HL Deb 23 June 1955 vol 193 cc314-38

3.13 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of this Bill. Your Lordships will remember that this is a Bill which made a brief appearance in the last Parliament and which, because of the urgency of some of its provisions, has been re-introduced at the earliest possible moment. Your Lordships will observe that the Bill falls into two Parts. The first, the more urgent and more important is designed, in the words of the Long Title: to make new arrangements as to the administration of criminal justice in Lancashire. The second Part, Part II of the Bill, provides an opportunity to make what, I think your Lordships will agree, are useful changes in the general law relating to recorders, borough quarter sessions, stipendiary magistrates and certain other matters. I make no excuse for dealing with these different matters in one Bill. I am sure that the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, will be the first to agree that a Lord Chancellor must make the best of his opportunities to introduce legal reform.

May I say one word about the background to Part I of the Bill? In 1952 my noble and learned friend, the Lord Chief Justice, made representations with regard to the serious position of judicial business in Liverpool and Manchester which had, I believe, disturbed him even before that date. Briefly, the position in 1952 was that criminal work at the two assizes in Liverpool and Manchester occupied 215 days and, on the average for the years 1950 to 1952, had occupied 201 days a year. That was to be compared with an average time of 129 days a year in the pre-war years of 1937 and 1938. That was a reflection of a general increase in crime throughout the country, but in those heavy centres of population the effect was far greater than elsewhere, although other centres, like Leeds and Birmingham, were also giving cause for anxiety.

Your Lordships will appreciate that the primary duty of a judge of assize is to clear the gaols. The result of the heavy burden of the criminal work which I have mentioned meant, of necessity, that there was less time for the civil business. The civil business itself had also become much heavier than in the years immediately preceding the war. In 1939, 225 days were occupied by His Majesty's judges on civil work in Liverpool and Manchester. In 1951, in addition to the increase in the criminal work the time spent on the civil list had risen to 254 days, and rose to 262 days in 1952. This was done by special arrangements made by the Lord Chief Justice, who sent down more judges in an attempt to clear the lists. But even that assistance was in vain. The number of civil cases awaiting trial at the two assizes was 288 at the end of 1950, 565 at the end of 1951 and 970 at the end of 1952; and, by May, 1953, it had risen to the alarming figure of 1,036.

The picture was much the same when we turned from the work at assizes to the work at quarter sessions. As your Lordships are no doubt aware, there is only one recorder in England, the Recorder of London, who works whole time. All the other recorders are barristers in ordinary practice who rely upon their practice for their daily bread and carry out their work as recorders for a moderate remuneration. The position in Lancashire was that in 1952 the Recorder of Liverpool sat on no fewer than 49 days, and his Assistant Recorder sat on 43 days to deal with the work. Manchester was in a slightly better position: the Recorder sat on 28 days and his Assistant on 27 days. In these circumstances, it seemed to my predecessor and to myself as Home Secretary that this serious situation could not be remedied by administrative means, and we did not think that the comparatively simple method of increasing the number of Her Majesty's judges would meet the circumstances. For one thing, it would not touch the position at quarter sessions which I have mentioned; for another, there would be no available court in Manchester for additional judges to sit, while the accommodation in Liverpool would not have been very satisfactory.

It seemed to us that this situation must have been somewhat similar to the situation in and around London at the time of the Chancellorship of my predecessor Lord Brougham, which he resolved by the establishment of the Central Criminal Court at the Old Bailey. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, and myself therefore set up, in December, 1952, a committee to inquire into the need for the establishment in South Lancashire of a court on the lines of the Central Criminal Court. We were fortunate enough to obtain the services of Sir Alexander Maxwell, who had had a distinguished tenure as Permanent Secretary to the Home Office, as chairman of the committee. The committee found that there would be work occupying something between 250 and 275 days in each year for permanent judges in such a court, but that the normal number of days in a year upon which whole-time judicial officers may be expected to sit is not more than 180. Thus, the work for a central court in South Lancashire was too much for one whole-time judicial officer and not enough for two. The committee therefore recommended that, in place of a central court, the two recorderships of Liverpool and Manchester should be made full-time judicial posts and that the holders of those posts should have the double duty of sitting as recorders and as commissioners of assize to relieve the High Court Judge taking the criminal lists.

Inherent in the committee's proposal was the assumption that a recorder who normally sits only at quarter sessions should sit sometimes in his own court and sometimes in a court of assize. I thought that the suggestion might be open to criticism, for Parliament has recognised that the more serious offences, such as murder, certain forgeries, and so on, should be triable only at assizes or at the Old Bailey. It is true that persons other than High Court Judges are named in the commissions of assize and, in emergencies, deal with these cases, but it is never the practice to disregard the principle upon which Parliament has acted so as to allow, as a regular thing, persons who are not Judges of the High Court to deal with these particularly serious offences.

