HC Deb 30 April 1970 vol 800 cc1566-88

9.20 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones)

I beg to move, That the Judges' Remuneration Order 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 14th April, be approved. The object of the Order is to increase the salaries of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and of the judges of the Supreme Court in England and Northern Ireland and the judges of the Court of Session in Scotland. It is made under the powers conferred by Section 1 of the Judges' Remuneration Act of 1965, which, for the first time, enabled the salaries of the higher judiciary to be increased without the need for legislation. Judges' present salaries date from 1st April, 1966, when the increase made by the Act of 1965 came into force, so that the judges have had no increases in salary for over four years.

Although the increases proposed by the Order may at first sight seem large, they are well within the annual rate of increase of 4½ per cent. permitted by the Prices and Incomes Board. For instance. the increase of£1,500 for the High Court judges in England is equivalent to an annual rate of increase of no more than 3.7 per cent.

The Prices and Incomes Board and the Plowden Committee last year recommended substantial increases in the salaries of the chairmen and board members of the nationalised industries, and of the higher civil servants. The first stage of these increases was given last year and it was recently announced that the chairmen and board members of the nationalised industries would receive their second stage increase on 1st April this year, and that the civil servants would be receiving theirs on 1st July. This will bring the salary of a permanent secretary up to£11,900, as against the£10,000 which a High Court judge receives at present. It is true that there has never been any direct link between the salaries of the higher judiciary and those of top civil servants, but the fact that in 1963 permanent secretaries' salaries had drawn ahead of the judges' was one of the reasons which led Parliament to make the increases it did by the Act of 1965.

As the House knows, it is proposed that, in future, many top salaries in the public sector, as well as those of Ministers and Members of Parliament, should be kept under review by the special panel of the new Commission for Industry and Manpower. I am glad to say that, as I announced in answer to a Question on 14th April, the judges have agreed that the same should be done in the case of their salaries. This will enable the judges' salaries to be reviewed more frequently than has been the case in the past and will, I hope, serve to ensure that a proper relationship is established between the judges' salaries and those of people holding comparable positions.

Incidentally, it should make it easier to undertake the comprehensive review of judicial salaries which the Beeching Royal Commission thought would be necessary when its recommendations were implemented.

In the meantime, pending a review of this kind, it is essential that we should not allow the judges' salaries to fall further out of line and that we should now increase them by margins which are in full accordance with the Government's prices and incomes policy, and which cannot be thought excessive having regard to the ever-increasing burden of work falling on the judges.

Apart from the Privy Council the work done in courts manned by the judges with whose salaries we are concerned has increased substantially in recent years. Excluding divorce work, which is heard by county court judges, the number of cases heard in the High Court has increased by 86 per cent. since 1965, whereas the numerical strength of the High Court Bench has increased by only 19 per cent. Criminal work at assizes has increased by 42 per cent. and, although the number of persons tried in the Court of Appeal has fallen, work is up by 30 per cent. Criminal work in that court increased enormously last year and the year before and is likely to increase this year as well; 31 per cent. in sitting days since 1965; 221 per cent. in applications for leave to appeal which are decided by a single judge reading the papers in his spare time; and 119 per cent. in appeals heard by the full Court of Appeal.

While no one today would suggest that the judges should be paid salaries equivalent to what they received in the past, we should be foolish indeed if we allowed a situation to arise in which the office of a judge no longer held attractions for the man of character and ability on whom we are accustomed to rely for the manning of the higher judiciary.

I should perhaps add that, like the rest of the community, the judges are taxed on their salaries. Assuming a judge is married, with two children under 11, and no other income, his present net salary is£5,970. His new salary will be£6,365, so that the gross increase of£1,500 will amount to£395 net by way of increase after taxation.

On the assurance that the Order proposes increases in salaries which are no more than the present situation demands, I ask the House to approve the Order.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

Before I address the House, I need a bigger audience than this. May I draw attention to the fact that there are not 40 Members present.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

9.27 p.m.

Mr. Lewis

Before my hon. Friends leave the Chamber may I say, Mr. Speaker, that I heard an unparliamentary word which one of my hon. Friends unconsciously uttered.

Mr. Speaker

Some of the hon. Member's hon. Friends have left the Chamber.

