HC Deb 22 July 1965 vol 716 cc2106-20

The following Amendment stood upon the Notice Paper:

Amendment No. 88, in page 4, line 8, to leave out "£11,250" and to insert "£10,000".

Mr. Paget

I agree with every word which my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has said. The Government have been in difficulty over, for example, their Vietnam policy, but I have backed them because I think that they have been right on that. I have criticised them because of their policy on this Bill. I have done so sincerely and with nothing but good will for the Government. The point of the Amendment has already been discussed and, therefore, I do not propose to move it.

Mr. Forbes Hendry (Aberdeenshire, West)

I beg to move, Amendment No. 44, Schedule 1, in page 4, line 10, to leave out "£10,000" and to insert "£8,250".

The Temporary Chairman

I suggest that the Committee should discuss at the same time the following Amendments to Schedule 1: Amendment No. 47, in line 11, leave out "£10,000" and insert "£12,500".

Amendment No. 50, in line 12, leave out "£9,750" and insert "£11,250".

Amendment No. 55, in page 4, leave out line 13 and insert:

Ordinary Lord of Session
Inner House … … … £10,000
Outer House … … … £8,250.

Amendment No. 57, in line 14, leave out "£9,375" and insert "£12,500".

Amendment No. 59, in line 15, leave out "£8,125" and insert "£10,000".

Amendment No. 62, in line 17, leave out "£8,125" and insert "£8,250".

Amendment No. 64, in line 17, leave out "£8,125" and insert "£10,000".

Mr. Hendry

The purpose of this series of Amendments is to try to bring into line the salaries of judges in England, Scotland and Ireland respectively. I raised this question on Second Reading when I asked the Scottish Minister who was present at the time, the Minister of State, why this discrepancy had occurred. I asked him if he would move an Amendment later to bring Scottish judges into line with their counterparts in England and Wales, and I also mentioned the question of Irish judges. The Minister of State gave me no reply on that occasion. Indeed, he left the debate before it had ended and took no part in the summing up.

I call your attention, Mr. Jennings, to the fact that in this debate there is no Scottish Minister on the Government Front Bench. It is an absolute disgrace that when the Committee is discussing such important Amendments not one Scottish Minister has the courtesy to be here to answer the discussion. There is a galaxy of Ministers present, but not one who represents Scotland.

Mr. George Lawson (Motherwell)

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has been sitting about all night and has only just gone to the cafeteria for a cup of tea. She did not expect this series of Amendments to come forward so quickly. She will be here in a few moments. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will restrain himself for that long.

Mr. Maxwell

Withdraw.

Mr. Hendry

Other of my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies have sat here throughout the debate.

Mr. Maxwell

Withdraw. It is an utter disgrace.

Mr. Hendry

You called the Amendment, Mr. Jennings, whereupon I was entitled to point out that there was no Scottish Minister present.

Mr. Maxwell

Withdraw.

Mr. Hendry

To my knowledge, the Under-Secretary has spent about 10 minutes in the Chamber during the night.

Mr. Maxwell

Shocking. Withdraw.

Mr. Hendry

I trust that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) will do me the courtesy of listening to what I have to say.

Mr. Maxwell

Have the courtesy to withdraw those remarks about my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.

Mr. Hendry

If you order me to withdraw, Mr. Jennings, I will do so. I do not propose to withdraw anything on the advice of the hon. Member for Buckingham.

My purpose in moving the Amendment is to find out why the figure of £10,000 has been chosen as the proposed salary for a judge in England. We have been given no explanation of that figure, either tonight or on Second Reading. It seems to be an arbitrary figure. We want to know why a Puisne Judge in England should get £10,000 and a Lord Ordinary of the Court of Session only £8,250.

5.0 a.m.

It is quite beyond me to understand why a judge in one country should be treated differently from a judge of exactly the same status and importance in another country. I have made private inquiries, and the only explanation I have been given is that it has always been this way—sometime in the reign of King William IV the salaries of the judges in the two countries were fixed with this differentiation which has carried on ever since—but I have not had any explanation why the differentiation should be there. I hope that the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary, who is now present, will be able to give an explanation, but I must tell her, because she has no experience in these matters, that my researches show that there is no difference between the duties of a puisne judge in England and a Lord Ordinary in the Outer House of the Court of Session.

When making these researches, I carried out various inquiries to find out the respective status of the judges in the two countries. I say nothing about the Irish judges, because my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) will be dealing with that side of the subject from his own personal knowledge. I must, however, raise the question of the relative status of the other judges mentioned in Schedule 1, who are all covered by my series of Amendments.