In these circumstances, the Bill proposes a compromise between the course recommended by the Maxwell Committee and the establishment of a central court for South Lancashire. In place of a central court, for which there would be insufficient work, there are to be set up two courts absorbing the Liverpool and Manchester recorderships. These courts will have all the powers of a court of quarter sessions and of a court of assize. Thus, as in the Maxwell Committee's recommendation, the great majority of criminal work arising in Liverpool and Manchester and in the assize districts served by these cities' assizes, will be tried by the two recorders. But departing from the committee's proposal, their powers for so doing will be based firmly upon Statute and will be exercised in special courts; and, of course, special appointments will be made to fill the positions of the judges for these courts. The two courts will 'De similar to the Central Criminal Court at the Old Bailey, in that they will be permanent courts, sitting in sessions, staffed by a permanent judge and visited periodically by a Judge of the High Court. Unlike the Central Criminal Court, however, the visits of the High Court Judge will not be from session to session, but only on the four occasions a year in which in the past a High Court Judge has visited Liverpool and Manchester. Unlike the Central Criminal Court, the court will deal also with purely quarter sessions work, such as appeals from magistrates, both in civil and in criminal matters, and in committals for sentence, highways and licensing matters. In London these are dealt with at the London Sessions.

Before I say a word about the detailed provisions of the clauses in the Bill, I should like to examine for a moment the situation today, and to see whether the necessity for special arrangements still exists. Thanks to indefatigable work on the part of the Lord Chief Justice and the judges, I am glad to say that there has been some improvement from that which I mentioned as being the worst point of tim—namely, May of 1953, when there were 1,036 cases awaiting trial. The position has improved, and to-day there are only some 460 cases awaiting trial in Liverpool and Manchester. But your Lordships will remember, that that is still nearly twice the figure that I mentioned before the very bad period commenced. Of course, your Lordships were good enough, in the last Parliament, to approve of a Bill to increase the jurisdiction of county courts, and if that Bill again finds the favour of Parliament that will help the situation.

Even allowing for that, however, the present improvement could not have occurred, despite these efforts that I have, mentioned, unless there had been a very special position in the quarter sessions in Liverpool, and especially hard work in the quarter sessions of Manchester. The: position at assizes to-day is that there is some improvement from 215 judge-days in 1952 and 1953. The time spent in trying crime was reduced last year to 147 days, but that is largely due to the fact that the justices have committed to quarter sessions; and, as 1 have mentioned, a great load has been placed on them—they have borne the greater strain. In 1952, the Recorder of Liverpool and his Assistant Recorder sat for 92 days; in 1954 they sat for 80 days. All my noble and learned friends will appreciate that that is quite out of proportion to the work that could be asked of a normal recorder. At Manchester, the work done took 55 days in 1952, and in 1954 it took 63 days. Thus, as I have tried to indicate, from an assize point of view the necessity for special measures is less, but from a quarter sessions point of view the need is just as great as, or greater than, it was before; and there is no indication that the work in quarter sessions is likely to decline to the extent which would enable a part-time recorder to do the work in a reasonable amount of time.

That, my Lords, is the general picture. I ought to convey to your Lordships a message from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, who is very sorry that he is unable to be in your Lordships' House today. Your Lordships may have noticed that there is for the first time being held an assize in the great city of Sheffield, and my noble and learned friend is sitting at that first assize. He has asked me to convey to your Lordships his support for the Bill—and, indeed, his inspiration and constant anxiety about this problem is one of the main reasons why the Bill is now before your Lordships.

May I now, very briefly, deal with the provisions of the Bill. As I said, Part I sets up the new courts and deals with all the other arrangements which are necessary to constitute the two entirely new courts and to fit them in the framework of the existing assize or quarter sessions system in South Lancashire. Clause 1 establishes the new courts, which are termed "Crown Courts," and they are to be set up by the ordinary commissions under which criminal assizes function. The effect is to give the courts jurisdiction for the trial of all indictable offences which have hitherto been committed for trial to Liverpool or Manchester assizes by city, borough and county justices. The judges of the courts are to be the Recorders of Liverpool and Manchester, the Judges of the High Courts and all other persons normally named in the commissions of assize.

There is only one subsection of Clause 1 to which I would like to call your Lordships' special attention, subsection (8). It is the intention with regard to these courts, as at the Central Criminal Court, that murders and other cases of particular importance or difficulty shall be reserved for the High Court Judge. Unlike what happens at the Old Bailey, there will not be a Judge attending every Session. There will, however, be a Judge available four times a year, so that there will be no delay in dealing with the serious cases; they will be taken with exactly the same frequency as they are in present circumstances.

