HC Deb 16 December 1970 vol 808 cc1487-517

10.12 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson)

I beg to move, That the Judicial Offices (Salaries) Order 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.

Mr. Speaker

It has been suggested to me that we take this Motion and the next one That the Judges' Remuneration (No. 2) Order 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved. together. Does the House have any objection? If not, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has moved the first one, and we shall discuss both together.

The Attorney-General

I understand from your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that we can discuss the Judges' Remuneration (No. 2) Order, 1970, at the same time. Both Orders, as the House will appreciate, relate to the remuneration of the judiciary. As it is convenient for the House to discuss these together, I will deal first with the Judicial Offices (Salaries) Order. That relates to what is called the lower judiciary of England and Wales; that is, the Recorders of Liverpool and Manchester, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. It is difficult to debate against a background of multifarious conversation.

The Attorney-General

—the county court judges and the metropolitan magistrates.

The Judges Remuneration (No. 2) Order relates to the higher judiciary, not merely that of England and Wales, but those of Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The lower judiciary consists of 106 county court judges—Parliament has approved a maximum of 125–37 metropolitan magistrates, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, and the recorders of Liverpool and Manchester. The higher judiciary of England and Wales includes the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, 10 Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. There is a group of hon. Members who wish to sustain a conversation. They might do it outside.

The Attorney-General

—14 Lords Justices of Appeal and 68 Puisne judges—in all, 95 English judges of the higher judiciary. In Scotland, we have the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Justice Clerk and 16 ordinary judges of the Court of Session, making 18 judges in Scotland. In Northern Ireland, we have the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland, two Lords Justices of Appeal of Northern Ireland and four Puisne Judges in Northern Ireland.

In some sense, both Orders have a connection with and are a necessary corollary of recently announced increases in the salaries of the Civil Service and of the chairmen of nationalised industries. Whereas the lower judiciary has, since the end of the war in 1945, followed conventionally and more or less automatically on the increases in Civil Service pay, the higher judiciary has not. In the latter case, direct comparability with the Civil Service is not suggested, nor is it desired, although there must be some indirect comparability because of the comparability of the lower judicial salaries both with the Civil Service and with the salaries of the higher judiciary.

In March, 1969, the National Board for Prices and Incomes published proposals for increases in the salaries of chairmen and members of nationalised industry boards. Immediately following that, the Plowden Committee, the Statutory Advisory Committee on the Pay of the Higher Civil Service, published proposals for similar increases for Permanent Secretaries and higher civil servants. These represented increases of 60 and 63 per cent. [Interruption.]

It was then proposed in 1969 that these large increases should be made in three stages. The previous Government, hon. Members will recollect, accepted the increases as regards the first stage but reserved their position as regards the remaining two. Permanent Secretaries received the first of their increases in July, 1969, and their second in July, 1970. The third was due on 1st July, 1971. But, by a decision of the present Government announced last August, it was made effect from 1st January, 1971, instead of July. Under the proposals of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, the chairmen of the nationalised industries followed suit. [Interruption.]

As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 8th December, the higher judiciary, following the example set by the Lord Chief Justice, decided in the national interest—[Interruption.]—to forgo an increase in their salaries for six months; that is to say, until 1st July next. They are doing this in common with higher officials in the Civil and Diplomatic Services and the chairmen and deputy chairmen of the major nationalised industries boards. [Interruption.] I should like to pay tribute and acknowledge, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did, the action taken by the judges in this respect.

Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West)

The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that they are deferring their increases; but the increases will still be implemented officially from 1st January, 1971. Is this so that they will not lose anything on their superannuation and retirement pensions? They are not making such a great sacrifice, surely.

The Attorney-General

The reason for this was that the progress of the third stage was to have followed and that the Lord Chief Justice and the judges and the others have postponed for a period of six months receipt of the sums which they would otherwise have expected. I should have thought that this House would be the first to pay tribute to public servants for an action of that kind.

Since 1957 an increase in the salaries of the lower judiciary has been dependent on Orders laid by the Lord Chancellor and subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure. In the case of the lower judiciary, increases have been related to increases in the higher Civil Service. It has always been assumed that Orders to give effect to increases corresponding with the Plowden recommendations would follow the Civil Service increases and that parallel action would be taken administratively to keep other members of the lower judiciary, who do not need Parliamentary Resolution, in step.

But for many years the higher judiciary have been less well treated than either civil servants or the lower judiciary, largely because until 1965 a special Act of Parliament was required to increase their salaries. Even since 1965 an Order in Council backed by affirmative Resolution has been necessary in their case, although not in the case of civil servants as they have no such procedure.

Since no comparability has ever been established between the higher judiciary and the civil servants, the effect has been gradually to erode the position of the High Court judges, both against the Civil Service and against the lower judiciary, with the latter of whom, of course, as I have said, there must be a certain comparability.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Ardwick)

I had a question on this point about comparability.—[An HON. MEMBER: "Reading."] I am about to read from the Statutory Instruments which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking the House to approve. He has been talking about comparability with regard to the lower judiciary. Would he explain the lack of comparability between the last Statutory Instrument of 1969, No. 1008, and the present one, in that the previous one, introduced by the Labour Government, said on each of the particular increases that the salaries should be raised to a certain amount, say £7,400, instead of the present salary of, say, £6,550? In the draft Statutory Instrument—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)

The hon. Member, to be effective, should make his interventions as short as possible and not seek to make a speech. He will have plenty of opportunity to catch my eye later on.

Mr. Kaufman

I apologise, Sir. I had only one sentence more. This is a complicated point. In the Instruments which are being introduced tonight, we just have the new salary and not the old from which it is being increased. Why has that detail been left out?

The Attorney-General

The hon. Gentleman points out that the Order does not set out the differences of the increases from the previous salaries. But it is the purpose of the Minister in producing an Order to explain that, as I propose to do. But I will inquire into this point.

