HC Deb 12 May 1975 vol 892 cc194-208

10.46 p.m.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Roland Moyle)

I beg to move, That the Administration of Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th May, be approved. May I say one or two things about the background to what is a very prosaic piece of legislation, which nevertheless is very useful in that it improves the legal system in Northern Ireland. Most of it, however, is technical except for the fact that we are asking for an increase of one judge in the Court of Appeal.

Within the past six years we have had three committees considering the legal system of Northern Ireland. The first, under the chairmanship of the former Lord Chief Justice MacDermott, reported in December 1969 upon the Supreme Court of Judicature in Northern Ireland. The second committee, serving under the present Lord Chief Justice, Sir Robert Lowry, prepared an interim report upon civil and criminal jurisdiction and reported in December 1972. Finally, in November 1973 we had a third committee under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Jones which made proposals with regard to the county courts and magistrates' courts. In due course the matter considered by these three committees will be legislated upon in a comprehensive and fundamental way by this House.

Before that task is undertaken, it is necessary to give effect to certain of the more basic proposals advanced in those reports in order to clear the way. To this end the present order has been promoted. The most far-reaching provision is that contained in Article 3, increasing the establishment of the Court of Appeal to include an additional Lord Justice of Appeal. That court at present comprises the Lord Chief Justice and two Lords Justices. In the event that any of them might not be available, the power exists to permit puisne judges to sit on appeals, but that is not regarded as a desirable recourse if it can be avoided.

It has been recognised for some time past that the additional demands being made upon the Lord Chief Justice in relation to administrative and other duties are imposing a heavy burden upon him, and now with his commitment to act as Chairman of the Constitutional Convention it will be impossible for Sir Robert Lowry to undertake any judicial duties for some time. It is essential, therefore that an additional Lord Justice be appointed at an early date. Even following the resumption by the Lord Chief Justice of his normal judicial responsibilities, it is considered that the enlarged establishment in the Court of Appeal will provide valuable flexibility in a system where members of that court are regularly involved in trials at first instance, which is unlike the position in England and Wales.

Turning to the other provisions of the order, I am sure that the whole House is familiar with the exceptional burden placed upon courts of trial in Northern Ireland. It is therefore felt that steps should be taken to allow them to meet this heavy burden as expeditiously and as efficiently as possible.

The heavy caseloads at the Belfast City Commission, which not only transacts assize business for the city but since 1973 has also been the court engaged in the trial of all scheduled offences defined in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, could not have been undertaken by Supreme Court judges alone. Since that Act came into operation regular use has been made of the provision contained in Section 4(3) which enables the Lord Chief Justice to invite a county court judge at any time to sit and act as a judge at the commission. This facility has proved to be most effective and flexible in operation and it is proposed, therefore, by Article 4 of the order to enlarge the scope of selection of persons to serve on any commission of assize, whether in Belfast or in any county or county borough.

The article consolidates the existing law on commissions of assize now contained in Sections 32 and 41 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Ireland) 1877 by substituting a new Section 41 for both those sections, and it also adds county court judges to the list of persons who may be included in a commission. Hon. Members will know that the Jones Committee, having had the opportunity to study the working of the Crown court on this side of the water, made a firm recommendation that a similar system be introduced in Northern Ireland. To give effect to that proposal would involve detailed legislation which cannot readily be undertaken in advance of other necessary reforms in the judicial system, but it is considered that the present provision will enable the business of courts of assize to be rearranged in the short term in a way that will produce many of the advantages of the Crown court system.

Article 5 is a related provision empowering the Secretary of State by order to unite two or more counties for the purposes of any assizes. This is an extension of the present system operating under the Winter Assizes Acts 1876–77 which enable counties to be united in a similar manner for the holding of winter assizes only.

When considering the principles upon which individual county court judges and resident magistrates may be assigned to particular divisions or districts, it has been recognised that responsibility for their deployment is a matter more closely related to the powers of appointment to judicial office which were vested in the Lord Chancellor in 1973 than to the functions of routine courts administration undertaken by the Secretary of State. Appropriate amendments are being made by Article 7 to those sections of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 and the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 which relate to the deployment of judges and resident magistrates, and the Lord Chancellor will in future assume responsibility for these matters.