Mr. Lewis

He was in the Chamber then, and I heard him say that the hon. Member who called the count was a swine. I assure him that that is not so. I called the count deliberately, in the hope that I could get some of the Opposition here to give their support to what I have to say. I did that for a specific reason. I shall put forward reasons why the Leader of the Opposition, in particular, and most of the Opposition in general, should be here for this debate.

Every day I read in the Press, almost every day I hear on the radio, and every day in the House I hear, hon. Gentlemen opposite, led by their Leader, condemning workers who ask for increases in wages. Hon. Gentlemen opposite tell us how dangerous is the inflationary spiral. They say that the Government ought to take action to prevent these large salary increases being given.

Indeed, they supported the Govern-mimes original attempts to hold back wages generally with the original Industrial Relations Bill and, as we all know, holding back increases in the pay of nurses, hospital workers, dustmen, and the like. Therefore, I was hoping that some of these Tories would be present to put forward their objections to these salary increases.

I am very surprised, because hon. Members who have been in the House any time know that the preponderance of Members in any one profession are hose in the legal profession. There are more lawyers on both sides of the House than Members representing any other profession. They usually turn up and support one another when it comes to the possibility of getting a recordership, a Q.C.-ship, or ultimately a judgeship.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to the Order.

Mr. Lewis

I am producing reasons why I do not think that there should be the large increases proposed in the Order and suggesting that Opposition Members should be here to support my opposition.

The Government have been attacked by the Opposition because they are alleged to be giving way too easily to workers asking for wage and salary increases. Indeed, almost every weekend the Leader of the Opposition tours the country telling people how terrible the Government are for not standing up to the rapacious demands of workers earning £14 and £15 a week. But we do not find hon. Gentlemen here tonight complaining against the Lord Chief Justice having his salary increased from £12,500 to £14,250 a year.

Going home late last night I heard on my car radio the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, saying that the present wage inflation is terrible. I should like to know whether some of these people have thought of complaining about an increase of£2,250 in one lump.

There is history attached to this business. The Attorney-General mentioned the original Act. I was a Member of Parliament when that Act was put through the House. I remember what went on behind the scenes. I remember the arrangement that was made. The late Sir Winston Churchill did a deal through the Government with the Opposition. The arrangement was that as it was a ticklish question—I have the HANSARD report here—it would be done in conjunction with an increase in the salary of Members of Parliament, because they had not had an increase for many years. This is tied up with the original 1954 Act. In those days Members of Parliament had to meet every item of expenditure out of their parliamentary salaries—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are discussing an Order which is made under the Judges' Remuneration Act, 1965. We cannot discuss the 1954 Act and the other matter which the hon. Gentleman seems to want to debate. We must discuss the Order.

Mr. Lewis

I was about to pay tribute to the Library for supplying me with a brief which, I understand, is identical to that from which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General quoted. My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the Acts of 1954 and 1965 and it was as a result of the latter Measure that the increase in 1966 was granted. My remarks are, therefore, relevant to the Order.

I was explaining that as a result of an arrangement which was made between the two political parties, the whole thing was tied in with hon. Members' salaries. There was an independent inquiry in 1964, as a result of which hon. Members' salaries were increased, the increase taking effect from October, 1964. As a result, the judges had another increase in 1965, though it began to apply in 1966. This shows that the judges have not had to wait long to get their two increases. Hon. Members are still waiting for their next rise.

My right hon. and learned Friend said that the Government were willing to have judges on the same sort of inquiry basis in respect of their salaries as hon. Members. I was hoping that the judges would have their increases paid in the way that they apply to hon. Members, namely, that an inquiry would take place and that, if an increase was recommended, it would not be paid until after the following General Election.

My right hon. and learned Friend quoted only one rate and picked out the increase of£1,500 a year. I wish to pick out other increases for example, those of over£1,700 and those of£2,250. For judges who are getting these rises, will they also receive what in industry are known as "perks"?

Mr. Niall MacDermot (Derby, North)

How does my hon. Friend arrive at the figure of£2,250 as an increase?

Mr. Lewis

Looking at the figures again, I believe that my hon. and learned Friend is right and that, rather than refer to the salary of the Lord Chief Justice, I should have given the figure of£1,700.

However, I believe I am right in saying that, in addition, judges receive what the general public call "perks of office" —what in the profession are known as assize and circuit allowances—to cover their expenses.

