Lords Sitting of 2 February 1978

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Worcester):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

EAST GERMANY: MILITARY INFORMATION
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on their policy with regard to the supply of military information to East Germany.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, it is not Her Majesty's Government's policy to supply classified military information to East Germany.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, do we make any distinction between the classified information which we pass to East Germany and to West Germany, since the two processes seem to have the same effect?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the views of the noble Lord are somewhat obscure. But certain unclassified information may be released to East Germany through open publications or as the result of the signature by the United Kingdom Government to the Helsinki Final Act.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit me to say so, that is not what I was referring to. We have now had some 20 years' experience; anything which we pass to West Germany is taken and passed to East Germany by the East German Secret Service.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, if my noble friend has any evidence of this, he ought to tell the House formally.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, has not the House been told often enough?

POLITICAL PARTIES—AID: HOUGHTON REPORT
3.2 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress they have made in the consideration of the Houghton Report on Financial Aid to Political Parties.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, this report remains under consideration; but the Government are not yet able to announce their conclusions.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, in matters of forward thinking, I am usually far ahead of Her Majesty's Government? Does my noble friend realise that in the United States, Canada and every Parliamentary democracy in Europe, forms of State aid are given to political Parties? Is he aware that one of the fundamental weaknesses of this country is the division, politically and industrially, between the two vested interests of capital and labour, and that to have political Parties financed by vested interests is a bad thing for the nation?
Lord PEART: My Lords, the noble Lord, who was chairman of the committee which investigated this matter and produced the report, must appreciate that there are many varied opinions regarding what is right for democracy. Many strange organisations may get certain subventions—who knows?

RHODESIA: CURRENT NEGOTIATIONS
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, it may be a pro-forma matter, but may I

853
ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper?
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a full Statement on the situation in Rhodesia and on the current negotiations.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS): My Lords, with the right honourable and noble Lord's agreement and by leave of the House I shall repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend at a convenient moment after 3.30 o'clock.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, while confessing that there is a certain satisfaction in having scored a "bull" at four weeks distance, may I, nevertheless, ask my noble friend whether he is aware that the consequence of my having done so is that if I defer all my scintillating supplementaries to the Statement, the top brass, on the Opposition Front Benches tend to have a certain take-over procedure? May I ask, therefore, whether I shall be looked upon with a certain degree of indulgence if indeed I do that?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am quite sure that the noble Lord does not need my or anybody else's indulgence and is quite capable of looking after himself. As to top brass, I think that we would agree that he is top brass himself.

BRITISH RAIL: NIGHT SLEEPERS
3.5 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the national Railway Board intend to curtail the night sleeper trains on the East Coast route between London, Berwick, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Inverness.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, British Rail inform me that they have no such intention.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to inform the Railway Board that this will be a great relief to a great many people, both in this House and in other houses? The rumour was rife that they were going to make considerable alterations on the East Coast route. I thank the noble Baroness very much indeed.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, while being glad at the Answer which has been given, may I ask whether, as the Central Transport Consultative Committee is the main consumer body in this field, and as last November it received additional powers enabling it to cover the whole of Britain, if such matters were to arise in future, they would be referred first of all to this Committee before any decisions were taken?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I would have thought so; but I am not certain of the answer, without notice. I shall look into the matter and write to my noble friend.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, while the whole House will welcome the Answer of the noble Baroness, is she aware that the only rail route South from Inverness for about four days during and after the blizzards last weekend was via Aberdeen and the coast route? This route is needed as an alternative, and I was on the first train that successfully came round by Aberdeen for nearly 19 hours. With other passengers, I was very glad to have a sleeper. Is the noble Baroness further aware that I have no intention of complaining that the train was late, because all the passengers appreciated that it was the only way of travelling South from Inverness in the weather conditions of last weekend?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, while endorsing most of what the noble Lord said, I should like, from the Dispatch Box, to express our appreciation for the way in which everyone rallied round in the terrible conditions of last week, and pay our tribute to the railwaymen and other organisations who did at least keep the railways moving.

RHODESIA
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts said, and assisted by the "bull-scorer" on the Cross-Benches, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend will repeat a Statement on Rhodesia.

ROYAL ASSENT
3.7 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Measures:
Dioceses Measure,
Parochial Registers and Records Measure.

