House of Commons Hansard Debates for 11 Feb 1993

Column 1177

at the hands of the judges. We want more of that, which is one reason why we welcome the increase in the complement of the Court of Appeal.

We want the Government to be subjected to the most rigorous scrutiny in terms of the exercise of their powers. It may be uncharitable, but we cannot help suspecting that their tardiness in regard to the appointment of judges--be it to the Court of Appeal or to the High Court--is linked to a disinclination to strengthen the hands of the judiciary. That is well demonstrated by their repeated failure to respond to the demand for an increase in numbers in the higher judiciary, and accounts for their presentation of an order that proposes an increase of only one to the complement of judges in the Court of Appeal.

We want the Minister to say that he will keep under constant review the number of judges in the Court of Appeal and the court's need for resources. We hope that the court will not have to wait for the valedictory utterances of the current Master of the Rolls to secure another increase of one.

The workings of the Lord Chancellor's Department should be made more public than they have been to date : the Department is a relatively new constitutional creation in its current form, with a House of Commons Minister having responsibility. We want to hear and see more of it ; we want its workings to be more publicly revealed, in accordance with the spirit of the citizens charter. We are even happy to see more exposure for the Minister : indeed, the more he was exposed, the more I would welcome it, because the more we examine the Government's approach to the whole issue of civil and criminal justice, the less satisfactory it is revealed to be.

What is so disturbing is the fact that the Government seem to be immune to reasoned, objective criticism. It is worth referring, albeit briefly, to the debate in the other place, which was initiated by Lord Irvine of Lairg on 22 October last year. On that occasion, judge after judge, retired judge after retired judge, and noble and learned Lord after noble and learned Lord rose to refer to the insufficiency of the higher judiciary. At the end of the debate, after a series of distinguished contributions, the Lord Chancellor was asked a direct question by Lord Irvine of Lairg : did he or did he not

"accept that there is a clear and present need for more High Court judges?" --[ Official Report, House of Lords, 22 October 1992 : Vol. 539, c. 897.]

The Lord Chancellor replied at some length, saying that he believed that it was necessary to provide a basis for the answer to that question, and that he expected the review that was currently under way to do so.

We want the Minister to state unequivocally that that review will soon be completed, that its findings will be published in full and that all the resources needed by judges involved in the review will be provided. We also want to hear that the Government will accept the review's findings. Having prayed in aid the existence of the review for so long, for the Government then to say that once its findings are known, not only will they not be bound by them, but they do not intend to publish them, would result in their losing all credibility.

At a time of crisis in the judicial system, when there is open dissention between the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor about the sufficiency of judicial numbers, the public are entitled to a clear and unequivocal reassurance on the issue. We intend to ensure that they receive that reassurance.

Column 1178

8 pm

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : I apologise to the Minister for my late arrival, but I was caught on the wrong foot because I thought that the debate was starting a little later. I am glad that the Minister is likely to reply as he will have an opportunity to consider the few remarks that I want to make. It is a definite step in the right direction for a junior Minister to be present to answer such a debate. All too often in the past there has been no direct accountability in the House, and I gladly acknowledge that step tonight. However, the subject that we are debating--the adequacy of the establishment of judges in the Court of Appeal--is of great importance, and it is not wholly satisfactory that there is no Cabinet member to answer the debate. In saying that, I cast no reflection on the Minister, whose personal credentials are held in high regard.

However, the constitutional arrangements are unsatisfactory. They confine to another place the Minister of Justice, in this country. He has the anomalous role of presiding over debates in another place and, from that position, making the appointments to the Bench and overseeing what we have by way of a Ministry of Justice, with responsibility for the state of the statute book and the state of law reform in this country. That anomaly can be corrected only by the appointment of a Minister of Justice who is a politically accountable and fully fledged Cabinet Minister elected to the House of Commons. Until then, I fear that such issues such as the one that we are discussing tonight will not be given the attention that they deserve. In the eyes of judiciary, such issues are clearly of great importance.

It has not been common in the past to find senior members of the judiciary who are openly critical of the Government in terms of the manner in which they have discharged their responsibility for the administration of justice. However, on the issue of appointments to the Bench, judges have been speaking out with a clarity which betrays the urgency of the matter.

The proposal that we are discussing may seem modest--it augments the Court of Appeal by one appointment. Indeed, considered in the light of the remarks--to which the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) has already alluded--of Lord Chief Justice Taylor and others, about the under- provision in the higher reaches of the judiciary in this country, it is a modest development. The most notable speech was that made by Lord Chief Justice Taylor in the Dimbleby lecture, when he said that the judicial deficit was denying access to justice. The modest proposal before us does not meet that deficit.

