HL Deb 28 February 1952 vol 175 cc401-15

5.10 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS)

My Lords, it is my privilege to submit this Bill for Second Reading. It is a Bill which, as its title indicates, makes provision as to the salaries, pensions and allowances in respect of certain judicial offices. It is, therefore, a Bill of a type which is not likely to arouse controversy in your Lordships' House. It is a matter above all Party controversy. But, in particular this Bill is not likely to be a matter of Party controversy because it gives effect to the intentions declared by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, in July of last year. I think—though I speak without certainty—that it was drafted before the Socialist Government left office, and we have given it the earliest possible introduction. It was introduced in another place as early as November, and it is only our misfortune that it should have been delayed so long.

The Bill deals first of all with the salaries of county court judges and stipendiary magistrates in England and Wales. In the second place, it makes provision in respect of certain judicial offices in Scotland; and then, with true judicial impartiality, it goes on to deal with Northern Ireland, and makes provision in respect of certain judicial offices there. I will say a word first in regard to the judicial offices in England and Wales with which this Bill deals. There are two classes of judicial offices here dealt with: county court judges and stipendiary magistrates. The Bill proposes on its face that the salary of county court judges shall be increased from £2,000 to £2,800 a year. I say "on its face" because that does not quite represent the facts as they exist to-day. Although the county court judge's salary is £2,000 a year and no more, for some few years past it has been possible to increase that remuneration because they have undertaken the work of special commissioners in divorce; and on an average (it can only be a matter of average) they have added £300 a year on to their basic salary of £2,000. So it may be said in respect of county court judges that, on an average, their salary will be increased from £2,300 to £2,800 a year. If this Bill is passed, and their salary is increased to £2,800 a year, they will not receive any additional remuneration in respect of sitting as divorce commissioners.

I think I can with confidence submit to your Lordships that this increase to £2,800 per year is a proper one, even in these difficult times. I do not feel inclined, holding the office I do, to exalt the position of any member of the Judiciary. I would only say from my heart that there is nothing more important to the country than the due administration of justice, and I believe that it will command the assent of all of your Lordships if I say that in order to get the due administration of justice we must have men of high integrity and ability and, so far as we can manage it, men who have freedom from financial care. That is a matter of common agreement. I am not suggesting that even £2,800 a year will necessarily relieve judges from financial care, but at any rate it is a move in the right direction. I cannot forget the occasions upon which there has been an eloquent unanimity in this House on this subject. Twice in the course of last year there was a debate on the salaries of county court judges, in particular, and I cannot help thinking that it was to some extent under the stimulus of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, that this matter eventually reached the stage of a Bill being drafted.

If I may digress for one moment I should like to remind your Lordships that county court judges, as we now know them, were established just over a hundred years ago. The county courts, as we now know them, were founded in 1846. The salary of the county court judges then was £1,200 a year. Their jurisdiction was very limited—nothing like so extensive as it is to-day. The salary was increased in 1865 to £1,500 a year. Then, in the course, I think, of the First World War, there was an addition which went by the abominable name of "war bonus"—though I cannot imagine a more unfortunate combination of words than this. Finally, in 1937 there was an increase to £2,000 a year, which figure has remained, and will remain until this Bill comes into operation. The stipendiary magistrates—and for this purpose I am dealing only with the metropolitan magistrates—will, if this Bill is passed, have their salaries increased from £2,000 to £2,500, except in the case of the chief magistrate, who will receive £2,800. There has always been this difference of £300 between the stipendiary magistrate and the chief magistrate. There has been some comment that the stipendiary magistrates have not been raised to the same level as that of the county court judges, at which they originally stood. The answer is that, as a result of the remuneration of £300 a year which I have mentioned, the county court judges have for some time been receiving more. I hope that I shall not be drawn into a discussion on the merits of either, or of the difficulty of finding appropriate men for these several offices. That is the agreement we have reached, and I trust that it will commend itself to your Lordships.

As I have told your Lordships, this has been a matter of much discussion. I say without any attempt to criticise the noble and learned Earl who preceded me in the office which I now hold, that there has been a great deal of delay in bringing this matter to fruition. I remember very well that in July last year the noble and learned Earl expressed the view that it would be proper, if and when an increase should be paid, that it should be retrospective to a certain date. Accordingly, subsection (3) of Clause 1 provides that the Bill should operate retrospectively to July 1, 1951. I share your Lordships' objection to retrospective legislation, but there can, I am sure, be no objection when it is retrospective in a benevolent and not in a penal sense. Subsection (4) of Clause 1 deals with the matter of stipendiary magistrates other than metropolitan magistrates. The metropolitan magistrates are appointed by the Home Secretary and their salaries are provided out of a local fund. Subsection (4) provides merely that a direction given by the Home Secretary may be retrospective in its effect, as is to be the case with London metropolitan magistrates and the county court judges. Subsection (5) of Clause 1 deals with a small matter. The chairman and deputy chairman of the Quarter Sessions for the county of London are appointed under Section 42 of the Local Government Act of 1888. As the law stands, it is impossible for their salary to be increased retrospectively. In fact, it is a curious thing that upon the true interpretation of that section it is impossible to increase the salary, even for the future, of an existing chairman or deputy chairman—a slip, perhaps, in the law. But at any rate we have put that right and provided that there may be retrospective operation for an increase of their salaries.