GUN BARREL PROOF BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MEDICAL BILL [H.L.]
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, on the passing of this very important Bill, I should like to express appreciation for what the Government have done during the Bill's passage through this House. I should especially like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and his colleagues for a great deal of personal attention given, and my noble friend Lord Hunt
856
of Fawley for the very great care with which he moved and redrafted a whole series of Amendments. They will be of great value to both the public generally and to the professions in particular.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is not my intention to keep your Lordships for any length of time, but I should like to say that those of your Lordships who have followed the passage of the Medical Bill through this House will realise that it was not exactly uneventful. Since that Second Reading the Government have been able to get a good deal of agreement and help and, as I said at Report stage, the Bill was very substantially extended. The Government, in order to accommodate the extent ion, did in fact, with your Lordships' consent, amend the Long Title so that, when it goes to another place, it will be possible to cover nearly all the recommendations of the Merrison Report in the Bill.
I think the only thing I wish to say, apart from that, is that so much has been accomplished in so little time, because three months ago it seemed quite inconceivable that we should be able to get such substantial agreement as was ultimately achieved. So far as I personally am concerned, there has been no other occasion since I have been a Member of your Lordships' House, so far as I can remember, when the Opposition have got everything they asked for—it is the very first time.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

JUDICATURE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.13 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [The High Court]:
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 8, leave out ("five") and insert ("six").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing Amendment to find out more about the workload which will fall upon the judges of the High Court in Northern Ireland. Paragraph 60 of the MacDermott Report recorded that the number of actions begun by writ, set down and disposed of by the Supreme Court increased from 129 in 1927 to 832 in 1968, with a very sharp increase in the last few years of those statistics. The Committee added that the demands on judicial time of the assizes and the Belfast City Commission had increased, and that the trend of an increasingly heavy workload did not seem likely to be reversed.
It would be interesting to know whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has more up-to-date statistics for the number of actions set down and disposed of by the Supreme Court, and whether he can perhaps give us an assurance that the increase in the number of judges provided for by Clause 2 will be sufficient to meet the workload of the High Court sitting in its three Divisions. Of course, in addition to a statutory duty to sit in the Court of Appeal in criminal cases upon the request of the Lord Chief Justice, the High Court judges are to sit in the Crown Court. Again, I should be grateful for an assurance that, so far as can be foreseen, this duty is provided for
858
within the number of High Court judges which is to be included in Clause 2.
I said that this was only a probing Amendment; it is so, of course, because Clause 2(3) provides an order-making power for the variation of the maximum number of puisne judges. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment would increase from five to six the maximum number of puisne judges who may be appointed in Northern Ireland. Although the statutory maximum at present is five, there are in fact at this time four puisne judges in post in Northern Ireland. However, because the members of the Court of Appeal and the Lord Chief Justice himself willingly undertake, as a matter of course, first instance work of all kinds in Northern Ireland, there are effectively eight judges on call for the disposal of the civil business of the High Court. I am aware that there is concern, first, about the extent of the workload, to which the noble Lord has referred, and, secondly, about the backlog of civil actions awaiting trial in Northern Ireland. I have little doubt—and indeed it is apparent—that these are the matters which have prompted the noble Lord to move this Amendment to increase the judicial strength in Northern Ireland.
However, only on rare occasions would the existence of a ninth judge enable the number of cases listed per day and per week to be increased. The governing factors are the size of the Bar, the number of practising senior counsel, which now totals 23, the heavy commitment of the Bar to the duty of prosecuting and defending at the Belfast City Commission, mainly in terrorist-type cases, and the need to ensure that the litigants receive from their counsel the degree of attention and standard of service which justice demands. Happily, over 80 per cent. of the actions which are set down are settled. Approximately 60 actions per week are listed, and the number is sometimes more, which imposes a considerable strain on the Bar. If the number of cases listed is increased beyond a certain critical level, the experience is that fewer cases come to be settled, which is the most undesirable consequence. More time is therefore taken by judges and counsel and a log jam develops, with the result that fewer, and not more, cases are finally disposed of.