I have not been able to ascertain the extent of these allowances, but I gather that they are between six and seven guineas per day. These sums are paid in addition to their salaries—I refer to the salaries they are receiving now and those proposed—and they are supposed to cover the expenses which they incur when they are out on the job and living away from home. I am not complaining about this. I just want to know the precise figures.

It might be helpful if hon. Members—not me, because I represent a London constituency got such allowances when away from their constituencies. Some kind of payment should be made to hon. Members who—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot raise that matter on this Order.

Mr. Lewis

With respect, Mr. Speaker, surely I am entitled to show why judges should not receive what others in a similar position are not entitled to receive?

Although judges' salaries were, from the timing point of view, tied up with the salaries of hon. Members, and although judges get the "perks" to which I eferred—these "perks" include travel allowances, clerks, and other extras that go with the job—people in similar occupations cannot claim such allowances.

These things should have been mentioned, because the Attorney-General tried to show how this was all in accordance with the Government's policy and programme for prices and incomes and how it tied up with general practice throughout the country. I think that I can show that these judges get a great deal more. I stand corrected by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot). The increases range from£1,175 up to£1,750 a year. I hope that anyone who reads the report of this debate will realise that those are increases additional to already large increases on two previous occasions.

We sometimes hear it said that these gentlemen, of course, do not get so much out of it because of taxation, but there is not a person in the country—other than a person I cannot mention who has a salary free of income tax. Everyone pays taxes, some more or less.

The Attorney-General

I said that in my speech.

Mr. Lewis

I know, and I am emphasising it. Everyone in the House, certainly everyone in my constituency, would like to be left with£6,000 a year after paying tax.

Like my right hon. and learned Friend, who is my parliamentary neighbour, I have in my constituency many dockers and workers on low incomes. There are many old-age pensioners. The Government cannot afford to give them an increase yet awhile because the country is in difficulty. We hope that they will get an increase before the General Election, but it is very difficult for me when I see constituents aged 80 and have to tell them that they cannot get a few "bob" extra, particularly when their telephone and postage bills have gone up. Yet our Government allow another increase on salaries above£10,000 a year ranging between£1,175 and£1,750.

We are asked to show patriotism and hon. Members, it is said, should not ask for increases yet awhile because that would be difficult and the public would not like it. The Government are right. I do not think that the public like hon. Members to get increases, but it is curious to see how the Press play this up when it is a question of Members of Parliament, but not a word is mentioned about the judges. The Press does not trouble to publish what is happening concerning the judges. It may be said that there is some difficulty in filling jobs with the right men, but I have never yet found a shortage of persons clamouring for judgeships. I have met them in this House. They have said that they would like to have a judgeship.

I have looked at the wills which are published in the newspapers from time to time. I cannot find a case over the last 20 years in which a judge has died leaving anything below£35,000, and most of them have left up to a quarter of a million pounds. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) is not present. I hoped that he would be here, because I wished to refer to the fact that his late lamented father was one who left a quarter of a million pounds. He went through the whole gamut from barrister right up to Lord Chancellor.

This leads me to the question of the Lord Chancellor. It was said that the Lord Chancellor's salary was tied in with these arrangements. I am not sure whether the Lord Chancellor will be tied in with this.

The Attorney-General

Read the Schedule.

Mr. Lewis

The Attorney-General, from a sedentary position—

The Attorney-General

I said that my hon. Friend should read the Schedule because I know that he always has a go at the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. Lewis

I am glad the Attorney-General has risen and said that. I heard his previous remark, but others did not. I will now replay. Of course, I can read the Schedule. People who read HANSARD will not see the Schedule in HANSARD. My constituents may not have the opportunity of reading the Schedule.

The Attorney-General has been in the House as long as I have. He knows that it is customary for an hon. Member to ask questions, when he is opposing something, whether or not it is in the Schedule. It is customary, on a Bill or on an Order, for the hon. Member to make his point, even though the Attorney-General may say, in that rather excited, upset manner of his, that I should read the Schedule. I could read the whole Order, but Mr. Speaker might take objection if I did so.