Clause 2 makes the necessary adjustments to the present assize and quarter session system in Lancashire and neighbouring counties which are consequential upon the establishment of the Crown courts. Clause 3 confers on the new courts the remaining jurisdiction of the city sessions in Liverpool and Manchester. Under Clause 4 special provision is made for the salaries and pensions of the new whole-time recorders. The salary fixed is £4,000 a year, the same as is paid to the Recorder of London. It compares with the £8,000 a year now paid to a High Court Judge and the £2,500 a year paid to a Metropolitan magistrate. The conditions of pension are the same as for official referees and other similar officers. Clause 5 deals with the staff of the court. Clause 6 deals with the territorial boundaries of the Crown Courts. Some of your Lordships are aware of the history of the method of dealing with assizes and crime in Lancashire and I need not go into it. Clause 6 retains the old divisions of the county and the ordinary power to vary any division for assize purposes.

Clause 7 deals with the curious position which the Maxwell Committee pointed out with regard to the Borough of Stockport. Your Lordships may know that that borough is divided by the River Mersey, which is the boundary between Lancashire and Cheshire; and to-day part of the criminal work in Stockport is dealt with under the Lancashire arrangements and part under the Cheshire arrangements. The Committee recommended that the whole of Stockport should be treated as part of Lancashire for criminal assizes and quarter sessions purposes, and they thought that that would be a considerable help to the borough authorities. I hope that no one's historical sense will be unduly wounded by the change that we are making.

Clause 8 deals with the responsibility for providing and maintaining the courts and other accommodation which will be required for the Crown Courts at Liverpool and Manchester. Again I do not think I need go into any detail, but if any noble Lord has any points to raise I shall be very glad to answer them. Under Clause 9 the City Councils will be entitled to be reimbursed, by other local authorities who will be served by the courts, part of the cost which is attributable to work done as successors to the criminal assizes. Under Clause 10 further expenses which fall to be paid in respect of the new courts—namely, the salaries and pensions of the staff of the court as well as the salaries and pensions of the two recorders—are dealt with, the latter by virtue of Clause 4 to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund, the others out of central funds. But the Lord Chancellor will be reimbursed for one-half of his expenditure by the two City Councils representing, roughly speaking, the amount which the Lord Chancellor will pay in relation to former sessions work.

May I say a word about Part II of the Bill, which deals with various small amendments to the general law relating to quarter sessions and stipendiary magistrates. Clause 12 abolishes the distinction between the powers of a recorder of a borough having a population of over 50,000 and a recorder of a borough having a population of less. To-day the recorder of the larger borough has greater powers. There are very few of the smaller boroughs left after the Act which our predecessors passed a few years ago, and 1 do not think that this distinction should to-day be maintained. Clause 13 deals with the question of the statutory retiring age for recorders and takes the opportunity of providing for such an age, which is the same as now obtains with regard to county court judges. I ought to say that this will have effect only in respect of recorders appointed after the passing of the Bill. Subsection (2) gives power to remove a recorder for inability to perform his duties

Clause 14 deals with a situation which, up to date, has caused financial unfairness. Under the present law a recorder appointed temporarily as the result of the death or retirement of an existing recorder is entitled to only a fraction of the recorder's total salary, according to the number of days on which he has sat. Noble Lords will appreciate the unfairness of this. These days may be three out of, say, twelve clays in the year on which the recorder works, and it is very unfair that he should be paid only three three-hundred-and-sixty-fifths of the salary for doing a quarter of the work. We have tried to put that right. Clause 15 gives additional powers for the employment of assistant recorders. Clause 16 is similar to Clause 13 and puts Metropolitan stipendiary magistrates in the same, position for retirement purposes as recorders under that clause. Clause 17 removes an injustice to non-county boroughs who may be obliged to contribute towards the cost of county magistrates courts and the county probation service as well as paying for their own.

Clause 18 deals with the position of the panels of lay justices, some of whose members may sit to hear appeals at quarter sessions in London. To-day they consist of one lay justice from each of the petty sessional divisions; but if, as is proposed, the number of divisions is reduced to eight, the number of lay justices on the panel will also be reduced to eight. This will be too few and the clause gives power to increase the number of representatives of each petty sessional division.

I want to say a word in apology to your Lordships for going through what may seem, at first sight, to be a number of dry legal provisions. I believe that everyone, especially the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, who has had such experience in the matter, would agree that it is impossible to make the machinery of law reform exciting to those who are not lawyers. I think, however, that everyone would also agree that the actuality of reform is a most important matter for the consideration of Parliament. All of us in the legal profession feel that we must play our part in eliminating the law's delay which, as your Lordships' House—or its Members—was one of the first assemblies to realise, was an injustice by its mere existence. I hope that in the first Part of the Bill I have done something to prevent such delays, to see that those who, unfortunately, come before the criminal courts have speedy justice awaiting them, and that those who are involved in civil litigation do not have to wait to have their cases tried. The second Part of the Bill is, again, an example of the laborious work that has to be done if minor injustices and imperfections are to be removed.

