President, Ladies and Gentlemen: thank you for inviting me to attend your Annual Conference today. It is five years, as you say President, since I last addressed the Justices' Clerks Society - which some might regard as your immense good fortune - and it is five years in which the Criminal Justice System has undergone, and continues to undergo, considerable change; none greater than the current package of reforms flowing from last Summer's White Paper "Justice for All".
Already the JCS has made important contributions to the development of our proposals: first through your original submission to Sir Robin Auld and subsequent response to his Report; and latterly through your response to the White Paper, which fed into the preparation for the Courts Bill and the Criminal Justice Bill. The Government is grateful for this input, and we value it highly.
Approximately 95% of all criminal cases begin and end in the Magistrates' Court: proof - if any were needed - that the unique system of lay justice in this country is a cornerstone of our Criminal Justice System. Less than 1% of Magistrates' decisions are appealed, which is significant for two reasons: first, it justifies the Government's commitment to the lay magistracy; and secondly, it is powerful testimony to the quality of the legal advice they receive. It is axiomatic that a system of lay justice can't work without the support of skilled and experienced legal advisers. So the role of Justices' Clerks is absolutely vital: not just your legal advisory role, but the essential case management functions that free the Magistracy to concentrate on core issues of guilt or innocence. And when the Government puts its faith in the lay magistracy, for example by making the Human Rights Act justiciable in any Court; or doubling Magistrates' sentencing powers through the Criminal Justice Bill, it also gives a huge vote of confidence to Justices' Clerks.
Let me turn now to some of the major current reforms that will impact upon your work.
In his report published in 2001, Sir Robin Auld said the division between 42 separate Magistrates' Courts Committees and the Court Service was a barrier to the effective operation of the Courts. The Government agreed. So Part 1 of the Courts Bill - which yesterday entered Report Stage in the Lords - makes the Lord Chancellor responsible for the administration of all Courts in England and Wales below the House of Lords.
I welcome your support for the Unified Courts Administration, but I know you have concerns. During the passage of the Bill it has been suggested that becoming civil servants will compromise your independence. But, let me assure you it will not. Clause 24(1) makes plain that a Justices' Clerk, whilst exercising an advisory or judicial function, will not be subject to my direction, nor the direction of any other person. This reflects the current statutory position, which guarantees your independence from the Justices' Chief Executive. So, for your advisory and judicial functions, you will enjoy exactly the same statutory guarantee of independence as you currently do.
It has also been said that cutting the statutory link between Justices' Clerks and petty sessions areas, and removing the requirement to consult the local magistracy before a clerk is removed from post, could compromise your independence. And, as the President has told you, I have listened to the arguments put forward on that subject and have seen the representations made by the Justices' Clerks Society on this point. I know how highly you value your independence, and the need for you to be seen to be independent. So let me assure you that yesterday the House of Lords passed a Government amendment to the Bill, providing for your assignment to specific local justice areas. The amendment also places a duty on the Lord Chancellor to consult the local bench chairman or deputy chairmen before changing your assignment and moving you to another area. These changes will put on a statutory footing what we have already assured Parliament will happen in practice.
And coupled with other provisions in the Bill, this will allow for greater flexibility in where you work, which will benefit both you and the new agency. This could allow you, for example, to cover a short absence in a neighbouring area; and there may also be career opportunities for you in the headquarters of the new agency, or in my Department more generally.
Now, some have said the Government's plans represent a "u-turn" from our White Paper commitment to local delivery of justice. That is most emphatically not the case. This is a major structural reform; and we recognised from the start that it required much more than simply merging the existing bodies into one. So we started from scratch and examined the whole spectrum of possible organisational models. The model we chose - an executive agency supported by a network of local boards - provides the best means of ensuring that decisions on the local delivery of justice are taken locally, whilst providing a national framework within which to improve standards of service across the board. And let me stress: a single organisational umbrella does not mean centralisation. Local services must meet local needs; and are therefore best delivered by local people. So the new Courts Boards - (the House of Lords yesterday passed a Government amendment to change the name from Court Administration Councils) - will give local people a far greater say in how their Courts are run. And, for the first time, this will include the Crown Court and the County Courts as well. Currently there is no formal local accountability in the Court Service; and the administration of Magistrates' Courts is accountable only to a committee primarily composed of Magistrates. So the Courts Boards, which will comprise Judges, Magistrates and others familiar with the operation of the Courts in their particular areas, will greatly enhance local accountability.