The salaries of these legal luminaries are to rise to the following:

£
Lord of Appeal in Ordinary 13,000
Lord Chief Justice 14,250
Master of the Rolls 13,000
President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division 13,000
Lord Justice of Appeal 11,500
Puisne Judge of the High Court of Justice 11,500
Lord President of the Court of Session 11,500
Lord Justice Clerk 11,250
Ordinary Judge of the Court of Session 9,500
Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland 10,750
Lord Justice of Appeal in Northern Ireland 9,300
Puisne Judge of the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland 9,300

As the Attorney-General invited me to read the Schedule, I did so.

By invitation, perhaps I may now examine the Schedule in more detail. I, as a trade unionist, like to see fair shares for all. I want everyone to be treated properly and fairly. Why is the salary of the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland rising to only£10,750, whereas that of the Lord Chief Justice of England is rising to£14,250? If the argument is that these people need the money urgently, may I make a plea for a further increase for the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, because he has been very busy recently?

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentle- man must come to the Schedule.

Mr. Lewis

I was coming to that as my next point. On previous occasions we had wide-ranging debates, because we were debating Bills; we went through the whole gamut. I cannot amend this Order.

The Attorney-General may say that I should not mention that, because I know it and the whole House knows it. He knows it and I know it, but my constituents do not.

I am not allowed to move that it be reduced or increased. I am not allowed to make any alteration at all. All I can do is to vote completely against it or for it. Some of my constituents may well say, "Why didn't you try to suggest that this increase should be only the same as the nurses got?" I cannot do that. I have to explain to them, and this is the place to do it. I put it on the record.

Therefore, I should like to know why the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, who, I assume is doing a very important and arduous job, particularly at the moment, should not be entitled to£14,250. Perhaps his union is not the same as the one in England. Perhaps when the negotiations took place he did not have such good negotiators.

How come the Government to do this without any approach or any public outcry? I have not heard the T.U.C. clamouring that these overworked, underpaid judges and legal gentlemen should have increase of thousands of pounds in their salary. I have heard that the T.U.C. has clamoured for the nurses and other underpaid workers. But, strangely, the Government do not give increases immediately to people like that. They hold them up, and sometimes stop them completely. Why has there not been an attempt in this instance to hold up some of the increases? Why not refer them to the Prices and Incomes Board, or the T.U.C.'s vetting board?

I am one of those who believe in the Labour Party's policy of fair shares for all. If the public saw that this was being done on a basis of fair shares for all they would no doubt be very pleased to support the Order.

I have been looking through the election manifestos of both parties. I cannot find a reference to the Order or the suggestion of increases for judges of these amounts in either of the election programmes, and I have not seen it in any of the by-election literature. When we ask for progressive legislation dealing with matters affecting, say, the physically and mentally handicapped or when we want to get something through to deal with the problem of the hard-pressed sections of the population, the Government cannot find time, they cannot find the money, they cannot introduce such measures. Yet we find this slipped through more or less at the last minute, when it was hoped that most hon. Members would have gone home.

That is why I called a count. I must confess that I hoped there would not be 40 hon. Members present. It was no doubt hoped that the Order would go through on the nod, and that as most hon. Members here would probably support it no one would notice it. I do not support it, for a variety of reasons. There are many more that I could mention in much more detail.

If the judges are so hard-pressed because their costs have gone up, have those costs increased in the same way as those of other sections of the population? Do they have to meet their travel expenses when they go on assizes or travel from one court to another? Do they have to pay their postage or telephone bills or living away from home expenses? Do they pay their clerks, their butlers or valets? If so, this should be put right. But perhaps the time is not opportune.

I agree with the Leader of the Opposition and Tory Members and my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government that the wage spiral should be stopped. Here is a good starting point. There would not be any strikes. There was once a strike of judges in the 1930s when they would not take a cut, but there would not be one today. If I were a betting man, I would bet a pound to a penny that they would not strike if the Order were rejected.

We could ask the judges to show their patriotism and to hold up their application which, although agreed in principle, would not be paid until after the election, when the economy was right. In the meantime, we should consider putting them on the same productivity basis as workers. What progress has been made on productivity since the last increase in 1966?

How many hours do judges work? I understand that they start about 10 o'clock in the morning, take usually a couple of hours over lunch and pack up at 4 or 4.30 p.m. They do not work Saturday or Sunday. It is said that they take cases home. They leave for home at 4 o'clock, perhaps take an hour to get home and after they have washed and had their tea, they do some overtime. Perhaps if some productivity scheme could be worked out, some cases might he dealt with more speedily than the three or four years which is common now.