I am profoundly grateful for your Lordships' patience and consideration in listening to me while I have enumerated all these matters. I feel that in allowing me to bring this Bill before you and in listening to what I have had to say about it your Lordships are helping a great cause. Indeed, when one looks back over the arches of the years to the spirit which animated my predecessor, Lord Brougham, I think your Lordships will agree that it would be a great pity if his successors were to allow that spirit to depart. Also I can say this. If this new Bill brings even a substantial fraction of the benefit to the administration of the criminal law in Lancashire which Lord Brougham's proposals have brought to its administration in London, it may well be of historic importance. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

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

3.42 p.m.

EARL JOWITT

My Lords, I entirely agree with what the Lord Chancellor has said about the difficulty of getting permission from the authorities to introduce Bills relating to legal reform. The Lord Chancellor is always told that there is no Parliamentary time. The noble and learned Viscount is greatly to be congratulated on having obtained the necessary authority to bring in this Bill. Personally, I congratulate him, too, on the Bill itself. I believe it to be absolutely on the right lines. It may be true that Bills dealing with legal reform are not matters of great excitement. On the other hand, I have found in all quarters, both in this House and in another place, that Members are exceedingly anxious to do what they can to assist in the administration of justice, of which we all have the right to be very proud in this country, because I will venture to say that there is no country in the world where a system of administration of justice has been developed better than in this country. For the moment, I am not referring to England as opposed to Scotland, so I will say "Great Britain," or I might get into trouble.

I think, too, that we should reject altogether the idea that justice must be delayed just because there are not enough judges. In civil actions it is a serious inconvenience to the lieges not to have their cases heard; but, a fortiori, in the case of an alleged criminal, his not being able to have his case heard and determined is quite intolerable, because he may be an innocent man. It is intolerable that his trial should be delayed a day longer than is necessary just because there are not sufficient facilities or judge power to deal with the lists.

As the Lord Chancellor has said, Lord Brougham was confronted with somewhat similar circumstances in London, and he was responsible for the introduction of the Bill which gave rise to the Central Criminal Court. It was a Bill which constituted that court, and that court has various judges. There are the Recorder, the Common Serjeant and other Judges. All of them have the powers of a High Court Judge in relation to that court. I think I am right in saying that the more serious cases—those of murder, and that sort of thing—are always left to be tried by a High Court Judge. I have never heard of an instance in my time in which a case of that sort has been tried by anyone other than a High Court Judge though, theoretically, there is the power, I believe, in these minor judges to try all cases that a High Court Judge can try. Therefore I think we can rest quite happy about this proposal. I do not think there is any doubt but that the system which has worked so well in London will work equally well when transported to the northern parts of this country. I am satisfied of that.

We have departed to some extent from the Report of the Departmental Committee. The Committee apparently thought that there ought to be separation in relation to the court work, because the Sessions ought to continue. That was rather a matter of prestige. For my part, I have little sympathy with claims for prestige when I come to the administration of criminal justice. I think the Government are right to introduce a Bill on these lines. When I was Lord Chancellor, and I became disturbed about the position in Liverpool and Manchester I had many discussions with the Lord Chief Justice at the time, but we agreed to hold our hands because it was an exceptional time, just after the war, and see how matters developed. But we both had in mind that we might appoint a court constituted rather on the lines set out here. I think later experience has shown that this solution is the right one.

I want to say a word or two about the accommodation of the courts. I am by no means satisfied, from what I hear from the judges, about the available accommodation at Manchester and Liverpool. I am sure we should all agree that justice must be administered in suitable places and in suitable surroundings. At one of the courts to which I have been—I forget now whether it is Manchester or Liverpool—the judge finds himself sitting on a sort of concert platform. The piano is for the time being pushed to one side and the judge sits in most inconvenient surroundings—surroundings which I think are not seemly for the administration of justice. I should like, therefore, to ask the Lord Chancellor this question, for I am a little frightened in this connection. I think it is for the corporations of Manchester and Liverpool to provide the accommodation. Is there any risk, when this Bill has been passed, that they will rest on their oars and do nothing about it? At Manchester, I happen to know, the accommodation is thoroughly unsatisfactory at the present time. There are plans, which some of the judges have seen, to build new courts, but they are only plans at the present time. However, if and when the new premises are built, I understand that the arrangements will be satisfactory. I am not familiar with the administration of justice in the North generally, but I understand that at Liverpool a good deal is still to be desired in the way of accommodation. I beg the Lord Chancellor to use his influence, not only to see that he has sufficient judge power at the time and on the spot in order to ensure that there is no delay in dealing with criminal cases—incidentally once the criminal cases are cleared there is then time for the civil work—but also to see that justice is administered in suitable surroundings, in suitable conditions. I think that is a most important point to bear in mind.