859
I am afraid I cannot give the statistics for which the noble Lord has asked—they are not immediately available—but I will write and give him particulars. I will, of course, discuss with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice the advisability of making further appointments, but I am afraid that, as I have indicated, an increase in the number of High Court judges will not inevitably help to solve the problem.
However, I should like to add one encouraging point, which is that with effect from last September the number of sitting days of the courts has been increased by 20: from 168 working days to 188 working days in the year. That is bound to help, but the full effect of that change has not yet made its impact. Finally, as indeed the noble Lord has indicated, the provisions of Clause 2(3) of the Bill enable the maximum number of puisne judges in Northern Ireland to be increased by an Order in Council. That is a relatively straightforward and expeditious procedure and, if I find in the future, and am so advised by the Lord Chief Justice, that a further appointment will be necessary, or a further increase in the available number is necessary, I will of course take the necessary action to ensure that there are no avoidable and undue delays in the administration of justice in the courts.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the reply which he has given me. He has, of course, pointed out that, in effect, there is one more judge available in the High Court than was considered by the MacDermott Committee 11 years ago to be the necessary minimum, and I am comforted in that reflection. I am also satisfied that the noble and learned Lord, in consultation with the Lord Chief Justice for Northern Ireland, will always be able to keep this matter under review by using the order-making power which is included in the clause. When, at the end of his remarks, the noble and learned Lord gave the information that the number of sitting days had been increased by 20, I felt that, in considering this Bill in Committee, it was perhaps well to remember the weight of work which these days falls upon the Northern Ireland Judiciary. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Further assistance for transaction of judicial business]:
3.21 p.m.
The Lord CHANCELLOR The Lord CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 41, leave out from first ("Court") to end of line 42 and insert ("or the Court of Appeal").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment which will bring Clause 7(1) into line with Clause 7(2) of the Bill. It leaves out the reference to the Crown Court, because that reference is unnecessary. A person who is appointed under Clause 7 to sit and act as a judge of the Court of Appeal or of the High Court will automatically be able to be a judge of the Crown Court by virtue of Clause 4(1) and (2). I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 8, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Chancellor").
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, I should like, with your Lordships' permission, to speak to Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 11, 12, 18 to 30 inclusive, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 48, 49, 51, 52, 58 to 62 inclusive and 68 to 72 inclusive. Until now, the Northern Ireland courts have been administered by three separate court services, and, since direct rule began in 1972, the overall responsibility for those court services has been shouldered by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Clause 69 of this Bill establishes a unified court service and the effect of this Amendment—and the very long list of Amendments which I asked permission to speak to includes Amendments to Clause 69—will be to place ultimate responsibility for the new court service in Northern Ireland with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
The main purpose of this Bill, as the noble and learned Lord explained on Second Reading, is to replace the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act 1877, and to bring the structure of the courts

861
in the Province on to broadly the same basis as the courts in England and Wales, where the overall responsibility for the courts rests with the Lord Chancellor. There is good reason for so placing that responsibility, for the person and the office of the Lord Chancellor are a guarantee, and are seen as a guarantee, of the independence of the judicial process. Certainly, the noble and learned Lord speaks, when he is called upon to do so, as a Government Minister, as indeed the noble and learned Lord is doing from the Government Front Bench today. But he also occupies, in the noble and learned Lord's own words on Second Reading, an office of great and historic importance; an office which is seen to uphold the independence of the court.
Nowhere is it more crucial than in Northern Ireland that this independence should remain, and should be seen to remain unimpaired. Brought in increasing numbers to trial, terrorists and criminals, often operating under the cloak of terrorism, are forced to fall back on the only last desperate option which they have; that is, to try to discredit the law. Your Lordships will be familiar with stories of accused people who refused to recognise the court, of the intimidation of witnesses and of assassination attempts upon the Judiciary. It is a small matter, for those who would gain their ends by such means, to try to criticise the administration of justice on the flimsiest of excuses. The very thorough provisions of this Bill are, I suggest, proof against any such criticism, provided that the ultimate responsibility for all the courts rests with the Lord Chancellor.
That is really the case for the Amendment, but there are just two quick points which I should like to add. First, this Amendment is no reflection whatsoever upon the responsibility for the administration of the courts in Northern Ireland of the Secretary of State, which has extended over the last five and a half years. That responsibility has been at all times faithfully discharged. Secondly, it is true that in the 1973 Constitution White Paper the Conservative Government of the day forecast a unified court service which would be under the Secretary of State. But that forecast was made in very different circumstances. Less
862
than a year before that, as a purely emergency measure, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had assumed responsibility for all executive functions in Northern Ireland, and the plans for trying to devolve those functions had only just begun to unfold. But, more important, under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which followed the White Paper, the Secretary of State was made arbiter of what the Northern Ireland Assembly could and could not legislate for with respect to the courts in Northern Ireland. It was in that context, rightly or wrongly, that it was envisaged that the Secretary of State would retain executive control of the Northern Ireland court service.
That situation which I have sought to describe has now totally changed and, on the occasion of this major Judicature Bill, the first restructuring of the Supreme Court for over 100 years, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel able to accept the rather backhanded compliment which is intended by this Amendment, and will give the unique combination of his judicial and political authority to the overall responsibility for the Northern Ireland court service. It will mean extra work for the noble and learned Lord and for his office; that I realise. But I believe it will be seen as a touchstone of that independence and integrity of Northern Ireland's courts which have been maintained so resolutely by both Bench and Bar during the testing times of recent years. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Since the matter was discussed on Second Reading, I have given the most careful consideration to the question which is raised by this and the multiplicity of connected Amendments that we are conveniently discussing together. The fundamental question is: which Minister should be responsible for the administration of the courts in Northern Ireland. This is obviously a serious and important matter. I continue to have reservations about the proposal that the responsible Minister should be the Lord Chancellor, for the reasons which I adumbrated in the House on the last occasion, particularly in view of my own conviction that the independence of the Judiciary, to which I, of course, attach fundamental importance, is well safe-