My right hon. and learned Friend might be able to persuade me that they should have bigger increases. Hon. and learned Members tell me how hard these judges work and how difficult it is for them to manage. A productivity agreement might do away with the 12 months' waiting period for settlement, with costs mounting as high as£250,000, and refresher briefs bringing in 20, 30 or 100 guineas a day. If my right hon. and learned Friend consulted my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity on working out a productivity agreement with judges, who knows but that we might not need the Order because the judges might well find themselves able to earn up to£20,000 or£30,000—which would be a good thing, because then litigants would be saved these prohibitive legal costs.

I hope that we shall look at the matter a little more carefully and that we, shall not be so willing to agree to this sort of thing. I want to pay a tribute here to our Library staff, who always do a marvellous job for us. I wish that I had time to read out some of the fascinating material they have supplied me about judges, but it would be technically out of order. It is interesting and amusing. If any of my constituents happen to read HANSARD, or another report of this debate, I shall be pleased to show them some of this information because, as we say in the East End of London, "It sure would make their eyes open".

10.2 p.m.

Mr. E. S. Bishop (Newark)

I want to keep to the terms of the Order, which is very limited, and the skilled manner in which my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has done so gives me hope that I can pursue the line I wish to take, possibly in a different direction. I want to refer briefly to judges who are not mentioned in the Order.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot debate on this Order the judges who are not mentioned in it. He can vote against it because they are not mentioned, but we cannot amend the Order in the way he seems to wish to suggest.

Mr. Bishop

I respect your guidance, Mr. Speaker, which is helpful. I am not seeking to amend the Order. I am basically in support of it, although I wish to make one or two submissions which I think the Government, having decided that the Order is necessary, might bear in mind in the near future. As you rightly remind me, I have a very limited line on which to argue and so perhaps I may use the arguement that I feel that some of these increases might have been used in a different way. I shall have to argue that the increases are excessive and that the priorities governing them should have gone in other directions, towards paying allowances for loss of earnings to other judges who are not mentioned in the Order—that is to say, justices of the peace.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The question of justices of the peace may be raised on another Order or in another form, but the House has before it an Order which it must accept or reject. The hon. Gentleman may advance reasons for rejecting it.

Mr. Bishop

In that case, Mr. Speaker, I must advance reasons for rejecting the Order, although I may support it later on. My submission is that the money being paid in increases for the judges might be well used in other ways. One may ask whether other workers are not entitled to increases, and, in view of the fact that that class of worker is not being paid allowances, whether these increases for the judges are justified at this time.

There are many low-paid workers in the country—miners, dockers, engineers farm workers and so on, many of them in my constituency. A number of them are magistrates who act on a voluntary basis. They do not receive adequate reward or income to allow them to fulfil their job as magistrates on the local bench without sacrifice and difficulty. I must declare an interest, because I am a member of a bench, as is my wife. Those who serve on the bench know that an immense amount of work is done and that a great sacrifice is made by these lower-paid workers.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot possibly on this Order right what the hon. Gentleman thinks to be a wrong concerning the payment of magistrates who are low-paid farm workers and engineers.

Mr. Bishop

I accept that, Mr. Speaker. I am arguing that the Order should not be passed because the money involved could be used in other ways. I have in mind lower-paid workers than judges, among whom are magistrates who would be able to fulfil their duties more easily if the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act, 1968, concerning the three mile limit and loss of earnings allowance were brought into effect. I understand that the Magistrates' Association, of which I am a member, has made representations to the Government and to Lord Chancellor to the effect that this Act should be applied. Magistrates who serve on local benches, in domestic court committees, in juvenile courts and who visit prisons, make an enormous contribution to society. Ninety-five per cent. of the cases, including many which go to the judges eventually, are initially tried by the magistrates.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I should hate anyone to think that my interruption of the hon. Gentleman's speech meant that I did not share the high view which every hon. Gentleman has of the magistracy, but we cannot deal with the point which the hon. Gentleman is making on this Order.