The first judge mentioned in this Schedule a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. I have nothing to say about that office, because these are judges, some of whom are English and some of whom are Scottish, who sit in the House of Lords in its traditional capacity and deal with the laws in both countries. They are very responsible judges, and I have no comment to make on their salary.

The next judge mentioned is the Lord Chief Justice, for whom a salary of £12,500 is proposed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will tell me if I am wrong in thinking that there is little or no difference between the Lord Chief Justice in England and the Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland, except that the Lord President has certain administrative duties that are not attached to the Lord Chief Justice in England. In other words, in his own way, the Lord President of the Court of Session has a more responsible job than the Lord Chief Justice in England, but I hope that I may be told why there should be a difference of no less than £2,500 in their proposed salaries; why the Lord President of the Court of Session, who has an equal responsibility with the Lord Chief Justice in England but who has, in addition very important administrative duties, should be denied the salary proposed for the Lord Chief Justice in England.

Next in the Schedule come the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. I am not familiar with these offices, as we do not have them in Scotland, but I understand that these are very important judges and are, in effect, presidents of divisions of the High Court in England. Passing down the Schedule to the corresponding Scottish judge, we find the Lord Justice Clerk—the president of the second division of the Inner House of the Court of Session.

I understand, on the best advice I have been able to get, that the Lord Justice Clerk has exactly the same status as the Master of the Rolls or the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. In Scotland, he has exactly the same status as the Lord President of the Court of Session, except that he does not have the administrative duties performed by the Lord President.

In proposing for the Lord Justice Clerk the same salary of £11,250 as is proposed for the Master of the Rolls and the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, I think that I am being very modest. The Lord Justice Clerk is a very important judge, and if the Government are not prepared to approve that proposed salary, I should like either the Attorney-General or the Joint Under-Secretary to tell me why there should be such a differentiation.

Then we pass down to lesser judges, and we find that there are two sorts in England, a Lord Justice of Appeal, and the Puisne Judge, and the same salaries are proposed. Yet a Lord Justice of Appeal has an appellate jurisdiction, whereas the puisne judge is, if I may use the term in this context, a judge of the first instance. So, it seems that one judge has a considerably greater responsibility than the other. When we turn to Scotland and judges of similar status, I find that there are two sorts other than the Lord Justice Clerk. We have judges in the Inner House with an appellate jurisdiction just as the Lord Justice of Appeal has in England, and we have Lords of Appeal in the Outer House, who seem to correspond to the Lord Justice of Appeal and the puisne judges in England.

Why is a differential proposed for these judges? The Government must make up their mind about what is the proper salary for a judge of the first instance; either £10,000—although I do not know why that figure was decided upon—or £8,250, and it seems to be absolutely anomalous for there to be one salary in one country and another salary in the other. I propose to distinguish between the appellate judges with more responsibility, who I say should have the salary of £10,000 in both countries, and judges of first instance who in both countries should have the £8,250 as proposed for the Scottish judges. If I am wrong in anything I have said, perhaps the Attorney-General, or the hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will tell me. Why should there be differentiation?

It is no answer to say that the cost of living of a judge in Edinburgh is different from that in London. There might be a slight difference, but the difference cannot be anything such as is proposed by way of salary. This is another example of the contumely and disrespect for Scottish affairs. We have no Scottish Law Officers to look after the interests of the Scottish judges, and I have no answers to my questions during the Second Reading of this Bill. I am delighted to see the hon. Lady in her place now, and I hope that we shall have an answer and that she will say she has obtained the advice of the Lord Advocate. She certainly has not had any advice from the Solicitor-General, because he cannot be here; he has just been appointed a judge himself.

This really is a most important matter, and I am tempted to say that this Schedule has been made up by English lawyers showing their usual contempt for all things Scottish. Here we have another example of English deceit, and somebody on this side of the Committee if nobody will on the other side, should stand up for the judges of Scotland. We should not rely on the lip-service consistently given from the other side about Scottish affairs.

There has been much said about judges and other occupations in this country. For a great many years the party opposite has been very anxious to have national agreements and national wage scales. Judges should be treated in exactly the same way as every other worker, or practically every other worker. There is a national agreement for miners whereby a miner in Lanarkshire is paid the same wage, job for job, as a miner in Kent. The party opposite must make up its mind on this question. If it wants to have national agreements they must be real national agreements and Scotland should be told why it is treated in this way.