I come to Scotland. In regard to Scotland, we make certain small changes. It is provided by Section 45 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1887, that the Lords Commissioners of Justiciary in Scotland shall be disentitled from receiving any circuit allowances or expenses. I suppose such expenses were incorporated in the salary which was then agreed, but times have changed much since 1887. No doubt the Judges of the Court of Session feel it a great burden to pay their own circuit expenses, and it seems entirely proper to bring them into line in this respect with the Judges of the High Court of England who do receive their expenses and allowances on circuit. Only a small sum is involved: I was surprised to hear that it was expected to be no larger than £450 a year. Clause 3 of the Bill provides for the payment of travelling expenses to salaried sheriffs-substitute, in addition their salary. I believe the better view to be that upon the law as it now stands, this is permissible; but it should be made clear. This clause makes it clear. That brings them into line with the county court judges in England.

I come next to Northern Ireland. Clause 4 of the Bill is designed to remedy what is clearly an anomaly. In Northern Ireland, unlike this country, a lesser salary is paid to the Judges of the High Court than to the Judges of Appeal, the Lords Justices. In this country, as your Lordships probably are aware, the same salary is paid to Mr. Justice So-and-so as to Lord Justice So-and-so. But in Northern Ireland, for some reason that is clear to nobody, a difference was made: in the case of the Judges the salary was £3,000 a year, and in the case of the Lords Justices it was £3,500 a year. That anomaly it is proposed now to remedy, by providing that all the Judges of the High Court of Justice shall receive £3,500 a year. In fact, in the machinery of Northern Ireland, they are practically interchangeable in the work they do, and it is a great injustice that they should receive different salaries. The second subsection of Clause 4 makes a provision that the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland when he goes on circuit shall receive a certain allowance. It is clearly a mistake that it was not provided for in the Act of 1877, but we now put that matter right.

There is one other small matter which I should mention, with regard to Clause 5. Under the law as it now stands, when a man is appointed a Judge in the High Court, and eventually becomes a Lord of Appeal and a member of your Lordships' House, his years of service as a Judge, together with any years that he may serve as a Lord of Appeal, are taken into consideration for the purposes of his pension. But, by an oversight, the opposite was not provided ford If anybody becomes a Lord of Appeal and then, for any reason, accepts judicial promotion—it may be to Lord Chief Justice; it may be to Master of the Rolls—his years of service as a Lord of Appeal are not counted. That, clearly, is a mistake which ought to be remedied. It is of great significance for one person—namely, Lord MacDermott, a member of your Lordships' House, who rendered most valuable service here for some years and was then induced, either by the call of duty or by the lure of his native land, much to our cost, to resign his post of Lord of Appeal and become Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland.

There is one other point that I must mention, and I do it a little reluctantly: it is my duty to do it. Your Lordships may have been disturbed by hearing the suggestion made in another place that the administration of justice in Northern Ireland had been the subject of most curious reports, and that abuses had been brought to light. I think it right, therefore, to say that, so far as I personally am aware, and so far as I have been able to ascertain from the records of my Department, there is absolutely no foundation for any such suggestion, which has caused much distress and indignation among those who are responsible for the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. I think it my duty to those who are responsible (I am ultimately responsible, but there are those who are more nearly responsible) for the administration of justice in Northern Ireland to say this and I think it is due to them that such a statement should be made in this House. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.— (The Lord Chancellor.)

5.27 p.m.

EARL JOWITT

My Lords, I rise to support this Bill. As the Lord Chancellor said, he thought, and I think too, that this Bill was actually drafted when I was Lord Chancellor. That being so, naturally I regard it as a wholly admirable Bill. But, whether or not it was so drafted, certainly I am sure it is on the right lines. I will tell your Lordships this. For many years past I have been disturbed about this matter, and though I certainly welcomed the stimulus which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, applied to it from time to time, he knows quite well that so far as I was concerned he was pushing at an open door. In talking to me it was useful that he should have put on the pressure that he did, because I was able to show some of my colleagues, who were perhaps less convinced than I was of the urgency of the Bill, that something really did need to be done. Something needed to be done for several reasons: first of all, because our county court judges, as a whole and individually, are, I believe, a wholly admirable body of judges. They are performing an immensely important task. It is almost a platitude to say, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said, that the due administration of justice lies at the very root of the democratic process and working, and, for that reason, the judges should be paid a reasonable and an adequate salary.