Some have said the Boards might lack clout. Not so. I can assure you these Boards will have "teeth". The Lord Chancellor will be obliged by statute to give due consideration to their recommendations when discharging his general duty in running the Courts. And the Boards will be involved in developing and approving the annual business plans for their areas, as well as other major developments such as court closures or building projects.
You may have heard concerns expressed by Magistrates about the erosion of their role in the management of the Courts. That is not so. The Boards will all have Magistrates on them. So, for the first time, Magistrates who sit on Courts Boards will have the opportunity to be involved in the development of a complete courts strategy for their local area - not just the Magistrates Courts. Strong links with the magistracy and the judiciary will be a cornerstone of the new Courts Agency. Courts Boards will not replace, but should supplement and encourage good communication and consultation with Magistrates and Judges. The House of Lords yesterday passed a Government amendment offering a guarantee to Magistrates that they will be kept informed about matters affecting them in the performance of their duties; and that they will have the opportunity to give their views.
Let me be quite frank with you. There is still a good deal to work out on how the Unified Courts Administration will operate. As the amendments to the Bill demonstrate, we are receptive to the views and concerns of those working in the Courts. There are some major decisions still to be taken and you will have plenty of opportunity to influence the shape and culture of the new organisation. For example, we have not yet taken decisions on either the number of Courts Boards or their precise composition. The number will depend on how the new administration is structured geographically, taking into account, among other things, the needs and nature of local communities, the volume of workload and the distribution of court houses. Similarly, membership of the Boards will be flexible, and may vary according to the different needs of different areas. We are seeking views on these and many other issues at a series of regional discussion groups that have been taking place across England and Wales. We have invited the Justices' Clerks Society to be represented at each event. Justices' Clerks are also represented on the Unified Administration Judicial Committee, chaired by Lord Justice Judge. I welcome this co-operation. You are at the front; your insight into how the Magistrates' Courts work in practice is second to none; and your input on how they might work better in future is essential.
A new structure that facilitates the more effective management of the Courts will be complemented by an entirely new case progression system for criminal cases. At present 63,000 trial hearings a year do not go ahead on time. The cause - as obviously you appreciate - is very often ineffective preparation, for example one party or the other simply not being ready. The results are that:
Over half of all witnesses who attend Court do not give evidence;
Many defendants in custody are brought to Court unnecessarily, with all the cost and disruption that entails; and
The police waste hours waiting at Court, only to have to return another day.
These "ineffective hearings" and the associated delay mean that witnesses lose commitment, victims become demoralised, and there is greater opportunity for witness intimidation. So the Case Preparation Project, led by my Department, will draw together the various agencies, departments and individuals involved in the trial process. And it will introduce new procedures to cut down the number of ineffective hearings, and make the entire trial process more effective.
It will, for example, test how case progress can be structured and improved by the use of directions and timetables, as in the Civil Courts. A robust system of judicial case management will ensure that firm but realistic preparation targets are set for each party involved in a prosecution. And for the Magistrates' Courts, the Project will identify the extent to which lay magistrates should be responsible for case preparation and progression, and how they should be supported in that role by Justices' Clerks. We will also assess how wider use might be made of the delegated powers exercisable by Justices' Clerks in the case management process, both inside and outside the courtroom. For instance, we will test the effectiveness of dedicated case management courts, run by legal advisers sitting alone, using their delegated powers to progress cases, for example through pre-trial review.
Case Preparation Project pilots have already been launched in Bedfordshire and Essex, initially testing the increased use of fixed appointments for hearings in the Crown Court. A range of other proposals are being developed and will be piloted in a further five areas by the Summer. These include more effective first hearings in the Magistrates' Courts that will identify case needs, make directions and fix timetables for subsequent hearings. Also, we are looking at options for changing fee structures for lawyers to encourage timely and effective case preparation.
Following evaluation of the pilots, we aim to introduce improvements nationally over 2005 and 2006. But, in the meantime, local pilot teams will design and test the proposals, and each of these teams includes, among others, representatives from the Magistrates' Courts.
