§ Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
§ Mr. MaginnisI wish to support what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said about the difficulty of getting people to serve on juries. However, my chief purpose in intervening is to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to consider one specific matter.
In the rural areas of Northern Ireland there are at present what are known as "small, one farm farmers" who operate on their own. It is very difficult in present circumstances to get anyone to run a farm, to feed cattle, to milk dairy cows, and the rest of it, if a farmer is 775 called for jury service. In many cases my right hon. Friend has acceded to requests from them to be exempt from jury service on this score. It is not that they do not want to serve. But whereas 10 years ago practically all these farms employed two or three men, today they are run solely by their owners.
I ask my right hon. Friend to look at this position in the future. I know that these farmers all look forward to the day when the need for juries to try these kinds of offences will be done away with. However, in the circumstances some consideration should be given to men in this position.
§ Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West)The Opposition treat this matter with great seriousness. I am sure that the Attorney-General will agree that we did in Committee. It is a matter of great importance to our constitution.
I speak as a non-lawyer. But I am liable to be summoned at any time to what Lord Devlin called "that little Parliament" in order to adjudicate on my fellow citizens. Any proposal to give that up, even under the extreme pressure to which the Attorney-General referred, is one that we cannot accept without thoroughly examining whether further attempts should not be made to maintain the jury system in Northern Ireland.
On Second Reading the Attorney-General made an impressive case to the House on this issue. In Committee his case was not as good. Today the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given the House a good deal more hard information which it would be foolish to say is not impressive. But in our opinion it is still not impressive enough to waive the jury system.
It could be said that this proposal of the Government is a real concession to violence, from whichever side it comes. It could be said that violence has ended the jury system in Northern Ireland. As the Attorney-General pointed out in Committee and again today, the violence is not on one side of the community. It is on both sides. Those of us who visit Northern Ireland quite regularly, however, recognise the concern that there is about justice and about apprehending criminals, bringing them to justice and sentencing them if they are found guilty. Nevertheless the Opposition still feel as 776 members of a party which has always had a great interest in civil liberties, that, even in the face of perverse decisions, only an overwhelming case will persuade us to give up the jury system even for a short period. The Attorney-General has said that it is to be done only while the emergency lasts and that everyone will want to see its return as soon as possible. But all too often when we do away with a practice for a temporary period it takes on an air of permanence and lasts longer than many of us would like to see.
The Opposition feel that we must stand by the policy which we advocated in Committee, which, incidentally, had the support of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. The decision to abolish the jury system was taken only as a result of the Chairman's casting vote. That shows the seriousness with which the Committee viewed the proposal. It will be seen from the debate in Committee how many hon. Members were troubled by the proposal. The Minister of State, who piloted the Bill through its Committee stage, knows that many of his hon. Friends were deeply concerned.
In Committee the Attorney-General did not make out a case prior to this decision being taken. In spite of the trouble in Northern Ireland in the past 24 hours, when we are attempting new political developments, with the election of the Assembly and with the hope that the Assembly and the Executive will work and create a new atmosphere, it appears to us that, having soldiered on with the jury system so far, this is the wrong moment to do away with it without seeing what the new political developments will bring. We all hope that they will bring peace. However, we cannot accept the explanation given to the House by the Attorney-General. For that reason I ask my hon. Friends to press the amendment.
§ Question put and negatived.