There was another reason which perhaps convinced some people who would not have been convinced by the consideration I have just moved. I was getting disturbed about the possibility of being able to recruit to the county count benches suitable candidates. It is quite idle to deny that a man, before making up his mind whether or not he will apply for promotion to the county court bench, must have regard to the salary he is going to get. For a man who is active and vigorous—and we want him to be that—a good lawyer and an experienced person, to shut down his practice at the Bar and to accept a salary of £2,000 a year, particularly if he has young children who have to be educated, is almost an impossible proposition. I said quite frankly to those with whom I had to argue this question that I feared that, unless I were able to offer a more attractive salary than £2,000 a year, I should no longer be able to get the class of men whom, fortunately, I had been getting in the past. My Lords, we should indeed be foolish if we tried to get our justice so much on the cheap that we had to content ourselves with a less experienced or less vigorous judge to do our work for us. I confess that I aimed a little higher than £2,800 a year. I had hoped that we should be able to get it as high as £3,000 a year. But, quite inevitably, as Chancellors always do, the Chancellor of the Exchequer fought the battle of economy, and I had to close with this offer as being the best I could get. And I notice that the present Lord Chancellor has proceeded on the same lines.

Well, my Lords, that is the position. As the noble and learned Lord has said, it is, of course, the fact that the county court judges were receiving extra remuneration for their work in divorce, which, on the whole, they have done very well. It was under my régime that we tried this experiment, about which many people were very apprehensive. On the whole, I think it succeeded very well. Here, again, I think we are grateful to the county court judges for the work they have done. While county court judges sit in divorce work they receive the remuneration of a High Court Judge, and one judge was getting as much as £1,100 a year extra. Another judge, however, received as little as £50 extra a year; it depended upon the accident of how many divorce cases a judge had and how much time he could devote to them. As the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, said, the average additional salary was of the order of £300 a year. Consequently, in that sense, the county court judges were paid better than the metropolitan magistrates.

There is one other argument I used: and this leads me to ask a question of the Lord Chancellor. I do not necessarily expect an answer to-day; indeed, if he will forgive me, I have to go in a few minutes' time as I have another engagement. I have not verified my reference to the date, but I think it was in or about April, 1949, that we had a recommendation from what is called the Evershed Committee, which dealt with the question of the jurisdiction of the county courts. At the present moment that jurisdiction is limited in ordinary cases to claims not exceeding £200. It was proposed by the Evershed Committee that the jurisdiction should be moved up to cases involving £300; that is, half as much again. I had made up my mind that I should accept that recommendation, assuming always that I could get my colleagues to agree. There are difficulties about it. For instance, legal aid does not at the present time extend to the county court, and it would be difficult to send a case in which a person is claiming £250 to the county court, where he could not get legal aid, whereas if he brought it in the High Court he might get legal aid. There are real difficulties, but, notwithstanding all the difficulties— which, as the Prime Minister once said, will argue with themselves—I believe it ought to be done, and I hope it will be done. There are many reforms which were recommended by the Evershed Committee, as well as reforms recommended by the Austin Jones Committee dealing with county courts, and I want to ask the Lord Chancellor this question: What hope have we of getting a Bill dealing with these matters? I should very much like to see such a Bill, and this House, which has some time at its disposal, could certainly thresh out the details of a Bill.

My Lords, I argued for this rise in salary partly on this ground: I said that at the present time the jurisdiction is over cases for £200 and the judges are paid a salary of £2,000. Now the jurisdiction is to be increased to cases for £300; therefore, the judges ought to be paid a higher salary in view of the fact that they will have heavier cases with which to deal. That was one of the justifications for this increase. Although I realise the difficulties of the time, and I do not expect the Lord Chancellor to be able to tell me that this Bill will be introduced next week, or perhaps even next month, I should be glad to hear that there is a real prospect of its coming along soon. I hope it will not be put into the tray which all Ministers have, where they put any difficult set of papers and say to those who have passed them on, "Never mention that to me again or you will be in trouble." I hope this Bill will escape that fate, and that we shall get something done on the lines I have mentioned. With those few remarks, I should like to give this Bill my unqualified blessing. I hope there will be no difficulty in getting it through. If there were any difficulty I should certainly give the Lord Chancellor all the aid I possibly could. I congratulate him because it has fallen to his lot to be able to introduce the Bill.