I return to the question of the High Court judges' salaries. There was no increase in them for 100 years, and then there was no increase between 1954 and 1966. For 12 years, therefore, they were stationary. They remained from 1966 at £10,000 until this year, when they were raised to £11,500 to take account—[Interruption.] I have been speaking about the first stage in the Plowden recommendations—of the fact that the Civil Service pay of a Permanent Secretary had been 60 per cent. of that of a High Court judge in 1938, and was £400 more than that of a High Court judge at 1st July, 1970. The effect of implementing the third stage of the Plowden recommendations on 1st January, 1971, would have been to give the Permanent Secretary a £2,500 excess in salary over a puisne judge of the High Court.

Moreover, the differential between the higher and lower judiciary was also eroded. The lower judiciary have climbed from just over one-third of the salary of a High Court judge to just over two-thirds, and it is not proposed by these Instruments to restore that differential. But it has been abundantly plain that to maintain standards in the High Court Bench, further erosion must be prevented.

During the period under review, in spite of increases in the number of judges which have been called for and debated in this House in recent years, the volume of work transacted by the courts has increased enormously. The number of criminal appeals or applications for leave rose between 1965 and 1969 by 221 per cent. The number of appeals heard rose by 119 per cent. The number of sitting days in the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, increased by 31 per cent., and the number of criminal trials increased by 42 per cent. The number of civil and divorce proceedings, excluding undefended divorces, increased by 86 per cent.

Nobody should underestimate the productivity which has, unfortunately, been created by the amount of crime which is occurring throughout the country—[Interruption.]—and which, I am sure, hon. Gentlemen opposite totally deplore. Nobody should underestimate the vast increase in the amount of judicial work which the judges must do. High Court judges who are on circuit are away from home for a great many months of the year and—[Interruption.]—whatever hon. Gentlemen opposite may think, they are considered by the people of this country to be performing a most important and responsible task.

As I have explained, these Orders provide the third and last stage of increases based on the proposals for the higher Civil Service in 1969. One must, therefore, go back to the date of the last salary increases before 1969 in considering the annual rate of increase, and in the case of the higher judiciary it was 1st April, 1966, and in the case of the lower judiciary it was 19th May, 1966.

Mr. Ray Carter (Birmingham, Northfield)


The Attorney-General

I will not give way.

Mr. Carter

May I—

The Attorney-General


Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) must contain himself. The Attorney-General has seen him. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to give way, he will do so. If not, the hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.

The Attorney-General

It is wise to finish a sentence before giving way. That is the only way to state an argument.

I was about to deal with the annual percentage rate of increase. In the case of the High Court judge the annual rate of increase is 8.1 per cent. and that of the county court judge 7.8 per cent. This is since the last salary increase immediately preceding Stage 1. For the Master of the Rolls, the Lords of Appeal and the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division it is 7 per cent. The annual percentage increase for the puisne judge is 8.1; Lord President of the Court of Session 8.1 per cent. and Lord Justice Clerk—a Scottish judge—7.5 per cent.; judges of the Court of Session 8.2 per cent.; Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland 7.6 per cent., and puisne judges of the High Court of Justice of Northern Ireland 8.1 per cent. The annual percentage increases of the lower judiciary are slightly lower: recorders of Liverpool and Manchester 9.8; county court judges 7.8, and metropolitan magistrates 6.4.

Mr. Carter

Will the Attorney-General inform the House to what extent the national interest has been taken into account in these proposed increases, and to what further extent productivity has played a part in them?

The Attorney-General

Some hon. Members opposite pointed out to me how enormous had been the increase in productivity. It is no good hon. Members trying to avoid the fact that there is this vast amount of crime which has to be dealt with by the courts. In the national interest it is of the very greatest importance that we should have men of ability and integrity who are able to carry out their duties in presiding over the criminal and civil courts.

The proposed increases for the higher judiciary of the three parts of the United Kingdom to which I have referred will cost £304,650 and £172,900 for the lower judiciary of England and Wales.

I am conscious that the judges, unlike the chairmen of the nationalised industries, and unlike the civil servants, are compelled to submit to the affirmative Resolution procedure, and are thus put in an invidious position compared with persons of comparable employment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]

Of the proposed review body which the Government have undertaken to set up, I would repeat, lest there should be any misunderstanding, as there may have been, the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment on 2nd November: The Government intend … to establish at an early date three Review Bodies with a degree of interlocking membership. One will advise on the remuneration of the boards of nationalised industries, the Judiciary, senior civil servants, senior officers of the Armed Forces and such other groups as might be appropriately considered with them. Another will advise on the pay of the Armed Forces generally. A third will advise on the remuneration of doctors and dentists in the National Health Service. These three Review Bodies will have at their disposal and working to their directions a secretariat provided by a new Office of Manpower Economics."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd November, 1970; Vol. 805, c. 668.] The Lord Chancellor will consult the judiciary, and, indeed, has already taken certain steps to do so, and he has found—although I emphasise that the consultations will continue—that it is, and will be, agreeable to the judiciary that the higher group Review Body should undertake the reviews connected with them as it will the review connected with the boards of the nationalised industries and the senior officers of the Armed Forces; that is to say, the review body which will advise on these offices and posts will advise on the salaries of the judiciary.

Mr. Neil Kinnock (Bedwellty)

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman trying to convince the House that the financial need of all the groups of persons of whom he has spoken was so great and they were so impoverished that they had to be given such a rise in advance of the establishment of the review body?

The Attorney-General

I am not so arrogant as to think that I shall ever convince the hon. Gentleman of anything. I am merely engaged in moving certain Orders which are before the House.

There seldom is a time when it is convenient from the point of view of public opinion for a Government to propose higher salaries for the judiciary. After all, if hon. Members appear before judges some will do so in their professional capacity and others will do so in not very pleasant circumstances. It is always difficult, as the previous Government found, to move that there should be an increase in judicial salaries. I acknowledge that the previous Administration, I think twice in one Parliament, faced this difficulty, and as I recollect it they received our support as an Opposition.

It is vital that we should be able to recruit, and, therefore to pay, the judiciary properly. We must attract the ablest men. We must not lose them—I make no apology for saying this—to other activities such as commerce. We must pay appropriate salaries for work which is of prime national importance. The standards of our higher judiciary, and indeed those of all our judiciary, are higher than those which will be found anywhere else in the world.

