HC Deb 17 April 1978 vol 948 cc181-214

Order for Second Reading read.

10.22 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Peter Archer)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Every legal system requires a shake-up from time to time, and it is no criticism of those who administer it to say so. Indeed, if it has been responsive to public need, each new situation will have led to a further addition or amendment to the existing structure, until it becomes difficult to follow the original simple pattern. Occasionally, therefore, there is a need to redesign the system and to adapt it to the needs of another age.

The legal system of England and Wales met with such an experience in 1873 and again in 1971. In Northern Ireland, there was last a fundamental review of the system in 1877. The Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act of that year remains today the principal statute governing the organisation and jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in Northern Ireland.

A Supreme Court of Ireland was established for the first time by that Act. It consisted of a High Court and a Court of Appeal, and after 1920 it became the Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland. For civil business the High Court sits in two divisions, the Chancery and the Queen's Bench, and appeals are heard by the Court of Appeal.

The criminal jurisdiction of the High Court is exercised at courts of assize. All serious crime of a terrorist nature is at present dealt with in Belfast at the Belfast City Commission. This court, which is the assize court for Belfast, is now in almost continuous session. But judges continue to travel twice a year to the principal county towns for the spring and autumn assizes, as they have done since the thirteenth century, and there is still a winter assize, which is normally presided over by a single judge.

Appeals in criminal cases are to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Like its former English equivalent, it was created separately by statute. It is not part of the Supreme Court, although in practice it is manned by judges of that court and is staffed by the same officials.

The second tier of the system consists of county courts, whose origin lies much further back in the roots of history than county courts in England and Wales, and their functions are rather different. They were reorganised in 1959 and they now exercise a civil and criminal jurisdiction. Their criminal jurisdiction, which they inherited from the former courts of quarter sessions, consists of appeals from magistrates' courts and trial and indictment for all offences except the very few accepted categories which are triable only at assizes. Their civil jurisdiction includes common law claims up to a limit of £1,000 and a jurisdiction, unlimited in amount, in claims for damage to property, death and personal injuries which fall within the criminal injury legislation.

The third level of the structure is formed by the magistrates' courts. They are normally presided over by resident magistrates, who are appointed from the Bar and from the solicitors' profession. Like magistrates' courts in England, they exercise a criminal jurisdiction which consists of committal proceedings in respect of indictable offences, and the trial of summary offences. They also exercise a small civil jurisdiction, consisting mainly of the hearing of claims for debt and ejectment, and business in respect of maintenance orders and the issue of licences. There are lay magistrates in Northern Ireland and, although their functions are more limited than those of their counterparts in England and Wales, the community has reason to be grateful to them.

In another place, my noble Friend expressed the view that this machinery of justice has served the needs of the people very well over the years, and from that opinion, at least, no one who contributed to the debate there dissented. Indeed, it is encouraging that there is generally a high level of confidence in the quality of the administration of justice. But the system has been subjected to increasing strain in recent years, owing largely to the increase in crime. This has led since 1966 to the appointment of three distinguished committees to examine various aspects of the system, and the Bill owes much of its content to their recommendations.

In 1966 a committee was appointed by my noble friend Lord Gardiner under the chairmanship of Lord MacDermott, the former Lord Chief Justice, to examine the law applicable to the Supreme Court of Judicature of Northern Ireland. That committee reported in March 1970. In 1971, pursuant to a recommendation of Lord MacDermott's committee, there was appointed the Joint Committee on Civil and Criminal Jurisdiction, which considered particularly the work of county courts and assizes. It was chaired by the present Lord Chief Justice, Sir Robert Lowry. That committee produced an interim report in September 1973. In October 1972 a further committee was appointed under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Jones to consider the administration of justice in county courts and magistrates' courts, and that committee reported in December 1974.

Those committees made wide and sometimes radical recommendations and the three reports represent a comprehensive examination of the entire court structure in Northern Ireland. I should like to add my appreciation of the work of those committees to the tributes which have been expressed in another place.

The MacDermott Committee made a number of recommendations to bring the administration of the Supreme Court into line with modern requirements. It proposed that the Court of Criminal Appeal should be amalgamated with the Court of Appeal and it suggested that county courts should no longer be based upon county areas but that for this purpose the Province should be divided into four regions.

The recommendations of the Lowry Committee have already been partially implemented. But one of its principal recommendations, the establishment of a Central Criminal Court, has been adapted by the more far-reaching recommendation of the Jones Committee for the establishment of a system of Crown courts similar to that introduced in England and Wales in 1971. The Jones Committee also suggested that the separate court services should be unified into a single service, administered by a central department. It also made proposals relating to petty sessional districts.

Not all the recommendations of the three committees are incorporated in the Bill. Following the committee reports, the Government published a consultation document in October 1976, and account has been taken of the views which have been expressed by way of reaction to that document.

The Bill contains four principal proposals: first, to provide the Supreme Court with a new basic statute and an improved departmental structure; secondly, to merge the Court of Criminal Appeal with the Court of Appeal; thirdly, to replace the original criminal jurisdiction of the courts of assize and county courts by a Crown court, exercising exclusive original criminal jurisdiction on indictment; and, fourthly, to establish a unified court service embracing all the administrative staff for all levels of court.

Before I proceed to describe these changes in greater detail, I should mention one other change which the Bill will make as a result of amendments made in another place. The administration of all courts in Northern Ireland, other than the Supreme Court, was formerly the responsibility of the Ministry for Home Affairs in Stormont, and since 1972 they have been the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. There was some debate about this in another place, to which my noble Friend listened attentively. He was persuaded—not perhaps as the most enthusiastic of volunteers, but by the obviously widespread support—to the view that he should undertake these duties. The Bill now provides that the administration of all the courts, including the Supreme Court, will be the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor and that transfer of responsibility will take place when the Bill comes into force.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, Central)

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way. Before he passes on to other parts of the Bill, can he explain why the Lord Chancellor was reluctant to accede to the request and what particular arguments persuaded him of the merit of transferring responsibility from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to the Lord Chancellor?

The Solicitor-General

My noble Friend took the view that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had discharged his duties admirably in this respect without any criticism. He felt that in the suggestion that the duties should be transferred some criticism of the way in which they had been administered might be implied. It was that which was really troubling him. What persuaded him was the obvious popularity of the proposal.