863
guarded by the provisions of the Bill as drafted.
However, in view of the strong and, I am bound to say, flattering representations which have been so graciously made today by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, by others both inside and outside your Lordships' House, and, in particular, by the whole of the Judiciary in Northern Ireland and, I understand, the legal profession there, who have made it very clear that they are most anxious that I should be the Minister responsible, I have agreed to accept this responsibility, and have agreed with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that that should be the outcome of our deliberations. I agree with the view that was expressed yesterday in an editorial in The Times that in practice this issue concerns appearance more than reality. I was glad to see it stated in the editorial that it is not seriously supposed that the Secretary of State would take the scarcely visible opportunity that the arrangement would give him to tip the scales of justice.
I should like to make it very clear that in undertaking the responsibility, as I do, I do not for one moment accept that there is any validity in the suggestion that were the Secretary of State to be responsible he would exercise his responsibilities otherwise than with complete propriety. Indeed, this view was generally accepted during the debate on Second Reading. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for the way in which he has made it clear that no criticism of the way that the Secretary of State has been conducting his responsibility in this field is made or has been suggested. The conclusion that I have come to is that if the fact of the Lord Chancellor's having ultimate responsibility and, indeed, answerability to Parliament for the administration of justice would strengthen confidence in the courts and in that administration—a confidence which is, of course, all-important in the conditions of Northern Ireland—I am now very content to accept that responsibility.
The decision that I have now made means that the majority of the Amendments relating to this matter which have been placed on the Marshalled List by noble Lords will be accepted by the Government. Certain of the Amendments are not, however, acceptable. One or two of the
864
Amendments—Amendments Nos. 29 and 37, for example—would have the interesting result of requiring me to consult with myself before taking certain action. This is my invariable habit, without any statutory requirement to do so. Another Amendment would have the interesting effect of reinstating a reference to the long defunct Lord Chancellor of Ireland, which would, I suspect, hardly be helpful in present-day conditions.
There are, however, other rather more substantial implications to my acceptance of responsibility for the administration of the courts which will need further consideration. The present balance of responsibilities in the Bill was drawn up on the basis that the Secretary of State would be the Minister responsible for court administration. The functions of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice respectively were adjusted accordingly. That balance will now have to be reconsidered. Minor adjustments may need to be made, but none of substance. An illustration may be found in Clause 5 of the Bill. In subsection (2), Her Majesty may, by Order in Council on the recommendation of the Lord Chief Justice, alter the Divisions of the High Court. If the Lord Chancellor is to be the Minister responsible, it would seem that this function should more appropriately be given to him, although, no doubt, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice. Clearly this will be a matter for further consideration, and there are other Amendments which will need further and similar consideration.
Accordingly, in the light of what I have said, I respectfully invite the noble Lords who have sponsored these diverse Amendments to withdraw them in return for the firm undertaking that I have given to take over ministerial responsibility for the administration of the courts in Northern Ireland and for the assurance which I now give to bring forward appropriate Amendments for this purpose at a later stage. In conclusion, may I add that the interests of the Northern Ireland court staff will of course be taken fully into account, in consultation with their representatives, as one of the consequences of the actions which follow my decision today.
3.35 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: I should like warmly to welcome this very important decision of the noble and