I invite those who are tempted to look to other systems of organising legal professions to compare the integrity of those systems with that of our own legal system and that of our own judges. We need a judiciary which is able to deal with the complex matters of the law which the House of Commons enacts. We need a judiciary which is able to preside over the criminal tribunals and which receives the acknowledgement of the people as being a judiciary which is unequalled anywhere in the world. It is essential that no risk should be run of lowering standards as a result of failing to provide the judges with fair and proper remuneration.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

I am very pleased again to voice my strong objection to the Orders and my objection to almost every word that the Attorney-General has uttered.

Hon. Members who have been here during the last few years will know that I have been one of those amongst a few on this side who have consistently and persistently opposed these various increases. I have heard the legal fraternity of one party or the other read exactly the same brief, no doubt prepared by the same people, except that tonight the Attorney-General, unlike his predecessor, did not mention for the benefit of new Members of the House the various "perks" that judges receive. He mentioned the hardship endured by these poor judges having to be away from home. I have no interest to declare, because I am a London Member. I do not have to be away from home when I attend the House, but many hon. Members do. Their hotel expenses have risen by leaps and bounds, not merely since 1966 and 1967, but since 1964.

The same Government who propose these increases have said that it is wrong for Members of Parliament to have any increase, although they have had no increase since 1964, because it would set a bad example for industrial workers and lower-paid workers. Yet, almost in that same week—[Interruption.] I know that the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) has an interest in this matter. He is one of the closed shop of the legal profession. I know that the legal profession are here in force. I know that they are all waiting for judgeships. The hon. and learned Member has always been loyal in his service to his closed shop. Nevertheless, I insist on saying what I believe to be the truth.

In the past week the Government have been saying that it is wrong, immoral and indecent for the electricity workers to ask for more than 10 per cent. because it would affect the national economy, and in the very same week they have declined to give anything to the old-age pensioners. In an answer to a Question of mine, I learn that since the present government has been in power, from June until October, there has been a 2.2 per cent. depreciation in the value of the social benefits, with a corresponding running deficit of some 6.6 per cent. The old-age pensioners, disabled persons and those in receipt of social welfare benefits have been told that they cannot have an increase but that the matter may be reviewed towards the end of next year. I do not know what the depreciation in the value of the benefits will be by then.

Yet the Attorney-General comes here and has the audacity to shed crocodile tears over these poor judges who, he says, have to meet hardships of travelling with their butlers, with their lodging allowances, their cars, their secretaries and so on.

Mr. Kaufman

I go all the way with my hon. Friend except that I believe he is in error on one point. They are not crocodile tears that the Attorney-General is shedding; they are real tears. The plight of the judges really does move him.

Mr. Lewis

The Attorney-General may know more about this from personal experience than I do, and perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) has aspirations. I do not know. Let me, for the sake of argument, accept that the Attorney-General is right. If they are suffering, surely the sick and disabled must be suffering much more. They do not get lodging allowances; they do not have their food supplied to them. They do not get the various incidentals which the judges get.

I do not know why the Attorney-General did not tell us that the judges will have had a 61.7 per cent. increase since 1966. They come out with this magnificent gesture and say "We will hold a moratorium and forgo our salary increase for a period of three or four months"—not that it will affect their pension of course. They will hold their salaries to that 61.7 per cent.

Perhaps a judge will be appointed to inquire into the electricity workers' claim. Perhaps that judge will bear in mind, when taking the chair of the court of inquiry into the electricity workers' claim, that whereas the judges had a 25 per cent. increase in 1966, 15 per cent. in the first part of 1970 and 21.7 per cent. in the latter part of 1970—a total of 61.7 per cent. in less than four years—the electricity workers' claim is based on 10 per cent.

This has a bearing on the whole policy of the Government. The Government—it is irrefutable, because they have declared the figures themselves—have deliberately increased the cost of living since they have been in power. The increase is 6.6 per cent. now, and by the end of the year, no doubt, it will be more. They have deliberately increased prices, allowing food prices to rise without taking any action. The standard of living of the workers has depreciated by 6.6 per cent. under this Government, and since 1964 up to and including the latest figures for October there has been a 24.1 per cent. increase in the cost of living. To compensate for that 21.7 per cent. rise in the cost of living, the judges have had increases totalling about 78 per cent.

Mr. F. P. Crowder (Ruislip-Northwood)

A High Court judge in 1820 or thereabouts had a salary of £5,000 a year. That salary remained unchanged, with no percentage increase whatever, until about 15 years ago.

Mr. Lewis

We are discussing this Order. If I went back 100 years, there might be some doubt about whether the hon. Gentleman was present then—[Interruption.]—and I have no knowledge whether the Government were in power then, either. I think not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. There is rather too much background conversation. I hope that hon. Members will attend carefully to the hon. Gentleman, who is anxious to get on with his speech. I think that that will meet all our requirements best.

Mr. Lewis

I have always opposed increases of this kind, and on each occasion the legal profession, which is usually strangely absent for other business, has turned up to protect the interests of its closed shop. I have a suggestion to put to the Attorney-General. Perhaps, rather than have a review body, he could amend the Industrial Relations Bill so as to deal with the lawyers' closed shop. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) has pointed out, there are plenty of legal luminaries who are able, ready and available to take these jobs. They do not get the opportunity because the closed shop prevents them.

Lawyers talk about the closed shop among electricity workers or other manual workers. They ought to look to their own closed shop, the most vicious type of closed shop in any occupation.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Putney)


Mr. Lewis

I am not sure that I should keep giving way. I can see Mr. Deputy Speaker giving me some hard looks.

Mr. Jenkins

I want my hon. Friend to help the House by clarifying one point. Apparently, the large increases of which we have been hearing—40 per cent. and more—are not inflationary, but a 10 per cent. increase is inflationary. Could my hon. Friend explain at what point an increase becomes small enough to be inflationary?

