§ 34. Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Attorney-General whether he will give, for the longest and most convenient stated period of time, the average time taken for a court to meet and issue its order after receipt of an application by a plaintiff, how long on average before a decision is given, and how long the plaintiff has to wait for the Appeal Court to meet and issue its findings on appeal following a court's order.
§ The Attorney-GeneralAn average figure would not be meaningful and is in any event not available since the time taken can vary from a matter of an hour or two from the initiation of process to a much longer period of time, dependent upon the issue, the diligence of the parties, the urgency of the matter in dispute and the nature of the relief sought.
§ Mr. LewisIs the Attorney-General not aware, as everyone else is, that these cases can and do take months and months? Would he perhaps consider referring the whole question to the National Industrial Relations Court to see whether the lawyers, who appear to be working by their rule book, are acting correctly or if it might be as well to have 996 a decision from the court to see whether we could ask the lawyers to expedite their activities in the way that the railwaymen were asked?
§ The Attorney-GeneralThere is an estimated waiting time of about six to eight weeks between a defended Queen's Bench action being certified as being ready for trial and the actual hearing. I should not have thought that was a particularly lengthy time. It has always been the case that certain cases in certain circumstances can be and are expedited, and this is what happened in the case to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
§ Sir Elwyn JonesWill the Attorney-General inform the House when, if ever, a trial in this country has begun at 8.30 on a Saturday night and when, if ever, the Court of Appeal has sat on a Sunday?
§ The Attorney-GeneralIt is not unusual, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, for judges to consider matters which are brought before them at different times and in different places. It often happens in vacation business. As for this particular application and the emergency procedures, I should remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that in this instance the appeal was by the unions and the arrangements as to the time and date, fixed by the Court of Appeal, were made after consultation with the unions' legal advisers.
§ 35. Mr. Arthur Lewisasked the Attorney-General whether he will give, for the longest and most convenient stated date, details of the number of cases where a court has sat within a period of 48 hours of plaintiff's application for an order, and where the Appeal Court has met within 24 hours of the result of such an application; and whether he will take action to enable all courts to deal with cases on such a basis.
§ The Attorney-GeneralStatistics are not kept of the information for which the hon. Member has asked. Where time is of the essence, special arrangements are made to expedite hearing of applications and appeals. It is not desirable to accord all cases an equal degree of priority.
§ Mr. LewisMy right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) has stolen my thunder on this matter by his supplementary 997 question on the previous Question. Why is it that when it suits the Government the courts can work quickly? Why was it that in this particular case the court was able to meet within a few hours but that on matters relating to poor old people who in some cases have been waiting for years no action can be taken by the Attorney-General or the Government to get the courts cracking?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI sympathise with the hon. Gentleman on the first part of his supplementary question. I anticipated that this matter might arise more on this Question than on the previous Question. But when certain matters arise, for instance relating to injunctions or habeas corpus, the courts sit immediately and the parties will go from the court of first instance directly to the Court of Appeal. This has happened and does happen. It is the decision of the court and not of the Government and the court, wholly independent of the Government, makes up its own mind and takes into account when expediting matters or not the consequences to the person or persons involved.
§ Mr. PagetWould the Attorney-General agree that it is highly undesirable that the High Court of Justice should be so blatantly used as an instrument of Government policy?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI do not agree. The hon. and learned Gentleman totally distorts the position of the court and the position of the law.
§ Mr. MaudeIs my right hon. and learned Friend aware that most people will have considered this special procedure not as something which would have suited the Government but as something for the convenience of hundreds of thousands of railway travellers?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI wholly agree with my hon. Friend. This is and has been the general reaction to the emergency sittings of these courts.
§ Mr. S. C. SilkinThere was very substantial criticism in the Court of Appeal of the haste with which this matter was brought forward. Would the Attorney- 998 General consider whether this kind of haste should be adopted in future in matters which have to be very carefully prepared?
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe hon. and learned Gentleman should look again at the judgments in the Court of Appeal. The sitting and the time for sitting by the Court of Appeal was, as I have said. fixed by the Court of Appeal after the union appellants' legal advisers had spoken with the court. The comments were directed towards the original hearing which was on Thursday, 11 th May.