Mr. Bishop

Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot support the Order, because I believe that the Government's priorities are wrong. The money which the Government are asking us to vote could be used in other ways. The country would feel that the time is over-ripe when justice should be given to justices of the peace as well as to full-time judges who make a valuable contribution to the community and to their fellow men.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Ian Percival (Southport)

I dare say that there are other Members who. like me, never cease to wonder what stirs the bile of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) so badly whenever we consider this subject. We have our differences of opinion, but I should have thought that this was one of the few subjects which would not generate heat of that kind. It is tempting to answer some of the hon. Gentleman's wilder inaccuracies and more ungenerous comments, but I do not propose to do so because he is entitled to his views. The matter is much too important to permit of that kind of comment, and I do not wish to indulge in it even by way of answering some of the things which the hon. Gentleman said, tempting though it is.

We support the Government. It is nice to be able to do so. We cannot always do that. I was sorry that the Attorney-General introduced the question of comparability. The judges' job is a special, separate job which is not comparable to anything. We do not gain anything by comparing it with anything else. I would not put it on the basis of productivity, although the hon. Member for West Ham. North must have written the part of his speech dealing with that aspect before he had heard the speech of the Attorney-General, who gave very convincing figures of the increase in productivity achieved by Her Majesty's judges.

The hon. Member for West Ham, North had the good fortune not to serve on the Committee considering the Administration of Justice Bill containing provisions which mean that some of Her Majesty's judges will be even more overworked. I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that the hours to which he referred are comparable with the parts of the iceberg which are seen. I hope that he and others realise that to secure the proper administration, particularly of criminal law and particularly for the benefit and protection of those who find themselves in difficulties in the criminal law, a great many of Her Majesty's judges work very long hours outside of court hours to reduce the large number of cases set down for hearing which have built up in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

I accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. said that when I spoke and I understood that this was the case. I also added that doctors, nurses and teachers did a lot of homework. This is not prayed in aid by the Opposition when they are attacked.

Mr. Percival

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his acknowledgment, but sorry that he takes the opportunity to have another "dig" at someone. I will stick to my intention of resisting the temptation to enter into controversies of that kind because they are quite out of place in a discussion of an Order like this.

People generally have a much better appreciation of the services rendered by the judiciary than has the hon. Gentleman. Most of them appreciate that it is no exaggeration to say that in the last resort it is the judiciary alone which stands between them and the Executive. or, more simply, in the last resort between them and tyranny. The great majority of electors would be pleased to know that the House is at least doing what is set out in the Order. I hone that the House will approve the Order, not in any spirit of handing out largesse, but in a spirit of recognition and appreciation of what these men and women do for the country. We on this side of the House will regard it as a very pleasant duty to support Her Majesty's Government in the passage of this Order.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. Edward Lyons (Bradford, East)

I have found that the less a judge receives by way of salary the smaller are his awards of damages and maintenance. I do not see why that should be, but that is how it is. If there is a case involving matrimonial finances the same facts before a registrar produce a much smaller sum than those same facts before a High Court judge. I hope that this increase will produce an enlargement of vision on the part of Her Majesty's judges when they come to decide on the appropriate amount of damages which are now ludicrously low.

The system of calculating pensions for the judiciary is such that it is based on the final year of service as a judge. That means that in the light of the present inflationary situation, which has existed since the war, a judge knows when he retires—and this applies to many other employers in the public service and else where—that his pension will gradually diminish in value. If he lives for a long time in retirement what appeared to be a large sum will, in fact, be a small one.

Therefore, there is a move among judges, particularly county court judges, to obtain inceases in salaries, not because they want the increase as such but because it will give them a reasonable initial starting pension in retirement to take account of the full fall in the value of money which they anticipate. It seems to me that we must come to a time when pensions must have within them some provision for review to tie to them to the cost of living.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot, on this Order, amend pensions procedures for Her Majesty's judges or any other citizens.

Mr. Lyons

That is so, but in considering whether these increases are appropriate we must bear in mind the pressure towards obtaining these increases.

I do not consider that the life of a High Court judge is a bed of roses. It is difficult to understand why any elderly man consents to drag himself round the country for the sake of the remuneration. It must be remembered that the Government operate against the background of the sort of incomes that can be obtained by leading members of the Bar. A judge's salary is calculated by assuming that judges come from a tiny handful of very highly-paid practitioners. If they are to he persuaded to leave those positions of advantage, it has to be made worth while.