Mr Lewis

Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) will remember that 24 Motions appear on the Order Paper all saying that justice must not only be done but must be clearly seen to be done, and he has signed many of them. He will know that I have asked the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and all other members of the Government whether, with all the administrative machinery which they have at their disposal, they can find out how it is wrong and inflationary for policemen to ask for more than 10 per cent. but not for judges.

The Attorney-General spoke of crime; but the police have something to do with the prevention and detection of crime, and the police are underpaid, overworked and short-staffed. The Government say that the police claim of 35 per cent is inflationary. Why does not the Attorney-General think that the police should get as much as the judges, which is 61.7 per cent? The police are as important as the judges, and some of my hon. Friends might think that they were even more important.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but in his understandable enthusiasm he is straying wide of the Order. Perhaps he will direct his attention particularly to its terms.

Mr. Lewis

I am surprised that you should have said that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I thought that you heard the Attorney-General, as I did, and he made comparisons and explained why these legal luminaries should have so large an increase. I was making a comparison with the police, as he did. I was about to explain—and I think that I am entitled to do so—why I cannot support an increase of 61.7 per cent. for a small group of people who are well paid and who do not have to meet the increases in the cost of living and the other difficulties which face other people. I was about to explain that if there is to be a claim for one section of the population, the police are entitled to come before them. I was about to say that the police should be considered in preference to the judges, but that might be ultra vires or infra dig.

On this occasion I hope to be joined by a number of my hon. Friends, and I hope on this, as on a previous occasion, to be able to force a Division. There is a vast difference between this and the previous occasion. Last time, the then Government did not deliberately increase the cost of living, as the present Government are doing. The Minister of Agriculture has admitted it. The Ministry of Agriculture and other Ministries are refusing to accept Questions from hon. Members about the action they intend to take to control the cost of living.

Is it not the case that, while condemning the electricity workers for asking for 10 per cent., the Government did not condemn increases of 100 per cent. and 150 per cent. in the cost of candles and batteries which became scare? Hence, the Government have deliberately increased the cost of living and depreciated the standard of living of the mass of our people.

If the Government honestly and sincerely meant what they said during the General Election campaign—that they could reduce prices at a stroke of the pen—what is the need for this increase? The Government have pledged themselves that the cost of living will come down and that the purchasing power of the £ will go up; so in effect the judges will get two increases—an increase in cash and an increase through appreciation of the value of the £, although that increase has been sadly lacking in recent months. In addition to that, they have been promised a tax reduction worth £300 or £400 a year to them through a reduction in income tax from next April.

So, although the judges may be holding part of the increase back, they are, in fact, only holding back a couple of hundred £s for a few months. When the Government set up this tribunal for the electricity workers, will they suggest that a solution to the problem could be an offer of a 61.7 per cent. increase, with 21.7 per cent. now provided that they hold back the rest until July? I think the electricity workers would accept that. I know that I would accept it, as would my hon. Friends.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. F. P. Crowder (Ruislip-Northwood)

I declare my interest at once. I am not a judge; I am a mere advocate.

I have always listened to the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) in these debates, which we have about every four or five years, and the same record comes out and is put over in the same way. [Interruption.] If hon. Members opposite will listen to me for a moment, because I speak with great sincerity, I ask them whether it is not right to say that, in England, we have the highest regard for our judicial system—[HON. MEMBERS: "And Wales."]—and Wales and Scotland and everywhere within the United Kingdom. I adhere to that view. Would hon. Members disagree that we are proud of our judicial system throughout the United Kingdom? We are not so proud of our electricity board, but never mind—we shall be very shortly.

Several Hon. Members


Mr. Crowder

I shall give way the moment I have said anything controversial. If hon. Members agree with me that we have the best judicial system in the world, do not they think that we should pay for it in reasonable terms?

Several Hon. Members


Mr. Crowder

I am not giving way until I say something absolutely frightful, which I am very tempted to do. Is it altogether fair to take the judiciary on its own and start comparing it with people who have also perfectly good and reasonable demands upon the public purse, including ourselves as Members of Parliament? In fairness, I should have thought, taking the whole of the circumstantial evidence into account, that in the past the judiciary as a whole have been rather forbearing. If hon. Members wish, as Members of Parliament, to have the best sitting as the judiciary, then we must jolly well pay for it. We get most of the money back in taxes, anyway, so what does it matter?

Mr. Ian Mikardo (Poplar)


Sir Elwyn Jones (West Ham, South)


Mr. Deputy Speaker

I find myself somewhat in a difficulty, because I had hoped that I would see the former Attorney-General rise. Then several hon. Members rose, but he did not rise. I waited a long time for him. Now I shall have to call the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Mikardo.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. Mikardo

Mr. Deputy Speaker, you put me in a very great difficulty, because you have now required me to stand between the House and the voice of my right hon. and learned Friend, which is so much more authoritative and cogent than my own. Therefore, I shall confine myself to a few short minutes, and begin by saying that I am delighted to have the opportunity on this occasion of welcoming back the hon. and learned Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Crowder) to the service of the House. We do not see him very often, and we miss him very much indeed. We are very glad to see that he has a degree of solidarity with his fellow lawyers, which impels him to leave whatever other avocations normally deprive us of his company to come here and stand shoulder to shoulder with his fellow lawyers, whose faces are being ground in the dust.

I referred to the hon. and learned Member in the tradition of the House as "the hon. and learned Gentleman". It has always niggled me, in the 20-odd years that I have been in this House, why the only "bods" who are "learned" are lawyers—

An Hon. Member

Only some lawyers!

Mr. Mikardo

Only some lawyers, and I am not sure that even some lawyers are the most learned. We might have the most distinguished chemist, the most distinguished philosopher, the most distinguished physicist, the most distinguished doctor—and we have had a number of very distinguished doctors in this House—

An Hon. Member

And trade unionists!

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but none of these doctors is in the Order. If he would confine himself to the Order, I should be most obliged.

Mr. Mikardo

I am most obliged to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I accept your Ruling. I appreciate that I must not talk about ignorant people, such as doctors, chemists and philosophers. We are talking about learned people.

I desire to make only three points, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which I shall do quickly so that the House will have an opportunity of hearing my right hon. and learned Friend.