I turn now to the provisions of the Bill itself. As I have indicated, the greater part of it will provide a new statutory basis for the practice and procedure of the Supreme Court, which will in future consist of the courts listed in Clause 1. This includes the new Crown court, which is established by Clause 4. The remainder of Part I largely replaces existing provisions relating to the Supreme Court, but Clause 5 introduces an important change in that it imports a new division into the High Court, the Family Division, following a similar change made in England a few years ago.

In Part II are set out the detailed provisions relating to the jurisdiction of the High Court. The Bill gives effect, with some modifications, to the recommendations of the MacDermott Committee and of the Law Commission's report on remedies in administrative law relating to applications for injunctions, declaratory judgments and prerogative orders, which are designed to simplify these procedures. This is effected by Clauses 18 to 25. Clauses 26 to 29 contain provisions for the transfer to the High Court of matters relating to minors and mental patients, a jurisdiction at present vested in the Lord Chief Justice. Part III contains related provisions relating to the Court of Appeal. Clause 34 abolishes the Court of Criminal Appeal and transfers its jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal.

What may be described as a new substructure for the Supreme Court is then provided for in Parts V, VI and VII. There are some legal provisions in Part VIII which some may describe as technical but which are of importance both to lawyers and their clients. I shall return later to the important provision of Clause 69, which relates to the establishment of a unified court service.

Part IV of the Bill relates to the new Crown court. As I mentioned earlier, original criminal jurisdiction on indictment is at present exercised by assizes—in relation to the most serious offences—and by county courts. In fact their jurisdictions largely overlap, but separate arrangements have to be made for sitting days, lists and jury panels. It has become increasingly apparent that this is not the most efficient way of co-ordinating judicial resources or of making the best use of court buildings and other accommodation. The changes that the Government propose are modelled on those made in England and Wales in 1971.

The new Crown court will be empowered to sit anywhere in Northern Ireland, and judges of the Supreme Court will continue to visit places outside Belfast to hear and to determine serious criminal cases. The judges of the Crown court will be the Supreme Court judges and county court judges. Under Clause 47(2) it will be the function of the Lord Chancellor, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, to determine which cases or classes of case shall be tried by which judges. The most serious cases—as my noble Friend emphasised in another place, they will probably be a fairly limited class—will be reserved for trial by judges of the Supreme Court. But most cases will be capable of being tried by county court judges. Clause 47 also provides for the Lord Chancellor to give directions as to when and where judges are to sit in the Crown court.

The Crown court will, of course, have its own rules of procedure, as provided by Clause 52, and Clause 53 provides that the rule-making authority will be the Supreme Court Rules Committee, with the addition of two county court judges, a resident magistrate and a Master of the Supreme Court.

Clause 69 provides for the establishment of a new, unified court service, to be called the Northern Ireland Court Service. At present the courts in Northern Ireland are serviced by three distinct bodies: the staff of the Supreme Court, the County Court Service and the Petty Sessions Service. In addition, there exists in Belfast the Enforcement of Judgments Office. It is proposed to reorganise the administrative structure of this office, and with this in mind I propose to put down some amendments at a later stage. At present there is no provision for any interchange of staff between these services, and this has restricted both the effective deployment of staff and their career structure.

The idea of fusing these services was first canvassed as long ago as 1957 in the report of an earlier committee, presided over by the late Mr. Justice Sheil, and the previous Administration endorsed the idea in a White Paper published in 1973. The new court service should indeed provide better career opportunities for its members than any of the existing services can do, and it will also provide them with the opportunity of gaining experience from different fields of court work.

There will continue to be a small number of posts which, because of their nature, call for professional legal qualifications and which will remain out-outside the new court service. They are listed in Schedule 3 to the Bill, and their holders will remain or become Crown Office holders appointed by the Lord Chancellor under the provisions of Clause 70. Most of them exist already, but there is one category of post listed in Schedule 3 which is new—namely, that of circuit registrar. Circuit registrars will be analogous in some respects to county court registrars in England and Wales. They will be judicial officers with practical legal experience as solicitors. Their functions will be primarily judicial, and they will assist in despatching civil business in the county courts.

An important part of this function will relate to an innovation, close at least to my heart, which we have encouraged in England and Wales with some success—the new small claims procedure, which will be introduced into Northern Ireland for the first time under the provisions of Clause 97 of the Bill. In establishing this system the Government will draw on the valuable experience which has been gained in England and Wales.

Clause 99 makes some significant changes relating to the appointment of county court judges and deputy county court judges. For the first time, the new Section 107 of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 enables a resident magistrate, whether he was previously a barrister or a solicitor, and solicitors who have practised for not less than 10 years, to be appointed as deputy county court judges. Subsection (1) of Clause 99 further provides that a deputy county court judge of three years' standing is to be eligible for a permanent appointment.

These provisions will thus provide an avenue whereby both resident magistrates who would not otherwise be eligible and solicitors, who at present are not eligible at all, can reach the county court bench. Not only will this provide my noble Friend with a wide choice of appointment, but I am delighted that it represents a tribute to the fortitude and personal courage with which resident magistrates have continued to discharge their duties in recent difficult times.

In view of the lateness of the hour, I refrain from elaborating longer on the details, although I am conscious that I have dealt with only some of the provisions of the Bill. It is in important Bill. It will, I hope, lay the foundations for many years to come for a new and more efficient machinery of justice in Northern Ireland. We are fortunate in that that machinery and the people who operate it already enjoy the good will and confidence of most sections of the community in Northern Ireland, despite a period of great difficulty and increasing pressure of work. The Bill may help to make their burdens lighter, and, by improving efficiency while maintaining the integrity and independence of the administration of justice, it should benefit the whole community in the Province and further strengthen that confidence.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Airey Neave (Abingdon)

The Solicitor-General has fully explained the provisions of the Bill, which we do not oppose, although we may wish at a later stage to consider possible amendments such as those which he has described.

It is an appropriate moment to pay tribute, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has done, to the courage and independence of the judiciary and the resident magistrates during the terrible period which Northern Ireland has gone through. We should like also to pay tribute, as the Solicitor-General has done, to the distinguished MacDermott, Lowry and Jones Committees, which made reports and established beyond doubt that Northern Ireland required a modern judicial system. Ten years has been spent in preparing the Bill, and it embodies their main recommendations.

The Bill had the welcome of the legal profession, with the one exception of the original proposal that the responsibility for the unified courts should continue to lie with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland instead of with the Lord Chancellor. I was surprised that that proposal was put forward in another place in the first instance in the light of the realities of life in Ulster.