The Court of Appeal is often augmented by judges from the High Court bench who sit for specific appointments and cases. That may be regarded as an inevitable and not wholly desirable illustration of the shortages, which the provision will by no means make good. The consequence of High Court judges augmenting the Court of Appeal in that ad hoc way ripples through the judicial system. Those judges have, in turn, to be replaced on the bench, thus contributing to the problems of the High Court. Therefore, in dealing with the proposal for one additional appointment, we must not overlook the fact that the issues are closely interrelated.

The evidence shows that expedition in the discharge of justice is being hampered by the shortage of senior judges. That is a matter of the greatest concern. I have no doubt

Column 1179

of the Lord Chancellor's interest in the appointment of judges. He has always made it plain that he attaches the highest importance to the appointment of judges of a suitable calibre. He devotes much personal attention to ensuring that that aspect of his duties is fully discharged, and there is general admiration for some of his more recent appointments to the higher roles. I am happy to acknowledge the distinction of those appointments to the Court of Appeal and other senior courts of the realm. However, the Lord Chancellor's job goes beyond choosing suitable men and women for those senior positions. The Lord Chancellor must also ensure that there are adequate numbers on the bench to discharge judicial functions.

It has not been uncommon for judges openly to comment on such matters. Perhaps the recognition of the separate nature of their role and their natural reluctance to enter the political cockpit is not only understandable, but desirable. The distinction between the judiciary, and the Executive and the legislature, although not reflected in a written constitution--as it might be, and indeed is, in most countries--is one that we would do well to retain. However, when the line is crossed by the judges themselves as it has been recently--we must recognise that a penumbra of discontent and anxiety lies behind that action. We are entitled to ask exactly what representations have been made by the judiciary about the numbers that they would consider necessary to ensure that there is no backlog of cases and that justice is not being denied.

The issue of a review has already been mentioned in the debate. We want to know how speedily it will be concluded and what evidence has been presented. One of the great anxieties about the judicial system--it is germane to the order--is the evidence of a further escalation of the costs of the judicial system, particularly legal aid. We are not debating legal aid today, but there is no doubt that the escalation of unit costs--which has, in turn, caused a rise in legal aid costs--is due to the number of judges available to hear cases. Many cases have to be adjourned because there are not sufficient judges to hear them. That has resulted in gross inefficiencies as well as the denial of justice. That was led in evidence to the Public Accounts Committee as recently as last week. We are not talking about something abstract. It is not a matter of plucking numbers out of the air and saying that a certain number of additional judges would be appropriate to meet the problem. These are serious and hard questions, which must be answered by the responsible Department of State. We are entitled to know what evidence it has, and why it has taken such an extraordinarily small step. The appointment of one more judge to the Court of Appeal will have only the most modest impact on the High Court, where it appears that the worst problem exists, and would appear to go only a small way to meeting the anxieties so openly expressed by the most senior judges in the realm.

8.11 pm

Mr. John M. Taylor : It is gracious of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) to acknowledge the ministerial post that I am doing my best to discharge. He merely addresses a truism when he says that the responsible Cabinet Minister is in the other place. My recent visits to that other place to listen to debates left

Column 1180

me with the clear impression that there is no shortage of strongly held opinions on these matters in that House as well as in this. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland is right to say that expedition is the friend of justice, just as delay is its enemy. I would not concede to him, however, that expedition in judicial matters resides exclusively in judge numbers. There are many other factors, and these are urgently exercising both the Lord Chancellor and his Department. There is a wish to improve the judicial process and to simplify it. Those matters are exercising the Runciman commission, which I understand is due to report later this year. It will note that its findings are to be most closely studied by the hon. Gentleman.

The hon. Gentleman will know this, I think, but I remind him that the hearing of criminal appeals has always fallen to High Court judges. Before the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1908, the Court of Crown Cases Reserved would consider appeals arising from points of law. That was done en bloc, with all High Court Queen's Bench division judges sitting. The Lord Chief Justice would preside. The Court of Criminal Appeal succeeded the Court of Crown Cases Reserved, and in 1966 the Court of Criminal Appeal was replaced by the Court of Appeal criminal division. It was felt that the Queen's Bench judges sitting therein would benefit from the chairmanship of the Lord Justice in each court. There is therefore no novelty in High Court judges participating in the affairs of the Court of Appeal. I now direct my remarks more particularly to the speech of the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng).