First, I should like to say that I am sorry that my hon. Friend and neighbour from West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) so grossly understated his case. He has put all of us in his debt by doing the arithmetic and calculating the percentages. But he made one very serious omission, which trades unionists always take into account; that is, in addition to the wages, there are the fringe benefits to consider. On the back of this Order there is what is called a Schedule, but it refers only to money. It does not list the fringe benefits. What about judges' lodgings, which I am told have the best cellars in Great Britain?

Hon. Members


Mr. Mikardo

If hon. Gentlemen opposite dispute that, I will accept their judgment since they have had a taste and I have not, and they obviously know better than I do. However, that is what I have been told.

What about judges' servants? What about the motor cars that are provided and all the rest of it? Electricians have to provide their own lodgings. They do not get any wine or bitter beer on the fringe of their employment, and they certainly do not get any servants. Therefore, if my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North, had taken the opportunity of doing a little more research, on top of the great deal he has already carried out into this subject, his percentages would have been very much higher indeed.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell (Blackpool, North)

Before the debate descends into total farce, would the hon. Gentleman accept from me that, in fact, judges' lodgings are necessary because judges cannot simply stay at ordinary hotels. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] For the very good and simple reason that they may be got at—

Mr. John Mendelson (Penistone)


Mr. Miscampbell

—not, of course, by litigants but by criminals who may be appearing before them. It is for this reasons that over the generations they have been kept separate in their lodgings.

Mr. Mikardo

I very much resent two things in the hon. Gentleman's rather lengthy intervention. One was his observation that the debate was generating into a farce, which clearly was an implied criticism of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ruislip—Northwood. I resent that very much, he should not have done it. Secondly, I resent his suggestion that British judges can be "got at".

Hon. Members


Mr. Mikardo

Many workers have to be specially and separately housed. Every tied cottage involves a worker specially housed because of his job. But when the hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) can find me a tied agricultural cottage where the State, instead of the employee, pays the rent then I will listen to him. I am not against judges having lodgings if it is thought necessary, but I am saying that they do not pay for them. They are one of the "perks" and such an item should be added into the percentage.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North, then spoke about the undesirability of appointing one of these judges, who have been given an increase of 40, 50 even 60 per cent., as chairman of the tribunal which is to investigate the electricity dispute and telling those workers "It will be grossly inflationary if you are given more than 10 per cent." If the Industrial Relations Bill is enacted, no doubt one of these learned gentlemen will be appointed chairman of the National Industrial Relations Court. He will have a wonderful opportunity to say to workers in dispute "We will fine you lot for demanding an increase in wages a fifth of the amount I myself have just received." If hon. Members opposite think they can sell that to the country, they have another think coming.

I am being quite serious about this. [Interruption.] I do not mind being heckled by hon. Members opposite—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I hope that the hon. Member's own side will give him a good hearing.

Mr. Mikardo

I share your hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am never worried about heckling from the benches opposite—they are never very good at it—but when my hon. Friends start I am really worried.

I make my last point with real seriousness. Everyone involved with industrial relations knows that the psychological factors are at least as weighty as the physical factors. This is one field in which the extrinsic sometimes weighs more heavily than the intrinsic. My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North is right: in this very sensitive field justice must be seen to be done. We shall not get away with a demand—reinforced by legal sanctions—for people not to use their bargaining strength if we get exaggerated increases of this sort.

It would well be that the right hon. and learned Gentleman can make out a technical case. I happen not to accept it, but I dare say that if it were a case of arguing the matter in an article he could write a jolly good one. But it does not come over; what comes over is the feel of the thing—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman will have a little difficulty with old-age pensioners and lower-paid workers demanding increases if the House says, "We can justify this sort of increase at present".

In a way, the postponement for six months does not ease that problem; it aggravates it, because it is an almost classical example of qui s'excuse, s'accuse—a classical example of people being defensive and saying, "We know that we should not be getting it and that is why we are laying off the situation." If an increase is justified they ought not to have to wait. The fact that they are offering to wait shows that they are sensitive about whether it is justified, and rightly sensitive about the psychological effects on the industrial relations scene.

I invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman not to talk to us but to talk to an old-age pensioners' meeting or to a meeting of lower-paid workers in one of the garment trades, and see how far he will get away with his argument. These Orders are offensive. They exacerbate difficulties that already exist in our society, our social climate and our industrial climate. It was a grave error of the Government to introduce them, and I hope that the House will defeat them.

11.14 p.m.

Mr. Martin McLaren (Bristol, North-West)

I shall keep the House for only a few minutes. I believe that everybody knows in his heart that for men of this ability the incomes proposed in these Orders are very moderate compared with the incomes paid to people in other professions, or in the City, or among directors of industrial companies, even of the second order. It is of the greatest importance that the very best people should be available for this work.

The other thought which I want to express is that the life of a judge in 1970 is not by any means a bed of roses. The judges' amenities have been eroded compared with former days. The work is most exacting, and there is more of it. A lot has to be done out of court hours. For instance, the reading of criminal appeal paper work often has to be done at weekends.

There is the circuit work, too. However much people may laugh, it really is more agreeable to live at home than to live with other judges for weeks at a time in various provincial centres such as Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool. Many of the wiser judges prefer to go to the Divorce Division because they spend more time in London.

On all these counts, these increases are eminently reasonable and should be supported.

11.17 p.m.

Sir Elwyn Jones (West Ham, South)

In the light of the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) I do not know whether I ought to declare an interest, save that I think that it might be regarded as a piece of immodesty on my part were I to do so.

We last discussed the remuneration of judges in the House in April of this year, and it fell to me to move the relevant Judges' Remuneration Order.

The salaries of judges, since the Act of Settlement, have been determinable only by Parliament and not by the Executive. The principle behind this procedure is admirable; namely, to preserve the independence of the judiciary, which is, of course, a vital part of our constitution, our freedom, and our liberties.

But, excellent as the principle is, to require Parliament to deal with changes in judicial salaries has produced difficulties in practice. In practice those changes can occur only if the Government of the day decide to take the initiative. It is not something which Parliament itself is normally prompted to undertake. There are, consequently, delays in the making of these changes, and the tendency, historically, has certainly been for this procedure not to benefit the judges, whose salaries, in terms of comparability, have declined as the decades have gone by.