865
learned Lord. He has taken on a considerable extra task, but those of us who live in Northern Ireland believe that he is well equipped for it and that he will exercise those powers with his usual charm and efficiency. I am absolutely convinced that his decision will protect the courts from attacks by evil men who wish to spread evil tales. It will further enhance the independence of the court.
It is an important decision in another sense. The Government have shown that responsible and sensible views, properly expressed, will be heeded by the Government. This is probably one of the most important reversals of a Government decision which has occurred as a result of public opinion in Northern Ireland. There have been times when we in Northern Ireland have expressed responsible views but have felt that those views have received very scant attention. This decision reverses that process, and I am very glad that it should have been reversed by the noble and learned Lord in this House.
I do not intend to go over the ground which my noble friend Lord Belstead so ably covered, but I am quite certain, as is everybody else, that a unified court system run by Ulstermen will add only a very slight burden to the duties of the Lord Chancellor. I hope that he will enjoy his work. I feel also that it is a very important decision from the point of view of the constitution of this country. It has further cemented the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Therefore I most warmly welcome this decision.
Lord FOOT: Before the Amendment is agreed to, may I say in a sentence that we on these Benches very much welcome the decision that the Lord Chancellor has made and that we should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, upon having brought this matter to a satisfactory conclusion. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that this was a matter more of appearance than of reality. I fully understand that view. The unfortunate fact about Northern Ireland is that so often appearance is much more important than reality.
It seems to me that the argument that was advanced at Second Reading by those who sponsored this Amendment was valid: that if you were to divide the control of
866
the court system between the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State you would be putting into the hands of extremists and evil men a very powerful propaganda weapon. That weapon would be the more powerful because they would be able to say, "In Northern Ireland the control of the judicial system is divided between the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State, but there is no similar division in England. Why is it that we have been picked out in this way?" That would have been an argument with apparent logical validity which would have been of some effect.
Before I sit down, may I say that I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has not made up his mind about Amendment No 29. The noble and learned Lord said that it had the disadvantage that it would require him to consult with himself. I hope that we shall be able to debate that matter. The noble and learned Lord may remember that in Iolanthe there are ample precedents for a Lord Chancellor's consulting with himself. I hope that we shall be able to explore and deploy those arguments when we come to that particular Amendment.
Lord MOYOLA: As one who comes from Northern Ireland and who has been a party to these Amendments, I, too, should like to express my thanks to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for making this concession. Everybody in Northern Ireland who thinks about the matter will be grateful to him. Certainly I endorse everything that the noble and learned Lord has said. There has never been a question in my mind or, indeed, in any right thinking person's mind as to the impartiality of the Secretary of State or of the Judiciary. It is simply, as The Times has said, a question of appearances. I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor very much indeed.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am grateful to noble Lords for speaking on this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, made the point that one of this long string of Amendments would place the noble and learned Lord in the position of the Lord Chancellor in Iolanthe. If my memory serves me right, that Lord Chancellor was "highly susceptible",

867
and, if I may say so, the noble and learned Lord today has been good enough to show himself susceptible to representations made in your Lordships' House and to considering very carefully the points which have been put. I should like to thank him for accepting this principle. I admit that the consequential Amendments have not perhaps been entirely easy to draft, and I certainly accept that some of them may be defective. I will therefore, of course, agree to withdraw them, on the understanding that the Government will be revising them to ensure that the drafting of the Bill is satisfactory, and that the Government's list of Amendments will then be reintroduced before the Bill completes its stages in your Lordships' House.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am certainly happy to give that assurance to the noble Lord. May I remind him that the susceptibility of the Lord Chancellor in Iolanthe was not to debate in your Lordships' House or to the persuasiveness of your Lordships, but to a far more attractive submission. However, I am glad that the occasion has been used to refer to Iolanthe, to which Lord Chancellors owe so much.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to. Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Qualifications of judges of High Court and Court of Appeal]:
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord why there is a difference in the years of qualification required for a High Court judge as compared with the Lord Justice of Appeal. Since they are interchangeable, it seems to me peculiar that the qualification for the High Court judge should be 10 years and that for the Lord Justice of Appeal 15 years. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could explain that.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The responsibilities, the status and standing of a Lord Justice of Appeal are, of course,
868
higher than those of the High Court judge, and a greater wealth of experience is therefore thought desirable; and it is desirable that it should be in statutory form. That is the explanation.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: I thank the noble and learned Lord.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 16 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clauses 17 to 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Jurisdiction with respect to property and affairs of patients]:
3.44 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 12, line 38, leave out from second ("of") to end of line 40 and insert ("persons suffering from mental disorder, persons requiring special care and persons deemed to be socially inefficient within the meaning of section 7 of the Mental Health Act (Northern Ireland) 1961.")
The noble Lord said: First I should reveal to the Committee the reason which lies behind my putting down this Amendment. I understand that the social services in Northern Ireland—that is to say, the four Health and Social Services Boards, together with the voluntary organisations involved in the care of mentally handicapped patients—have not been consulted about the drafting of this part of the Bill. It may be that, because Clause 28 deals with the legal jurisdiction of the High Court in "matters relating to patients", this is a purely legal matter. But all I think I ought to say is that certainly the drafting of Clause 28, and also of Schedule 3 in two respects, has aroused in the minds of some social workers in Northern Ireland, both statutory and voluntary, certain apprehensions, the first of which is covered by Amendment No. 5. Clause 28(3) reads:
"In this section 'matters relating to patients' includes all matters relating to the care and commitment of the custody of idiots, lunatics and persons of unsound mind and their estates and relating to the guardianship of persons of weak mind".
I do realise that this subsection is included simply to clarify the expression "matters relating to patients" which is used in subsection (1). May I say at once that