My right hon. and hon. Friends have taken the view all the time that the Bill was an opportunity to put responsibility for Northern Ireland in this respect on the same footing as similar matters in England and Wales. I was glad to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that that proposition had an obvious popularity. Thanks to the persuasive speeches on Second Reading and in Committee in another place by Lords Belstead, Brookeborough and Moyola, the amendment of Lord Belstead was accepted on 3rd February and the courts remain the Lord Chancellor's overall responsibility. We are glad of that, and this is one of the reasons why my comments tonight can be brief.

In moving his amendment in Committee in another place, Lord Belstead pointed out how crucial it was that the independence of the courts should remain unimpaired. Those of us concerned with Northern Ireland know only too well what attacks could have been made, although this is in no way a criticism of the Secretary of State or the Northern Ireland Office in their handling of court affairs since 1973.

The whole of the judiciary in Northern Ireland was anxious that the Lord Chancellor should be the Minister responsible, and I am sure that, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has told us, this decision will inspire confidence. It was also a response to Ulster opinion which will strengthen the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in which we on this side of the House firmly believe, as, indeed, do the Government.

A number of subsidiary points were made in Committee in another place which I think have greatly strengthened the Bill, thanks to the assiduity of the noble Lords on the Conservative side, if I may say so. It may be that Northern Ireland Members will wish to raise other matters—I expect they will—but we welcome the Bill in principle and are glad that it should have a Second Reading.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, Central)

I listened with interest to what my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said in introducing the Bill, and in particular to his argument about the proposal to transfer overall responsibility for the administration of justice from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to the Lord Chancellor. The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) claimed that that was due in no small measure to the persuasive speeches of Lord Belstead, Lord Moyola and Viscount Brookeborough. The latter two would be an unhappy majority in any holy trinity concerned with Ireland Leon Uris notwithstanding.

I come to why the change is being made and whether there are any dangers in the proposal. It is argued that there was popular clamour for it, that their Lordships were beating on the door of the Lord Chancellor's office demanding the change and that the entire population of Northern Ireland wanted the change to be made, although it had not demanded it before.

My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor said this on Second Reading in another place: I now come to the question which Minister should have responsibility for this new service—a matter about which I know a good deal of concern has been expressed. I have given it very careful and prolonged consideration after much discussion with the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and others, but in the end I decided, with the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, that the overall responsibility for the administration of the courts should rest with the Secretary of State, and that he should be answerable to Parliament for its performance. I must emphasise at the outset that this question has no bearing whatsoever on the independence of the Judiciary—to which, of course, I attach very great importance. I am sure that we all attach great importance to that.

My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor also quoted this passage from paragraph 67 (a) of the Northern Ireland constitutional proposals: It is the view of the Government that all judicial appointments should be made by or on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor and that there should be a unified administration of the courts for which the Secretary of State should be answerable to Parliament. My noble Frend then said this: That was the view taken by the previous Conservative Administration and I have little doubt that the reasons why they came to that view were the same kind of reasons as those which I ventured to submit to your Lordships at the opening of this debate."—[Official Report. House of Lords, 19th January 1978; Vol. 388, c. 217–38.] My noble Friend did not give quite as many reasons.

I question this proposed change not because I doubt the efficacy of the Lord Chancellor's Department to administer this system of justice but because I believe that this move towards control from England is a further move in the general direction of integration for which Tory Members, including some on the Tory Front Bench, are slowly but surely preparing the country. There are some United Ulster Unionist Members who will not object. Some of them are not particularly happy about questions of devolved government or shared power. This important power which at present resides in the Six Counties is being transferred across the water to England

We are told that the proposal is supported by many members of the minority community in Northern Ireland. I am sure that, had I been able to overhear the conversation between my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, I should have heard that point being made. I have an independent judgment, however, and I know that not all the decisions of Irishmen have been correct. I can think of a number that have not been correct, as can other hon. Members. The fact that the minority community thinks this way does not mean that it should be given in to. I think that it wanted this for the wrong reasons. I think it was afraid that, should there be devolved government and it fell into the hands of a single party in power, there would be repression and discrimination in the judiciary and the administration of the law which, we are assured, has never happened since the Six Counties were established. I understand this fear. But has the meaning of this step been thought through? This is an important power going from the Secretary of State to a Minister in another place, responsible to the British Cabinet.

If there is any devolution, will there be special arrangements to give that power back to Northern Ireland Ministers? I do not think so, because I do not think that there will be any form of devolution for many years. We therefore have that drift across here. We heard it in the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) about the government of Northern Ireland, when he boasted about the procedures to deal with Northern Ireland and the extension in this House of legislation to cover Northern Ireland which normally in the past would have covered only Great Britain. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends sat back and lapped it up. All they are doing is sitting on their hands and seeing what they wanted in 1920 coming about under the aegis of a Labour Government. It is sad that this should be the way things should go.

It is only right, no matter what the minority or the majority in Northern Ireland may want to see, that there should occasionally be an English Member saying that what is happening is wrong. The decision is being made for the wrong reasons—to try to appease an opposition, to get an easy way of life and a swift passage for an otherwise excellent Bill. My right hon. and hon. Friends should think again.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. William Craig (Belfast, East)

I hope that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) will forgive me if I do not follow him all the way in his remarks, although in my comments I must make some rejoinder.

To begin with, I should like cordially to welcome the Bill, which is a most useful step forward. In the courts, when an advocate has a bad case he tends to talk at great length. If he has a good case, he tends to let the case speak for itself. In Parliament, when an hon. Member has a bad case he certainly does not spin it out for long. If he has a good case, he likes to be on the side of the angels and advertise it well and truly.

I find myself on the side of the angels, but only because the Government have for once come down on the side of the angels and have listened to representations. I do not know who can claim credit for removing the most controversial clause of all in the Bill, dealing with who should have oversight of the administration of this measure. I am glad to record that the Lord Chancellor gave way before debate in the other place commenced. That was a signal achievement.

My right hon. and hon. Friends are happy to note that in this instance their representations did not fall on deaf ears. The Solicitor-General has made it even easier this evening in that he has told us in advance that he proposes to bring forth amendments to deal with the difficult question of the enforcement of judgments. I find at the start of my speech that all the things I might have thundered about have been eroded. As for the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central, I do not see anything retrogressive about giving the Lord Chancellor oversight of the administration of our legal system. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman why, in my opinion, it is right and proper that it should be vested in the Lord Chancellor.