The parliamentary process itself—the business of debating the salaries of the judges—presents its difficulties and complications, because a conflict between Parliament and the judiciary should be avoided. To reduce that risk, and for general convenience, the Labour Government made an important change in the law and enabled judicial salaries to be dealt with by the kind of Orders we are considering tonight. But we took the view that even that did not leave the matter in a satisfactory position, and we thought that the best means of avoiding or reducing embarrassment and to get a just and acceptable result was to create machinery by which the judges' salaries should be inquired into by an independent body. Indeed, I think that the House has recently indicated—and the Lord President of the Council has given support to the concept—that this would be the best approach to the salaries of Ministers and of Members of Parliament as well.

What the Labour Government had in mind was to amalgamate the Prices and Incomes Board with the Monopolies Commission, and to set up a new Commission on Industry and Manpower, part of whose duties would be to review the remuneration of the judiciary. The previous Lord Chancellor consulted the judges about that, and they found it acceptable.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has given some indication tonight of what the Government have in mind, and I should like to ask him a little more about it. As I understand it, the increases proposed tonight have not been the subject of any reference to any independent review body, and I should like to ask him when the new so-called higher group review body is to begin to operate. What are its terms of reference to be? Who is to compose it? These are important matters that the House should know about, and I hope that we shall have further light thrown upon them before the end of the debate.

As to the increases proposed in these Orders, it is, I think, the case that the higher judiciary have fallen behind in relation to salaries paid to men at the tops of other professions and in the higher Civil Service. In view of the important rôle that the higher judiciary plays in the life of our country and our society, this cannot be thought to be a satisfactory situation.

But inevitably, as we have seen in the course of the debate in the House tonight, there was bound to be strong criticism of these proposals, coming as they do at a time when ordinary working people are, as a result of the Government's policy, having to face a decline in their standard of living and an increase in their cost of living. This will be the inevitable consequence of the mini-Budget, and the House has already been reminded that the Government's income tax proposals will benefit the rich far more than the average wage earner. The richer someone is, the more he will benefit.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) said, the insensitivity of the Government in introducing these measures just now, when, as we have been told, the electricians, with their excellent productivity record, are being told that a 10 per cent. increase in remuneration would be so psychologically damaging that the national economy cannot stand it, is really astonishing.

What troubles me, and what I find to be a disturbing thought, is that because of the timing of the introduction of these Orders some of the disapproval might brush off on to the judiciary itself. Indeed, I venture to think that the judges themselves may have been aware of the dangers of this, and that this is reflected in their action in voluntarily deferring the enjoyment of the proposed measures for six months.

On the merits of the Orders, it is the case that judges have fallen behind those in somewhat comparable positions, although no positions are truly comparable in our society with that of the High Court judge. To perform the duties of a contemporary High Court judge, outstanding and, indeed, quite exceptional qualities are required; not merely abilities as an advocate but other qualities like compassion, human understanding, patience, tolerance and, I hope, a liberal and modern outlook towards the problems of the day.

These men do not exist in abundance, whether they be barristers or solicitors. These days, much of the work of the judiciary is concerned with crime, and their judgment and their competence can affect profoundly not only the lives of those with whom they have to deal but their families and the approach of society to the serious problems involved.

It is not the attractive plum that it used to be, by reason of the additional work and of having to be away from home and family for more than half the year. For these reasons, there is a real danger that if economic factors discourage those best qualified to perform these heavy duties from coming forward the quality of the judiciary may suffer.

As for the lower judiciary, I understand that the proposed changes follow on the increases in Civil Service pay, in accordance with the more or less automatic practice since the war.

What is deplorable is that these Orders are introduced against the background of increasing social tension which the Government's policy in the whole field of economic and social affairs is producing. As we have seen in this debate, it is inevitable that the acceptability of these Orders will suffer in consequence.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson (Penistone)

Normally, this is a debate which branches out a little, as it did in 1966. But there is always a serious purpose behind debates like this.

There is a good deal of common ground between the two sides of the House. We all have respect for our judicial system and the quality of our judges. We all have respect for our engineers and electricians. We all take pride in our professional people, our electrical workers, and those who do a job which needs to be done.

What is at stake here is quite different. The Attorney-General talked about coin-paring different positions. I do not know whether he was conscious of what he was saying, in the light of what we have heard from many of his right hon. and hon. Friends in the past. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the chairmen of nationalised industries and senior civil servants have been receiving increases and that that was an important reason why our judges should receive these enormous increases. But this is known in industry as "leapfrogging", and it is regarded as the worst possible sin by the Secretary of State for Employment. The Attorney-General has argued tonight in favour of a classic example of leapfrogging.

We are told by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that what is wrong with the country is the claim of so many groups of working people in industry that, because someone else has received an increase, the differential has been upset and they are entitled to an increase to maintain it.

It was interesting to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman use the word "differential". For a moment, I thought that I was present at a meeting of shop stewards of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering and Foundry Workers. The differential is what the argument is about in many industries.

My second point concerns the basic agreement between the two Front Benches. We are accustomed to that in debates of this kind. We had the same basic agreement in 1966. The explanation is simple. We do not have the representatives of two different trade unions or of one union and an employer putting forward their respective cases. There is no demarcation dispute between the two Front Benches. They are all members of the same union. That is why we have had this wonderful unanimity.

This is not only a matter of psychology. What we are debating tonight goes to the roots of our class society. It is a matter of status, not just of income, which makes the Attorney-General talk about differentials. It is of course an important matter to members of the same club in the West End of London whether a Permanent Secretary is £2,500 ahead. No judge can accept that—that is his argument. But that argument does not apply to workpeople or to 85 per cent. of my constituents who are also very much concerned with the respect given to their job in industry—[Interruption.] I do not take any notice of the hon. Gentleman: commercial radio has not been introduced in this House.

