NORTHERN IRELAND BILL [Lords] (Hansard, 31 May 1962)

§ Mr. Robert Mellish (Bermondsey)
The Joint Under-Secretary of State will recall that on Second Reading I intervened because those I have the honour to represent— the Catholics in Northern Ireland— were rather unhappy about Clause 13 as presented at that time. This Bill began in another place, and views were expressed there about Clause 13 which was, I am glad to say, later amended as the result of an intervention by the Lord Chancellor. Thus, when the Bill arrived here, Clause 13 had been amended to some extent satisfactorily.
I raised then, and I raise again now, the whole question of Clause 13 (1,b), and seek assurances. Those whom I represent in Northern Ireland were very unhappy that the Government were not 1645 able to alter the words contained in that provision, which referred to … the control of the use of land. They would like to have seen the words "development of land" inserted instead, but we were not successful. However, we were given certain assurances, for which I am grateful. Since then, there has been correspondence between the Home Secretary and myself and other interested parties on what is meant by the words … the control of the use of land. This correspondence was not private and confidential. This was an open letter sent by the Home Secretary to me, in which he gave certain assurances, and I want to put it on record. It was dated 4th May and said: I have since consulted my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Government, who have authorised me to confirm this forecast; and to say that the new powers are required only to ensure that planning control, public health laws and other legislation of the type which can broadly be described as aimed at the prevention of the anti-social use of property may be applied as it is in Great Britain to all kinds of property irrespective of the class of owner. It is important that those following the Bill closely will know what the Home Secretary has told me as a Member of Parliament.
The hierarchy in Northern Ireland were also acquainted with that letter and are appreciative and grateful. But I am asked to say tonight that we are still unhappy about the fact that Clause 13 (1,b) could still be misinterpreted by some people in Northern Ireland if they so desired. I want to avoid that risk of misinterpretation.
We are concerned with the possibility that some people in Northern Ireland with a prejudice— and I say this quite openly— could interpret, despite the Home Secretary's assurances, the words … the control of the use of land. to mean that they could take certain land. We fear that they could claim that the words did not mean what the Home Secretary's letter declared them to mean.
They might declare, for instance, what a piece of land upon which stands a church hall should be used an an open space, claiming that this amenity was essential to the area. This would mean the whole of that piece of land becoming 1646 sterile. I am not suggesting that there are many people in Northern Ireland generally or in Stormont in particular, who would do this, but at certain levels it might well be done, and it is because those I have the privilege to speak for have these fears that I ask for further assurances to confirm what I have said.
If such action were to be taken, I am surely right in saying that this greatest Parliament in the world is the final authority. I would certainly try to raise the matter on the Floor of the House if we considered that some injustice had been done and that the wording in the Home Secretary's letter had been misinterpreted. I say to the Home Secretary and his Department that we are grateful for the co-operation that we have received. We could not have been treated more courteously. They have tried very hard to meet our point of view. There was a concession in Clause 13 (1,a) for which we were grateful.
I do not live in Northern Ireland, but many of my friends do, and when we express fears about certain problems they may seem alien to this country. If this Bill concerned only Great Britain I should not be concerned. I should be quite happy about these words. But I want to be doubly sure about Northern Ireland. I give notice that if these words are ever misinterpreted by, perhaps, a local official, I will raise the matter on the Floor of the House.

