HOUSE OF COMMONS
Fourth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation
DRAFT MAXIMUM NUMBER OF JUDGES ORDER 1996
Thursday 28 March 1996
Members who wish to have copies of the Official Report of Proceedings in Standing Committees sent to them are requested to give notice to that effect at the Vote Office.
No proofs can be supplied. Corrigenda slips may be published with Bound Volume editions. Corrigenda that Members suggest should be clearly marked in a copy of the report—not telephoned—and must be received in the Editor's Room, House of Commons.
not later than
Tuesday 2 April 1996
STRICT ADHERENCE TO THIS ARRANGEMENT WILL GREATLY FACILITATE THE PROMPT PUBLICATION OF THE BOUND VOLUMES OF PROCEEDINGS IN STANDING COMMITTEES
© Parliamentary copyright House of Commons 1996
Applications for reproduction should be made to HMSO
|HMSO publications are available from:|
|HMSO Publications Centre||HMSO Bookshops||The Parliamentary Bookshop|
|(Mail and telephone orders only)||49 High Holborn, London WCIV 6HB (Counter service only)||12 Bridge Street, Parliament Square,|
|PO Box 276, London SW8 5DT||0171 873 0011 Fax 0171 831 1326||London SW1A 2JX|
|Telephone orders 0171 873 9090||68–69 Bull Street, Birmingham B4 6AD 0121 236 9696 Fax 0121 236 9699||Telephone orders 0171 219 3890|
|General enquiries 0171 873 0011||33 Wine Street, Bristol BSI 2BQ 0117 926 4306 Fax 0117 929 4515||General enquiries 0171 219 3890|
|(queuing system for both numbers in operation)||9–21 Princess Street, Manchester M60 8AS 0161 834 7201 Fax 0161 833 0634||Fax orders 0171 219 3866|
|16 Arthur Street, Belfast BTI 4GD 01232 238451 Fax 01232 235401|
|Fax orders 0171 873 8200||71 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH3 9AZ 0131 228 4181 Fax 0131 229 2734||HMSO's Accredited Agents|
|The HMSO Oriel Bookshop, The Friary, Cardiff CFI 4AA, 01222 395548||(see Yellow Pages)|
|Fax 01222 384347||and through good booksellers|
|Printed in the United Kingdom by HMSO|
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chairman: SIR JOHN HUNT
Boateng, Mr. Paul (Brent, South)
Carlile Mr. Alex (Montgomery)
Davies, Mr. Quentin (Stamford and Spalding)
Eagle, Ms. Angela (Wallasey)
Evans, Mr. Jonathan (Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department)
Hunt, Mr. David (Wirral, West)
Jopling, Mr. Michael (Westmorland and Lonsdale)
Livingstone, Mr. Ken (Brent, East)
Luff, Mr. Peter (Worcester)
Mackinlay, Mr. Andrew (Thurrock)
MacShane, Mr. Denis (Rotherham)
Mullin, Mr. Chris (Sunderland South)
Powell, Mr. William (Corby)
Sedgemore, Mr. Brian (Hackney, South and Shoreditch)
Shaw, Mr. David (Dover)
Smith, Mr. Tim (Beaconsfield)
Streeter, Mr. Gary (Plymouth, Sutton)
Touhig, Mr. Don (Islwyn)
Viggers, Mr. Peter (Gosport)
Mr. E. P. Silk, Committee Clerk2 3 Fourth Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation Thursday 28th March 1996
[SIR JOHN HUNT in the Chair]
The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr Jonathan Evans): I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Maximum Number of Judges Order 1996. This is the first occasion on which I have had the pleasure of addressing a Committee under your chairmanship, Sir John. The order raises the statutory ceiling for Lords Justices to 35. Members of the Committee will recall that the Maximum Number of Judges Order 1994 increased the maximum numberof judges in the Court of Appeal from 29 to 32. The Lord Chancellor said at that time that he thought that the three extra appointments would prove sufficient to deal with the increasing work load, but that he would keep the situation closely under review. During the past year, the situation in the civil division of the Court of Appeal has worsened. The number of outstanding appeals has risen from 1,618 to 1,833 in the legal year to September 1995. As a result, waiting times in the court have continued to lengthen. Priority is given to child cases and other appeals which need to be heard urgently, but other non-priority appeals such as from the chancery or Queen's bench divisions can expect to wait an average 18 to 20 months for a hearing. Measures have been introduced during the past year to help to reduce delays, such as an extension of the leave to appeal filter and fixed time limits for oral arguments. The early signs are, however, that those alone will not solve the problems, particularly in the short term. The need to maintain the progress that has been achieved in the past year in stabilising the waiting times in the Court of Appeal criminal division means that it will not be possible to reduce sittings in the criminal division to provide relief for the civil division. The Lord Chancellor considers the current level of delays in the civil division to be unacceptable and does not believe that he can wait to see the full benefit of the measures that have been taken in the past 12 months before taking further action. He has therefore agreed with the Master of the Rolls that the only viable long-term option is for there to be a review of the appellant procedure for the civil division. The review will start within two months of the publication of the report of Lord Woolf's review of the civil courts, which is likely 4 to be in late July or August, and it is expected that its terms of reference will be announced by the end of April. The Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls agree that the difficulties in the civil division cannot be overcome by the repeated enlargement of the Bench. The Lord Chancellor is, however, anxious to provide some immediate relief to help to stem the rising number of outstanding appeals in the civil division and has, therefore, concluded that three additional Lords Justices should be appointed as soon as possible.
Mr. Paul Boateng (Brent, South): The review of the appellate procedure in the civil division is particulary welcome. Delay is all too often a cause of injustice and anything that deals with the current logjam in the Court of Appeal is be welcomed. Labour Members give the order our unreserved support. There is a continuing anxiety that, as the work load in the Court of Appeal and for the judiciary generally increases, there needs to be a review, not only of procedure but of the infrastructure under which, and in the context of which, judges carry out their function. One thinks particularly of administrative and secretarial assistance, which is unsatisfactory, and also of the potential use and availability of information technology. I hope that those matters will be taken into account by the Department in the review of procedure, because procedure cannot be divorced from the context in which judicial decisions are made or from the administration of the Court Service. With that, we give the order a welcome and wish it well. We are glad that it came to the Committee.
Mr. Jonathan Evans: I am pleased that the honourable Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) welcomed the order and the review that has been announced by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. A significant amount of additional administrative support has been given to the judiciary during the past 12 months, but I am aware of the views expressed by the Master of the Rolls, who thinks that steps along American lines—introducing more skilled legal assistance for the judiciary—should perhaps be taken. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor said when the order was being discussed in the other place that that will be part of the review, which the Committee will welcome. I hope that the Committee will feel that the order makes a significant improvement to the current situation and addresses an immediate problem. I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Maximum Number of Judges Order 1996.
Committee rose at twenty-five minutes to Eleven o'clock.5
THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS ATTENDED THE COMMITTEE:
Hunt, Sir John (Chairman)
Davies, Mr. Quentin
Evans, Mr. Jonathan
Hunt, Mr. David
Smith, Mr. Tim