The other major feature of the order is the provision for increases in the present financial limits of the jurisdiction of inferior courts which give effect to recommendations made by each of the three committees. The Jones Report provided a schedule of suggested new limits of jurisdiction for the county court in which the central proposal was to increase the general civil jurisdiction limit from the present figure of £300 to a new limit of £750 corresponding to the figure which applied in England and Wales at that time. Article 8 and Schedule 1 to this order now provide for increases of general civil jurisdiction to a figure of £1,000. Since the report was presented the equivalent limit of county court jurisdiction in England and Wales was also increased by order made last October to a figure of £1,000 so that the same limits will apply in Northern Ireland and England and Wales. Corresponding increases in related headings of jurisdiction in the county court are contained in Schedule 1 to the order and in each case follow the recommendations of the Jones Committee.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)

If the Minister has vaulted over Article 9, I wonder whether he will go back to it and clear up a point which is at any rate worrying the laity. It appears that the words "Clerk of the Parliaments" in existing legislation are being replaced by the words "Clerk of the Assembly". The difficulty some of us find is that the latter official is as non-existent as the former.

Mr. Moyle

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to that. Since I have the right of reply to the debate, I shall provide him with the answer in due course if he will be patient.

Article 10 of the order provides for a corresponding increase in the financial limits of jurisdiction of magistrates' courts in debt and ejectment proceedings where the jurisdiction exercised by resident magistrates has been doubled.

I have already indicated that the opportunity has been taken in this order to include a number of incidental routine amendments to existing legislation governing the administration of justice. Article 6 renders of no effect any provision in an enactment which excludes the powers of the High Court in Northern Ireland to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction by making orders of certiorari and mandamus. This provision corresponds to the provisions of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 as respects the High Court in England and Wales and the Court of Session in Scotland. This also is a measure bringing practice on this side of the water into line with that in Northern Ireland.

Authority is given in Article 9 for the reprinting of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 and the County Court Appeals Act (Northern Ireland) 1964. A reprint of these Acts and of the County Court Rules was made in 1966 but has become necessary because of the numerous legislative amendments which have been made since their enactment.

The concluding articles provide for the appointment by the Lord Chancellor of one justice of the peace for each county or county borough to be keeper of the rolls for that county or county borough. Counties and county boroughs apparently still exist for legal purposes in Northern Ireland, although for local government purposes they have been replaced by district councils. This enables clerks of petty sessions to exercise the statutory functions of a justice of the peace in relation to the signing of summonses—in the same manner as clerks to the justices in England and Wales—and effect consequential repeals.

This order provides essential enablements for the immediate redeployment of judicial and administrative resources pending a more fundamental reform of the courts system in Northern Ireland. As such I commend it to the House.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison (Epping Forest)

In preparation for this debate I looked through the venerable statutes, one of William IV and six of Queen Victoria, dating from pre-partition times, which are repealed by this order. Some hon. Members might be surprised and even entranced to know what remains on the statute book. Since there is much charm in anomaly, I should like to be assured that there is no imminent danger of a Law Commission being let loose in Northern Ireland.

However, in a more serious vein, may I refer to Article 3 of the order, since we should like to wish Lord Chief Justice Lowry well in the new and delicate task he has undertaken as Chairman of the Constitutional Convention. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We also welcome those parts of the order which tend to strengthen the judiciary and we take the opportunity of saluting all concerned with the administration of justice—some of whom have lost their lives—in these times of trouble and terror.

The Minister of State referred to three reports. It is clear that there is no full implementation of any of those reports under this order. I should like to know from the Minister of State whether the proposals of the three reports which he has mentioned are generally accepted by the Government and when the Northern Ireland Office proposes to implement those proposals which they accept.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. William Craig (Belfast, East)

Whatever may have been the impression about other business going through on the nod, I do not think that hon. Members, on this side of the House at least, thought that this order would go through on the nod. It concerns a very important matter for Northern Ireland.

Whilst I welcome the proposals in the order, there is a strong feeling of regret that the order has not gone much further. As the Minister said, there have been three reports, the first going back to December 1969. While there have been many difficulties confronting the Government and authority generally in Northern Ireland, the pace has been far too slow in dealing with the serious situation facing the legal system. The High Court and the whole legal system are under great pressure. There is an urgent need for relief.

The order will go some way to help, but it leaves some serious matters in the air. I do not think it is generally realised in Northern Ireland that people can be held on remand for 18 months and longer. I find that offensive by any standard. The whole essence of British justice is that a man is innocent until proved guilty. To accept a situation in which a man can be incarcerated for 18 months and more is not good enough.