Some of us intend to divide the House not because we are any less concerned than the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the quality of our judicial system, or because we are opposed to a review from time to time of the income of Her Majesty's judges. What we say is that the increases are meant not only to compensate the particular people involved fully, and more than fully, for an increase in the cost of living, when the increase in the cost of living is not accepted as an argument for a group of industrial workers, and, secondly, that it is clear that the Government have no intention of changing their attitude on these matters.

They are facing a very powerfully organised group of people. In the 1966 debate, evidence was given to the House that, on a previous occasion, the judges went to see the Lord Chancellor, who is their senior shop steward and said, "You had better get on with the job or there will be trouble." With such a shop steward, one does not need a very powerful union of one million members. What the Government are doing tonight is underlining that their class attitude has never changed. It is because we want to tell the country about the injustice in the way that different sections of the people are approached by the Government that we will divide the House.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Edward Lyons (Bradford, East)

It is clear, in the less than five years that I have been in the House, that lawyers, particularly members of the Bar, are desperately unpopular and nothing which will happen tonight will lessen that unpopularity. Having established that I am one of those unpopular people, I would say that probably the fundamental reason why High Court judges, for instance, want an increase in salary is not because of the net income they will get, but because of the effect it will have on their pensions.

The pensions of the judiciary are related to the income they receive in their last year of office. In the arrangements for their pension there is no provision for an escalator clause. In other words, when a judge retires, he gets a fixed pension based on half the final year's salary, and if he is still alive 15 years later it has not increased.

To rectify that, one does not need this kind of Order at all. One requires an Act of Parliament to establish the principle that pensions should have an escalator clause tied to the cost of living.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The Order cannot be amended.

Mr. Lyons

It is easier and quicker to put an Instrument of this kind through Parliament than it is to introduce a new Measure designed to establish a new principle affecting other types of Government servants.

The Attorney-General said that judges were now working far harder. Unlike in industry, one cannot get more work out of a judge by giving him a machine. In other words, there is a limit to the work he can do. I accept that that work is hard. But the answer is not to give him a rise but to create more judges.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of an increase in crime. I agree, but the county court judges do not deal with crime. One cannot argue that a county court judge should have a substantial salary increase because of this factor when he is not dealing with crime. The Attorney-General is in the difficulty of there having been an Instrument in May, 1970, increasing High Court judges' salaries from £10,000 to £11,500 and now, seven months later, we have a further Order giving them an increase of £2,500. Going back to 1966, there has been a rise of 40 per cent., which makes the timing of the Order so unfortunate.

11.36 p.m.

The Attorney-General

I have one advantage over the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones). I do not have as a political neighbour the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), who has graced these debates over the years, certainly since I have been in the House. I also have the advantage of facing the hon. Member for West Ham, North, whereas the former Attorney-General has his hon. Friend on his flank.

Perhaps the hon. Member for West Ham, North will allow me to say that tonight he made his Mark 1 speech. We appreciate how deeply he feels about this matter and how often he has expressed his views in the House.

When we address ourselves to the question of increases in judges' salaries it is always a matter of difficulty, mainly because of their constitutional position. Formerly they were dealt with by Statute. More recently their salaries have been dealt with by Orders. I was, therefore, glad to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman speak of the plans of the previous Administration and welcome, if with reservations, the proposals for the new review body with regard to the making of recommendations for judges' salaries.

I have looked into the points raised by the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman). I gather that these matters have always appeared in this form—that is, by judicial salaries Orders, though there has been a difference in the other Instrument in earlier years.

As for the psychological factor mentioned by the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), I agree that there is a difficulty at this time—this applies to any time—in introducing these proposals. We must not forget that the judges and the Lord Chief Justice took this factor into account and postponed these increases for six months. They are entitled now to receive them and also to receive our tribute for their action in waiting for this time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. McLaren) said that all men of sense would accept how essential it is that we should be able to provide, and ought to provide, a proper salary for men doing this task.

I must tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Ham, South that the intention is to set up the new review body early in the new year, and I have the authority of my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council to say that the terms of reference will be discussed with the party opposite to make sure that they are sensible and appropriate so that the new review body can do the task it will have before it.

As the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. Edward Lyons) said, judges are not machines. We cannot give them machines to make them increase their productivity, but what I say with all sincerity—and I appreciate what the hon. Member for Poplar has said about the psychological factor—it is of the very greatest importance to us as legislators to do all we can to ensure that we have a properly recruited and properly remunerated judiciary to carry out a very important task.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman (Manchester, Ardwick)

The Attorney-General says that there is a difference between the present draft Statutory Instrument and the Statutory Instrument of 1969 but, with respect, it was I who pointed out that difference in the first place. He has not told us why there is this difference.

The reason is important. Whereas the Labour Government introduced an increase—in my view, misguidedly—but were honest enough to tell the House the difference so that the House could judge, the present Government are so guilty about this present proposal that they are trying to hide the differentials by not stating the increase as a percentage.

The other point that has not emerged particularly, though my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) verged on it, is this question of the differential. It is interesting to note that not only does this draft Statutory Instrument provide for differentials but it extends them. For instance, the higher the salary of the county court judges, not only the higher the increase but the higher the percentage increase. A Metropolitan magistrate earning £6,850 gets a 13 per cent. increase, a county court judge earning £7,850 gets a 20 per cent. increase, and the Recorder of Manchester, earning £9,500, gets a 28 per cent. increase—which, incidentally, would be sufficient to give a £1 increase to fifty of my pensioner constituents.

Further, not only do they get a higher percentage increase the more they earn but the greater is the tax concession to be given to them by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This increase has been postponed a little, but it comes in nicely in time for them to get a larger tax concession—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion, Mr. SPEAKER, put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 2 (Exempted business).

The House divided: Ayes 140, Noes 39.