It is, of course, vital that you have the I.T. facilities to support new case progression procedures. So I am pleased to say that, although Libra has been delayed, we do now have the infrastructure in place, and from next year the standard case management software will be introduced gradually to all MCCs, replacing the existing systems. Among other benefits, this will provide in-court facilities for recording case results, so that orders and notices can be handed out there and then. It will also provide a standard set of forms, in plain English, to help court users more readily understand the outcome of hearings.
Let me turn now to sentencing. The Criminal Justice Bill - currently it's at Report stage in the Commons - will introduce a radical new approach to sentencing. It sets out in statutory form, for the first time, the fundamental purposes of sentencing:
The punishment of offenders;
The reduction of crime, including by deterrence, reform and rehabilitation;
The protection of the public; and
The making of reparation by offenders to those affected by their offences.
And it aims to fulfil these purposes through a new Sentencing Framework, comprising enhanced sentencing powers for Magistrates and several new types of sentence. First, it enables Magistrates to hear and sentence more cases themselves, by increasing their sentencing powers from 6 to 12 months for a single offence. But this is emphatically not intended as a spur to send people to prison for excessive periods. The Courts should continue to strike the right balance between the need to deal effectively with serious and violent crime and the need to keep prison as a last resort in other cases.
The Government recognises the limited effectiveness of short custodial sentences in reducing reoffending. So the new framework involves progressive combinations of imprisonment and community punishment. For example, a 12 month sentence, imposed by Magistrates for a single offence, would be served as 6 months in custody, followed by 6 months under supervision in the community. Importantly, however, all custodial sentences of under 12 months will be replaced by "Custody Plus", which will comprise up to 3 months in custody, followed by at least 6 months supervision in the community.
Next, "Intermittent Custody" will enable offenders to serve the custodial part of their sentence at, for example, weekends, so that they can maintain their jobs, accommodation and family ties. "Custody Minus" will replace the suspended sentence. It will comprise a sentence of imprisonment, suspended on condition that the offender undertakes a supervised programme of community punishment. The Courts will have an important role in this supervision, as they will be able to hold periodical review hearings to monitor progress. Breach of the community requirements will activate the custodial sentence. Finally, the various community sentences currently available will be replaced by one tough community sentence. This will consist of a combination of the requirements currently available - treatment or supervision for example - put together by the Court to deal with the particular circumstances of the offender.
One type of order is the Drug Treatment and Testing Order, which has been available to all Courts since October 2000 and is a key part of the Government's strategy for tackling drug-related crime. We want to see an increase in the number of Orders made, from 6,000 to 16,000, by 2006 and so funding for treatment and testing will be increased from £36 million to £88 million to support that target. We will also, over the coming months, run a number of pilot schemes to review current practice in handling the Orders and identify possible improvements. The JCS will shortly issue Good Practice Guidance on Drug Treatment and Testing Orders and I welcome this support.
Let me now turn to fines. Fines are imposed in three-quarters of all criminal cases sentenced in the Magistrates' Courts making them the most commonly used sentence there. But enforcement is a serious problem - one which we must tackle if fines are to be an effective alternative to custody. Unpaid fines are perceived as criminals being let-off. In 2002 the national payment rate was only 56%; well short of the 68% national target and clearly not good enough. There are also wide variations in performance across the country, from 32% in the worst area to 80% in the best. This discrepancy is unacceptable.
The Government has made £18 million available to Magistrates' Courts Committees (MCCs) for the previous and present financial years to help improve performance. Some areas have now begun to improve - using this funding to employ more enforcement staff, establish fines clinics for offenders, or offer a variety of payment methods, for example. I welcome these efforts, but this progress must be reflected nation-wide if the national payment rate is to improve. To help achieve this we have asked MCCs to provide clear action plans showing how they intend to raise performance. My officials are also visiting those MCCs whose enforcement rates are significantly below the national average. And MCCs have been asked to provide monthly rather than quarterly reports on the payment rate.