Mr. Maclennan : Before the Minister does that, I think that he will acknowledge that the Supreme Court Act 1981 makes specific and explicit provision for the appointment of judges and others to sit in courts on an ad hoc and temporary basis. It appears that that temporariness has been extended considerably to the point at which it is even being questioned whether what is being done is within the scope of the 1981 Act. It is extremely questionable whether appointments are any longer to be regarded as temporary.

Mr. Taylor : I shall have more to say about the strength of the appeal bench. Although all of us who have mentioned the matter may have risked the attentions of the Chair, I shall try to say in what I hope will be germane remarks a word or two about High Court judges, even though the order does not strictly relate to that section of the judiciary.

The Opposition's general concern to maintain our system of justice in good order is shared by the Government--hence the review of High Court judges' work, deployment and numbers. They are inevitably a scarce resource. We intend to ensure, however, that there are enough of them and that their skills are carefully husbanded. I think that we have the good will of all interested parties in taking that line. I say, slightly reproachfully, that it would be improper to suggest that the Lord Chancellor would seek to weaken judicial manpower for political reasons. If pressed, I do not think that the hon. Member for Brent, South would subscribe to such a suggestion. I hope that he would not--indeed, I am sure he would not. To propose judicial review almost as a substitute for political opposition tells us much more about the Opposition than about judicial review.

Column 1181

Mr. Boateng : The Minister must face the fact that the number of applicants for judicial review has increased from 685 in 1982 to 2, 437 last year. It is no coincidence that, in those 10 years, there has been only one Government in power--a Conservative Government. It is no coincidence also that it has been found that, with a Conservative Government in power, with a working majority, an effective way of challenging the abuses introduced by that Administration has been to use the divisional court. That is not to cast any reproach on the Opposition : it is to take the Government to task and to commend the vigour of the judiciary and the enterprise of the citizen.

Mr. Taylor : The hon. Gentleman knows that judicial review has been a growth industry. The only interesting speculation is whether it would have grown even faster had we had a Labour Government during the relevant years. I say with some satisfaction that that is entirely hypothetical : it did not arise and it does not arise. The hon. Member for Brent, South speaks rightly about the quality of the appeal bench. We have fine traditions and high standards. He asked me, as did the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, whether one additional lord justice was sufficient. One additional lord justice was appointed last month, which made a total of 28. If the order is agreed to, a further lord justice will be appointed soon. An internal report presented in June 1989 recommended that additional lawyers be made available to the civil appeal office. With the assistance of the judiciary, calculations showed that six lawyers could save the time of two lords justices. Five additional lawyers were recruited after April 1990.

The former Master of the Rolls, Lord Donaldson, said in his valedictory speech in July 1992, to which the hon. Member for Brent, South has referred, that he was sure that the predicted saving in judicial time would accrue. The overall result is that, once the further lord justice is appointed, in two years two extra lords justices will have been added to the strength and the time of almost two lords justices released to meet any new work load--in a sense, four net new lords justices.

Mr. Boateng : It is a novel and interesting formula that two lords justices a-sitting equals six lawyers a-scribbling. We must get to the bottom of this. Is the Minister seriously suggesting that the appointment of two Lords Justices is saved by the appointment of six lawyers to the servicing

Column 1182

department? If the Minister maintains that that is the case, I hope--he can have nothing to fear from this--that he will put the basis of that formula and calculation in the Library of the House of Commons so that we can all share in it, inform our legal and judicial brethren as to how they might better organise their time and also reassure the public on that point.

Mr. Taylor : The answer is yes, I do mean what the hon. Gentleman asks whether I meant. I draw my guidance in those comments, which were made in completely good faith and with confidence, from--not least--the last two reports of the Masters of the Rolls on the workings of the Court of Appeal.

As the hon. Gentleman invites me to put some comment into the public domain, I shall do so. We live in a world of scarce resources in every sense and there are many who claim, with every possible best intention, that more resources must be deployed in this, that or the other direction. Meanwhile, the Lord Chancellor has the task. It stays with him. After all the urging, his is the decision. In this, he has responded to calls for more lords justices made by old and new Masters of the Rolls in their annual reviews.