Mr. Gerard Fitt (Belfast, West)

Long Kesh.

Mr. Craig

The hon. Gentleman is well known for his views in this respect. I do not propose to follow him along that line now. I am anxious to see that our legal system becomes as effective as it can be.

All of us will welcome the small steps that are taken, particularly the proposal to give an additional Lord Justice to the High Court of Northern Ireland. I am sure that that will be of the utmost benefit, and not only because it relieves the Lord Chief Justice to perform a vital function in the Northern Ireland Convention. We are all in Northern Ireland extremely grateful to the Lord Chief Justice and the Government for making this possible. Apart from that great advantage, I think that it will give more flexibility to the Court of Appeal.

As regards relief to the High Court, the proposed increases in the jurisdiction of the county court seem miserly in the light of the £300 limit set in 1954 and the changing value of the pound through the years. One of the reports, that of a committee chaired by the present Lord Chief Justice, recommended an increase in the county court jurisdiction not just to take account of the changing value of money but to give relief to the High Court. The figure of £1,000 falls far short of the target of giving relief to the High Court. It does little more than keep pace with the rate of inflation.

It is a little disappointing that there has not been a much more radical approach in the proposals for the assize courts. I presume, however, that it was felt that one could not take a more radical approach until the question of the central criminal court has been decided. This is my bone of contention with the Government. It is a matter for regret that a decision on a central criminal court has not been taken before now. No other step that the Govermnment could take to relieve the pressures on the courts would have greater effect. It is the one step that could relieve us of the awful situation of people having to wait 18 months and more to be brought to trial.

The report of the committee chaired by Lord MacDermott and the report of the committee chaired by the present Lord Chief Justice emphasised strongly the value that could be obtained from the appointment of a central criminal court. There are different views of the extent and jurisdiction of that court, but there is no dispute in principle as to the need to establish such a court. I hope that this interim order does not mean that this important question is being put on one side. All of us on this side of the House will support the order, but we do so with the greatest regret that more has not been done.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Gerard Fitt (Belfast, West)

In my many years as a public representative in this House and in Northern Ireland, I have often questioned the correctness of legal Members speaking on legal matters and whether these were matters in which they had a pecuniary interest. It was only to be expected that the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) would support the judiciary in Northern Ireland. He is a member of the legal profession.

While I realise that many members of the judiciary in Northern Ireland have been under serious attack and some, including friends of mine, have lost their lives, I cannot refrain from saying that there are certain professions which seem to have been doing very well out of the troubles. One can think of undertakers, florists, solicitors and other members of the legal profession, and the Press—through obituary notices

This order will make provision for an increase in the number of judges in Northern Ireland and the promotion of other people in the legal profession. I hope, though not with a great deal of optimism, that the present troubles will be brought to an end very soon. If the troubles were to cease, the promotions now being made would seem to be creating redundancies for the future. If someone had been made a judge, or promoted through the ranks of the legal profession, and was then no longer needed, he would not claim redundancy pay like the men in the shipyards, at Short's or Harland's. He would be there and he would stay there. I urge the Government to be very wary of creating so many posts that they will not be able to get rid of the people it the situation arises that they are of no particular benefit.

Mr. Norman Miscampbell (Blackpool, North)

Intervening in an Irish debate is always hazardous. The order simply provides for one further judicial appointment and gives the court flexibility to appoint to other jobs people who are already appointed. There does not seem to be much potential redundancy created if we appoint one extra judge for the whole of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Fitt

It produces one extra appointment, but it provides for promotions in other fields. People already appointed will be promoted and nobody, particularly in the judiciary, can be demoted in Northern Ireland.

The right hon. Member for Belfast, East has objected to the length of time that elapses between arrest and trial. I agree with him. I understand that Brixton Prison is a remand prison in Britain and that a long time elapses in Britain between arrest and being brought to trial and that there are many people in Brixton Prison and elsewhere who have had to stay in prison a long time awaiting trial. I find myself at one with the right hon. Gentleman on this issue. Anyone arrested and charge with an offence should be brought before the court immediately so that his innocence or guilt may be proved.

