§ Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
§ Miss HoltI have directed the attention of the House to the requirements which will come about when a new court begins to sit in Lancashire. I hope that 576 expert advice will be taken, preferably from some of those who have experience in the Lancashire Chancery court, of operating the Chancery court in the provinces. It is futile for people who have no such experience to prejudge everything in terms of the practice of the Chancery Division of the High Court. If there is a wind of change needed anywhere, it ought to blow in the Lord Chancellor's Department. Not only do people in the provinces want justice dispensed on their doorsteps; if there are to be reforms, they want them to be improvements.
I am particularly concerned about the staff of this excellent court. May we be assured that those who work in Preston and in the registries in Manchester and Liverpool will receive or be offered positions equivalent to those which they now hold? I need scarcely remind the House that the Lord Chancellor said that none of the work was to be taken away from the court. The staff, therefore, ought to be required to operate the new court.
If those who were employed in the Land Commission, all of whom applied for their jobs knowing that if a Conservative Government took office the Commission would be abolished, are to be employed again elsewhere, surely positions ought to be found for the staff of this excellent court, all of whom are experienced people. They ought to take the place of those who retire in due course in the High Court registries as well as being employed to operate the new court.
§ Mr. CarlisleI assure my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Miss Holt) that the clear intention is that the staff at present being used in the court should continue to be used in the court service. Indeed, we welcome their experience and the valuable knowledge which they have of these matters. I assure her, also, that the intention is that the service provided in the trial of Chancery cases in Lancashire should continue to be provided to, I am sure, the same standard as has been maintained high hitherto.
These Amendments are much the same as those on which we had a full and useful discussion in Committee, and I do not think I can add much to what I then said. I greatly sympathise with the feelings which, I know, lie behind the 577 Amendments which my hon. Friend has put down, and I entirely recognise her long and respected experience of this court. Nevertheless, I am quite sure that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is right in his view that Amendments in this form could not be accepted. They seek, in effect, to revive and continue the Palatine Court by imposing a special and unique statutory obligation on the Lord Chancellor to make directions under which the Palatine Court would, in effect, be perpetuated as a separate wing of the High Court, and to create the Vice-Chancellor as a full High Court judge.
I am afraid that this is unacceptable. The requirement that the Lord Chancellor should make directions as to the sittings of the Chancery Division in Lancashire is much the same as that proposed in the Amendment which we debated before. The effect of the Bill as it stands is that the Lord Chancellor already has that power. But—this, I know, is far more important to my hon. Friend—he proposes to exercise it to see that Chancery business is conducted in Lancashire. We must leave to him and the courts organisation the flexibility to decide what are the suitable cities in which that court should sit. It would be undesirable to have a special statutory obligation in regard to Lancashire, since in due course the Lord Chancellor intends to provide for the business of the Chancery Division to be carried out in other major provincial cities. If we made this special provision for Lancashire at this stage we should be bound to make special statutory arrangements for any other city.
The Amendment would, in effect, make the Vice-Chancellor into a High Court judge. As I have pointed out on other occasions, such an arrangement would be entirely contrary to the nature of a High Court judge as it has always been understood, and to the Beeching Commission's express recommendation that High Court judges should continue to travel around the country and do a variety of work. As the Vice-Chancellor has always had great expertise in Chancery matters, he does not do a variety of work other than Chancery work, and it is intended, even by the Amendment, that he should be in Lancashire rather than in the country as a whole.
578 One of the clearest conclusions to be drawn from the Beeching Report is that many of the unsatisfactory features of our present system have been due to the existence of independently-administered courts created by Statute to serve the needs of particular parts of the country, which were unable to be adapted to take account of changes and developments which occurred afterwards.
I assure my hon. Friend that the guarantee she asks for I am only too willing to repeat, that every word said on the matter in Committee, every word said by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor in, I think, Blackpool, stands. It is quite clear that the commitments I then gave will relate to the way in which Chancery business will continue to be carried out in Lancashire. As I said in Committee, I believe that the effect of what we are doing will not be to reduce the amount of work carried out in Lancashire, but is likely to enhance it, because the present jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor will continue. He will still have the power to take all cases falling within the general jurisdiction of the Chancery Division not involving specialised subjects such as patents. In other words, this same jurisdiction will continue, and there will be the opportunity for people to apply to have their cases tried in Lancashire, or for the Vice-Chancellor to assist in the dispatch of Chancery business across the Pennines in other major cities.
I also give my hon. Friend the undertaking that it is the intention that when the unfortunate day arrives when the present Vice-Chancellor gives up office, a circuit judge should be appointed Vice-Chancellor in his place so that Chancery business can continue to be dispatched in Lancashire.
The Lord Chancellor intends to implement the Beeching recommendations for Chancery business in other centres, but this involves training registry staff and recruiting appropriately-experienced circuit judges. In Lancashire that machinery, both for the staff and for the Vice-Chancellor, is already at hand. The Lord Chancellor intends to use it from the start, and to go on using it as long as any demand continues, which he believes is likely to be indefinitely.
In view of the hour, I have largely summarised what I said in Committee, 579 which was a carefully-considered statement, deliberately given so that it could, I hope, meet the fears of those who practise in the North-West about the intentions with regard to the Lancashire Palatine Court. I hope that my saying that that undertaking still stands will satisfy my hon. Friend's understandable desire to raise this point again on Report.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.