Unhappily for Northern Ireland, we have a Northern Ireland Office, which is a most absurd constitutional hybrid. One part of it is a perfectly sensible, decent parliamentary democracy, but the other half is government by decree with very little trace of democracy. It is no fault of the Northern Ireland Office that that happens to be the case. But I do not think that in such a situation it was a wise proposition to vest the Northern Ireland office with the oversight of the judiciary without in any way calling into doubt the integrity of the men who serve in that Office. Therefore, I am quite happy, as, I think, are my colleagues, that this should be vested in the Lord Chancellor.

We all recognise that the legal system in Northern Ireland has been under considerable stress and strain because of the lawlessness which has existed in the Province. It is right and proper that we should pay tribute to the system and the way that it has coped with a difficult situation. At the same time, we must concern ourselves with the consequences of the difficulties. Despite the admirable and totally praiseworthy service of the judicature at all levels, there are serious defects which concern everyone who is interested in the freedom of the individual.

I hope that this reorganisation of the legal system will help in some way, but I do not believe that that in itself will be enough. It should go on record that throughout the stress and strain imposed upon the legal system we have, for in stance, many prisoners kept in custody on remand for periods of at least 18 months, sometimes longer. That is out rageous. It is outrageous when one realises that a prisoner on remand is kept in worse conditions than a convicted prisoner. I find that totally abhor rent and hope that something can speedily be done at least to ensure that remand prisoners are not kept in custody a day longer than is absolutely necessary.

At the same time, I should like to see an improvement in the circumstances and conditions in which those prisoners are kept in custody. I hope that the flexibility and mobility of our judges in different courts will assist in bringing people to trial at a much earlier date.

I can also complain with every justification about the quite absurd delays in other aspects—for instance, with regard to divorce. It is almost impossible to tell any petitioner when his case may be heard. Even undefended divorces can stretch out to a couple of years. That is not good enough.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about amendments to the Bill to deal with the Enforcement of Judgments Office. I know of no other aspect of our legal system which has caused so much discontent and dissatisfaction. It lies at the very heart of the whole administrative set-up in that office. I hope that the amendments will be far-reaching in that respect. When we were given the Enforcement of Judgments Office, we all thought that it would result in a more efficient enforcement of decrees. The contrary has been the case, and the longsuffering public are entitled to speedy relief.

I welcome the reference to the small claims court. In that respect I suggest to the Solicitor-General that he might, when he is in a favourable mood, consider further amendments in respect of civil jurisdiction of petty sessions and county courts. In this day and age of inflation, the present figures are absurd. If they were doubled, it would relieve the pressure higher up. I see no reason for refusing to consider such an increase in the civil jurisdiction.

We are fortunate in the calibre and skill of those who preside over our magistrates' and county courts. I commend the proposition that the Solicitor-General might consider increasing the civil jurisdiction substantially.

I pay tribute to the committees which helped to bring the Bill into being. We were fortunate in having such able people as Lord MacDermott, Lord Justice Jones and the Lord Chief Justice, Sir Robert Lowry, who took so much time on such a difficult subject against a background of extreme pressures. We are grateful to them and their committees.

For me, the biggest gain out of the reappraisal is the decision to have a unified system of courts for the trial of indictable offences. That is a big step forward. In singling that out, I am in no way decrying the significant advantages of the new basic statute and the modern administrative machine for the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland.

Changes like this pose a certain number of questions. While, in theory, one can see some considerable wisdom in merging the Court of Criminal Appeal and the Court of Appeal, as we do so we must bear in mind that judges who are accustomed to hearing appeals of that sort are used to dealing with very different aspects of the law. I do not believe that at this level of judicature one can expect a man to be Jack of all trades. But the ultimate responsibility is, of course, with the Lord Chief Justice in the assignment of judges. But it is not easy to merge the criminal and civil jurisdictions at the supreme appeal level.

As far as the new Crown court is concerned, I have no doubt that this will be an outstanding improvement on the outmoded court of assizes. I was pleased to note that the court will have the freedom and opportunity to move around the Province rather than be centralised in Belfast. I do not know whether the Solicitor-General is able to tell us about the experience of recent years in the selecting of juries in this court. I hope that it does not mean that the citizens of Belfast or the appropriate parts of County Antrim and County Down will continually provide the juries in these cases, to the exclusion of the citizens of any other parts of the Province. While the court can move around, I have no doubt that in practice the main weight of cases will be heard in Belfast. I have no practical experience in this matter. I often wonder how we empanel our juries in such centralised courts.

As far as the unified court service is concerned, in theory this is a very rational step to take. For many practitioners it will be a big change, because centralisation tends to bring with it a certain amount of remoteness and difficulty in getting decisive action on the ground. Under the old system, the Clerk of the Crown and Peace was an honoured and respected man in our administration. I hope that in the new county or area jurisdiction we shall still have somebody with the same authority and the same understanding of the problems of the area concerned.

There is little at this stage that I wish to suggest in the way of improvement, and I doubt whether even in Committee I shall be able to take the matter further, but there are problems that one would like to see considered. Let us take, for example, the handling of the affairs of mental patients, which sometimes has not been all that satisfactory under the old system. I hope that the new system will provide us with a more humane and approachable piece of machinery, particularly for the appointment of committees to handle the affairs of mental patients.

It may be that the Solicitor-General will find it useful to consider whether some aspect of this work could be taken from the High Court and left with the county courts. After all, the county courts have shown a considerable amount of skill, tact and diplomacy in handling the human problems that arise out of adoption. The administrative machine that is necessary for handling the affairs of mental patients lends itself to such a consideration much better than would the handling of such matters in the High Court.

Since I speak as a solicitor, it would be wrong if I did not welcome the opportunity now given to that profession to participate more fully in the judicial machine. Solicitors have distinguished themselves in the magistrates' courts and, no doubt, will continue to serve the community well in the realms of the county court.

The Bill is a major step forward. It is not a Bill of radical change, but it aims at rationalisation and updating. I regard it as but one step forward. In this respect I would describe myself as a radical in terms of the reform of the legal system. I have come to the conclusion that there are two things that are almost impossible areas to consider for radical reform in the United Kingdom. One is Parliament itself, particularly this House, and the other is the legal system. I continue to live in hope.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneaux (Antrim, South)

I begin by expressing a word of appreciation to the Government and their business managers for the efforts which they made to meet our wishes to have this Bill taken on the Floor. Earlier in the Session there was a danger of its being crowded out because of the pressure on the legislative timetable.

The suggestion that the Bill might be taken upstairs in Second Reading Committee did not commend itself to us, and we made that quite clear, although we recognised the necessity to get the Bill through this Session. We are therefore happy that this Bill is being given its Second Reading on the Floor, since so far it is the only Northern Ireland Bill to be dealt with this Session as opposed to Northern Ireland Orders in Council.