But there are many people—304 of them—who are incarcerated in Long Kesh and who have been arrested by the security forces, the RUC or the British Army, who have never been charged with any specific offence. A certain amount of suspicion may surround them, but there is just as great an onus on the House to ensure that they are brought before a court and tried as with persons who are held and, to use the right hon. Gentleman's word, incarcerated in prisons in Britain.

I am using this debate to say that I would agree with the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. Too long a time elapses between a person being brought before the court and subsequently being tried and convicted or found not guilty. In the same context, it should not go unnoticed by the House that there are 304 people who have been arrested and who are incarcerated in Long Kesh without any charge ever having been laid against them in Northern Ireland. When one is looking at judicial problems as they occur here and in Northern Ireland, one should always remember the 304 who have been arrested and incarcerated without trial.

11.13 p.m.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

It should be said that these 304 people publicly claim that they are members of the Irish Republican Army, which is a proscribed organisation. They publicly acclaim the brutal and dastardly killing of a police officer upon the walls of the maiden city of Londonderry yesterday and they rejoice in the fact that when the constable's body was being removed from where he was murdered a bunch of people hooted and jeered and tried to hinder the ambulance retrieving the body. I do not like internment or detention, but as long as these people claim to be members of a proscribed organisation and would-be murderers and as long as they glory in bloody deeds, the Government have a responsibility to safeguard decent law-abiding people from having such men released on the community.

I should welcome their being properly tried—no one more than I—but it is wrong for the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) to paint the picture he has presented tonight. What is more, Eli million worth of damage has been done to Maze Prison. These men helped to do that damage and yet no charge has yet been preferred against anyone for that vast amount of damage.

I agree with what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig). I have heard many things about my right hon. Friend and many suggestions about offices he has held. I did not know that he was a member of the Northern Ireland judiciary until tonight. I must congratulate him on this appointment that has taken place so suddenly and without notice. I am sure that his friends in Northern Ireland will be hastening to congratulate him when he returns to that part of the United Kingdom.

I associate myself with the remarks made from the Opposition Front Bench and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East concerning the appointment of the Lord Chief Justice to the chairmanship of the Northern Ireland Convention. I am sure that everyone in the House wishes both him and that Convention well in the task that lies ahead. It has been pointed out in a certain newspaper article that the only person with whom the Lord Chief Justice would have trouble in the Convention would be myself. I should like to make it public tonight that I hope to be able to co-operate with the Chairman of that Convention more than I was able to co-operate with the Chairman of a certain other Assembly, which is now, thank God, no more.

I want to raise one essential point in relation to the draft order. The load on the courts in Northern Ireland is ever being added to. The petty sessions courts in Belfast are carrying the vast proportion of the work, as no doubt the Minister knows. I should like him to tell the House how many courts are now running concurrently in the petty sessions court building in Chichester Street, Belfast. By how much has the staff been increased as the result of the heavy load and the increase of courts in the petty sessions there? What promotions have been awarded to staff who have served so well in those courts? What help has been given to the Clerk of Petty Sessions in Belfast?

My information is that so overloaded are those courts at present that the staff are feeling the burden and the heat of the day. Will the Minister assure us that notice has been taken of this matter and of the representations made by the staff and public representatives to the Secretary of State? Those representations need urgent consideration. I fear that if something is not done quickly, the administration of justice in those lower courts will be seriously jeopardised.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman can give those assurances, for which many of us have long been waiting.

11.18 p.m.

Mr. James Molyeaux (Antrim, South)

Another comparatively small matter which appears to have been omitted is that of the fees payable to commissioners for oaths. There has for some time been a wide discrepancy between such sums and those payable in the rest of the United Kingdom.

The Minister of State may be aware that I have been in touch for many months with his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on this matter. While there would not appear to be any great obstacle to bringing the fees into line, it has so far proved utterly impossible to obtain any action on the matter. Will the Minister remind his right hon. and learned Friend that there is need for urgent progress in this respect?

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Moyle

The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) opened his remarks by wishing to convey his good wishes to Sir Robert Lowry on his taking the chair at the Convention. That was accepted all round with hearty "Hear, hears". In normal circumstances I should undertake to convey the good wishes of the House to Sir Robert; on this occasion, however, it is not necessary. Government supporters join the hon. Gentleman in his good wishes.

