JUDICIAL BUSINESS (APPELLATE COMMITTEE) (Hansard, 4 November 1953)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS)
My Lords, the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper has become an annual event, but I venture to ask your Lordships to allow me to state its terms to the House and to add a few words, for the same reason as that which I gave last year—that I should not like this House to take this Motion as a matter of course, as I have the hope that one day it may be possible to return to the state of affairs which previously existed. The Motion is, That this House, in discharge of its constitutional duty to act as the ultimate appellate tribunal in appeals from England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, Orders that a Committee, which shall include all Lords qualified under section five of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, as amended by any subsequent enactment, be appointed to hear, during the present Session, such Appeals as may be referred to them in order to secure the due expedition of public and judicial business; and that the Committee have leave to report to the House from time to time.
As I said on a previous occasion, this Motion involves once more the delegation to a Committee of the House of its most ancient and historic jurisdiction. It has become necessary in past years that this 30 should be done, because this House cannot perform two tasks at once: if it sits for Public Business at half-past two on several days of the week, it is impossible that it should at the same time undertake its Judicial Business. But that is a state of affairs which I hope may one day be remedied, for, as your Lordships perceive, it involves, first of all, that the Lords of Appeal, whose contributions to our debates we so much value, are, to say the least of it, hampered, in that they have to sit in the Appellate Committee until the end of the usual hours of court work—that is, until four o'clock. Also it has, if I may be personal, a serious prejudicial effect on the efforts of the Lord Chancellor himself to attend to the Judicial Business of the House. I am well aware that this is a matter into which many considerations must enter, but if it were one day possible for the House to resume what used to be its normal hours of sitting it would to many of us he a great relief—and I know that I speak for at least one ex-Lord Chancellor when I say that. But as the position is, I can do no more than move the Motion, which I shall do formally.

§ EARL JOWITT
My Lords, I share the Lord Chancellor's regret that he should once more have to produce this hardy annual, but I feel that it is quite inevitable; I do not see that any other course is open to him. The real matter for regret—I can speak about it now more fully than I could when I was Lord Chancellor—is this. Undoubtedly the most important part of the Lord Chancellor's duty is that he has to recommend to Her Majesty the names of members of the Bar to become judges, and the best way 31 in which he can inform himself as to who are the most suitable people is to sit and hear appeals, in order that he can form his own opinion as to who is worthy of that great office. Owing to the exigencies of Business to-day, and the many calls there are upon the Lord Chancellor's time, it has become almost impossible for the Lord Chancellor to devote any appreciable time to Judicial Sittings. That is a great misfortune, but I have no remedy to suggest. Certainly, if your Lordships were content to go back to sitting, as used to be the case, at four o'clock, and if the pressure of business on the Cabinet were such, as in the old days, that it was necessary to have only one Cabinet meeting a week, and that on a Wednesday, we could go back to the old system. But, frankly, I think that the one is about as unlikely as the other, and I am afraid that for a very long time this hardy annual will crop up. Each year, no doubt, we shall pass a Motion in these terms, but pass it with regret, hoping that in the fullness of time, by some means which are not plain at the moment, we may be able to dispense with it.

§ VISCOUNT SAMUEL
My Lords, may I ask whether any steps have been taken recently to sound Members of this House, as to whether they would prefer to sit at four o'clock or at half-past two? I believe that for some, at all events, it would be more convenient if the Sittings were at four o'clock: for others, not. But I do not know on which side, at present, the balance would be likely to rest.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
My Lords, no soundings have been taken lately. If I remember aright, they were taken several times during the war, and on one or two occasions during the days of the last Government——

