HC Deb 05 December 1951 vol 494 cc2435-8

Considered in Committee of the whole House under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[King's Recommendation signified.]

[Colonel Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed. That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision as to the sums payable by way of salary, pension or allowances in respect of certain judicial offices, it is expedient to authorise any charge on public funds which may be directly or indirectly attributable—

  1. (a) to the Act providing, as from any date not earlier than the beginning of July, nineteen hundred and fifty-one, for the salaries of the judges and magistrates mentioned in the Table set out below to be increased to the annual amounts there shown;
  2. (b) to the Act enabling the salaries of stipendiary magistrates outside London to be increased retrospectively as from any such date, and making provision as to the maximum salary where there has been a retrospective increase in the salary of a metropolitan magistrate;
  3. (c) to the Act providing for the payment (out of moneys provided by Parliament or out of the Consolidated Fund) of circuit allowances to the Lords Commissioners of Justiciary in Scotland and to the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, and of travelling allowances to sheriffs-substitute in Scotland;
  4. (d) to the Act providing that in the case of a judge of the Supreme Court, of the Court of Session, or of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland, previous service as Lord of Appeal in Ordinary may be treated for pension purposes as if it were service as such a judge.

The Table above referred to
Judge or Magistrate Increased salary
Judge of the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland (except the Lord Chief Justice) £3,500
County court Judge £2,800
Chief metropolitan magistrate £2,800
Other metropolitan magistrates £2,500

—[Mr. Boyd-Carpenter.]

5.37 p.m.

Mr. Wheatley

I gave notice that I would raise this point at this stage. As the Financial Resolution is drawn, provision is made for the ante-dating of the increases in salaries to the English and Irish judges to 1st July, 1951, but no provision is made for the ante-dating of the travelling allowances under Clause 3 and the circuit allowances under Clause 2 to the Scottish judges.

I indicated in my speech that these must be regarded as part of the total emoluments or remuneration of the judges in Scotland, and it seems to me to be quite unfair that, if we are now going to regard them as part of the total emoluments of our Scottish judges, and we are going to give an increase in those emoluments to include travelling expenses or circuit allowances, it is grossly unfair that such benefits should not likewise be ante-dated to 1st July, 1951.

I understand the position to be that, while we can contract a Financial Resolution, we cannot expand it, and, therefore, it would be impossible for the Government to amend this Financial Resolution to enable a provision to be inserted at this stage to allow the payments to which I have referred, namely, travelling expenses and circuit allowances, to be ante-dated to 1st July, 1951. The only procedure now open to the Government is to take away this Financial Resolution and come back with a fresh one to include the provisions whose insertion I am now seeking. I make this very earnest appeal and solicit the aid of both the Solicitor-General and the Lord Advocate, who, I am sure, is at one with me on this particular point, having regard to what I would submit is an injustice to the Scottish judges.

Looking at the matter very broadly, I think it would be quite wrong for us to pass this Financial Resolution, because I intend on the Committee stage to put down Amendments to enable these travelling allowances and circuit expenses to be ante-dated to 1st July, 1951. Under the present Financial Resolution, I gather that those Amendments may not be in order, and I ask the Government to take it away and come back with a Financial Resolution extending to the limits which I have suggested. In these circumstances, and without elaborating the arguments, I will ask the Government, and particularly the Lord Advocate, to take away this Financial Resolution and to come back with one that will enable us to do justice to the Scottish judges covered by Clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. J. L. Clyde)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly correct in saying that the Financial Resolution, as it is drafted, will not cover the ante-dating of these circuit expenses. Had it been promised, at any stage of the negotiations preceding the presentation of this Bill, that these circuit expenses would be ante-dated to 1st July, 1951, we would indeed have honoured that promise. Had this demand been urged by any of the parties involved in the negotiations, we would have considered very seriously giving effect to it in the Bill and the Financial Resolution, but neither of these things, in fact, happened.

I must confess that I am a little surprised that, at this very late hour, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has introduced this criticism of the provisions of the Bill, apparently in an anxiety to tell the House how much better an arrangement might have been made if the late Government had made the arrangement. What we are doing is to give effect to an arrangement made during last summer—I am not going further than that—and, accordingly, whatever the merits of the ultimate question may be, we are not prepared to alter the Financial Resolution in any way to extend it beyond the terms in which it is at present drawn.

Mr. Wheatley

I only rise because of a remark passed by the Lord Advocate, who said that part of the purpose of my speech was merely to indicate how much better the late Government would have done this particular piece of business than the present Government. Nothing was further from my thoughts.

The Lord Advocate

I did not really say that. What I did say was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to be anxious to tell the House how much better an arrangement might have been made than the arrangements which he, in fact, did make.

Mr. Wheatley

That is even worse, if I may say so, because, what happened when the negotiations were entered into was that I did give an undertaking that the increases would be dated as from the same date as the increase to the English and Irish judges. I quite frankly admit that the question of ante-dating these particular allowances and expenses was not raised at all, but there was a general undertaking given that the increases to the Scottish judges would be dated as from the same date as the increase to the English and Irish judges. Therefore, it was not a question of this having been put forward and rejected or accepted; it was never specifically mentioned.

I am rather surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman should seek to resist this. There is not a great deal of money involved, but there is a great deal of principle, and I am sorry that he should resist it. I thought he would have supported it, because it is merely elementary justice in ante-dating all these emoluments to the same date.

I tell him here and now that, as the person who conducted the negotiations with the judges in Scotland in regard to these matters, while this matter was not raised specifically in the course of the negotiations, an undertaking was given that the increases would be dated to the same date as the increases to the English and Irish judges. If this point had been specifically raised, I would have done all in my power to persuade the Treasury to accept this ante-dating of circuit expenses and travelling allowances for sheriff-substitute.

There is no party question in this at all. We are merely trying to do the best for our Scottish judges in getting them what we regard as a just and fair settlement. I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to look at the matter again, to consult with his colleagues, and to come back with a proper Financial Resolution.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

I feel that I am intruding into a private meeting of the Faculty of Advocates and that I have sort of gate-crashed into a kin of special presidium or special soviet of the lawyers' trade union. I am sorry that I have not been able to follow the process of this debate, but I want to ask a question.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Wheatley), talked about elementary justice for Scottish judges. Naturally, I want elementary justice for everybody, but I would ask the Lord Advocate what is the precise nature of these new circuit expenses—how much per day is it and exactly what is it we are committed to do in this rather vague Financial Resolution. May we have an answer in order to see what sort of justice is going to be meted out to these judges?

The Chairman rose—

Mr. Hughes

May I have an answer to my question?

The Chairman

I cannot make anyone give the answer.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.