For the rest, as I say, I approve of this Bill. I should like to say a word or two about the Miscellaneous Amendments of Part II. Here, again, I think they are useful. With regard to Clause 12, I am afraid I have rather forgotten the procedure. I remember that it used to be a matter of some anxiety in my days when one considered whether or not a recorder should have extended jurisdiction. It meant that he would have the right to try cases of more serious crimes, and therefore put on him the responsibility, possibly, of passing more severe sentences. If we are going to confer on him that power we want to be sure that he has the necessary training and experience to undertake the work. I remember that I had to consider that question. What is the position to-day? I am not quite sure. I should like the Lord Chancellor to tell me, if he will—because he has been working recently on this question and I have not—whether there is any danger that people without any legal qualifications at all may be placed in a position where they may have to try cases of serious crimes involving serious sentences. I think the House would like to be told whether there is any risk of that, because I think it is not right that that should be so. It is hardly fair to the man without legal experience who finds himself in the position where he has to try cases of crimes of this sort. I am not saying that there is any danger of that kind; I am merely asking for a reassurance from the noble and learned Viscount which I think the House would like to have.

With regard to Clause 13, in my term of office as Lord Chancellor I certainly had great difficulty in two or three cases where I found that I had no right to ask for the retirement of a recorder. I will not mention names and places, but there were two or three who had been very good people but who had definitely passed the time of life when they could do their work efficiently, and in those cases I found myself unable to secure their removal. I am glad to see that the Lord Chancellor can retire a man for inability, but that is tin invidious and unpleasant duty to undertake. It is much better to have a time limit which can be extended, so that a man goes automatically without any action by the Lord Chancellor which I know he would much dislike having to take. What happens to the existing recorders at Liverpool and Manchester? Are they automatically continued as recorders under this Bill or do they notionally vacate their offices so as to make it possible for the Lord Chancellor to appoint whom he thinks best qualified and best suited of the candidates?

In regard to Clause 14, which deals with the appointment of a deputy during a vacancy, I should like to ask what the position is if a recorder is temporarily ill or unable to sit. I think I am right in saying that at the present time he has the right to appoint his own deputy, but I believe there is some difficulty about the length of time for which he can appoint a deputy. Some recorders have talked to me about this matter, and have indicated that it needs consideration, and I should be grateful if the noble arid learned Viscount would say something about it. That is all 1 have to say on the Bill. Of course, we shall reserve to ourselves the right to examine it in Committee, but, so far as the general principle is concerned, I believe the Bill is on the right lines. I congratulate the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor on bringing it in, and we shall certainly do all we can, after due consideration, to see that this Bill, or something very like it, becomes the law of the land.

3.54 p.m.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, when a Lord Chancellor and a very distinguished ex-Lord Chancellor unite in praising a Bill, there is little an ordinary Member of the House can say. Therefore, I will content myself by asking one or two questions. It appears that the origin of this Bill was a representation by the Lord Chief Justice that business had been congested in the area of Manchester and Liverpool, presumably for some time. Thereupon, apparently not relying entirely on the report of the Lord Chief Justice, a departmental committee was set up to make inquiries. It is as the result of these inquiries that this Bill has been introduced. By the time it becomes law, it will be about three years from the time when the departmental committee was set up. As these things go, that is not bad going. I have known departmental committee reports take very much longer to translate themselves into legislation. But the evil that this Bill is designed to remedy has been going on for very much longer than three years, and it strikes one as a rather cumbersome business if, whenever we find that legal business is congested in any part of the country, it should have to go through this long business, with all the pressure in finding a place in the legislation queue, to which both noble and learned Lords have referred.

The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is to be congratulated on having got in pretty quickly; but he might have had to wait. One wonders whether this is really the best way of handling the congestion of business throughout the country. I presume, from its long title, that this Bill refers only to Liverpool and Manchester and could not be extended to any other part of the country, yet the general impression is that there is considerable congestion elsewhere also. The noble and learned Viscount referred to Birmingham and Leeds; I have been told that there is congestion in Swansea and Cardiff, and it may be that there is in other places. Have we to go through all this business of the Lord Chief Justice taking note, a departmental committee being set up, and then taking the chance of legislation, before a state of affairs which we all know is undesirable and rotten can be remedied? It may be that nothing else can be done. But I should be glad if the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor could count on the possibility of a much more speedy method, and a much more certain one, of dealing with this evil than the one we have been fortunate enough to secure in this case.

I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount this further question. Is there not a method of temporarily relieving the pressure by administrative means? The noble and learned Viscount referred to part-time recorders. Is it not possible to appoint a number of part-time recorders, temporarily if you like, to deal with the pressure? I speak as a practitioner. I know what an immense hardship it is to litigants to have to wait a year, eighteen months, or even two years, from the time they commence proceedings to the time they get a hearing. I believe that at the moment the position is rather better in London, but this delay has existed for some time; and it is a very great hardship and a great deterrent to people who might wish to enter into litigation. So many of them cannot afford to wait all this time and are forced into unfavourable settlements by people who, if they so desire, can hold out indefinitely.