I risk a bare trespass, as others have done, on High Court judges. That there should be sufficient High Court judges is a matter of natural public concern. In recognition of that concern, the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice asked a group of officials and some senior judges to advise them on the work, deployment and numbers of High Court judges. The only comment that I should properly make--I was challenged to make it by the hon. Member for Brent, South--is whether that report will be published. The answer is that the report was to the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. It is a matter for them to decide between them and jointly whether it is to be published--and it will be.

Mr. Boateng : May I have the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to speak again?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris) : No, not tonight. Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Maximum Number of Judges Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.

Column 1183

Judgments

8.24 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor) : I beg to move

That the draft Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 25th January, be approved.

The purpose of the draft order is to make some modifications to the rules which govern the allocation of jurisdiction to the courts of the different parts of the United Kingdom in civil cases. Article 2 deals with cases which have a connection with more than one part of the United Kingdom--for example, where the plaintiff is English and the defendant Scottish. Article 3 deals with the rules of jurisdiction in Scotland.

Our present rules allocating jurisdiction within the United Kingdom are contained in schedule 4 to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 and are based on those in the 1968 Brussels convention. That convention is concerned with jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments as between member states of the EC, and the main purpose of the 1982 Act was to give effect to the convention in the United Kingdom.

The rules on jurisdiction in the Brussels convention have now been modified in various respects--none of the changes is of the greatest significance-- and we have decided that where our rules follow those in the convention they should follow suit with regard to the amendments as well. The power to do that is in section 14 of the 1982 Act. The amendments are technical and we have consulted the legal profession about them. Both the Law Society and the Bar Council have confirmed that the amendments are sensible.

The order makes amendments to schedule 4 in three areas--contracts of employment, related claims concerning a contract, and real property and holiday lettings.

Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : It may save my intervening again if the Minister could say whether the professional organisations in Scotland were consulted and whether the Scottish Law Officers gave their views. They are not represented here tonight.

Mr. Taylor : I invited the Scottish Law Officers to be present if they so wished. All those whom the hon. Gentleman's question implies he hopes were canvassed were so canvassed.

The basic rule of jurisdiction in the Brussels convention is that a defendant must be sued in the country where he is domiciled. In specific types of case, alternatives are offered. Thus, article 5(1) provides that, in contract cases, a defendant may instead be sued in the courts for the place of performance of the contract. The convention said nothing originally about individual contracts of employment. It now contains a provision that the place of performance of such a contract is the country in which the employee habitually carries out his work. If he does not habitually work in any one country, he may choose to sue the employer in the courts for the place of business through which he was engaged.

I see no reason why schedule 4 should not be amended to keep it in line with the Brussels convention in that respect, and the order provides accordingly. It will make it clear that someone from Glasgow, for instance, who works

Column 1184

in Scotland for a company based in London will be able to bring proceedings against the company in a matter relating to his employment in Scotland.

The order also permits a further choice which is given to a plaintiff employee by a new fifth paragraph in article 17 of the Brussels convention. That paragraph invalidates a choice of court agreement in cases concerning a contract of employment unless the agreement was made after the dispute arose. However, it allows an employee, but not an employer, to take advantage of a pre-dispute agreement which confers jurisdiction on a court other than that of the defendant's domicile or that of the place and performance of the contract.

Secondly, new paragraph 4 of article 6 of the Brussels convention provides that where there is both a contract case and a case relating to rights in real property between the same parties, the plaintiff may bring both actions in the country where the property is situated, rather than having to take separate actions in different countries. That is clearly convenient for the parties, and a similar provision has therefore been added to schedule 4.

Finally, the general rule that cases relating to property must be heard in the country where the property is situated has been amended with respect to the particular case of short-term holiday lets. Article 16(1) now confers alternative jurisdiction in such cases on the courts of the defendant's domicile, provided that both the landlord and the tenant are natural persons--that is to say, not companies--and are domiciled in the same country. We agree that this special provision is jusitified. It would mean, for example, that a dispute between two English people over a holiday letting in Scotland would not have to be heard in Scotland if it was more convenient for it to be dealt with in England.

Article 3 of the order amends schedule 8 to the 1982 Act which contains the rules as to jurisdiction within Scotland. Those rules also follow those of the Brussels convention, for the most part, and it is proposed to make the same amendments to them as those which have been made to schedule 4. These amendments also have the support of the legal profession in Scotland.

The changes contained in this order are useful ones which reflect those that have been made to the Brussels convention in the light of experience of its working. As I have said, interested bodies within the legal professions have agreed that they are sensible, and I commend them to the House.