Beyond that, the Courts Bill will strengthen considerably the Courts' powers of enforcement. Specific staff will be appointed as Fines Officers to manage the collection of fines on behalf of the Court, through the fines collection scheme. This follows the recommendation of the Public Accounts Committee that there be greater delegation of enforcement responsibilities to administrative staff. The enforcement of Court orders is, after all, primarily an administrative function. So although it will, of course, be the Court that imposes any fine, it will be the duty of the Fines Officer - provided the Court has made a Collection Order - to ensure it is paid, applying such enforcement measures as are necessary. For example, Fines Officers will be empowered to impose sanctions on defaulters who refuse to co-operate, such as wheelclamping or restricting access to credit by entering the fine on the new register of judgments. They will also be able to vary the initial repayment terms, on application by the offender, where there is genuine difficulty with payment. But Fines Officers will not have the power to alter the sentence of the Court. They will only be able to vary the rate of payment - not the level of fine - and only where the offender produces documentation supporting a change in circumstances; and where it is likely to facilitate the collection of the amount outstanding. So judicial powers will not be undermined, but enforced through informed administrative decision making. And let me add: there will be full right of appeal to the Court against any discretionary decision made by the Fines Officer.
Taken together, these measures will put in place a robust and flexible framework for fine enforcement, helping make fines a more credible and effective penalty, in which sentencers and the public can have full confidence. So I am pleased that the measures have, in general, been welcomed by the Justices' Clerks Society. Your senior Vice President, Neil Clarke, even described them as - and I quote - "manna from heaven that we have been seeking for a long time".
Let me now turn briefly to Anti-Social Behaviour Orders. ASBOs are a powerful weapon in the fight against persistent and serious anti-social behaviour; and the benefits they can bring to local communities are unquestionable. But it is up to the Courts to deliver these benefits; and effective enforcement where ASBOs are breached is a must. The Courts have a duty to come down hard on those who flout ASBOs and continue to bring fear, distress and misery to their local communities. To do otherwise denies these communities the protection to which they are entitled, and denies ASBOs of their powerful deterrent effect. So let me emphasise: breach of an ASBO is a criminal offence. Resolute sentencing that adequately reflects the seriousness of a breach is therefore vital, to send a clear message to offenders and give confidence to local communities who look to the law for protection.
The Government has now strengthened the Courts' armoury for tackling anti-social behaviour. The Police Reform Act 2002 empowers Magistrates' to make an ASBO of their own volition, for the first time, in addition to sentence, where the offender is convicted of a relevant offence. This means there is no need for a separate application; an ASBO may be imposed wherever an offender is convicted of a relevant offence and the Magistrates think it appropriate. This is an important new power and Justices' Clerks can help ensure that Magistrates are familiar with it. In doing so, you will be helping to stamp out the sort of behaviour that makes many people's everyday lives a misery.
Finally, legal aid. I am concerned that grants of legal aid went up by over 25% last year, while the number of cases remained about the same. In many cases this may have been justified. For example, the Probation Service changed its policy on breaches, and brought more people back to Court for re-sentencing. But in a few cases, there is some evidence that people have been receiving legal aid where the interests of justice test does not appear to be met. So let me reiterate the importance of focussing carefully on the requirements of the test, using the recently circulated new guidance as appropriate. For example, is there a likelihood of imprisonment, rather than a mere possibility? And is the damage to reputation that the Defendant might suffer serious rather than moderate? I know you are familiar with these tests, but let me stress the importance of scrutinising applications for funding very carefully.
I mentioned at the start the Government's confidence in Justices' Clerks, and I want to end with an illustration of why this confidence is so well placed. When I spoke at your conference in 1998 I sought your help in delivering the Government's Youth Justice Pledge: its Manifesto commitment to halve the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders by March 2002. I said then that success or failure was largely in your hands and you did not let us down. Justices' Clerks played a major part in the various local initiatives, fast-tracking schemes, and inter-agency co-operation aimed at fulfilling the Pledge. And the result was that, by the third quarter of 2001 - well ahead of schedule - we had cut the average time from arrest to sentence from 142 days to 71. This level of success has been largely maintained, or improved upon, in the time since. Figures published by my Department today showed that in February this year, the average time between arrest and sentence for a persistent young offender was 70 days.
But we must not be complacent. You will know that in January this year the overall figure had, for the first time since September 2001, slipped back up to 72 days. So in thanking you for your undoubted efforts, I also urge you to maintain the high level of performance that has greatly improved our system of Youth Justice over the last five years.
President, Ladies and Gentlemen, my support for the lay magistracy is well known. Today, I have sought to emphasise my support for Justices' Clerks. Let me express my thanks and appreciation for your role in making our remarkable system of lay justice work so well. It is a system that, by international standards, is unique and first class. And it is a system that, without your ability and experience and support, could not exist.