The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) raised a very interesting point in an interjection in my opening remarks. The fact is that although the Assembly has been dissolved, it is still legally capable of existence, and the post of Clerk to the Assembly technically still remains until such time as the Constitutional Convention provides alternative methods of government in Northern Ireland which are acceptable to this House and repealing legislation is passed. Therefore, the problem which the right hon. Gentleman referred to does not necessarily arise since the post referred to in the order still remains as a legal post in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Powell

If a post exists, is it filled? It appears that the article will be nugatory unless there is not merely a post but someone filling it. If it is filled, is he drawing a salary?

Mr. Moyle

These are interesting points. But if the absence of a Clerk to the Assembly becomes a problem, it can be solved.

Mr. Biggs-Davison

Is Mr. Blackburn the Clerk of the Assembly?

Mr. Moyle

There is a Clerk to the Convention, and I think that his name is Blackburn. But I am not sure whether he is Clerk to the Assembly at this moment. In any event, if the problem arises it can be solved in the manner that I have suggested, whether or not one exists at the moment.

The hon. Member for Epping Forest also asked whether the Government accepted the three reports—the Jones, the Lowry and the MacDermott Reports. The Government are considering carefully the details of all the reports, and we have not yet announced acceptance of them as such. But we shall bring the basic "meat" of those reports before the House in the form of legislation when time can be found in the Government's programme, although, as hon. Gentlemen know, that is no simple problem. That is the status of the three reports and the time that we are likely to be able to introduce them. I am sorry that I cannot be more precise.

The right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) welcomed the order as far as it went and expressed regret that it did not go further. I welcome this view, because it will make the task of fundamental and extensive reform much easier when the time comes to introduce the legislation on the three reports which I have promised.

The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the long time that people are held on remand. I do not believe that he thought he was revealing any secret to the House when he said that—certainly he was not to the Government. The courts are independent of the Executive, but it is the constant desire of all administrators of justice in Northern Ireland to reduce the present bottlenecks in the judicial system. Rearrangements of the administrative and legal system are made constantly to ensure that cases are investigated and brought to trial as quickly as possible.

The right hon. Gentleman knows the fundamental conditions which have created the existing problem. For example, the present sittings of the Belfast City Commission made since September 1973 dealing with all the scheduled offences mean that it is acting virtually as a central criminal court. That accounts for the great majority of serious cases, because the great majority of serious cases dealt with in Northern Ireland these days are scheduled offences.

The Belfast City Commission is making a tremendous effort. The full resources of the Supreme Court and the county court are deployed at the Belfast City Commission with a view to securing speedy trials. In recent times there have been up to six judges sitting daily on trials at the City Commission. This is an example of the tremendous efforts being made to process criminal cases as fast as possible.

The right hon. Gentleman was also worried that the limit on county court jurisdicition was being held back to about £1,000. He felt that it ought to be increased. The limit can be increased in future. But there is always the point to bear in mind that it would remove a number of cases from the High Court to the county court. That would mean that a number of people would have the damages that they could claim consequently reduced.

I recall that at the time when the limit for the county court in this country was increased, I argued vigorously that the limit proposed by Lord Gardiner should be substantially reduced below £750. One reason was that trade unions prosecuting industrial injury cases would be forced to take more cases in the county court than in the High Court with consequent restrictions on the amount of damages which could be claimed. This factor has to be balanced against what the right hon. Gentleman was arguing, which I do not deny is relevant.

My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) seems to have left the Chamber, but I will record the fact that we will keep an eye on the number of promotions up the judicial hierarchy to make sure that it is not overloaded. However, our major consideration will be the necessity to speed up the process of justice in Northern Ireland and to reduce the time that people are held on remand.

The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) raised a number of interesting points on the administration of justice. There are five courts sitting regularly in Belfast. There has been a review of staff requirements following representations by the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) to the Secretary of State. Although we are not in a position to announce the outcome of that review, it is under way and the problem to which attention has been drawn is under consideration.

Finally, I was asked by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) to jog the mind of the Attorney-General—

Rev. Ian Paisley

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) who made representations, but there is a mistake. The representations were made by me.

Mr. Moyle

I do not wish to give credit where credit is not due. I must leave hon. Gentlemen to sort this out amongst themselves. I promise to jog the Attorney-General's memory so that he will consider fees in Northern Ireland compared with those in Great Britain.

I think that I have covered all the points made in the debate. Therefore, I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the Administration of Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th May, be approved

    c208
  1. ADJOURNMENT 12 words
Forward to