I believe that I speak for the elected representatives of Northern Ireland and for those who sent us here when I say "Let us have more of this form of parliamentary democracy." As we come within sight of yet another renewal of the "temporary provisions"—and I put those words in quotation marks advisedly—for governing Northern Ireland, I recall that those arrangements have now been renewed for a period of six years.

Our message to Her Majesty's Government and to Parliament, at the risk of giving the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) a sleepless night, is that six years is long enough—far loo long. Let us put an end to the farce and let us have more examples of this type. Let us have more Northern Ireland Bills in their own right. Let us have more United Kingdom Bills applying to Northern Ireland, and, above all, let this Bill be followed by another—a short, amending Bill to authorise the election to this House of the number of Northern Ireland Members recommended in the report of Mr. Speaker's Conference.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

Too few.

Mr. Molyneaux

Speaking as one who has been deeply involved in the care of the mentally ill, I regret that it has been found necessary to retain Clause 28 in its present form in the Bill as amended in the other place. Since the passage of the Mental Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1961, all of us who have been engaged in caring for the mentally ill have, I think successfully, encouraged the general public to use civilised terms such as "mental disorder", "persons requiring special care" and "the socially inefficient". Yet here, in this brand new, 1978 Bill, which we hope will become an Act, we find ourselves reverting to the brutality of nineteenth century words such as idiots, lunatics and … person of weak mind. I well understand that the Lord Chancellor has given an undertaking to look at this again. Are the Government now in a position to present his conclusions on the matter?

I do not claim that the problem is simple, because the 1961 Act, as the Solicitor-General is very well aware, makes provision for the person of the patient, whereas the Lunacy Regulation (Ireland) Act 1871 governs jurisdiction over the property of patients, and it is with that particular aspect that we are concerned in the Bill. It is that aspect with which Clause 28 is also concerned.

But, as the House will be well aware, the 1871 Act was not, and could not possibly have been, a Stormont Act, so the reluctance which has often been shown in this House to take any step which might mutilate or do violence to the Stormont statute book cannot be a relevant factor.

The Government have admitted that they regard Clause 28(3) as merely a holding operation. It seems to me that even on Second Reading we should not be confronted with something so grossly out of date. I press the Government to examine the possibility of improvement in the Bill at a later stage. If that is not possible, can they give a firm undertaking that they will bring forward amending legislation following the current review of the statutory law as it affects the entire subject of mental health?

I welcome the provision in Clause 99 for the appointment as deputy judge in county courts of a person who has served as a resident magistrate. It is true that the clause says that the Lord Chancellor may appoint—I emphasise "may"—but I hope that there will be no sort of judicial closed shop and that the Lord Chancellor and his successors, if not his heirs, will make full use of the power given them in the Bill to draw on the experience of those who have served with great distinction in the magistrates' courts.

I come to one other issue which has already been touched upon—the matter of small claims and the proposed provision of some sort of small claims court in Northern Ireland. This is a matter which my colleagues and I have been considering for some time. We have consulted consumer organisations and members of the legal profession in Northern Ireland.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and I raised the matter in the discussions with the Lord Chancellor to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) referred. I welcome the expressed intention of the Government now to give active consideration to the need for some such provision, and I take the opportunity provided by this debate to inquire what stage the Government's thinking on this issue has reached. I should be interested to learn from the Solicitor-General how soon after the passage of this Bill we may expect to receive the Government's detailed proposals. Has a start been made on drafting the rules for a small claims court and by what date may we hope to see such a court functioning in the Province?

We are anxious that the court should proceed with the minimum delay, but it is prudent to draw on the experience of such courts in other parts of Great Britain and important that full and adequate discussions should take place between the Government and consumer organisations, the legal profession and other interested parties in Northern Ireland. The Ulster Unionist Party will play a full part in these discussions.

A commitment in principle to the creation of a small claims court must be followed by serious consideration of the suitable jurisdiction of the court, the types of cases it should seek to attract—or perhaps discourage—and by what financial limits the terms of reference should be determined. These questions, along with how many courts there should be in Northern Ireland and the likely problems of accessibility, must all be considered, though perhaps at another time. I content myself with saying that it is good that the problems experienced in respect of small claims have been acknowledged and that those concerned in the Province should be assured of our interest and concern.

11.17 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

My colleague the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) and I take part in the debate under a dark shadow that has fallen on our constituencies. A gallant member of the UDR was brutally murdered in my colleague's constituency—two women terrorists took part in that murder—and in my constituency a gallant reserve member of the RUC, who had been attacked previously and escaped, fell victim to the terrorists. When we deal with the courts in Northern Ireland, we are dealing with matters that are very relevant to all hon. Members from Northern Ireland because we have all had similar dark shadows over our constituencies.

The leaders of the official Ulster Unionists may be happy about the way the business has been brought forward, but as two of my colleagues and myself are not consulted about how the business is brought forward, we cannot congratulate the Government on the way in which they consult hon. Members from Northern Ireland.

The Under-Secretary made an interesting statement in the House on Thursday. He said: This House decided the methods by which Northern Ireland should receive its legislation. Until this House changes its mind, I am its captive."—[Official Report, 13th April 1978; Vol. 947, c. 1654–55.] I do not understand how the House has decided to legislate for Northern Ireland because we have Orders in Council brought forward under strict time limits. No amendments can be moved; we must accept or reject. We have almost rule by decree. I shall not deal with other secondary legislation that comes to the House from Stormont Acts over which we have no jurisdiction. We cannot even put down Prayers or protest in any other way about that legislation.

It is strange that on such important matters as marriage, divorce and homosexuality, the Under-Secretary is held captive but that courts can be dealt with in a parliamentary manner by the sponsoring of a Bill.

The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said that he was most happy that we were having this Second Reading on the Floor of the House, but I think that a Bill of this kind should have commenced in the Chamber which has at least elected representatives from Northern Ireland. The Bill was sponsored in another place where there are non-elected Members. One has only to go through Hansard, if one is interested in the Bill, to see how it proceeded in its passage in another place. Hansard is filled with vast amendments. Indeed, on the Third Reading of the Bill there was a tremendous series of amendments which the Lord Chancellor, with due respect, could not explain at the end of the day when a question was put to him about the result of the last amendment which he moved. I shall come to that later in my speech.

