The Gazette 1967/71

by 'Justice' Report of 1969 on a Suitor's Fund. These particular proposals went very much wider than appeals for the purpose of clarifying the law. But whatever their scope there seems little public or professional interest in these schemes, which tends to suggest that there is no understanding need to embark on a new pro gramme of state subsidies for litigation. Editor: (d) Should newly appointed judges undertake to serve for a minimum term, or their pension rights be adjusted to encourage this? Lord Chancellor: I do not think that either proposal would assist the matter. The first would be a direct invitation to city firms to compete for the services of time-expiring judges, the second an attempt to chain a judge to the bench if he wished to leave it. Neither would enhance respect for the judicial office; the latter would militate against the administration of justice. A reluctant judge is unlikely to be a good one, but in my view a judge on accepting a permanent appoint ment should enter it like a bridegroom approach ing matrimony or a priest the priesthood. (This refers to Mr. Justice Fisher). Law reform Editor: 1 (a) Is there a case for the establish ment of a Public Defender's Office as an opposite number to that of the Director of Public Prose cutions. Lord Chancellor: Not a strong one now that legal aid is readily available in criminal cases. But this question concerns the criminal law and is therefore primarily one for the Home Secretary. I would however point out that the analogy is based on a complete misconception regarding the present very limited range of prosecutions de volving on the Director of Public Prosecutions for which there could be no adequate analogy in the creation of a public defender to deal with a differ ent, and wider, range. Editor: (b) Do you approve of the existence of the Law Commission? If so, would it be true to say that its institution is now completely a non- political matter and its continued existence assured? Lord Chancellor: Yes. The Law Commission is now a permanent focus for law reform proposals. Its elimination from party political controversy must, however, be left to the discretion of political the

parties and their leaders from time to time. But I shall do nothing to encourage party controversy, and do not expect or desire any. Editor: (c) How best can the quantity and un- intelligibilily of Acts be reduced? Lord Chancellor: There has been too much and too hasty legislation in recent years, and the present administration is going to do what it can to improve the whole style of legislation. Many practising lawyers find the present flood over whelming. What we must ensure is that so far as possible no Government bill is introduced until the underlying policy has been fully worked out and the draftsman has been given an opportunity of producing a measure as intelligible as the com plexities of the subject-matter allow. The unintel- ligibility of some statutes in recent years has, I think, been due to a combination of two things: first the complexities of modern life make it very difficult sometimes to draft in a way which is intelligible to the layman and he is very apt to think the result gibberish (especially if he is looking at a Finance Act); and secondly, the speed with which some bills have been drafted has given parliamentary counsel an almost im possible task. It is sometimes difficult for the Government to avoid having a bill drafted far more quickly than is ideally desirable; but it is up to us to see that we so manage our affairs that this happens far less often than it has done in recent years. Editor: (d) Have you in mind the desirability of appointed days for Acts and statutory instru ments being a month or more after the relevant publications become available to legal practitioners to give them a chance to absorb their content? Lord Chancellor: It is most important for practitioners to have a chance to look at legislation which affects them and their clients before it comes into force. There are, of course, Acts which can quite conveniently be brought into force after royal assent and there are others which are so urgent that they have to come into force on royal assent. But generally it is convenient for an Act to include a provision bringing it into force on a stated day depending on the type, urgency and complexity of the legislation, or to have a commencement date prescribed by statutory instrument. The Government should always have 194