NORTHERN IRELAND (COUNTY COURTS) (Hansard, 14 July 1972)

§ The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell)
I beg to move, That the County Courts (Additional Sittings) (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 965), a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th June, be approved. If I may make just a brief comment——

§ Mr. Stanley R. McMaster (Belfast, East)
On a point of order. Could you help the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I refer you to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when today's business was discussed on 6th July. He said: As for the business of the House, I draw my hon. Friend's attention"— he was referring to my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley)— to the fact that under the procedure which I have proposed it will be possible for the education order to have six and a half hours of debate"— that would have taken us until 5.30 p.m. on the first order— and for there to be a further 1¼hours of debate on each of the other three orders, if the House so wishes. For any order in this House, whether it be in respect of Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales or England, to have the chance of that length of debate is not too bad."—[Official Report, 6th July, 1972; Vol. 840, c 756.] May I refer you also, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to what Mr. Speaker said on the previous occasion when we discussed a series of Northern Ireland orders: On the Irish point, as a matter of order perhaps I might point out that there is to be a debate on Northern Ireland affairs on the Adjournment, which will therefore be very wide. As to the orders, the first deals with exported animals, the second with compulsory insurance and employers' liability, and the third with the Appropriation Bill. The House may well decide to get rid of the first two rather more quickly than the one and a half hours allowed for each, in which case this Motion will enable the debate on the Appropriation Bill to go on until 2.30 instead of being limited to the one and a half hours. Mr. Speaker returned to the point at ten o'clock that night when he said: For any hon. Members who were not here earlier today I should explain that there 2159 are three orders to be discussed, one dealing with the export of animals, which is fairly narrow, one dealing with employers' liability which is very narrow and the third, the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order on which there can be a pretty wide discussion. Therefore, if the House should decide to take the first two orders fairly quickly there can be a wide debate until 2.30 a.m. according to the Business Motion which has been approved."—[Official Report, 12th June, 1972; Vol. 838, c. 1009, 1135.] Finally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I remind you that the last time we discussed similar orders, on 3rd July, having sat through the entire day's proceedings, at five minutes to midnight, when the time for debate elapsed, I drew Mr. Speaker's attention to the fact that on an important Bill with 54 Clauses and seven Schedules only three Ulster Members had had a chance to take part in the debate. Other hon. Members, besides myself, had not had an opportunity to take part in the debate.
I know that the House is burdened with work. We have had a heavy programme this Session dealing with the Common Market and other economic affairs. In common with all the Ulster Members, I am grateful to the servants of the House for the extra time they spend. But Northern Ireland affairs are very serious. Other Ulster Members who have not had the chance to speak today had expected, because of the promises and statements to which I have referred, that the debate could go on until 10.30 p.m. Indeed, I read in The Times this morning that that was so. It appears that the debate is being cut short, in spite of the clear statements by Mr. Speaker and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that we should be allowed more time tonight.

§ Mr. Merlyn Rees (Leeds, South)
The official Opposition are entirely satisfied with the situation. Perhaps that is because we understand it. The last time this happened, a Motion was put to the House at ten o'clock. The Motion enabled the business to go on until half-past two. It enabled three orders to be discussed for an hour and a half each. It enabled us to concertina them in the way the hon. Gentleman has explained. That suited us because we had had a full day's debate on the Adjournment and the Motion met the needs of the situation.
2160 Regarding today's business, we again understand, because we bothered to find out the needs of the situation, that because it is a Friday we have had a debate from eleven o'clock, although it was shortened because of the statement. There were four orders, each timed for one and a half hours. Therefore, The Times got it right, and the debate could go on until half-past ten. Technically at four o'clock we could have had an hour and a half's debate on education because of the generosity of the Government—I hope this constant praise of the Government is not too embarrassing—which would have taken us until half-past five. In fact, the debate finished earlier.
We had one and a half hours on the preceding order and two more orders followed it. I have suggested that because of their nature they do not need discusion because one of them brings Northern Ireland completely into line with the superannuation arrangements made in this country as recently as March by the Westminster Parliament, and the other is intended to increase the county court sittings, which, given the nature of the problems of Northern Ireland, is not exactly a major issue. We understand the issue and we are satisfied that it is what we accepted.

