COUNTY COURT JUDGES (MAXIMUM NUMBER) ORDER 1969 (Hansard, 19 June 1969)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER)

My Lords, I beg to move, That the Draft County Court Judges (Maximum Number) Order 1969, laid before this House on May 15, be approved. After the most interesting discussion which the House has had on the very interesting and important Children and Young Persons Bill this is a much lesser matter, and I shall not detain the House for more than a very few minutes.

The Order is made under section 1 of the Administration of Justice Act 1968, which provided that further increases in the maximum number of county court judges might be made by Order in Council subject to Affirmative Resolution of both Houses. The purpose of the present Order is to increase the maximum number of county court judges from 97 to 105. The number at present in post is 97, so this would mean an increase of eight, of whom it would be proposed to appoint three in the near future.

My Lords, in two respects the figures are perhaps a little deceptive. In the first place, I have been asked by the Government of Uganda whether I could arrange for one or perhaps two county court judges to be appointed for, in the first place, a term of two years to their High Court Bench. It is of course clear that in some of the newly independent countries it will take time until they have African lawyers of sufficient experience for appointment to the Bench, or at all events enough of them; and it seemed to me that this was obviously a matter in which we should help the Commonwealth to the best of our ability. With the assistance of the Treasury and the Ministry of Overseas Development, for whose assistance I am very much obliged, one county court judge has already volunteered for this position and has gone out 1214 and is now acting as a High Court Judge in Uganda. If I am required to find a second I will see whether I can do so.

The second point upon which the figures are a little deceptive is this. It was the policy of my noble and learned predecessor, with which I am in wholehearted agreement, that, other things being equal, it is not a good thing to have too many people doing nothing but trying criminal cases day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. So he started, mainly in Lancashire, by getting the county court judges to help for part of the time as Commissioners in the Crown Courts or as deputy chairmen of quarter sessions. I have continued that practice and extended it in London. The present position is that all the work in both Manchester and Liverpool Crown Courts is done, apart from the Recorders, by county court judges who do their civil work for six months of the year and then sit as Commissioners for six months of the year.

Over recent years I have done the same thing in London. Where a deputy chairman of quarter sessions retires, instead of appointing another deputy chairman, I have added a county court judge, sometimes on terms of doing six months on civil cases and six months on criminal cases, sometimes on terms varying between one and three months a year. The result is that there are now 24 county court judges taking part in this work in London. The work they do is the equivalent of ten—six in London and four in Lancashire. If I had not done this, we should have had to appoint ten more deputy chairmen of quarter sessions; but as the remuneration is the same in both cases it comes to the same thing.

The work of the county courts is increasing. In 1966 the number of ordinary cases heard was 29,888; in 1967 it was 32,567. and in 1968 it was 33,978. Undefended divorce cases have also increased, from 36,778 in 1966 to 42,298 in 1967 and to 45,527 in 1968. Perhaps as good a test as any as to whether there are enough judges is the number of occasions on which I have to appoint deputies—and of course this will always be the case to some extent. It would be uneconomic to have judges in reserve in case others become ill, but the more judges we have, the more illness there 1215 is liable to be. Only yesterday I heard that a county court judge had suddenly developed acute appendicitis. But we have too many deputies. In 1966 it was necessary to appoint deputies on 587 occasions, in 1967 on 811 occasions and in 1968 on 1,000 occasions. This is too many.

One must look ahead in asking the House to agree to a maximum figure. This is not at all easy, because there are various factors to be taken into account. On the one hand, a factor showing that there is likely to he an increase is the provision of the current Administration of Justice Bill, which will increase the jurisdiction of the county courts from £500 to £750. On the other hand, under the same Bill there will be power to extend the jurisdiction of registrars from £30 to £75, which will relieve the judges. Then (although I have not relied on this) I must bear in mind that if the Divorce Reform Bill now before the House is passed it is likely, judging by the experience of Australia and New Zealand, to lead to a substantial increase for one or two years in applications for divorce. On the other hand. if and when we can implement the recommendations of the Payne Committee abolishing imprisonment for debt, that again will reduce the work-load. All I can do is to provide a figure which I believe to be both realistic and reasonable, and on the whole I think that this increase to 105 seems to be reasonable.

The Order has already had an Affirmative Resolution in another place. I gather that the only doubt expressed there was whether 105 was large enough. The Special Orders Committee of your Lordships' House have reported: That the Draft Order does not raise important questions of policy or principle; 1216 That it is not founded on precedent in that it is the first exercise of the powers conferred by section 1(2) of the Administration of Justice Act 1968; That in the opinion of the Committee the Draft Order can be passed by the House without special attention. My Lords, I beg to move.