That is all I would say on the general framework of the Bill, but I should like to ask one or two questions on Clauses 13 and 16. I noticed that whereas under Clause 13 the recorder of a borough who is appointed after the coming into operation of this Bill is required to retire at the age of 72, apparently this does not apply to stipendiary magistrates under Clause 16, whereas the existing stipendiary can be required to retire at the age of 72. Is there any reason for this difference in treatment? I should have thought that what was sauce for the recorder goose would be equally sauce for the stipendiary magistrate gander. Let them both retire automatically at 72, whether the appointments are existing appointments or appointments made after the passing of this Act. Why treat one differently from the other?

Then I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack what he understands by the words in Clause 13, which authorises him, where he considers it desirable in the public interest to extend a recorder' service up to the age of 75. I cannot see in what circumstances it would be necessary to extend the period "in the public interest." Nobody is irreplaceable, and I should have thought that no stipendiary magistrate or recorder would be irreplaceable at the age of 72. In my experience, it has not always been satisfactory to have this provision for extending the period of appointments. I have often found that "the public interest" really meant giving the holder of an office an opportunity of qualifying for a pension, or some other purpose of that kind. It has been not so much in the public interest as in the interest of the individual concerned. I should be interested to know how the Lord Chancellor interprets "the public interest" in a case of this kind.

Lastly, I would make this comment. This is a miscellaneous Bill, at any rate, in its second Part, and I much regret that it has not been found possible, even now, to deal with the question of the salaries of stipendiary magistrates. I know that this Bill deals with the administration of criminal justice and therefore could not deal with the county court judges. In my view, these two most important judicial officers, stipendiary magistrates and county court judges, are hopelessly underpaid, and we are failing to attract the right type of barrister to both of them. I would not wish to say one word against the existing holders of these offices. Many of them were recruited when times were better and when the salary offered was not unattractive; but to-day, with the decrease in the value of money, many of these holders of judgeships and magistrateships are suffering real hardship. They have a position to maintain in their own locality and generally, and they find it exceedingly difficult. Since Parliament has thought fit to raise the salary of High Court Judges to £8,000 a year—a proposal which I supported, as I believe everyone in this House did—I feel that we should do rather better than we are doing for the stipendiary magistrates and county court judges, who, presumably, as I have said, could not have been dealt with in this Bill. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has not closed his mind to the possibility of doing something for these hopelessly underpaid judicial officers.

4.4 p.m.

LORD CHORLEY

It must have given the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack great plea sure to introduce a Bill which was of such importance to the northern circuit, of which he was such an outstanding member for so many years. As a humble member of the circuit, I should like to congratulate him on his Bill. I would point out that the famous Lord Chancellor who moved the Bill conferring extended jurisdiction upon the London Court of Quarter Sessions—which we now know as the Central Criminal Court—was also a distinguished member of the same circuit, a circuit which has produced, I think, the most eminent advocates and judges of any circuit in the country.

EARL JOWITT

Come, come!

LORD CHORLEY

I am sure that other noble Lords who are ornaments of other circuits would wish to challenge that statement, and I shall be glad to argue it with them in the Library on a suitable occasion.

I am sure that this Bill will be most welcome to the people in Lancashire and Cheshire, upon whom the burden of not having their criminal cases handled promptly has been only too evident during the last years. This Bill will make a tremendous difference to the position, and the Government are to be congratulated on putting it forward so early in their programme. The only feeling I have about the Bill is that it is rather a pity the problem over the whole country has not been dealt with at the same time. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is right when he says that, while the situation in Lancashire and Cheshire may be worse than elsewhere, it is certainly bad in other parts of the country. I hope that this Bill, in effect, is preliminary to a survey of the situation throughout England.

The circuit system, which undoubtedly in its day was a tremendous contribution to the administration of justice, both criminal and civil, has, I feel, been rather "clanking" now for a number of years. It does not provide the eminent judges who go on circuit with the best conditions under which to work. It undoubtedly Wastes a great deal of time. While there has been a certain improvement as a result of committees which have investigated the matter during the years since the end of the First World War, I believe that, if the matter were gone into carefully, it would be clear that the judges do riot work under the best conditions, and that a great deal of time is wasted as they go about from one town to another, at a time when the services of these eminent lawyers ought not to be wasted in that way. Difficult cases come up for decision on circuit, both in the criminal and in the civil courts, and judges just have not the opportunity of delivering an authoritative judgment of the kind which can be delivered by a judge who works in London, where he has his own library, his own room, and is well situated. I have frequently known of cases where judges on circuit have, in effect, transferred the argument to London, which, from the point of view of the judge, has no doubt enabled him to give a much more satisfactory judgment but has probably rather embarrassed the counsel in the case.