§ EARL JOWITT
Two or three——

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
Two or three; and always the difficulty found was that there were a number of noble Lords, some of them elderly Peers, who no longer lived in the centre of London and who found great difficulty in getting home if the House was sitting late. I shall be ready to consult the convenience of the House on this question again and to make soundings. What I would suggest is that I have a word with the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, and the 32 noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and we might all make such soundings in our own Parties as it is possible for us to make, to see whether there is a change of view. Then perhaps we could speak further to the House. I can see obvious advantages, for instance, to noble Lords who are working in businesses during the day if the House met later. On the other hand, there is no doubt that there are a number of noble Lords who nowadays would find it difficult to stay late. In any case, if we adopt the procedure which I have suggested, we shall, of course—I and both the Leaders of the Parties—report to the House the results of our inquiries.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
My Lords, I am glad that the Lord Chancellor has introduced this Motion by warning us that it is at present a temporary Motion and does not imply any final and fixed decision as to where the legal business of the House shall be conducted. I remember this controversy, I think, in the early stages, and when I was Lord Chancellor we were able to make an arrangement with the Leader of the House by which the House sat at half-past two twice a week, but on the other days did not sit until four o'clock, which enabled the legal business to be conducted, as it normally is conducted, in this Chamber. The tradition, which is very ancient, is that the appeal of the subject to the House of Lords should be presented in the House of Lords, argued in the House of Lords and decided in the House of Lords. Everybody will appreciate that it is desirable to maintain the old tradition, if it is possible. But there are great difficulties, at any rate at present. I think that, if the history of this change came to be written, it would be all traced back to the blackout. When there was a blackout in the last war, your Lordships naturally desired to meet fairly early, to dispose of the Business of this House before dusk and return home before the blackout began. That being so, an arrangement was made by which an excellent luncheon was provided in our restaurant, and Members of the House got into the habit of getting their luncheon there. One may even suspect that the wives of noble Lords, who were restricted in the matter of rations and other provisions, rather drove their husbands out and sent them to have lunch in 33 the House of Lords, and everybody was happy. Then, when noble Lords had eaten an excellent lunch and the process of digestion had proceeded to a certain point, they naturally asked: "Now is there not something we can do?" Hence arose the plan for sitting at half-past two.
My own memory of when I was an advocate at the Bar is that that was not the old arrangement at all. In the days of Lord Halsbury, Lord Herschell, Lord Haldane and Lord Hailsham, if briefed for a party in some cause which was being taken to the House of Lords, one came here and conducted one's argument in the afternoon, usually, I think, stopping at a quarter to four if the House was going to sit at four o'clock, in order that the Lord Chancellor might retire and be prepared to sit at four. But the whole argument proceeded for a regular number of hours, and it is curious that that which was the traditional practice should have been disturbed by an accident which really had its origin in the "black-out."
Of course, there are strong reasons which make it right to adopt this Motion now, but I hope that careful consideration will be given to the question whether it is not better to meet for legislative business at four o'clock. It would certainly be more convenient for certain members of the House who are engaged in business—the chairmen of banks, and so on. Under the old system, when there was an important debate beginning at four o'clock it might impinge on the ordinary dinner hour. The ordinary dinner hour is later now than it used to be, and I do not despair of the time arriving when, after these consultations of which the Leader of the House has spoken, it will be felt right to restore the ancient practice.
If, for a moment, we take the House sitting as the Supreme Court of Appeal, the return to four o'clock sittings will have these two great advantages. The first (and I attach immense importance 34 to this), is that the Lord Chancellor will be able to preside on Appeals. He always used to do so. Lord Halsbury presided in Appeals to the House of Lords, and then came and presided at the House when legislative business began. It was a heavy task, but it was not beyond his powers, nor beyond the powers of his successors. Nowadays, however, that is perfectly impossible, for the simple reason that Lord Chancellors, like other people, cannot be in two places at the same time. Therefore, I hope that we may reach a time when the old position in regard to the holder of the office of Lord Chancellor will be restored. It is a very onerous office and attached to it are many duties of which I venture to think the most important is the discharge of his legal functions and all that follows from them.
There is a second great advantage which would be gained if we could go back to four o'clock Sittings. At the beginning of these proceedings we welcomed to this House a new Member; he is a Law Lord. By our present arrangements, however, he is completely debarred from attending this House when it is conducting its ordinary legislative business from 2.30 to four, because he is engaged elsewhere. I strongly uphold the view that Law Lords ought not to intervene in the rough and tumble of debate but should confine their contributions to matters connected with their special office; nevertheless there are occasions when we very much want their help and advice. Suppose the debate is about capital punishment—well, we want them here. But we cannot have them here if they have to sit in a room upstairs from 2.30 to 4 o'clock. Those are two considerations which I would invite the House to weigh, because, while I do not at all challenge the Motion of the Lord Chancellor, I underline and emphasise that it is a temporary arrangement which I hope may in course of time be modified.