869
the word "patients" is fully understood and approved and used by those who work with mentally handicapped people. I am also aware from reading the report of the MacDermott Committee, from paragraph 154 onwards, that the Lunacy Regulation (Ireland) Act 1871 sought to solve the problem of definition of mental handicaps by using the words "idiot, lunatic, or of unsound mind, and incapable of managing himself or his affairs" in Section 2 of that Act of over 100 years ago.
What I do not understand is why it is deemed necessary in Clause 28 of this Bill to define "matters relating to patients" by reference all the way back to the Act of 1871, which used those words I have quoted, which are words which are most certainly not used or approved of by anyone working in the field of medicine or social service connected with people suffering from mental handicap these days. In 1961 the Mental Health Act (Northern Ireland) was passed which, broadly speaking, dealt with the care, treatment, control and custody of patients. By a fortunate chance, as it happens, today Section 7 of the 1961 Act defines three different forms of mental incapacity. The effect of this Amendment is to use the definitions included in Section 7 of the 1961 Act, instead of the definitions based on Section 2 of the 1871 Act to clarify what is meant by "matters relating to patients". I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am bound to say that. I have a good deal of sympathy with the spirit of this Amendment, because all in the House know that terms like "idiot" and "lunatic" belong to a bygone age. The difficulty is that much of the legislation which deals with mental health in Northern Ireland is still contained in the Lunacy Regulation (Ireland) Act 1871, and, as the noble Lord will appreciate, at that time these terms were in common usage. A complete revision of the statutory law relating to mental health in Northern Ireland, to take account of social and medical developments over the last 100 years, is currently under consideration with a view to legislation; so this matter will be put right in a fundamental way as a result of this work which is already being undertaken on the legislative proposals which will come forward.
870
Clause 28 (3) as it now stands, therefore, has been drafted to take account of the present regulations, and uses existing terms merely as what I might describe as a holding operation until the total revision can take place. As I understand it, jurisdiction in relation to patients is of two kinds; first, jurisdiction over the person of the patient; and, secondly, jurisdiction over his property. The Mental Health Act 1961 to which the noble Lord refers now makes provision governing the person of patients, but the Lunacy Regulation (Ireland) Act 1871 continues to govern jurisdiction over property of patients, and it is that jurisdiction over property which is being transferred by Clause 28 from the Lord Chief Justice to the High Court. However, I hope on the strength of my assurance that this language will be put right before long, that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, may not feel it necessary to press his Amendment.
Baroness FAITHFULL: I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his explanation and the fact that this matter may be put right at a later date. However, speaking as a social worker, there is some confusion—if I may support my noble friend Lord Belstead—because social workers have to adminster part of the Lunacy Act when the patient is in the community. They also administer the 1961 Act. I think that the 1959 Mental Health Act in England sought to alter the attitude towards mental health and mental illness. The 1961 Act in Ireland equally sought to alter the attitude of mind towards mental illness and mental ill health. Therefore, I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, by saying that we very much hope, as social workers both in Northern Ireland and in this country, that this archaic language which is unacceptable and which does not make for good work with mental patients could ultimately be altered.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Faithfull for speaking on this Amendment which makes me feel that it has been worth raising this matter. Of course, I have no intention of pressing the Amendment, but it has been helpful, certainly for me, to get the guidance of the noble and learned Lord

871
the Lord Chancellor and also to receive the information from him that legislative proposals for the repeal and overhaul of the 1971 Act could be in sight in the future.
I should like to put one final point to the noble and learned Lord, in case it is possible that this matter may be reconsidered as the Bill continues its stages through Parliament. As I understood the noble and learned Lord, the legislation as regards the person of someone who is mentally handicapped is covered by the 1961 Act: it is a matter for the 1961 Act. The noble and learned Lord then went on to explain that it is, however, the property of a patient which needs still to be covered by the older legislation. I am afraid T have no legal training, but I consulted the MacDermott Report and noticed that MacDermott admitted that Section 68 of the 1871 Act needed certainly to be retained for the time being in that:
"the property and affairs of patients, but not their persons, should follow a judicial determination of mental incapacity",
considering the medical evidence and that these matters should be decided by the Lord Chief Justice or another judge without a jury.
I am convinced that, if 12 years ago the MacDermott Committee was able to say that the only part, so far as it could see, of the 1871 Act remaining effective in this respect was Section 68 dealing with the property of patients, and that in administering Section 68 the Lord Chief Justice and judges should consider "medical evidence and such other evidence"—presumably from social workers—"as may be relevant", surely that evidence and consideration should be within the scope of modern definition of "mental handicap" I do not want to appear to be hard-headed, but I still wonder whether it is not possible to include the modern definition of mental handicap, which is to be found in the 1961 Act, within Clause 28 of the Bill. I shall not press the matter any further. The noble and learned Lord is telling me that it is not so possible, but I hope that he will forgive me for making this final point before withdrawing the Amendment.
The Lord CHANCELLOR: I shall certainly look at the matter. Our difficulty is that the Amendment which is really necessary—namely, an Amendment
872
to the 1871 Act—could not be performed within the terms of the title of the Bill. The whole of the 1871 Act is still needed and must be replaced. Therefore, I think that it may be extremely difficult to deal immediately with this problem in this Bill.
As I understand it, the Lord Chief Justice has functions in this field only under the terms of the 1971 Act. He has none in respect of the Mental Health Act 1961. He has the responsibility for the appointment of legal visitors and they are the two senior officials in the Department of the Affairs of Patients which is a Department of the Supreme Court. They are appointed by the Lord Chief Justice to visit patients whose affairs may come under his control. That Department in the Supreme Court is separate from the Northern Ireland Social Services Department, although, of course, they work closely together. I shall certainly look at the matter again, but I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope that in this Bill we shall be able to remedy the matter. However, we shall press on with bringing the legislation of 1871 into keeping with modern social and medical thinking.
Lord BELSTEAD: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 28 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord BELSTEAD: I shall detain your Lordships for only a moment on the same subject as previously because I was going to ask the noble and learned Lord about the meaning of the reference in subsection (2) to "visitors". The noble and learned Lord has been so good as to clarify that matter. However, there is one further point that I should like to raise which falls within the general ambit of the clause.
The 1961 Act in Northern Ireland—Section 1(1)(f)—lays a duty upon the Northern Ireland Hospitals Authority to furnish to the Lord Chief Justice, the Mental Health Review Tribunal and the Department for the Affairs of Mental Patients, returns, reports and information about mentally handicapped patients as the Lord Chief Justice, the Tribunal and the Department may require, in order to