Has not the time come when we should have permanent courts of High Court jurisdiction provincially situated? I believe that this country is the only one of the great countries of the world in which justice at the highest level is still so centralised. It seems to me—and I have been a student of this matter for a long time, and have been on various committees which have considered it—that it is time we had in the great provincial cities of this country permanently established courts with the same jurisdiction as the High Court of Justice, both in criminal and in civil affairs. If the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, could see his way to appoint a committee, or perhaps to advocate to the Government that a Royal Commission should be appointed, to go into this matter, I am sure that it would be of great service to legal reform in this country. As it happens, Lancashire is the one county in which there is something that is almost the equivalent of a Division of the High Court of Justice, in that the Chancellor's Court of the Duchy of Lancaster, which is presided over by the Vice-Chancellor, has full jurisdiction in equity cases, and a succession of Vice-Chancellors of great eminence have established the prestige and authority of that Court at a high level. I am quite sure that there is need for the same sort of thing in the other great provincial cities, and I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will eventually see his way to make a survey, or to appoint a committee which can make a survey, in order to have this matter put right.

LORD REA

My Lords, I should just like formally from these Benches to say how much we welcome this Bill. I should not for a moment, as a layman, dare to enter the lists with noble Lords whose occupation is a pursuit of the law, since part of my own occupation is trying not to give occasion for the law to pursue me. This Bill obviously has the general approval of your Lordships' House and we owe particular thanks to the present Lord Chancellor, to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simonds, to the Lord Chief Justice and to the previous Home Secretary—four eminent lights of the law, to all three of whom, if I may so put it, I am sure we owe particular gratitude.

4.12 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I am grateful for the words that have been spoken by those of your Lordships who have contributed to the debate, and especially for the kind contribution that the Leader of the Liberal Party has just made. Although he says he does not aspire to any legal knowledge, he has a great knowledge of Liverpool, as he and I know well, and I was glad that he thought it right to say the words that he did.

I want to deal with the points that have been made because they are points of considerable importance, and I will try to answer them. I am just as alive as the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, to the difficulties of accommodation. It has worried me a great deal. All noble Lords, especially those who have been Ministers themselves, know the great difficulty there has been with regard to resources during the last few years. But I could not agree more strongly with the noble and learned Earl about the necessity for having good and dignified surroundings for the administration of justice. I have myself, when I was Home Secretary, had to consider the problem from the point of view not only of assize courts and magistrates courts, but especially of children's courts, and I think it is a serious problem. I assure the noble and learned Earl that I shall do everything I can to see that the work goes forward. He is quite right that the plans exist for new courts at Manchester. I am bound to say—it would not be frank to say anything else—that it will be a matter of years, but I hope that everyone concerned will approach the problem in the spirit which the noble and learned Earl has shown in his remarks, with which I profoundly agree.

The noble and learned Earl wanted a reassurance that no recorder would abuse the extended powers or deal with more serious cases when he was not qualified. May I just remind the noble and learned Earl of the position? Originally, as he will remember, there were a great number of small recorderships. Of course, the statutory qualification had to be fulfilled; but when it was a case of a recorder who, in the old days that he and I remember so well, was constantly receiving white gloves—that was because there were no prisoners at all at his sessions—the question of his qualifications was perhaps not so important as in other cities and boroughs. But since these very small recorderships have gone, those that are left—even those for towns under 50,000—are, as the noble and learned Earl knows, the subject of grave consideration before a recorder is appointed. I should like to assure him—and I cannot put my ambitions any higher—that I try to give the same weighty consideration to appointments of that kind as that which he gave when he was in the place that I now occupy. Therefore I do not think he need fear that anyone will get these extended powers who is unfit properly to exercise them.

I think what the noble and learned Earl had in mind—because it was something that was in the recesses of my mind before I studied the proposals of this Bill—is that under the existing law a recorder has power to form only one additional court, and an assistant recorder cannot be paid for more than six days' work at each sessions. That has had the result that recorders have to do more work than they should be reasonably called upon to do, and the assistant recorder has, to my own knowledge, had to do work without any remuneration at all. That is the problem with which I have tried to deal in Clause 15. That clause will enable recorders, if the borough council approve, to form more than one additional court, and assistant recorders to be reasonably remunerated. The clause will also enable the assistant recorders to sit when the recorder is not sitting. It is a small point, but I think it is one which—as obviously in the noble and learned Earl's recollection—has jarred all recorders for a long time, and I thought it was right to deal with it.

With regard to the general point which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin raised, about dealing with delays of this kind, I should first like to make it clear that, because this Bill puts forward one proposal, it does not mean that administrative methods have been neglected in the past few years. I should like briefly to tell the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that every possible piece of mechanism as regards assizes—judges returning at the beginning of the next period, judges staying on and the arrangement of business—has been used, and, indeed, the improvement in the figures mentioned at the beginning of my speech giving the number of days that have been sat could not have been achieved without (I can say this because it is nothing to do with me) great thought and ingenuity on the part of those responsible for the administration of justice. Equally with regard to quarter sessions. I will not repeat the figures I gave, but the noble Lord will remember the very high figures of the sittings of the Recorder of Liverpool. That was done by the appointment of a man who could give that time so that the delays would be reduced in that way. I should like the noble Lord to believe, as I am convinced is the fact, that every administrative piece of mechanism has been used.

