ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL (Hansard, 14 December 1948)

§ LORD MORRISON
My Lords, this is a small Bill of five clauses and one Schedule—an unusually small Bill for Scotland. It comes to your Lordships' House from another place, where I am glad to say it went through without a Division being taken at all, which is also somewhat unusual. The main purpose of the Bill is to increase from thirteen to a maximum of fifteen the number of Judges in the Court of Session and the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland. At present there are thirteen Judges in the Court of Session, five in the Outer House and four in each of the two Divisions of the Inner House. These Judges act also in the High Court of Justiciary, which is the supreme criminal Court in Scotland. Their number has not increased since 1830, and, since the war, has proved insufficient to cope with the increased volume of judicial business. I do not wish to trouble your Lordships with figures, but in the Court of Session the business has increased since the war by about 90 per cent. in the Outer House and 60 per cent. in the Inner House. These figures do not include undefended divorce cases, which have increased from 75 to 900 a year. Unfortunately there is no immediate prospect of a reduction in the amount of business, and the delays in its disposal are now serious.
It is therefore proposed, in Clause 1 of the Bill, that the number of Judges shall be increased from thirteen to a maximum of fifteen, with the proviso that appointments in excess of thirteen will not be made at any time unless the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Treasury, is satisfied that the state of business so requires. This means that in future the minimum number of Judges will be thirteen and the maximum number fifteen; and the new legislation will enable the actual number to be reviewed 1011 from time to time in relation to the current volume of business. If this Bill becomes law, it is contemplated that the immediate appointment of one additional Judge will be made.
In addition to the main purpose of the Measure, which I have briefly outlined, opportunity is taken in the Bill to make four minor changes. The first deals with sittings of the Court. The sittings of the Court of Session are at present governed by Section 4 of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act, 1933, which directs that the ordinary sessions shall begin and end on the Tuesdays and Saturdays preceding certain fixed dates. This has proved unnecessarily rigid in practice, and it is proposed in Clause 2 of the Bill that the Court should have direction to fix the periods of the ordinary session. The second minor change deals with Lord Ordinary in Exchequer Causes. At present Lord Ordinary in Exchequer Causes is appointed by the King from among the Judges of the Court of Session. It is proposed to transfer this power of appointment to the Court itself, by which all similar appointments are now made, and Clause 3 of the Bill so prescribes.
The third minor change deals with the qualification for appointment as sheriff substitute. An advocate or solicitor, when appointed to the office of sheriff substitute, is required by Statute to be of not less than five years' standing in his profession. But service as a solicitor and as an advocate cannot, under the present law, be aggregated, and a man who has, say, ten years' experience as a solicitor, followed by two years' experience as an advocate, cannot be appointed a sheriff substitute. It is proposed in Clause 4 (1) to rectify this anomaly and make it clear that in such a case the service in both capacities is aggregated. The final minor change deals with the power to appoint interim sheriff substitutes in a vacancy. An interim sheriff substitute can at present be appointed only during the temporary absence of a sheriff substitute. It is proposed to widen this power to enable an interim appointment to be made, as is sometimes necessary in a case where there is an actual vacancy in the office of sheriff substitute, but no permanent appointment is immediately possible. I hope your Lordships will agree that this is not a contentious measure. So far as 1012 I know, it is not. As I have already said, it went through another place without a Division. The changes proposed are necessary, and the main clause to increase the number of Judges is a matter of some urgency, as I trust I have convinced your Lordships, if, indeed, you needed convincing. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

§ THE EARL OF SELKIRK
My Lords, as Lord Morrison has said, this is undoubtedly a short Bill but it is none the less very important. A Bill which in any way affects the Judicial Bench in this country must of necessity be regarded as important. Its purpose is to make justice more expeditious in Scotland—it is already certainly cheaper in Scotland than it is in England. For that reason at least, if for no other, I feel that the Bill will certainly be welcomed in your Lordships' House. It is perhaps worth recalling that we are now going back to the original number of Judges appointed by King James V something over four centuries ago. It is true that at that time they all sat together. It is not without interest, however, to note that occasionally all the Judges still sit together to decide certain rather difficult cases, a procedure which has been brought up to the present day.
I will comment quite shortly upon only two points of the Bill. First, I think the time has come when the scale of judicial salaries in Scotland should be brought in line with that which exists in England. It is all very well to have, shall I say, a 10 per cent. differentiation between the salaries paid to civil servants in London and to those domiciled elsewhere, that differentiation representing cost of living allowance; but the difference is more like 30 or 40 per cent. at the present time. I suggest that that matter might well be considered on another occasion. Another point I would like to mention is that, as your Lordships see, reference is made in Clause 4 to a "sheriff substitute." Those who are not accustomed to Scottish law may find it difficult to understand exactly what a sheriff substitute is. I submit that the title does not altogether indicate the dignity of the office which that judicial officer holds. He in fact carries out a great deal of the 1013 work, both in criminal and civil jurisdiction, which is carried out in England, so I am informed, by petty sessions, quarter sessions, and county court judges. It seems to me that an officer who carries out those very important duties should, at least, be dignified with the title of sheriff. I am aware that this would require other small readjustments elsewhere. I merely draw attention to that matter now.
There is only one further point I would like to make. I regret that this Bill should have been brought up on a timetable which clearly indicates that it will be difficult to put down any Amendment between now and the Christmas recess, whether it be to cross a "t" or dot an "i." I am aware that there is a variety of reasons which make it desirable that this Bill should receive the Royal Assent before we rise. I think it is a pity that we should have to consider a Bill on which His Majesty's Government would resist any alteration because of administrative reasons. I merely wish to express that as a matter of regret, which I feel sure is endorsed by noble Lords opposite. In the circumstances, I certainly commend this Bill to your Lordships as thoroughly desirable.

§ LORD MORRISON
My Lords, may I say that I endorse what the noble Earl has said. These unfortunate matters do arise, and I am sure that the Government will be grateful to the noble Earl that he has agreed that the Bill should go speedily through all its stages in order that it may become law. May I say that my attention has been drawn to the fact that in the figures which I quoted on the Second Reading I may not altogether have expressed what I endeavoured to do? I always get into difficulties when I try to quote figures which have been supplied to me. I was referring to the number of undefended divorce cases in the calling list in April or August, which was an average of seventy-five pre-war and is about 900 this year. That, of course, is no index of the actual number of cases going through the courts. To have the records straight, I will give exact figures. In 1937 there were 647 divorces; in 1938 there were 824 cases; and in 1947 there were 2,561 cases.

THE EARL OF PERTH
My Lords, I desire only to support the suggestion made by the noble Earl with regard to the name of the sheriff substitute. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, will bring that point to the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland, so that it may be considered at the appropriate time.

§ LORD MORRISON
I will certainly do so. I understand that this is not the appropriate occasion.