HC Deb 01 July 1924 vol 175 cc1277-81
Captain REES

I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, after the word "the," to insert the words judge of that Court subject to the approval of the. I do not know whether the Attorney-General will be as accommodating in respect to this Amendment as he was in respect to the last. In explaining why the Amendment is necessary, let me say that for the last 50 or 60 years the appointment of registrars in the County Court has been in the hands of the Judge of the Court. It is now proposed to take the power away from the County Court Judges and to confer it in the Lord Chancellor. We have had no reason up to now why the powers should be so transferred from a Judge who knows the local practitioners and the men who are qualified, and to transfer the powers to the Lord Chancellor, who himself will know nothing at all about the local conditions or about the qualifications of any of the aspirants for the position of registrar. I would wish to say nothing offensive to hon. Members above the Gangway, but if they were on the other side of the House, and a Conservative Government in office had brought forward a proposal of this sort I can imagine all sorts of extravagant speeches being made in regard to the policy of the Government in proposing such a violent change. I suggest that a proposal of this sort does not savour very much of democracy. I hope hon. Members above the Gangway will seriously consider this question. Assume, then, that a registrarship falls vacant in the South or the North of England.

For the last 40 years the custom has been for the County Court Judge to make the appointment, but under this Bill the Lord Chancellor himself, or in practice one of his secretaries sitting in a room in the House of Lords, will be asked to make the appointment. I should have thought that in order to secure the best man the local County Court Judge, who knows practically every person in the district capable of filling the post, would have been the person most qualified to make the appointment. For some reason, however, this power is to be transferred to the Lord Chancellor. My fear is that in an event of that sort, and the Lord Chancellor having to make the appointment, it will lead to a good deal of political wire-pulling. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] I am surprised my hon. Friends think that when an appointment is to be made the people interested would not resort to wire-pulling. I am not saying this because there is a Labour Government in power. In a week or two they may not be in power and the Liberals may be in power.

Mr. SPEAKER

I hope hon. Members will not continue to interrupt. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will keep to the point.

Captain REES

If this Bill pass without any Amendment, it will lead to certain wire-pulling and manœuvring for these appointments. A local man might be well qualified for the post, and he may be passed over because of pressure brought to bear on some secretary in the House of Lords.

Sir GEOFFREY BUTLER

I think it is possible to look at this from a different point of view. I think it is an entirely gratuitous Amendment—

Mr. SPEAKER

Does the hon. Member rise to second the Amendment?

Sir G. BUTLER

No, Sir.

Sir K. WOOD

I beg to second the Amendment.

If I may just add a word or two to the remarks that have been made by the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment, I venture to suggest to the House that it would be a desirable thing if the local Judges were permitted to make these appointments, subject to the approval of the Lord Chancellor. That would have this additional advantage, that the Lord Chancellor could veto any of these appointments. If the County Court judge made an unsuitable suggestion, the Lord Chancellor could refuse to adopt it. I venture to suggest to the Attorney-General that this Amendment has many advantages. It would bring a certain amount of local opinion to bear upon appointments of this kind, which would not be made in any improper way, but by the Judge of the local Court. I venture to suggest that there is a certain amount of danger in having these appointments, of which there will be a very large number, made by the Lord Chancellor; because I suppose that that means in fact that these appointments will be made to a very large extent by officials in London. I think there is a good deal to be said for allowing the Judge of the Court, who has to work daily with the officers who are appointed, at any rate to make the nomination, and I think that that would be an improvement on the Clause now in the Bill.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I am sorry to say I cannot accept this Amendment, and I hone I shall be able to put my reasons clearly and shortly. There are two points. The main point is this: In the present Bill there is a complete change in the appointment of these registrars, the effect of which is very far-reaching, and one which I think is eminently acceptable to them. The idea is that they shall all be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, with this result, that, in future, any responsibility which may fall upon them owing to any of the acts of any of their under-officials will, for the first time, be a matter for defence by the State. The Lord Chancellor will appoint them, they will be public officials, and, just as in the case of other public officials, their defence in respect of any action which may be brought against them will be undertaken by the country. In these circumstances, it is essential that, inasmuch as it is the Government, or rather, the country that is to undertake the defence of all the registrars, the appointments should be in the hands equally of those who are responsible for the ultimate result, whatever it may be. It is obviously desired by all the registrars that this change should be made, and of course it is quite obvious that that could not be effectively done if the appointment of these men were left in the hands of anyone else, even of the Judges of the Courts. That is one of the most important grounds upon which this Amendment cannot be accepted. Another, which is in some ways as important, though it is entirely different, is that, as I think the House will probably agree, it is very undesirable that the appointment of these officers, who, of course, have judicial functions to exercise, amongst other things, should be made in the districts in which the registrars practice, and by another officer of the same Court—that the Judge should really appoint the person who also sits as a Judge in the same Court. For these two reasons, I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment, and I hope it will not be pressed.

Amendment negatived.