8.32 pm

Mr. Paul Boateng (Brent, South) : The contents of this order are non -contentious. They have been the subject of consultation and are, as the Minister has outlined, broadly welcomed. Having said that, it is interesting to reflect in a little detail on the primary basis of jurisdiction under the convention and to relate that to the schedules referred to in the order.

The primary basis is the domicile of the defendant. Unless an alternative basis of jurisdiction applies, a defendant domiciled in a member state must be sued in the courts of that state. There are, however, several alternative bases of jurisdiction which provide what might be termed non- exorbitant bases of jurisdiction of the type which all courts have traditionally claimed, so that a defendant domiciled in another member state may be sued in the

Column 1185

English court if certain conditions apply. In a contract case, the condition would be that the contract was to be performed here. The Minister has given an example of the impact of the order on contracts of employment and he gave an example of the relevance of the place of work and the place of performance of the contract. Secondly, in a tort case, the defendant, albeit domiciled in another state, may be sued in the English courts if the damage was sustained or the tort was committed here.

Thirdly, and not unimportantly, subject to article 16 of the convention, the defendant has, in certain circumstances outlined in article 16, the option of voluntarily submitting to proceedings here. That is what I wish to speak about.

For many years, the courts of England have been developing a reputation and an area of expertise unparallelled in Europe or, I would go so far as to say, in the world. In 80 per cent. of the cases in the commercial court, one party is foreign ; in 50 per cent. of cases both parties are foreign. The significance of this order to those figures will be obvious to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as it will to the House--as will the concern that exists about the operation of the commercial court and therefore the context in which these orders will be applied.

The commercial court increasingly finds itself unable to operate as it should because of a shortage of High Court judges. That shows the relevance of an issue on which we have touched time and time again during this evening's work : the insufficiency of High Court judges. The importance of exploring this matter in full has dawned on Conservative Members, because leading City institutions are increasingly expressing their concern about the acute shortage of judges in the commercial court, a shortage which has an impact of the issues that are before the House tonight. Bodies such as the stock exchange, the Baltic Exchange, the British Bankers Association, the Grain and Feed Traders Association--not a body that normally comes to the attention of any but a highly specialised section of the public--have expressed their concern about the insufficiency of High Court judges in the commercial court.

I ask hon. Members to imagine what would occur when somebody was seeking to exercise his or her rights under this order. The Minister has referred to the schedule, which deals with holiday lets and with several other contractual cases that are likely to find their way into our courts. What will be the situation in the High Court and commercial court when this order is brought into effect?

Mr. Justice Saville gives some indication of that. He warns that the court's business is grinding to a halt. We are being invited by the Government to give effect to an order which will extend the jurisdiction in circumstances in which, already, the commercial court finds itself unable to deal with the business at present before it. Mr. Justice Saville says that the court's list

"is in complete disarray with no realistic prospect of being able to restore order. There is insufficient judicial manpower to deal with the cases stood out, let alone cope with the existing list as it comes forward. The carefully nurtured reputation of the commercial court is at risk of being lost."

The House is being asked to sanction an order which comes into effect at a time when the list of the commercial court is, to quote Mr. Justice Saville, "in complete disarray".

Column 1186

It is worth listening to the concerns expressed by the head of litigation at Lovell White Durrant, Mr. Anthony Pugh-Thomas. He said :

"We have clients raring to go the week after next, and we have to tell them that they won't be heard until next April."

That was the situation on 8 December 1992 and it is even worse now.

Mr. John M. Taylor : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The kinds of proceedings covered by this order are not suitable for, nor would they be covered by or litigated in, the commercial court. Mr. Boateng rose --

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris) : Order. This order is principally about the simplification of formalities. I can understand the hon. Gentleman developing that argument, but he seems to be developing it a little more widely. Perhaps he could come back to the order, which is pretty tightly drawn, as he, as a lawyer, will understand.

Mr. Boateng : I will, of course, accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and assistance in this matter.

I think that it is worth looking at section 2 of the order, if the Minister will turn his attention to that. It refers to article 5, which deals with matters relating to individual contracts of employment. It inserts additional words and says that we are to look at where the employee habitually carries out his work. It goes on to say :

"If the employee does not habitually carry out his work in any one country, the employer may also be sued in the courts for the place where the business which engaged the employee was or is now situated."