It seems to me a very strange thing that a Bill of this nature, which deals with the whole court system of Northern Ireland, should have been dealt with in this way. I have a shrewd suspicion that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) was perhaps opposing or making some propositions in opposition to some of the things which have been decided in another place, because originally it was a piece of all-Ireland legislation which set up the courts in Northern Ireland. Perhaps, being so fond of that all-Ireland commitment, he did not want to see it tampered with. Perhaps that was the reason that he had, rather than the reason that he gave. But I will leave that for the moment.

Mr. McNamara

As far as I am concerned, that was a good reason.

Rev. Ian Paisley

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has confirmed my suspicions, which are now no longer suspicions but facts. I am delighted to know that. The people of Northern Ireland already know it. I am sure that everyone in this House also knows it.

As I was saying earlier, the Bill has been changed radically in another place, not only on the question of the Lord Chancellor's jurisdiction but on many other important aspects, so that the Bill before us tonight is greatly different from the Bill that was originally sponsored. If we are to have legislation in a parliamentary way for Northern Ireland, surely the elected representatives should have the first bite. I was going to say "at the cherry", but I hardly think that this is a cherry. At least they should have the opportunity to express their points of view on this matter.

I cannot accept what the Solicitor-General has said about the persuasive arguments of Lord Moyola and Viscount Brookeborough. Their statements in Hansard could hardly be said to be of an argumentative nature at all, and one wonders whether it was their persuasion that was involved. I rather agree with the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) that the mind of the Lord Chancellor was made up before amendments were moved and the argument was made. I think it is accepted, on this point, that the present High Court of Northern Ireland was more or less under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor and that he made the appointments to the Supreme Court under the present legislation.

We have to keep in mind that the Secretary of State is in the most unusual position, in that he has vested in him the powers of the old Governor of Northern Ireland in many instances. He has vested in him the whole Cabinet of Northern Ireland. He has vested in him the powers of the former Parliament of Northern Ireland. Keeping that in mind, I think it is a very wise decision that the Lord Chancellor should have control of the organisation of the courts.

I am not arguing here on what has been put concerning integration. I cannot see, if there is a devolved Government in Northern Ireland, why the courts cannot continue under the same jurisdiction as they are under in the rest of the United Kingdom. I think that the people of Northern Ireland are happy about the decision that has been made.

It is now seen that the organisation of the courts will be totally independent of the Northern Ireland Office. That is an important and welcome decision, a decision that is welcomed, according to the Solicitor-General, by those who hold opposite views to mine. The noble Lords who speak in another place are not by any means my friends, because they do not hold the political views that I express in this House.

The Bill changes completely the setup of the three-tier system as heretofore practised in Northern Ireland. I should be extremely worried if we in Northern Ireland were moving to a non-jury system. The Lord Chancellor sought on 16th March as reported at column 645 of Hansard, to leave out "with a jury" and to insert "by the court". His explanation there for that objective does not satisfy me. Will the Solicitor-General clarify this point for me? Are we in Northern Ireland moving further away from jury trials, and is this another infringement of the right of a person to have a jury trial?

I opposed the abolition of jury trials on a previous occasion in Standing Committee. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central voted with me on that occasion. That move to abolish jury trials should have been defeated, but the leader of the Unionists voted with the Tories after the then Attorney-General had said that Protestant jurymen could not be trusted. I believe that Protestant and Roman Catholic jurymen from Northern Ireland can be trusted. I said then that it was an insult to the Protestant jurymen of the Province, and I still believe that.

I do not want the Northern Ireland courts to move further away from the right that exists in the rest of the United Kingdom to trial by jury. There is a great tendency in Northern Ireland today for accused persons immediately to be found guilty. The accusation is almost enough for them to be found guilty. Some people criticise the courts when they let defendants off. It is a good thing that the courts do that, because it shows that there is some justice to be had in those courts. If everyone charged was found guilty by the courts there would be something wrong with the system.

The whole system of remanding prisoners presents a serious situation. This concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson), as it concerns many of us. He has a constituent who is affected by it. I have received many representations about long remands. Here is the case of a young man who was charged with a certain crime. He was kept on remand for 10 months, after which the charges were dropped. I do not believe that anyone should be kept in custody for 10 months and then have the charges against him dropped. Surely three months is long enough to discover whether a charge has any substance.

Consider the question of the remand cells at the Crumlin Road prison where these people are detained. When I visit people who are kept in those cells I am asked "Please get my trial brought forward because I am in a worse position here than if I had been sentenced and was doing my time." If they are fortunate, these remand prisoners are allowed out of their cells for one hour every day. These people are innocent until they are found guilty.

The young man in question was for 10 months subjected to that type of imprisonment and then the charges were dropped. It affected his employment, his family and his status in society.

The Minister has a responsibility to ensure that justice is done and is seen to be done. Something should be done about the remand system. Surely there is a case for bail for a person against whom no charge is brought after 10 months. This matter needs to be looked at more carefully.

I should like to mention briefly what the Minister said about lay magistrates and their duties. Lay magistrates, especially in the juvenile courts, in Northern Ireland have had a very useful role to play, though not the role played by magistrates in this country. I should like the Solicitor-General to tell us on what basis lay magistrates are appointed. In my constituency there has seemingly been very careful picking of lay magistrates. A whole series of lay magistrates have been announced in Antrim. I represent, as a Democratic Unionist, the north of that county, and the party I lead had the third best results in the local government elections. Yet not one lay magistrate was appointed who was a member of my party. One party which could not even win a seat had quite a galaxy of members appointed as justices of the peace. I have already taken up this matter with the Lord Chancellor, but I trust that tonight we shall discover how people become lay magistrates in Northern Ireland.

I come to the question I raised concerning a final, lengthy amendment moved in another place. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead said: I have one question I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord. Subsection (5) of this new clause abolishes the offices of clerk of the Crown and peace and county court registrar, whereas in Clause 69, as drafted as present, there is only an order-making power to abolish these offices".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 9th March 1978; Vol. 389, c. 928.] The Lord Chancellor said that he would consider the difficulty. Has the difficulty been considered? What is the answer to the problem which arose from that final amendment?

In this Bill we are inaugurating a new Civil Service of the courts. There are two matters which need to be considered. The first is the pressure on the magistrates' court in the preliminary investigation. As the Solicitor-General knows, such investigations take place in Belfast. There has been tremendous pressure on petty session clerks and staff regarding this matter.