873
exercise their functions. Therefore, at the very beginning of the 1961 Act, the medical and social services are linked statutorily with the law with regard to mental patients in Northern Ireland.
Briefly, as I understand it, the procedure is that when a patient is mentally ill and he or she does not appear to have any friends or relations available, the social services are immediately called in. If the patient is already in hospital, the medical officer contacts the Area Board; if the patient is at home, as soon as the problem is realised, a social worker will go and visit and an application for admission to hospital by that person under Section 15 of the 1961 Act will be made. Then one has the procedure which the noble and learned Lord is probably more conversant with than I am, about the property of the patient being looked after by the social services: a committee, technically, has to be formed, which is generally a relation or a solicitor, but if all else fails it may be the social service board for the area, to look after the property of the patient; and then finally it is necessary for the Department of which the noble and learned Lord spoke, to decide about the disposal or the running of the property of the patient.
The reason I raise these matters is that I am surprised that Clause 28 does not mention the statutory duty of the hospitals authority under Section 1(1)(f) and of the social services under Section 73 of the Mental Health Act 1961—that duty is the one to which I referred whereby the social services move in to ensure that all is made right when somebody becomes mentally ill. I am surprised that Clause 28 does not mention those statutory duties which are discharged in the way that I have described.
I should have thought that in this Bill there would be advantage, for purposes of clarification, to record that the health and social services have a statutory duty to notify the Department for the Affairs of Patients in cases where patients are incapable of managing their affairs. Presumably, as I understand it, the chief clerk who is an officer, after all, of the Supreme Court and is registrar of the Department for the Affairs of Patients, has to deal then with the application which is made to him. That is the reason that I have raised the matters at rather great length.
874
I am bound to admit to the noble and learned Lord that behind it lies the same reason for which I moved my Amendment. Because the social services in Northern Ireland had not been consulted about the drafting, great surprise was expressed to me about the inclusion of the word "visitors" in this clause. It was because the social services and health authorities felt that it was they who did the visiting that they asked me to raise the matter. I shall leave it there and shall, before we go on to subsequent clauses, ask the noble and learned Lord whether he thinks there is anything in what I said.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising these matters. There may be an opportunity when we come to consider Schedule 5 to examine in greater detail the questions that he has raised. Frankly, I have no guidance at the moment on the matters he has raised but I shall certainly look into them and we will have an opportunity at a later stage, or perhaps even in the course of the proceedings of the Committee Stage today, to revert to the points he has made. If I may leave it like that at this stage, I shall certainly come back to it at some convenient time.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Lord STRABOLGI: I beg to move that the House do now resume in order to take the Statement on Rhodesia.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

RHODESIA
4.2 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat a Statement on Rhodesia made today in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement about Rhodesia.
"Together with Ambassador Andrew Young of the United States and the Resident Commissioner designate, Lord