The hon. Lady the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will appreciate that if there were women judges she would be the first to claim that they should have equal pay with male judges. For 50 years the cry of women politicians has been "Equal pay for equal work". Here we are not dealing with male and female judges but with Scottish and English judges, but the same principal applies; for equal work there must be equal pay. In importance Scottish law is in every respect the equivalent of English law. If a Scottish litigant has a case it is as important to him as a case is to an English litigant. He is entitled to have a judge with exactly the same standing as an English judge. Our Scottish judges should be given the same status and consideration as English judges.

I insist on having this question answered tonight by the Government. What is the proper remuneration for a puisne judge, £10,000 or £8,500? Which of those figures will the Government choose? If the Government do not think my figures or the allocation of importance to the different judges are correct, it is up to them to say so. The people of Scotland are entitled to know why their judges are treated in this way. We in Scotland are entitled to justice in this matter.

Mr. Stratton Mills (Belfast, North)

You have been good enough, Mr. Jennings, to say that we may discuss with this Amendment Amendments Nos. 57, 59 and 64, which relate to Northern Ireland judges. The hour is late but I have been listening to this debate for the last seven hours and I hope the Committee will not mind if I take five minutes to put my view. May I say how glad I am to see present the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. No discourtesy is intended in my saying that I hope he is not to reply to the debate but that the Attorney-General will be speaking on behalf of the Government.

Judges in Northern Ireland have always been paid less than judges in England. I do not know why that is so, but it is an historical anomaly which has grown over the years. They have also always been paid rather less than judges in Scotland. My hon. Friends will know that Scottish smoked salmon is always more expensive, as is Scotch whisky. This may be the rule of thumb by which the Government work, but it is time that this historical anomaly was ended. These Amendments are designed to try to find why it is continued in the Bill.

Northern Ireland judges are appointed by the United Kingdom Government. They do exactly the same kind of work and undertake exactly the same responsibilities as other judges. There is a slight difference in that there are many more judges in England. Therefore, there is a greater degree of specialisation, while in Northern Ireland the judges must inevitably cover a broader field of work. I maintain—I am sure that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will confirm this—that the judges in Northern Ireland set every bit as high a standard as the judges in England or in Scotland. I do not think there is any difference between us on this point.

5.15 a.m.

Under the proposals in the Schedule, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland is to receive £9,375, whereas the Lord Chief Justice of England is to receive £12,500. This is a substantial difference. I accept that the responsibilities of the Lord Chief Justice of England are very special indeed. My Amendment is tabled essentially as a basis for discussion. If the Attorney-General were to accept my argument on the latter Amendment, it would be fair that compromises on these figures should follow.

Lord Justices of Appeal and the other judges in Northern Ireland do exactly the same work as the judges in England, yet they are to receive £8,125 as against £10,000 for the judges in England. This is entirely wrong. I base my argument entirely on the point of parity. This extends right across the public sector in wages. A civil servant working for a United Kingdom Government Department is not told that he is to be paid £x because he happens to be working in Birmingham but that when he is transferred to a Northern Ireland tax office he will be paid £x minus 20 per cent. A Serviceman stationed with a regiment in London is not told that, when he is transferred to a barracks in Northern Ireland, his salary will be reduced by 20 per cent. A schoolmaster is not told that. The principle of parity extends right across the public sector, except in one small degree. There are special London living allowances, but they are very small by comparison with the differential set out in the Schedule.

I hope that the Attorney-General will be able to tell us how this historical anomaly has grown up and why the Government wish to maintain it still.

The Attorney-General

I congratulate the hon. Members for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) and Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) on their persistence in staying until this early hour to deal with the matters of substance that they have raised. May I hasten to welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, who has been in the building throughout the night but who at the moment the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West rose to speak was enjoying bacon and eggs. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I would gladly have wished to have been with her.

The matters raised relate to the discrepancy between the salaries of the higher judiciary in Scotland and Northern Ireland as compared with the higher judiciary in the rest of the United Kingdom. I hasten to say that the quality of the administration of justice in Northern Ireland and in Scotland is very high indeed and that the duties that fall upon the judges of equivalent status are no doubt just as exacting and just as responsible. I myself have the privilege of being a silk of Northern Ireland. I have seen the courts in action there with some admiration.

I remind the Committee that these differences between the salaries of the judges north and south of the Border and between those judges and those of the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland have always existed. They have always been in the kind of relationship that they are now. It has been the same with regard to the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland since its establishment 40 years ago.