§ The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke)
Our discussions on the Bill have been brief and amicable. This followed from the general welcome it was given because the objectives of the Bill are really essential. It is the wish of all of us that Northern Ireland should be able to enjoy laws which arc as up to date and beneficial as those we have in Great Britain. We all recognise that the fulfilment of this wish must necessarily involve the Parliament at Westminster from time to time in legislation devoted solely to Northern Ireland affairs, and that, in short, is what this Bill is about.
Since the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) has, quite rightly, come back to the question—which I will deal with in a minute—of Clause 13, I can 1647 assure him that if the worst came to the worst—and I have no reason to believe that it would—this House of Commons would still have the fullest power which it has ever had, and it is a power not merely on reserved subjects but on all subjects. Therefore, even if his fears were, in some extraordinary way, justified, we should have power to remedy the situation here.
On behalf of my right hon. Friends and myself, I thank the House for its reception of the Bill. It was the practice in earlier years to describe such Bills by the title "Northern Ireland (Miscellanous Provision) Bill". This title was last used in 1945. Since then we have gained in brevity, but perhaps lost in accuracy, by changing to the shorter title of "Northern Ireland Bill."
Short titles should be short. The title "Northern Ireland Bill" may, however, give a greater impression of unity than the contents of the Bill warrant, for there is no lack of miscellany for all the change of title. We have had to jump from the Supreme Court to superannuation, taking in on the way such disparate topics as prerogative writs, juries, slum clearance, rent control, company law, horses, wrecks and warrants of arrest. We have all passed this test of agility with flying colours.
This illustrates the varied respects in which the law relating to Northern Ireland may need amendment and the reason why it would not be possible to include all these amendments in functional legislation confined to a particular topic, although, of course, from time to time we find it appropriate to proceed in that way.
During an earlier stage of the Bill, the Committee had occasion to weigh some nicely balanced arguments about the quorum of the new Supreme Court Rules Committee. I am sure that it gave satisfaction to my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland that we felt able to accede to the practical arguments which they advanced on this point. One might say that the balance was preserved when my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) felt able to withdraw his Amendment proposing a Rules and Administration Committee. I hope, also, that 1648 we were able to satisfy the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) on the questions which he asked on the first twelve Clauses of the Bill.
For some years now it has been widely recognised that the law relating to the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland has been in need of revision. It is still largely governed by an Act of 1877 which is now inevitably out of date. The first twelve Clauses of the Bill go far to give effect to the recommendations of the Sheil Committee which reported five years ago. As a result of the Bill and, in particular, of the fresh powers which it confers on the Supreme Court Rules Committee, I hope that it will be possible for the law relating to the Supreme Court to be brought up to date in the way the Sheil Committee thought necessary.
I fully recognise that it might have been better if we had been able to introduce an entirely new Judicature Act for Northern Ireland, but that would have been a heavy undertaking and if we had set our sights as high as this, I think that it would have been a long time before we were able to introduce the necessary legislation. Here, as elsewhere, the best would have been the enemy of the good. Nevertheless, I hope that what we have done in the Bill will be found to have gone a long way towards making the improvements in the law relating to the Supreme Court for which the Lord Chief Justice and others have been pressing for some time.
In response to the hon. Member for Bermondsey, I was able at the time of the Second Reading to forecast the intentions of the Northern Ireland Government about the use of the powers conferred by Clause 13 (1, b). I have the express authority of the Northern Ireland Government to confirm his view of this matter. I am very glad that he quoted from the letter of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, as that gets it on the record. The new powers are required only to ensure that planning control, public health laws and other legislation of the type which can broadly be described as aimed at the prevention of the anti-social use of property may be applied, as it is in 1649 Great Britain, to all kinds of property irrespective of the class of owner.
I reiterate that the Northern Ireland Government has no intention whatever of misusing this power in any way, and certainly not in the example given by the hon. Member, that is to say, the conceivable sterilisation of land at present being used for a church purpose. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has informed not only the hon. Member, but also my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris), of this. There is no question of these powers being used to undermine the safeguards incorporated in Clause 13 (1, a). The Clause must be read as a whole. There is a distinction between subsection (1, a), which is concerned with the diversion of land, and paragraph (b) which is concerned with control over the use of land.

§ Mr. Fletcher-Cooke
The safeguard in paragraph (a) for buildings used exclusively for religious or educational purposes cannot be evaded by relying on paragraph (b); if it could, the effect of the Clause would be contradictory. Paragraph (b) does not permit the diversion of property, under the pretence of controlling its use, either directly by legislation, or indirectly by executive action.
On Clause 14, it may be worth repeating that the situation of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom, the relationship between the Northern Ireland Government and Parliament and the United Kingdom Government and Parliament and, indeed, Northern Ireland's Constitution as a whole are all sui generis, and cannot profitably be compared with the position in other countries to which they may bear some superficial resemblance. I think that it has been generally accepted both in the House and in Northern Ireland and by the hon. Member for Bermondsey in 1650 his very courteous interventions both today and previously that it would be quite incorrect to suggest that the Clause created some new danger of expropriation in Northern Ireland.
On the rest of the Clauses, I would only express the hope that, if we have not thought it necessary to devote a great deal of time to their discussion, this will not be taken to indicate any lack of interest or any lack of belief in their value.

§ Sir Frank Soskice (Newport)
I had not intended to intervene in the debate and I do so only very shortly because the Minister kindly asked me whether I was satisfied about various matters which I had raised on Second Reading and in Committee. My answer to him would be that in regard to all except the jury question I do not feel that I can take the matter any further. These matters have been fully and exhaustively discussed and hon. Members who sit for Northern Ireland seats have registered their accord with the Government's proposals. I shall say no more about them.
I do not feel altogether at ease on the question of the reduction in the number of juries, as the Under-Secretary knows. I think that it is wrong in principle, unless there is some overwhelming reason for it. I do not think myself that we had any very compelling reason put before us why juries should be reduced. Convenience was really the basis upon which it was done, and I accept, of course, that the time of busy citizens must not be wasted.
I content myself by saying in reply to the Minister that I still feel uneasy on the question of juries, but that as the matter has been exhaustively discussed and as right hon. and hon. Members do not seem to share my disquiet, I do not think that I can take the matter further in a Northern Ireland Bill.