JUDICIARY (SAFEGUARDING) BILL. [H.L.] (Hansard, 24 November 1936)

§ LORD RANKEILLOUR
My Lords, this Bill is identical with a Bill that has twice passed your Lordships' House, and only differs in one word from the Bill 329 which passed a year before that. Unfortunately, it has been crowded out in another place. Its object is to make it quite clear that the position of the Judges is what it always was—an independent position and not to be confounded with that of the Civil Service, as certain events during the crisis of 1931 made it appear that it had been. I may just add that on the last occasion it had the warm approval of the Lord Chancellor, whom we are sorry not to see in his place. I beg to move.

§ LORD JESSEL
My Lords, there is just one point about this Bill—which I heartily welcome—that I do not quite understand. As your Lordships all know, there is a question before Parliament now about salaries of Ministers of the Crown, and it is proposed to level them up. So far as I can make out in looking through this Bill, there cannot be any alteration made in the salary of one of His Majesty's Judges if this Bill passes. I do not think that is right, because it is well known that the salaries of the Judges have not been raised—I think not since about 1805. Many people think that, considering what the Surtax and Income Tax are in these days, the Judges should also receive higher salaries than they do at present. Clause 1 says that: In any statute hereafter enacted no provision for the alteration or diminution of the rights, duties, salaries or emoluments… of certain servants of the Crown shall apply to Judges. It seems to me that there may be some difficulty in the matter if it is found at some future time that Parliament decides to raise the salaries of the Judges. I am not sure on that point, and I should like to be reassured.

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (THE MARQUESS OF ZETLAND)
My Lords, I am not competent to express an opinion upon the point which has just been raised by the noble Lord. I have no doubt that that aspect of the case was duly considered by the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, when he was drafting the Bill. What I rise to do, in the regrettable absence of the noble and learned Viscount who usually sits upon the Woolsack, is to express on behalf of your Lordships that admiration which I feel sure you must feel for the 330 laudable tenacity of purpose which has been displayed by the noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, in his endeavours to guide this measure to the Statute Book. If I remember rightly, on no less than three occasions your Lordships have expressed approval of this or a very similar measure, but on each occasion, owing to action, or rather inaction, in another place, the noble Lord's endeavours have been defeated.
Let me only add on this occasion that had the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor been present, he would on behalf of the Government have repeated what he said when the Bill was originally before your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, was of opinion that as the result of certain provisions of the Economy Act, 1931, the constitutional position of the Judiciary had been assailed in consequence of certain reductions of salary which were enforced upon them by that measure, and it was with a view to preventing that in the future that the noble Lord introduced his Bill, his object being, as he told us, to ensure and maintain the independence of the Judiciary. Let me repeat what the Lord Chancellor said on the former occasion—namely, that we are as anxious as any one in this House to see the independence of the Judiciary ensured and maintained. Since therefore we are strongly in favour of the objects of this Bill, the attitude of the Government may I think be said to be not merely one of benevolent neutrality towards it, but one of keen support of the object which the Bill has in view.

§ VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD
My Lords, I would like to say one word in answer to what fell from the noble Lord, Lord Jessel. I think he has not read the whole clause to which he refers, because he will see later that it only says that the alteration of salaries shall be prohibited "unless expressly stated." That is to say, it is not to be done as part of an all-round reduction of salaries, but if you are dealing with the Judges' salaries, either increasing or diminishing them, you must prominently draw the attention of Parliament to the proposal you are making, so that the change shall not be made casually and without consideration, as perhaps was done in the case of the Economy Act. The noble Lord, Lord Rankeillour, will tell me if 331 I am wrong, but I believe that that is the true meaning of the Bill.
I would add that I think that the experience of this Bill shows rather a lack in our Parliamentary procedure. Here is a Bill to which there really is no opposition—certainly not in this House nor, so far as I know, in another place, and yet it is held up year after year just because there is no opportunity of getting the opinion of the other House. Surely, as a matter of constitutional right, there ought to be some procedure for dealing with Bills of a substantially unopposed character, so that by setting aside one day or one afternoon or some such time, which could only be used for that purpose, these Bills could be dealt with and disposed of. At present they are opposed only to keep off other legislation to which there is objection. I hope the Government will consider that aspect of the question because in these days it is important that we should make our Parliamentary procedure not only adequate but more than adequate, in order to meet possible criticism.

§ LORD RANKEILLOUR
My Lords, may I just say that my noble friend's explanation of the clause is exactly what I should have given myself, and I cannot add anything to it? I would also thank the noble Marquess for his kind words, and express the hope that when the fullness of time arrives he may be able to induce the authorities in another place to find just the very little time that is necessary to carry this Bill into law.