Inevitably, the business infrastructure, which always, of course, includes the court system of any jurisdiction, will act as a magnet to the establishment of businesses, where the jurisdiction permits it, and this order deals with the issue of jurisdiction and will act as a magnet to action. Therefore, it is highly pertinent to examine the state of our commercial court, and I do not see how the Minister can pretend otherwise.

If a senior partner in a major City law firm says that considerable inconvenience is being caused to clients and that the state of the commercial court is a matter of embarrassment to the profession, that is relevant. What happens in the commercial court is inevitably influenced by what is happening elsewhere within the parameters of the High Court. Let me give an example.

Mr. Justice Saville was promised two more commercial court judges. I intend to go back to the Government's failings time and time again until this issue is resolved--that is why we are here ; that is why we are spending the time we are on the floor of the House on this issue--and until the Government address the issue of how the measures which they introduce impact on the work load of the court. Has the Minister considered this issue? Is there, as we speak, someone somewhere in the Lord Chancellor's Department who knows what the impact of this measure will be on the court system? Will it lead--this is a legitimate question to which we are entitled to receive an answer--to more people choosing to litigate in this country? Will it lead to an increase in the number of actions brought in this country? If it will, it is relevant that, as a result of delays elsewhere in the system of justice, Mr. Justice Taylor is unable to provide Mr. Justice Saville with his two more commercial court judges. Mr. Justice Saville

Column 1187

expects that, instead of six judges, there will be only four. Three of them will be tied up on long cases, so that leaves one judge to handle the work of six.

In an earlier debate, which was brought to a speedy end, the Minister sought to introduce the novel formula that two Lords Justices of Appeal equal six lawyers servicing a department. Here we have one judge required to do the work of six judges. The broad statement of fact made by Mr. Justice Saville is that unless something is done now--this was in December, two months ago--the commercial court will cease to operate next term. That inevitably has a bearing on matters which the order seeks to address.

May we have some answers on the points made in relation to the likely increase in the number of actions and the extent to which the impact of that increase on judicial manpower has been taken into account? Can we hope that when the review of appointments to the High Court is published--we warmly welcome its publication--the passing of measures such as this will have been taken into account when ensuring that there are enough judges in the High Court?

Unless we have those assurances, many more evenings will be taken up with debates such as these. That is a promise : the Minister can be sure that we intend to fulfil our responsibility to make sure that the administration of justice takes place in the interests of the citizens and consumers.

8.47 pm

Mr. John M. Taylor : The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) asked me with some force--his question brooked no sidestep--whether I would state to him, to the House and to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether the impact of the proposals contained in this order was measurable. My answer is that the impact will be benign. It will not increase the number of actions ; it will merely affect the distribution of actions within the United Kingdom by conveniencing the parties and giving them better and easier choices of venue. That is why I submit that the measure has no enemies. In the course of its formulation, all interested parties, court users and wider interests, were consulted to find out whether it was genuinely thought to be an improvement--not a slavish imitation of something worked out in Brussels, or, indeed, something eccentrically and particularly British, but something between the two, taking the best of the European practice and the best of our own experience, reaching a compromise, and

Column 1188

conveniencing litigant and lawyer alike. I suppose that one always has some innocence to lose--perhaps that is part of the joy of life--but I honestly did not imagine that the provisions would lead to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the commercial court. However, I can deal with them briefly.

On the commercial court, I have nothing to add to what I said on 19 January in an Adjournment debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottoway). The remarks that I made then post-date the hon. Gentleman's comments this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Amendment) Order 1993, which was laid before this House on 25th January, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

Defence Research Agency

That the draft Defence Research Agency Trading Fund Order 1993, which was laid before the House on 22nd January, be approved.-- [Mr. Robert G. Hughes.]

Question agreed to.

PETITION

Rescue Helicopter (RAF Brawdy)

8.50 pm

Mr. Nick Ainger (Pembroke) : The petition has been signed by 19,676 people from Pembrokeshire and the rest of Wales. They are outraged because the Ministry of Defence intends to end search and rescue helicopter operations at RAF Brawdy in my constituency on 1 April 1994.

The petition states that the decision

will cause unnecessary deaths due to the greatly increased response times to reach incidents on the cliffs and coastal waters of West Wales and the international waters of the Celtic Sea and the Atlantic Ocean

as well as on the mountains of west and south Wales. People are also outraged because the Ministry of Defence is putting the saving of money before the saving of lives.

The petition ends :

Wherefore your petitioners pray that your Honourable House do not proceed with these proposals. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

To lie upon the Table.

Next Section

Home Page