§ Mr. Evelyn King (Dorset, South)
On a point of order——

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)
If the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) will allow me to reply first, he may find it unnecessary to go further with his point of order. What the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) has just said is true. Our business on the previous occasion of which the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) spoke was regulated by a special Resolution of the House. We are not now working under that but are working under Standing Order No. 5, of which part refers to Standing Order No. 3. It is clear that the procedure is that we could start at four o'clock with the first order, which could go on till half-past five, then start with the second order, and so on, unless the House decided to finish with the lot earlier. Unless the House finished with them earlier, that would be the position. There is nothing I can do about it now except, having had the 2161 necessary break, to ask the House to get on with the proceedings as quickly as possible.

§ Mr. McMaster
On a further point of order. I am sorry to prolong the proceedings but you said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the first order would run until 5.30. I would remind you that the appropriation order was the second and not the first. I lodge a strong protest because my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said clearly that the education order would have six and a half hours' debate and there would be one and a half hours each for the remaining three orders. My right hon. Friend said that clearly, but we have not had that time.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The Leader of the House is not the final arbiter in these matters. These are matters for the Chair. It is for the Chair to interpret Standing Orders. The first order was finished before the time allotted and so the next order had a corresponding amount of time allotted to it. Had debate on it ended earlier there would have been a saving of time, as I hope there will be now.

§ Captain L. P. S. Orr (Down, South)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I make it plain at this stage that our quarrel is not with the Chair. I do not quarrel with the interpretation of the rules which you have just put to us. In the absence of such an order of the House as we had on a previous occasion, I have no doubt that your interpretation is correct, and I agree with the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees). But the only way in which we were able to make our complaint on the Floor of the House was by addressing points of order to you.
Our complaint is to the Government. We were plainly under the impression from what had been said that the same kind of procedure would be adopted today as was adopted on the previous occasion. Consequently, there is a sense of grievance in that many of my hon. Friends who would have wished to take part in a wider debate have not been called. That is the position as it stands.

§ Mr. David Howell
I was just explaining that the main object of this order is 2162 to enable additional sittings of the county court in Northern Ireland to be held for the purpose of dealing with persons awaiting trial on indictment before that court, thus shortening the time any person would have to spend in custody pending trial. Additional sittings will also deal with appeals made to that court against an order of the magistrates' court.
I am prepared to go into more detail, but in the circumstances, and in the light of what the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) has said, the House will perhaps be satisfied that I have explained the main purpose of the order.

§ Mr. Rees
The hon. Gentleman has made the case for the order, albeit briefly. It is something that we can take as read. I have two or three questions to ask, but in view of the business of the day I will write to him.

§ Mr. James Kilfedder (Down, North)
I appreciate that the staff of the House are very loyally giving us their time and support and I do not wish to detain them a moment longer than necessary.
Last night I tried to get in on a debate on another order—an order increasing the salaries of Metropolitan magistrates. I did not get the opportunity to speak, but in all conscience I could not support the order and voted against the increase. It galls me to think that here we have an order to increase the number of county court sittings in Northern Ireland, yet we have heard not a whisper from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State about an increase in salary for the judges; nor has there been any statement about an increase in the salaries of the resident magistrates.
They have a terrible time in Northern Ireland. Their lists are full. Their duties are onerous. They work four times as hard as their opposite numbers in England and Wales. They are subjected to all sorts of threats. The home of one resident magistrate has been bombed, and perhaps other magistrates have been physically intimidated. I should have thought that the Government, in increasing the number of sittings of the county court, would have made some mention of an increase in salary.
2163 This is my only reason for intervening in the debate. I feel that if we are making provision for additional sittings, the Government ought to provide some recompense at the same time to those who take on these very responsible and onerous duties. Last night, the Government put through an order to increase the salaries of Metropolitan magistrates by £1,500, and I hope that my hon. Friend will now intimate to these members of the judiciary in Northern Ireland that there will be an increase in salary for them.

§ Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)
I hope to be a little more in order than the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder). I apologise if that comment is an implied criticism of the Chair.
I am concerned that cases should be heard quickly and got through quickly. I am also concerned, however, about internees who are taken from internment and put on trial, but found to be not guilty, or who do not have evidence offered against them, only to be taken back to internment. That creates a bad impression, as the Under-Secretary will realise.

§ Mr. David Howell
As has already been suggested, I cannot take up the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), because they do not come within the terms of the order. If there were such a whisper this would not be the place to whisper it.
I note what has been said by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).