fuller examination of the whole matter. It based on that put forward by the Junior Bar in 1959 plus an appropriate increase to cover the fall in the purchasing power of money since that date. Am I to understand that the approach of the Bar to this question has altered since that date and am I to understand that, if and in so far as the current scale reflects a subsidy on the part of the Bar, your Committee now thinks this element should be eliminated?
WORKING PARTY.
I note your view that this matter should be resolved by way of arbitration because that a normal way of resolving pay disputes between master and servant. Quite apart from the position of the Judiciary, I would question whether it is an appropriate way of determining how a statutory power shall be exercised when that power involves the exercise of a discretion by a named officer. You refer to your disappoint- ment at the fruitlessness of a year's discussion on this matter and I think it may be desirable if I recapitulate briefly what has occurred.
You wrote to me in March, a few days before I was due to go on leave, suggesting discussions. As the time then available to me was so short I asked the Registrar to reply with a view to seeing whether anything could be done in my absence but the matter was carried no further at that point. Almost immediately after my return at the end of April, we all faced considerable problems in Hong Kong but, in June, you wrote to me inquiring if the Registrar could undertake a measure of research into the previous history of this question in order to supplement your own records, which you thought were incomplete, and suggesting that dscussions should be postponed until this material was available. It became available in August and thereafter we had a discus- sion on the matter which was followed by my letter of the
50