I brought this to the attention of the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who is now Home Secretary. I have led deputations to him. Tremendous pressure seems to have been put on the staff who are doing preliminary investigations at petty sessions level. The pressure has fallen on the Belfast staff. Does the Solicitor-General envisage a widening of this responsibility in this new Civil Service so that others in petty session offices who are not so pressed because they are not doing preliminary inquiries can be brought in to supplement the work of those who have onerous duties in the preparations for final trials? I press that matter urgently upon the Solicitor-General.

I have received strong representations from people who have borne the brunt and heat of the day. They deserve the gratitude of this House for their work. They have given up hours and days, and even Saturdays, working and preparing. The time has come for them to be rewarded for their labours. We should set up machinery to relieve them of their burdens.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East said that most of the trials will probably continue to take place in Belfast. If that is so, most of the work will be done there. I am aware that it is not possible to take prisoners to certain areas and to have them tried there. I am aware of the security problem. I am not arguing about that. But the people doing the preliminary work at the petty session level should be adequately rewarded. There should also be extra staff. I hope that that will be taken into consideration when the new Civil Service for the courts is established.

No doubt when we examine the Bill—and I understand that it is to be examined on the Floor of the House—we shall want to examine many matters more carefully. We should like to know why some of the amendments were so readily accepted in the House of Lords. I understand that the Solicitor-General is to move amendments at which we shall look with great interest.

Tonight we should all be aware that this is a revolutionary Bill. It goes to the heart of the reform of the courts of Northern Ireland. It changes the system and deserves careful scrutiny. It is a Bill which needs to be carefully considered in Committee to ensure that we have a judicial system to which all people can look and about which they can say that at least justice will be done and be seen to be done. Democracy rests on the state of law and order, the absolute independence of the courts and the confidence of the citizens that when they go to the courts they will receive a fair hearing.

I pay tribute to all who have worked in the courts of Northern Ireland, especially local magistrates, who have been under severe threats of intimidation. Some of their colleagues have been brutally slaughtered and some mutilated by members of the Irish Republican Army. I think that we should pay a warm tribute tonight to the signal way in which they have carried out their formidable task at great personal sacrifice, and a personal sacrifice to their families. I am sure that all hon. Members from Northern Ireland—indeed, all hon. Members—will join in saying from this House a "Thank you" to those men who have served us in this hour of terrible need in Ulster.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford (Belfast, South)

I contribute to the debate very briefly by raising two or three questions. In so doing, I hope that I am not anticipating matters that ought more properly to be dealt with at a later stage, but these questions are certainly exercising the minds of the staff of the proposed unified court service.

The staff are conscious that this new service raises the issue of mobility within the whole of the Province of Northern Ireland. Those of them who were appointed by the Lord Chief Justice under the current judicature Acts are anxious to know whether they have reserved rights because of those prior appointments or whether they will be exposed to the need to move around the Province. I should be grateful if the Government would either give them a ray of hope or, indeed, resign them to their fate by answering that question.

Secondly, does Clause 69(5) include members of staff other than The offices of clerk of the Crown and peace and county court registrar"? If so, if posts are offered to people who will have to be repositioned within the new service and if the new placement is not acceptable to them, will that mean that they will automatically be made redundant? If so, on what basis will redundancy benefit be paid?

Finally, will the Civil Service forced redundancy scheme apply in such cases?

I shall happily wait until a later stage if these matters can more properly be dealt with then, but I should be very grateful to the Solicitor-General for an indication on some of them.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. Ian Percival (Southport)

My hon. friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) expressed the Opposition's welcome for the Bill. I echo that. There is not very much that I either need or can add. However, I should like to say to our friends from Ulster how glad we have been to hear the Bill receive such a warm welcome by all of those from Northern Ireland who have spoken, because these are our colleagues who know best and at first hand what the problems are. If they feel confidence in these changes, that amply fortifies, as they will appreciate, the confidence and the welcome that we have previously felt for them.

We are particularly glad to hear them welcome the changes made in the other place. I hope that the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) will not think that I am indulging in the exercise of seeking to claim credit when I say that we are happy that our friends in the other place have been able to be of some assistance in bringing about those changes which hon. Members have welcomed this evening. It is our hope that the Opposition may be of some further assistance here in this House in bringing about any other changes which may yet be made with profit.

The only other thing that I should like to do—again, I am only echoing what has previously been said, but it is an echo that is worth while—is to pay tribute to all of those who have combined so magnificently to uphold the integrity of law and the administration of justice through a prolonged period of the gravest difficulties.

Never before has it been so important that the integrity of the law and the administration of justice should be upheld, because if either of those were to diminish or to fail, heaven knows what would ensue. But never before can it have been so dreadfully difficult for that to be done, and the Conservative Party is very conscious of the tremendous debt owed to the whole of the judiciary—the High Court judges, the county court judges, the resident magistrates and the lay magistrates—and also to the officers and officials who have manned the courts to the Director of Public Prosecutions, to the Bar and to the solicitors—to everyone who has had a hand. For years now they have worked in conditions which they would not have believed could occur were it not for the fact that they have been occurring. It has taken great skill, determination and, above all, courage to achieve what they have done.

The hon. Member for Antrinr, North. (Rev. Ian Paisley) made reference to, those who have lost their lives. We have very much in mind the three members of the judiciary—Judge Rory Conaghan, QC. and the two resident magistrates, Mr. Martin McBirney and Mr. William Staunton—who have lost their lives. Equally, we pay tribute to the tremendous courage that it must have taken to sustain people who live under daily threat of injury to themselves and their families, to the wonderful work they have done, and to the wonderful way in which they have managed to uphold the traditions that we value so much despite all those factors.

For myself and all my right hon. and hon. Friends, I beg respectfully to congratulate and thank all those who have been involved. We wish them well in the tasks ahead of them. We welcome this Bill because we sincerely hope that what we are doing in it may be of some assistance to them in those tasks.

11.47 p.m.

The Solicitor-General

I have been invited at certain junctures in the debate to embark on some of the political issues which arise, unhappily, from time to time in the Province of Northern Ireland. I am a simple lawyer and I prefer to leave those issues to those who are more closely concerned with the problems of the Province.

But perhaps I should make one comment on the differences which have been expressed between the hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) as to the appropriate way of dealing with some of the matters which require to be legislated for from time to time. I should indicate that the reasons for using primary legislation in this instance are somewhat technical in nature.