In 1832 the salary of an English puisne judge was fixed by Statute at £5,000 and it remained at that sum until 1954. In 1839 the two judges of the Court of Session, including the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk, were given a salary of £3,000. This was raised to £3,600 in 1887 and remained at that figure until it was increased to £6,600 in 1954. The salaries of puisne judges in the Northern Ireland were fixed in 1926 at £3,000, increased to £3,500 by the Judicial Offices Act, 1952 and raised to £6,500 in 1954. Perhaps I should point out in relation to a submission by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West that since the creation of the Court of Appeal in England in 1875 there has been no salary distinction between English Lords Justices and puisne judges of the English High Court. The parity of salaries is maintained in this Bill and it seems to us appropriate to maintain it also in the Inner House and Outer House in Scotland.

The reason for the difference, apart from its historical origins, is that it is incumbent to provide a salary which will be sufficiently attractive and which will provide sufficient incentive for leading members of the Bar to accept the offer of a judicial appointment. As the Lawrence Committee pointed out, professional earnings at the Scottish Bar are not at the same level as those at the English Bar. The same applies to Northern Ireland. The decision as to the proper incentive figure involves a broad judgment on a matter on which admittedly precision is difficult to achieve, but the Government are satisfied that the differential which has existed and will continue under the Bill between judicial salaries in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland is just about right and should continue.

I can inform both hon. Members that the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate and, as regards Northern Ireland, the Lord Chancellor are satisfied that the salaries proposed by the Bill, plus the pension terms to which the judge is entitled, will constitute a reasonable inducement to leading members of both Scottish and Irish Bars to accept judicial appointment. I hope therefore that the Amendment will be withdrawn.

Mr. Stratton Mills

Is the Attorney-General also aware of the difficulties which have arisen in that salaries of Supreme Court staff are also fixed relative the salaries of the High Court judges and therefore are correspondingly lower in Northern Ireland?

The Attorney-General

It would not be in order to deal with the salaries of court staffs under this Bill and therefore I cannot throw light or hope on the matter in this debate.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor

I support the Amendment and I should like to comment on some of the Attorney-General's arguments. Except for two brief intervals, I have sat through the whole debate and I was interested to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman say in reply to one of his own back-benchers that this was a progressive and reforming Government and to that extent the Government were not scared of looking at change and were taking care to see that reform came quickly. Despite this, the principal answer which he gave my hon. Friend was simply that this has always been the case and that there has always been a differential. We cannot accept that argument for a moment. We do not expect to hear such sentiments from a right hon. and learned Gentleman who only a few hours ago said that this was a progressive and radical Government.

It is surprising that although my hon. Friend put forward a carefully reasoned and argued case, there was no answer from a Scottish Minister. Instead, the Attorney-General read a prepared text. When my hon. Friend has gone to a great deal of trouble to probe the matter and to ask specific questions, the least we expect is that the questions will be answered.

One theme the right hon. and learned Gentleman advanced consistently—that this has always been the case. Our argument, on the other hand, is for parity. The Scottish Amendment deals with a particular case because the courts in Scotland are not simply a branch of the English courts; they are part of a separate legal system. The Attorney-General agreed that, as far as he was aware, the standards were as high as in England and the work done by the judges was as hard. What possible justification can there be for a differential of this nature? We want to be assured that the Scottish courts and the Scottish law are not regarded as second-grade courts and second-grade law.

I should not have put my name to the Amendment if there had been a clear statement from the Scottish Minister in the House or elsewhere that he considered this an anomaly and hoped to do something about it. We cannot always have our case completely accepted on Bills but at least a Scottish Minister could have admitted that there was this anomaly in the Scottish law and Scottish courts and he could have said that he hoped that it would be put right one day. But when I saw that the Bill had been introduced by the Attorney-General and was supported by the Secretary of State for Scotland, I admit that I was staggered, because surely if anybody was aware of the anomaly and the need to put it right it was the Secretary of State—who supported the Bill.

Three general arguments have been put forward for rejecting the Amendment. The first was that this has always been the case. But we are introducing a new Bill to increase judges' salaries, and this is the time to correct the anomaly. It was suggested that as the legal earnings in Scotland tended to be a little less than in England, that justified the differential. But this was not the argument which the Attorney-General was using when he replied to a case put forward by his hon. Friends the Members for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) and Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). It conflicts completely with the argument which he used then.

The Attorney-General gave no indication of the differential in earnings, in justifying these new figures. Do they still bear a relationship to the disparity in earnings and is this the same proportion as when the last adjustment was made? It is argued that it may be difficult to attract the best people unless the appropriate salary is paid, but we have no figures to show precisely how much is required. I am not in favour of keeping salaries at an unduly low level, but there will be no shortage of candidates for the post, because many people consider it a great honour and feel proud to render a public service. We do not want that service on the cheap.