With regard to the question of congestion in the other places, I have not had it reported to me that there has been congestion to anything like the extent that I have mentioned in Lancashire, but I told your Lordships that there have been some fears that it might come in Leeds and in Birmingham. I have tried myself to deal with the problems of the law's delays by two methods; by the present one which is before the House, namely, dealing with criminal matters where the congestion was worst, and, secondly of course, by the extended jurisdiction of the county courts, which was recommended by the Evershed Committee.

If I may deal with a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, at the same time, because it is a cognate point, I feel that the question of the reorganisation of the High Court is one which would require a great deal of thought and consideration—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, implicitly agreed, because he suggested that I should have the matter inquired into. Naturally, I will consider carefully what he said. I should like, if Parliament passes the County Courts Bill, to see how we get on which that increased jurisdiction, because, of course, there is another side to this question—the visits of judges on the assizes have had a tremendous effect in preserving the dignity and respect of the law. I state that only because it is a point with which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, with his great knowledge of legal history, is familiar. It is the other side of the picture. As I say, it is a very big point which I should like to consider carefully. I should like to study what the noble Lord has said.

The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asked me about the difference in Clauses 13 and 16 between the position of the recorders and Metropolitan stipendiary magistrates. The position is that at the moment all Metropolitan stipendiary magistrates have given undertakings to retire on reaching the age limit, but not all recorders have done so. Therefore the Bill, I think rightly, can relate to all stipendiary magistrates but only to recorders who are appointed after the Bill is passed. I think the Bill rightly leaves existing recorders under the obligation to retire where they have given this undertaking. That is the explanation of that point.

The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, then put a very difficult point to me—namely, how I interpreted "public interest" in these two clauses of this Bill. As he will be aware, for he has a great knowledge of these matters, the phrase is taken from the County Courts Act and has been in existence for a long time. I do not want, by anything I say, to prejudice the complete discretion which every Lord Chancellor ought to have in interpreting these words. Therefore I am sure the noble Lord will not be angry with me if I do it by way of example rather than by way of authoritative interpretation.

The sort of example I take is in the field of the county courts, because it is so familiar to the noble Lord. Suppose that someone had been a most efficient chairman of the Rules Committee and that they were in process of dealing with a serious revision of the rules. I do not think anybody would deny that in such a case it would be in the public interest that he should continue to do a certain amount of work. Equally, there is the question sometimes of a judge being in a district which has special problems of population or transition from one period to another. I myself, if that problem were put to me, should be inclined to say that it was in the public interest to retain in office someone who was familiar with the conditions or very much alive to the change. That is the sort of point that one has in mind. As I say, I must be largely personal. I do not know if the noble Lord were to ask the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, whether his views would be the same as mine. But that is the sort of consideration which has weighed with me. It is important that there should be that sort of discretion left. The great thing in legal matters, as in everything else, is never to get into an inflexibility inside which the persons responsible cannot move freely.

The noble Lord also asked me about the question of the salaries of stipendiary magistrates, as he did a month or two ago about the salaries of county court judges. I should like to assure him that, although the matter is not dealt with in the Bill, that problem is very much in my mind. I hope the noble Lord will not press me further, because he is familiar with the way these things are dealt with inside a Government. I assure him that I have that very much in mind. I have already dealt with the major point which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, raised in his interesting speech.

I am sorry to detain your Lordships for so long. It was a great pleasure that another member of the Northern Circuit in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, should think it right to speak. He mentioned Lord Brougham's going on the Northern Circuit in the old days. I am sure many of your Lordships will remember the comment on an appearance of Lord Brougham. I heard that two Lancashire jurors were comparing Brougham and Scarlett. One said: "There is no doubt that the man who can make the speech is Mr. Brougham." The other said: "Well, how is it that Mr. Scarlett always wins?", to which the reply was, "He just gets the easy cases." That, I think, is probably the most damning comment on a great lawyer's lack of success that has probably ever been made. However, I am grateful for the words of the noble Lord.

I only want to say this about the circuit system. I recognise the importance of Lord Chorley's point, but I am sure that he recognises—because we were both trained under that system—how immensely important are the standards of the profession. After all I was a member of a local bar and I think the noble Lord, Lord chorley, was at Manchester. He came up and saw the local bars functioning. They are functioning away from Inns, away from the Temple. In my view, it is essential that there should be an organisation which deals with the second half of a barrister's responsibilities. The first half is to his client; the second half is to the standards of his profession. Apart from many happier aspects which we both remember, I think that that aspect of the circuit system has been of immense benefit to the country, but again it is raising a big problem. I should like to assure the noble Lord that I will consider it with the other points. I can only apologise to your Lordships if I have taken so much of your time, but the noble and learned Lords raised such interesting points that I felt I must try to deal with them. I hope that I have done so adequately.

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