First, there are in the Bill provisions relating to excepted matters which would be ultra vires in an order made under the Northern Ireland Act 1974. These are matters such as the appointment of judges, magistrates and justices of the peace. Certain provisions of the Bill extend to other parts of the United Kingdom—for example, the provisions of Clause 67, which relate to sub poenas issued in other parts of the United Kingdom. They, too, could not have been dealt with by an Order in Council. I should add, too, that the structure of the Supreme Court in Northern Ireland has depended very largely in the past on the legislative provisions of this Parliament rather than on the Northern Ireland statute book. It is for these technical reasons that the procedure has been used. It would be misleading if I allowed the House to suppose that there were other kinds of reason in this case.

The hon. Member for Antrim, North asked why indeed, if we were to have primary legislation, it should not have been introduced into this House rather than into another place. The problems of the parliamentary timetable are known to all hon. Members, but if the introduction of a Bill relating to judicial matters in another place is a matter for criticism, it is a criticism which can be applied to legislation of a similar nature in the United Kingdom since the Bill of 1971 which made the equivalent provisions for England and Wales was similarly introduced in another place.

Another political subject on which I have been tempted to comment is that of the transfer of the oversight of judicial administration from the Secretary of State to the Lord Chancellor. I do not propose to enter into an argument as to who should take the credit or the blame for that transfer. Nor would I wish to encourage speculation as to what it entails in terms of the possible future either of integration or of devolution. The Government's concern in this matter is that everything should be done to increase, as far as possible, the public's confidence in the administration of justice. It was that factor more than anything else that was in the mind of my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.

I have been asked about certain aspects of delay in the court system. All delays are regrettable, and particularly is that true of delays in criminal matters. It is a matter of concern to those who have oversight of these matters. It is kept constantly under review. It is fair to say that, although there are some unhappy exceptions, which of course everyone regrets and which of course should be kept to a minimum, the average time between arrest and trial at present is under 40 weeks. Although I would not regard that as necessarily acceptable, in the very difficult situation with which the courts are confronted in the Province one is bound to recognise that that is something of an achievement.

In relation to the delays in civil jurisdiction, the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) suggested that there might be reconsideration of the financial levels of jurisdiction. As he probably knows, the jurisdiction of magistrates' courts can be increased by Order in Council under Clause 97. The jurisdiction of county courts falls within the Administration of Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1975. This is a matter which is kept regularly under review, but it has to be considered in the context of the whole system. I doubt whether it could be considered in isolation in relation to any particular kind of court.

One unhappy problem which has shown itself almost for the first time in recent months is that in the county courts, too, there is creeping in an unhappy element of delay. It will not have escaped hon. Members' notice that in another place my noble Friend accepted an amendment to increase the maximum number of puisne judges in the Supreme Court from five to six. That may be making some contribution.

A number of hon. Members have raised the question of the jurisdiction in relation to mental health. I was particularly impressed by what the hon. Member for Antrim, South said about the terminology in Clause 28. It is a matter fairly close to my own heart because this is a subject in which I have a personal interest. The difficulty is that what the Bill is doing is transferring the former jurisdiction of the Lord Chief Justice, so it is very difficult to adopt a different terminology, because there might be some doubt as to precisely what jurisdiction was in issue.

It will not have escaped the hon. Gentleman's attention that Lord Melchett gave an undertaking in another place that the whole of this topic will be the subject of a comprehensive review in the Province. I can give the hon. Gentleman an undertaking that, if what emerges from that review is that there should be an alteration in terminology, it will certainly have the Government's attention.

The right hon. Member for Belfast, East asked whether it might be possible to transfer some of that mental health jurisdiction to some of the courts other than the Supreme Court. On that question, too, it might be better if we awaited what is said by the review body. I will certainly draw the attention of my noble Friend to what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I can promise that it will not be overlooked at the relevant time.

The hon. Member for Antrim, South referred to the small claims jurisdiction. Although it is clearly a matter which he welcomes as much as I do, he emphasised that we should not rush into the framing of these rules, for obvious reasons. We have to look at the experience in other parts of the United Kingdom. We have to consult those concerned extensively. I can give an undertaking that the consultation will take place. I can give the hon. Member some idea of some of the structure of the small claims procedures at present in the minds of those who have to frame these matters—although it is not unchangeably in their minds. The suggestion is that they should cover actions in contract and tort where the value of the claim does not exceed £200, that there will be a "no costs" rule—although the precise form of the rule is something on which there will have to be consultations—and that the venue will not necessarily be confined to the county court. It will be possible to have the venue wherever it is most convenient for the parties and all others concerned.

Mr. Molyneaux

In case the right hon. and learned Gentleman's thinking on the ceiling of £200 might affect those drafting the legislation, may I ask him to take account of inflation and the various other factors which now tend to make that comparatively small figure somewhat irrelevant?

The Solicitor-General

I can give an undertaking that the point will be borne in mind, although perhaps, basing myself on our experience in England and Wales, I can say that it is usually a good idea to begin with a fairly low level and see how it works, always hoping that the jurisdiction will be extended later.

The hon. Member for Antrim, North expressed some concern that Clause 58(3) was a move away from the jury system. I can assure him that that is not the case. Clause 58(3) relates only to civil actions. The exchange in another place, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, was a discussion relating to civil actions. In no way will it affect the use of the jury system in criminal matters.

I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not dwell at this late hour on all matters mentioned. Clearly we shall be discussing them at another stage. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) raised a number of questions in connection with the court staff but was kind enough to say that he would accept it if my answer was deferred. I prefer to do that. These are matters requiring consideration, and I would not like to give an off-the-cuff reply which was in danger of misleading the House. I will try to write to the hon. Gentleman between now and Committee stage.

I doubt whether I shall earn your gratitude, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or that of the House, if I continue with these answers for much longer. I would like to echo the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival) about the work of the judiciary in the Province, the court staff, the staff of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the profession. I have been privileged to see these people at work, to confer with them regularly and to hear some of their problems frrom their lips. If I do not spend an elaborate amount of time in recognising their difficulties it is only because that recognition is shared already by the whole House. We are embarking on a new era in the administration of justice in Northern Ireland. There are a number of matters over which we shall have to feel our way. We may have to recognise, in the light of experience from time to time, that our first shot was wrong. I hope that we shall continue to approach the subject with an open mind.

Meanwhile, we shall certainly listen carefully to what is said by hon. Members, particularly hon. Members whose constituents can provide them with first-hand experience of some of the problems which arise. Like the hon. and learned Member for Southport, I am glad that hon. Members welcome the Bill. At a later stage I hope to benefit from what they have to say. I believe that the whole community in the Province will benefit from the expeditious, efficient and impartial administration of justice. It is with that in mind that I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No 40 (Committal of Bills).