I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend has put forward a convincing argument for the differential in principle. Even if we accept that there is a case for a differential in principle, we are entitled to hear some justification for the extent of it as it now exists. It is no use giving general arguments when the proposal is to preserve exactly the same relationship between the two salaries. We are entitled to know whether there has been a change. This is a Scottish matter, and I hope to hear from the Scottish Minister, whom we are very glad to see present, that the Scottish Office is fighting for Scotland and, while accepting that an anomaly exists, is determined to have something done about it in the future.

5.30 a.m.

Mr. Ogden

I was very glad to hear the able speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) in speaking to his Amendment. Many times in this Session, friends of Northern Ireland on these benches have tried to discuss conditions in the Six Counties, but we have been ruled out of order on almost every occasion. If this Bill has done nothing else, it has proved to some hon. Members that, at least, the Parliament at Westminster has some rights and responsibilities in the affairs of Ulster.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Judith Hart)

Hon. Members from Scotland who have been so assiduous in staying throughout the night in order to raise these points have had most of their answer already from my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. Perhaps the best thing I can do on the question of earnings which they raised is to refer them to the Lawrence Committee's Report, which had some observations about the relationship between professional earnings at the Bar in Scotland as compared with professional earnings at the Bar in England and Wales. I remind them, also, that this question was raised as recently as 1954 and there were no serious objections to the differential at that time. There are other similar relationships between earnings in Scotland and in England in matters of the law.

The difference between the Inner House and the Outer House in Scotland is a very subtle one, as the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) knows very well. It is not to be compared with some of the relationships between the English courts.

The hon. Members have not succeeded in establishing a case here for disputing the merits on which the Bill is based in this respect, and I hope that, in the circumstances, they will recognise that, although their arguments may be pursued in other quarters and at other times, on this Bill we are right to take the view we do.

Amendment negatived.

Schedule agreed to.

Schedules 2 and 3 agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

5.34 a.m.

Mr. Ian Percival (Southport)

I sat through almost the whole of the Second Reading debate and almost the whole of the long Committee stage, and I have held my peace until now, although sometimes scarce knowing how to do so. However, it seemed to me right to leave it to the right hon. and learned Attorney-General, with all the authority of his high office, to present the case for the Bill. I want, however, before we give the Third Reading to the Bill, to add my support to it, and to the propositions which have been advanced by him.

It has been with a feeling of dismay that I have listened to some of the speeches on this Bill, and, I confess, some feeling of shame that I should ever have heard them made in this place. Surely, we above all, who pass Statute after Statute interfering with individual rights, sometimes in a very autocratic way, should have a special appreciation of and respect for the need for the impartial administration of justice, to which end this Bill is fashioned. It is, of course, common form, indeed part of the pattern, to find, under an extreme form of Government, that administration of justice is not impartial. We have seen cases regrettably recently when judges in other parts of the world have been sacked because they failed to convict—they acquitted on criminal charges.

We in this country fought and won that battle 150 years ago in the political trials of Thomas Paine and others like him, and I like this Bill because it helps to secure and preserve the fruits of the battles which were then won. I would remind the House of what Thomas Erskine, later one of the great Lord Chancellors, said to the jury in the case of Thomas Paine. He said: If I were to ask you, gentlemen of the jury, what is the choicest flower which grows upon the tree of English liberty, you would answer, 'Security under the law.' If I were to ask the whole people of England what return they looked for at the hands of Government I should still be answered, 'Security under the law'. In other words, the impartial administration of justice. The impartial administration of justice depends first and last upon the maintenance of an independent judiciary of the very highest calibre.

I hope that, in passing this Bill, the House will appreciate that if we wish to maintain an independent judiciary of the very highest calibre—and if we fail to do that we fail at our peril—we must, inter alia, be prepared to provide reasonable remuneration.

This Bill is a step in that direction, and I want to congratulate the Government on introducing it and carrying it through. If hon. Gentlemen who, even now, choose to snigger, want to reduce the standing of the judiciary in the eyes of the public, if they want to imperil the impartial administration of justice, if they want the courts to become tools of the Executive, then let them continue to speak as they have done in these debates; but let them and the public be clear what it is they are doing. It cannot be too clear what terrible price we shall pay if we allow such persons by attacks of this kind to lessen the standing, the quality, the effectiveness of the judiciary, and, in the result, the impartial administration of justice. I beg to support the Third Reading of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Forward to