They have to go round from lodging to lodging where, rumour has it, they are subject to a remarkably archaic discipline. It is said that a judge cannot bring his wife to the lodging unless the senior gives permission. It is said that judges tile into the dining room in order of seniority and the junior judges are very much under the sway of their seniors. I can see, Mr. Speaker. that I am about to be interrupted to be told that I am straying out of order, but certainly, if I were a junior judge, I would not want to put up with that kind of discipline.

Although people at large will regard this increase as substantial, we must, none the less, make sure that no man with the ability to be a High Court judge refuses the position because the financial reward is not good enough. There are 200 judges in the country, although they are not all High Court judges, and are drawn from about 2,000 practitioners. This does not give those in authority a very great choice. It is important that they get the best of what is available. I do not know the processes of choice, and I sometimes suspect that something has gone wrong. Since judges cannot be easily got rid of, a mistake has to be lived with, unfortunately, to the age of 75, which seems to me to be far too late an age. However, in all the circumstances I could not bring myself to oppose the Order.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. Niall MacDermot (Derby, North)

Perhaps I may begin by declaring for the benefit of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) my close interest in the subject we are debating and that I have no desire to become a recorder, a High Court judge, or any other kind of judge.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

I accept that without equivocation, but my hon. and learned Friend says that he has no interest. Since he is a Q.C., surely he has a slight interest in that he may perhaps have to appear before some of these judges.

Mr. MacDermot

I am afraid that there are implications to my hon. Friend's remarks which are unworthy of him, and I am sure that he did not really intend them. Perhaps he would like to think about them.

I share the wonderment which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) was expressing at why anyone wants to take on this job. The House may not be aware of the kind c life which the ordinary Queen's Bench judge leads today. He spends about three-quarters of his time out on circuit and about a quarter in London. That means that he is separated from his home for three-quarters of his time.

For about half the time that he is away on circuit, he attends assize towns which are usually too far away for him to get home at weekends. On those occasions when he can get home, he arrives fairly late on Friday night and usually has to pack his bags and leave his home again on Sunday afternoon in order to get back to the assize lodgings on Sunday night to be ready to start trying cases again next day.

He lives a somewhat lonely existence, perhaps with the company of fellow judges in the judges' lodgings. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North may dislike or feel envious of the luxury in which he thinks that a judge lives in the judges' lodgings. I think that the life must be tedious in the extreme on many occasions and that most judges would far prefer to be at home in the evenings in the company of their families. Instead, they have very little family life.

As for their work, since we passed the amendment to the law which gives everyone the right to appeal in criminal cases without the risk of having his sentence increased, nearly every prisoner puts in an appeal, at least against sentence. The papers are all read, including the shorthand transcript. The papers are described as …being read by the single judge." In fact, the single judge is the entire High Court judiciary. The papers are sent to the judges on circuit so that they can read through them and see whether there are any possible grounds of appeal. On rare occasions, on reading the papers in a case, a judge will find that there is a possible ground of appeal of which the appellant was quite unaware when he drafted his notice of appeal. That is the sort of work that our judges do. It is being done by men of the highest intellectual ability, all of whom would doubtless be earning a very much greater sum than that contained in this Order if they were in any other walk of life. I do not feel that that part of my hon. Friend's argument carried very great weight. I thought that his last point was by far his best. He suggested that the cost of litigation might be reduced by simplifying and reforming our procedures in ways which perhaps would increase the productivity of judges and enable them to try more cases. I think that my hon. Friend is on to a good point. Our whole legal system is thoroughly out-dated An enormous amount of time wasting goes on due to our court procedures. Perhaps I can give some corn-fort to my hon. Friend by telling him that Lord Devlin has agreed to head an inquiry on behalf of Justice, a lawyers' organisation which feels that the time has come for such a review.

Many of us believe that an enormous number of cases which now last several hours could be dealt with very quickly if we increased the machinery for the exchange of information and the simplification of issues. In that way, the productivity of our judges could be greatly increased, and then perhaps my hon. Friend would join with us in voting for an even higher increase in salaries.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty (Surrey, East)

I did not intend to get to my feet, because when lawyers begin to argue they tend to disagree.

Concerning the productivity of judges, may I say that it is not the judge who wastes time. Particularly in criminal cases, since legal aid, it is often the members of the Bar, who rightly think that they are doing the best for their clients. Therefore, I rise only to disagree, I hope most politely, with the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot).

