and procedures of Courts Boards. We propose that the framework of the selection process should be covered in regulations, as well as the most important aspects of procedures. Our proposals about these issues are covered earlier in the paper. This section sets out which of the issues we propose to cover in regulations.
On the selection process, we propose that regulations should include the following:
That the maximum number of members on a Courts Board is 12;
That tenure will be specified in the instrument of appointment, but will be not more than 3 years, and that members cannot serve more than 3 terms;
That the selection criteria will be published;
That appointments will be on the advice of a panel. Membership of the panel must be set by ministers;
That appointment of the judge members of the Boards will be on the advice of the Senior Presiding Judge;
The circumstances in which ministers may terminate the appointment of a member;
Arrangements for the selection of the Chair.
The key elements of Courts Board procedures should also be set out in regulations. We propose that these are:
That each Courts Board must meet at least four times per annum;
That a quorum is four members;
That, in the event of a vacancy, proceedings are still valid as long as meetings are quorate.
| Q16: Do you agree that these issues should be covered in regulations? Q17: Are there any other aspects of constitution or procedures which should be included, either in regulations or in guidance? |
The White Paper Justice for All set out the Government's plans to legislate to unify the administration of all the courts (Except the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords) in England and Wales in a single organisation. That means that a single, national organisation will replace the Magistrates' Courts' Committees and the Court Service, and will be responsible for the administration of the magistrates', Crown, county and higher courts.
The White Paper made clear that the unified courts administration will be an entirely new organisation, developed by those closest to the business in order to suit the needs of the business: people from the magistrates' courts and the Court Service, working together.
Since July 2002, considerable progress has been made in this process. Ministers have decided that there should be 42 local areas based on the criminal justice areas and that the Courts Boards should match these. Each local area will be managed by a local chief officer, a civil servant. There will also be a regional tier of management.
There will be seven regions. Subject to resolving one issue, the regions will be:
London (Metropolitan and City of London Police areas);
Midlands (Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Staffordshire, Warwickshire, West Mercia and West Midlands);
North East & Yorkshire (Cleveland, Durham, Humberside, North Yorkshire, Northumbria, South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire);
North West (Cumbria, Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Merseyside);
South East (Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Norfolk, Suffolk, Surrey, Sussex and Thames Valley);
South West (Avon & Somerset, Devon & Cornwall, Dorset, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire);
Wales and Cheshire (Cheshire, Dyfed Powys, Gwent, North Wales and South Wales).
Ministers considered carefully whether the Cheshire and Hampshire areas should align now with their respective Government regions, rather than the boundaries currently used for regional management in the Court Service. It is Government policy that the regional boundaries used by departments should follow those of the nine English Government Offices of the Regions and Wales. Further work is being undertaken before deciding whether Hampshire should be aligned with the South East or the South West. Ministers will make a decision on where Hampshire fits within the regional structure no later that 31st October 2003.
Copies of the consultation paper have been sent to the following organisations. Please note the list is not exhaustive and comments are welcomed from any group or individual who hold a view on the issues in this paper:
The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales
The Deputy Chief Justice
The Master of the Rolls
The Vice Chancellor, Chancery Division
The President of the Family Division
The Senior Presiding Judge
The Presiding Judges
Regional Chancery Supervising Judges
Family Division Liaison Judges
Her Majesty's Council of Circuit Judges
Association of District Judges
Senior District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)
Magistrates' Association
Association of Justices' Chief Executives
Association of Lord Lieutenants
Central Council of Magistrates' Courts Committees
Justices' Clerks' Society
Magistrates' Courts Service Inspectorate
Association of Women Barristers
Society for Black Lawyers
Solicitors' Criminal Law Association
Bar Council
Chancery Bar Association
Family Law Bar Association
Solicitors' Family Law Association
Institute of Legal Executives
Law Society
Association of Chief Officers of Probation
Association of Chief Police Officers
Association of Police Authorities
Cabinet Office
CAFCASS
Civil Justice Council
Commission for Racial Equality
CPS
Disability Rights Commission
Equal Opportunities Commission
Home Office
National Assembly for Wales
Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments
Advice Services Alliance
Advice UK
British Association of Settlements and Social Action Committees
British Chambers of Commerce
Chinese in Britain Forum
Churches Community Work Alliance
Citizens' Advice
Civil Court Users Association
Coalition of Equal Parenting
Community Development Foundation
Community Matters
Confederation of British Industry
Confederation of Indian Organisations
Consumers Association
Families Need Fathers
Federation of Irish Societies
Interlink Foundation
Law Centres Federation
League of British Muslims
Local Government Association
National Association of Child Contact Centres
National Association of the Councils of Voluntary Service
National Council for One Parent Families
National Council for Voluntary Organisations
National Family Mediation
Regenerate
Scarman Trust
Small Business Federation
Stonewall
Victim Support
Womens' Aid Federation of England
We would welcome responses to the following questions set out in this consultation paper:
Q1: Do you agree that only the minimum of seven members should be appointed to each Board in the first instance?
