654 / 736
by
the
'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
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