With regard to his concluding remarks, I confess that so far as I am concerned I have not heard of anything being wrong with the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. It certainly did not come before me when I was Lord Chancellor, and I have heard nothing since to enable me to express any opinion at all upon it. Naturally, I can well understand that the statement that has been made may have caused feel- ings of dismay and resentment on the part of those concerned. I quite understand the Lord Chancellor saying what he did.

5.38 p.m.

VISCOUNT SIMON

My Lords, I should like briefly to associate myself with the noble and learned Earl who has just spoken in welcoming this Bill, and in congratulating the Lord Chancellor very sincerely that it has fallen to him to move the Second Reading—and no doubt very shortly to secure the passage of this Bill into law. It has taken a little time to reach this conclusion. I have been reminding myself of earlier debates, and to go no further back than the debate in February of last year, to which the Lord Chancellor made reference in his speech, this furnishes an illustration of the value of the work which this House can do when it discusses an important proposition, not seeking at the moment to legislate, but desiring to direct public attention to a very much-needed reform. The debate of February, 1951, ended in the adoption of a Resolution which was unanimously approved—indeed, it was expressly approved by the then Leader of the House, representing the late Government. That was a debate in which the view presented by the mover of the Resolution was supported in turn by Lord Cecil of Chelwood, by Lord Goddard, the Lord Chief Justice, by Lord Merthyr, by Lord Chorley, by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, by Lord Schuster and by the noble Marquess who is now Leader of the House.

I recognised at the time that it was difficult for the then Lord Chancellor to give us the answer which I dare say it would have been in his heart to give. He did what he could at the time, and it was a great satisfaction to hear from him, I think in the month of July last year, that it was decided by the then Government to proceed along the lines he indicated. It is true that at that time of year the prospects of getting the Bill carried in the Session were not great, and that is the reason why, in response to an inquiry, he then said he would be glad if the provision could be made retrospective. This is one of those examples of retrospective benevolence (I think that was the Lord Chancellor's phrase) which are surely justified—I may observe that it does not apply to ex-Lord Chancellors; and no doubt, that is quite right. This is not really so much a case of a retrospective enactment as of putting upon the Statute Book something which has already been determined upon and generally approved, though at the moment of approval it was not possible at once to make the statutory change. At any rate, the change is now in a fair way to be made, and I have not the slightest doubt that it is a thoroughly justified change and one that will promote the interests of justice.

If I may, for a moment, speak rather as an ex-Lord Chancellor than as an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, I must say that I feel some concern whether the increase which this Bill makes in the salaries of county court judges and others is sufficient. Behind this feeling, again, there lies the question of whether, in present circumstances, the existing salary of High Court judges is adequate. I do not say more than that. I am very glad that this improvement has been made in this part of the Bill, and I think we ought to remember that, in present circumstances, the fixing of proper judicial salaries is a question which is bound to involve a conflict between the great and urgent financial needs of the country, on the one hand, and, on the other, the extreme importance of securing that the work of the Judiciary is conducted under proper conditons. Hamlet in his catalogue of the thousand natural shocks That flesh is heir to includes in the list, as your Lordships will remember: the law's delay and the insolence of office. It is the constant effort of our Judiciary at all levels to avoid these reproaches, and I do not believe that there is any country in the world where those who administer justice in the courts discharge their task with a more definite desire to save time and to show consideration to the litigant, while their reputation for impartiality and learning and courtesy stands unrivalled. But the judicial office, believe me, cannot be properly discharged if the judge, whose whole mind ought to be concentrated on the case he has to try, is distracted and haunted by the thought of how he is to meet his domestic expenses and how he is to provide for his family. It is mainly for that reason, and also because the dignity of the judicial office ought to be preserved, that I, at any rate, feel how important it is, in the interests of our life as a nation—not in the interests of any individual judge—to secure that judges are adequately paid. I heartily support this Bill, and I am happy to think that the efforts which have been made are likely now to culminate in this much-needed reform.

5.45 p.m.