Division No. 50.] AYES [11.44 p.m.
Adley, Robert Carlisle, Mark Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Astor, John Chapman, Sydney Fidler, Michael
Atkins, Humphrey Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Clegg, Walter Fookes, Miss Janet
Batsford, Brian Coombs, Derek Fortescue, Tim
Benyon, W. Corfield, F. V. Fowler, Norman
Biffen, John Cormack, Patrick Gardner, Edward
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Crouch, David Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Boscawen, R. T. Crowder, F. P. Goodhew, Victor
Bowden, Andrew Curran, Charles Gorst, John
Braine, Bernard Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Gray, Hamish
Bray, Ronald Dodds-Parker, Douglas Green, Alan
Brinton, Sir Tatton Drayson, G. B. Gurden, Harold
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M) Dykes, Hugh Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Buck, Antony Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Hall, John (Wycombe)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Eyre, Reginald Hannam, John (Exeter)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Meyer, Sir Anthony Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Haselhurst, Alan Mills, Peter (Torrington) Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Havers, Michael Miscampbell, Norman Russell, Sir Ronald
Hicks, Robert Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W) St. John-Stevas, Norman
Hiley, Joseph Moate, Roger Sharpies, Richard
Holland, Philip Molyneaux, James Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Hordern, Peter Money, Ernie Shelton, William (Clapham)
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Monro, Hector Simeons, Charles
Howell, David (Guildford) Montgomery, Fergus Soref, Harold
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Speed, Keith
Hunt, John Mudd, David Spence, John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Neave, Airey Stanbrook, Ivor
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Normanton, Tom Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) Tebbit, Norman
Kershaw, Anthony Page, Graham (Crosby) Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Kilfedder, James Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.) Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Kinsey, J. R. Peel, John Tilney, John
Kirk, Peter Percival, Ian Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Knox, David Pounder, Rafton Tugendhat, Christopher
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Powell, Rt. Hn, J. Enoch Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Le Marchant, Spencer Price, David (Eastleigh) Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Longden, Gilbert Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis Ward, Dame Irene
Loveridge, John Raison, Timothy Weatherill, Bernard
MacArthur, Ian Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
McCrindle, R. A. Redmond, Robert Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
McLaren, Martin Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.) Worsley, Marcus
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Roes, Peter (Dover) Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
McNair-Wilson, Michael Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mather, Carol Ridley, Hn. Nicholas TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mawby, Ray Ridsdale, Julian Mr. Jasper More and
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.) Mr. Paul Hawkins.
Ashton, Joe Huckfield, Leslie Paisley, Mr. Ian
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Pendry, Tom
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) Prescott, John
Cohen, Stanley Kerr, Russell Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)
Dalyell, Tam Kinnock, Neil Skinner, Dennis
Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Stallard, A. W.
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Loughlin, Charles Steel, David
Doig, Peter McCann, John Swain, Thomas
Dormand, J. D. McElhone, Frank Tinn, James
Faulds, Andrew McNamara, J. Kevin Torney, Tom
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Mendelson, John
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Mikardo, Ian TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Mantling, William Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Mr. Stanley Orme and
Hardy, Peter Oram, Bert Mr. Gerald Kaufman.
Horam, John

Resolved, That the Judicial Offices (Salaries) Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.

Motion made, and Question put,

That the Judges' Remuneration (No. 2) Order, 1970, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be approved.—[The Attorney-General]:—

The House divided: Ayes 138, Noes 40.

Division No. 51.] AYES [11.53 p.m.
Adley, Robert Crouch, David Gurden, Harold
Astor, John Crowder, F. P. Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Atkins, Humphrey Curran, Charles Hall, John (Wycombe)
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Hannam, John (Exeter)
Benyon, W. Dodds-Parker, Douglas Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Biffen, John Drayson, G. B. Haselhurst, Alan
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Dykes, Hugh Havers, Michael
Boscawen, R. T. Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Hawkins, Paul
Bowden, Andrew Eyre, Reginald Hicks, Robert
Braine, Bernard Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Hiley, Joseph
Bray, Ronald Fidler, Michael Holland, Philip
Brinton, Sir Tatton Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) Hordern, Peter
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M) Fookes, Miss Janet Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Buck, Antony Fortescue, Tim Howell, David (Guildford)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Fowler, Norman Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Carlisle, Mark Gardner, Edward Hunt, John
Chapman, Sydney Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Goodhew, Victor Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Coombs, Derek Corst, John Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Corfield, F. V. Gray, Hamish Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Cormack, Patrick Green, Alan Kershaw, Anthony
Kilfedder, James Mudd, David Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Kinsey, J. R. Neave, Airey Shelton, William (Clapham)
Kirk, Peter Normanton, Tom Simeons, Charles
Knox, David Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally Soref, Harold
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) Speed, Keith
Le Marchant, Spencer Page, Graham (Crosby) Spence, John
Longden, Gilbert Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.) Stanbrook, Ivor
Loveridge, John Peel, John Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
MacArthur, Ian Percival, Ian Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
McCrindle, R. A. Pounder, Rafton Tebbit, Norman
McLaren, Martin Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Price, David (Eastleigh) Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
McNair-Wilson, Michael Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis Tilney, John
Mather, Carol Raison, Timothy Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Maude, Angus Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter Tugendhat, Christopher
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Redmond, Robert Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Meyer, Sir Anthony Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.) Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Mills, Peter (Torrington) Rees, Peter (Dover) Ward, Dame Irene
Miscampbell, Norman Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Weatherill, Bernard
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W) Ridley, Hn. Nicholas Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Moate, Roger Ridsdale, Julian Worsley, Marcus
Molyneaux, James Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.) Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Money, Ernie Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Monro, Hector Russell, Sir Ronald TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Montgomery, Fergus St. John-Stevas, Norman Mr. Walter Clegg and
Mare, Jasper Sharples, Richard Mr. Hugh Rossi.
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Ashton, Joe Horam, John Pendry, Tom
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) Huckfield, Leslie Prescott, John
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)
Cohen, Stanley Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) Skinner, Dennis
Dalyell, Tam Kerr, Russell Stallard, A. W.
Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Kinnock, Neil Steel, David
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Swain, Thomas
Doig, Peter Loughlin, Charles Tinn, James
Dorman, J. D. McCann, John Torney, Tom
Evans, Fred McElhone, Frank Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Faulds, Andrew McNamara, J. Kevin
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Mendelson, John TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Mikardo, Ian Mr. Stanley Orme and
Hamling, William Dram, Bert Mr. Gerald Kaufman.
Hardy, Peter Paisley, Mr. Ian