Q2: Do you agree that the maximum number of members should be 12?
Q3: Do you agree that the quorum should be four members?
Q4: Do you agree that the Designated Civil, Designated Family or Resident Judges are the appropriate members for Courts Boards?
Q5: Do you agree that the magistrates' posts should be open to all magistrates who can demonstrate the personal qualities required, including Bench Chairmen, and current members of MCCs?
Q6: What kind of "knowledge or experience" of the courts should individuals be required to demonstrate?
Q7: How should members of the local community be required to demonstrate that they are representative of people living in the area?
Q8: Do you have any suggestions on how we can attract a diverse pool of candidates to apply?
Q9: Do you have any comments on what the selection criteria should be?
Q10: Do you agree with the proposed selection processes?
Q11: How should the Courts Board Chairs be selected?
Q12: Do you agree that the term of office should be usually be three years, with members serving a maximum of three terms?
Q13: Are there any particular requirements that should be included in the Courts Board code of practice?
Q14: Do you agree with these reasons for removal from office?
Q15: Should an allowance for loss of earnings or remuneration be offered to members?
Q16: Do you agree that these issues should be covered in regulations?
Q17: Are there any other aspects of constitution and procedures which should be included, either in regulations or in guidance?
We welcome any additional comments on the selection process and the content of regulations and guidance.
Name:
Organisation:
Address:
Representative groups are asked to give a summary of the people and organisations they represent when they respond.
Please send your completed response by 5 January 2004 to:
Jillian Kay
Department for Constitutional Affairs
Unified Courts Administration Programme
3N3
Southside
103 Victoria Street
London SW1E
Tel: 0207 210 2089
Fax: 0207 210 1692
Email: Jillian Kay
If you have any complaints or comments about the consultation process, you should contact the Department for Constitutional Affairs consultation co-ordinator, Laurence Fiddler, on 020 7210 2622 or email him at Laurence Fiddler. Alternatively, you may wish to write to the address below:
Laurence Fiddler
Consultation Co-ordinator,
Department for Constitutional Affairs
5th Floor
Selborne House
54-60 Victoria Street
London SW1E 6QW
The criteria in the Code of Practice on Written Consultation issued by the Cabinet Office is as follows:
Timing of consultation should be built into the planning process for a policy or service from the start, so that it has the best prospect of improving the proposals concerned, and so that sufficient time is left for it at each stage.
It should be clear who is being consulted, about what questions, in what timescale and for what purpose.
A consultation document should be as simple and concise as possible. It should include a summary, in two pages at most, of the main questions it seeks views on. It should make it as easy as possible for readers to respond, make contact or complain.
Documents should be made widely available, with the fullest use of electronic means (though not to the exclusion of others), and effectively drawn to the attention of all interested groups and individuals.
Sufficient time should be allowed for considered responses from all groups with an interest. Twelve weeks should be the standard minimum period for a consultation.
Responses should be carefully and open-mindedly analysed, and the results made widely available, with an account of the views expressed, and reasons for decisions finally taken.
Departments should monitor and evaluate consultations, designating a consultation co-ordinator who will ensure the lessons are disseminated.