Mr. MacDermot

I did not make my meaning clear. I was not suggesting that any time wasting in court is the result of anything that the judges do. I am suggesting that our legal procedures are time wasting and that judges would be enabled to try more cases if those procedures were simpler.

Mr. Doughty

If I went into legal arguments I should not only be out of order, but also take up more of the time of the House.

I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Derby, North said that he did not wish to become either a recorder or a judge. I am sure that he would make a good judge. I can understand him not wishing to become a recorder, because recorders are so badly paid. Having said that—and I should declare an interest—I shall be happy to support the Order, if necessary.

10.27 p.m.

The Attorney-General

I am glad that on the whole the Order has been well received by the House.

I will deal with some of the specific matters of fact which have been raised in the debate. First, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) asked questions about the circuit allowances paid to judges. Before dealing with them, may I say that, from my knowledge of these matters, the vivid account given to the House by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. MacDermot) is accurate. Six months of exile during the year in some of the assize towns must indeed be a burdensome commitment.

I will give the facts about circuit allowances in detail so that my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North can make a full note of them. First, judges on circuit are accommodated without charge in the judges' lodgings. They are allowed first-class railway fares from London to the assize towns and between towns on circuit, and when they go home at weekends. They may hire a car if railway travel is inconvenient or use their own cars and claim mileage allowance at 5.d. a mile. The travelling expenses of the judge's clerk and the cook and butler are paid out of public funds. Cooks and butlers are provided free of charge, being either paid direct out of public funds or, if they are paid by the judge he is reimbursed.

The judge or judges on circuit are required to meet their own living expenses and to feed the clerk, cook and butler and any other staff in the lodgings. They are also required, to do a considerable amount of entertaining. For this, they receive an allowance which varies according to the number of judges staying at the lodgings. The allowances are: for one judge£7 13s. 6d. a day, for two judges£7 Is. a day, or for three or more judges£6 7s. 4d. a day. Generally those allowances are just about enough to cover disbursements, but there are many occasions—in particular when a single judge is in lodgings on assize—when he is out of pocket on circuit. He may be out of pocket, as I have said. for months on end. That is the position about circuit allowances.

I was asked about the differentials between, for instance, the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales. These differences maintain existing differentials, but, as my hon. Friend has shown a touching interest in the salary of the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, he may like to know that, at any rate, that has gone up 3.68 per cent. compared with an increase of 3.50 per cent. for the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales—for what that may do by way of giving him comfort.

The salaries of judges hereafter will in future be kept under review by the special panel of the new Commission for Industry and Manpower as I have indicated.

Certain matters were raised which perhaps on another occasion it would be appropriate to discuss. I sympathise with the plea which my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) made about the position of magistrates. No doubt, on a suitable occasion we shall be able to discuss that important matter.

Mr. Bishop

Could my right hon. and learned Friend say when he thinks we may have an opportunity to discuss that provision? The Attorney-General: That matter will have to be raised with those in charge of the business of the House, and I can enter into no commitment on it.

Some observations were made about the problem of delays and the desirability of reducing the delays, and, so to speak, increasing the productivity of the courts. Next Thursday we shall be de- bating the Beeching Commission's Report which the Government have announced they propose to implement. Indeed, we have started to do so already. The implementation of that report will save a vast amount of time which is at the moment wasted by antediluvian assize town locations and the necessity of much wasted travel.

In addition, it will institute a major reconstruction of the courts which, I am sure, will help to speed up trials and eliminate a lot of time that is wasted at present. The Government have already introduced a number of reforms which are already on the Statute Book—some are going through the House at the moment—containing improvements in procedure which should expedite trials. I assure the House that we are very concerned about delays, in particular delays affecting the trial of those on criminal charges.

I commend the Order to the House, as its contents are well within the permitted percentage of the prices and incomes policy. It comes at a time when the burden of work on the higher judiciary is increased greatly, in conditions which are nothing like as attractive as they used to be for High Court judges, and finally because it is imperative that we should not allow a situation to arise where to be a judge ceases to be attractive to the ablest members of the Bar from whose ranks the High Court judges are drawn.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Judges' Remuneration Order 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 14th April, be approved.