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor replies, may I, as one of those who pressed from time to time for this measure in the last two Parliaments, say how much I welcome it now? I am one of those—in common with most of your Lordships, I suppose—who realise how responsible is the job that a county court judge has to perform. In some ways it is a more difficult task than that of a judge of the High Court, because a county court judge often has far less experienced practitioners before him and, in many instances, he is sitting a long way from a good judicial library, and cannot, therefore, refer to cases as easily as can his brethren in the High Court. So I am glad to think that the services which these men perform so ably are being recognised in the Bill which is now before your Lordships' House. I should have been glad to see rather a bigger increase; I am sorry that it is not more than, in fact, it is. That remark applies to the salary increase of the Metropolitan magistrates also. As many of your Lordships also do, from time to time I sit upon a judicial bench myself, and I cannot think of a more dreary occupation for anyone to follow day after day. But that is what most of those Metropolitan magistrates have to do—they sit, as a rule, four or five days a week. It is all-important that we should get the right men for these jobs, and I believe that the provisions of this Bill, which is completely non-Party—indeed, I think it is the product of all Parties—will enable these benches still to be properly and adequately staffed. For that reason I add my word of welcome to this Bill.

5.48 p.m.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I shall detain the House for no more than a few moments. This Bill has received most remarkable commendation. It has been moved by the Lord Chancellor, and supported by an ex-Lord Chancellor from this side of the House and an ex-Lord Chancellor from the other side. There is no doubt at all that it will be supported by every member of the House. Like the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, I wish we could have done more. I feel that the salaries we are now proposing are really inadequate for the purpose which we have in mind—that is, to attract the right kind of person to the judiciary. My own knowledge both of occupants of the bench and of the stipendiaries goes back over many years. In the days when I appeared before county courts, the jurisdiction was up to £50 only, and those courts had not to deal with the legal complexities of the Rent Restrictions Acts and many other types of law which now engage their attention. Therefore their task was relatively much simpler. The same applies to the stipendiaries—the law with which they are concerned has become much more complicated. In the county court, as has already been said, jurisdiction has been greatly extended, and it now goes up to £200 in some matters. But in certain cases the jurisdicticn is unlimited. That is so in the case of actions remitted from the High Court, and others.

The kind of person we want, both for the bench and as a stipendiary, is a man of high legal ability and of personal standing and character—the kind of man who would inevitably be earning a high income at the Bar. I find it difficult to believe that we are going to get that type of man for a salary of £2,800 for county court judges and £2,500 for stipendiaries. Nevertheless, even a modest increase is better than no increase at all. But your Lordships must not be surprised if one day I return to the attack and try to extract a little more for these judges. Only by recruiting the highest quality of lawyer to these positions will justice really be done and be seen to be done.

5.51 p.m.

LORD NORMAND

My Lords, it may be appropriate for somebody to make reference to the Scottish clauses of this Bill. While I must ex press gratitude for small mercies, I notice with some disappointment that the salaries of sheriffs and sheriff-substitutes are still put at a substantially lower level than those of county court judges in England. I think there is great force in the argument that salaries of judges!, should be proportionate to their responsibilities and the jurisdictions which they have to discharge. We have heard of the great increase in the importance of the county courts of England through the raising of their jurisdiction to a sum of £200, but in Scotland from time immemorial the jurisdiction of sheriffs and sheriff-substitutes has been unlimited. Their jurisdiction is as free from restriction as the jurisdiction of the High Court of England and the Court of Session in Scotland. Added to that, the sheriffs in Scotland have a criminal jurisdiction which no England county court judges have. Therefore I think the differentiation which has long persisted between the salaries of county court judges and sheriffs and sheriff-substitutes is entirely unjustified, and the sooner the matter is remedied the better for everyone. I think the principle of remuneration according to the responsibilities and jurisdiction of judges is the only fair one. It is fair in differentiating between categories of judges in England and in differentiating between categories in Scotland and in England as well.

5.53 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, there has been, with one late exception, such a unanimous degree of support for this Bill which I have had the privilege of introducing that I think I may say very little. To the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I will say this. Most assuredly I will make known in the proper quarter the observations he has made upon the inadequacy of the present salaries of the judiciary, and if the occasion should ever come I can assure him I shall welcome his support. To the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, who has had to leave the House and who was good enough to make me a personal explanation about that, I can say only this. He asked me whether it was proposed to introduce a new measure dealing with a number of matters in the administration of justice and particularly in regard to the enlargement or the jurisdiction of the county court. If he were here, I could give him no better satisfaction than I can give him in his absence. That matter is still under consideration and I am unable to give him any assurance about it.

With regard to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Normand, I would only say that it is unnecessary to provide by legislation for the increase of the salaries of sheriffs and sheriff-substitutes in Scotland. I am rather testing my memory, but I think that, under the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1907, that is a matter which can be met by administrative action with the sanction of the Treasury. Therefore it is not exactly relevant to this Bill, which contains no reference to that matter in it. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that I will bring to the notice of the proper authorities the observations he has made, for which, if I may express a personal view, I feel a great deal of sympathy.

On Question, Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

House adjourned during pleasure.

House resumed.

6.0 p.m.