875
Carver, I held talks in Malta with leaders of the Patriotic Front from 30th January to 1st February. Lieutenant General Prem Chand, the representative designated by the United Nations Secretary General, also took part.
"The purpose of my talks with the Patriotic Front was, in accordance with Security Council Resolution 415, to enter into discussions concerning the military and associated arrangements necessary to effect the transition to majority rule in Rhodesia. Whereas discussions on these matters had been held since September with other nationalist leaders and with the régime, we had not been able to have detailed talks with the Patriotic Front prior to the Malta meeting. We achieved a much greater understanding of each other's position and ha% e agreed to consider the points made and to meet again at a time and a place to be decided.
"In all these meetings I made clear that Her Majesty's Government, supported by the United States Government, have never wavered in their view that the proposals contained in Cmnd. 6919 represent the best route to independence for Rhodesia and the surest guarantee of peace and stability there. On the basis of these proposals we are prepared to accept responsibility for bringing the territory to independence following elections and are resolutely committed to ensure that those elections would be manifestly free and impartial. If we are to shoulder that responsibility, we must have an assured and supervised ceasefire and, in co-operation with the United Nations, the control necessary to ensure maintenance of peace and good order during the electoral process.
"The Anglo-US initiative depends on the willingness of the parties to the dispute to compromise on their past and present positions, and to allow the people of Zimbabwe as a whole, through fair and free elections, to determine their future. At present the necessary measure of compromise between the parties is lacking and, tragically, and regrettably, it appears inevitable that the armed struggle will for the present continue. The British Government, despite all the obvious
876
difficulties, will continue to work with all the parties, within the framework of the Anglo-US initiative, for a peaceful settlement."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
4.6 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, the only obvious thing about this problem is that it is a complicated one. There is no simple solution. If there had been a simple solution we should have had one long ago. Of course your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord for repeating the Statement in this House, but I think I could comment more usefully if I knew exactly what the Government are at this moment seeking to achieve. Mr. Young, though not, I think, the Foreign Secretary, has said that an internal settlement cannot bring an end to the war and might make matters worse. To me, that seems to depend on what sort of internal settlement it is and who takes part in it. One thing is quite certain, and that is that the Anglo-American proposals cannot possibly succeed unless Mr. Smith and the Africans who are now discussing their proposals in Salisbury are prepared to agree to them, and they are not going to do so. As I say, they are conducting their own negotiations in Salisbury at the present time and it would seem to most of us that, in these circumstances, the Anglo-American proposals are virtually dead.
I do not know what the internal proposals, if they succeed in coming to an agreement, will be. We shall have to wait and see, but it seems to me that Her Majesty's Government should at this moment be seeking to encourage Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe to associate themselves with those talks, which apparently show, from what has happened so far, a willingness on the part of the blacks and whites in Rhodesia to come to a settlement and which seem also to have the support of a large body of the people of that country. If I may say so, it would be a great mistake on the part of Her Majesty's Government to get themselves into a position, as there seems to be some tendency to do at the moment, in which they might oppose an internal settlement which would put into practice the six principles—that is, if that is what the internal settlement comes to—which form

877
the basis upon which both parties have, over so many years, agreed to give independence to Rhodesia. Because they would be part of the six principles they would be proposals put to the whole people; they would be freely negotiated between black and white. It would be a great mistake for the Government to put themselves into a position where they would oppose such a settlement because the Patriotic Front is not prepared to agree to it.
If the criteria which have been the criteria for so many years are not satisfied, the Government will have to satisfy Parliament as to why those criteria are no longer sufficient. Therefore, I should like to ask the noble Lord to assure your Lordships that the Government are not excluding a satisfactory internal settlement as a solution.
4.10 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, we must at least welcome the possibility indicated in the Statement, for which we thank the noble Lord, of further talks with the representatives of the Patriotic Front. But it is indeed depressing to hear that, in the view of the Government, the present armed struggle is likely to continue, apparently indefinitely. I do not know whether this means that the present negotiations are dead, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, suggested, but it looks as though they might be. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, there is no mention in the Statement of the parallel negotiations which are now going on in Salisbury, but, unlikely though it may be, supposing there is agreement in Salisbury based essentially on the reservation of a certain number (to be agreed) of seats for the whites in a new Legislature, plus a separate electoral roll for blacks and whites, would not the Government at least consider such a proposal, even if it does not provide, as indicated in the Cmnd. 6919, for a United Nations physical presence, or even for a United Kingdom presence, and even if, as would be quite likely, it would be objected to by one or more members of the Popular Front?
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene here.
Several noble Lords: Order!
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, I understood the noble Lord to bow to me as a matter of courtesy, but I am quite happy to sit back and allow him to reply first. We must not discourage courtesy when it is extended. But I did have a Question tabled for today.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, may I suggest to the House that the protocol is that there are two speeches and that gives the Minister an opportunity to reply. The noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, rightly stakes his claim by putting down a Question and I am sure the House would want to listen to him at some length, but after the answers have been given to the two noble Lords who have spoken.
4.13 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I would defer to my noble friend Lord George-Brown on this occasion, partly because of his position and also because of the situation which was created earlier this afternoon when a Question that he most patiently put forward four weeks ago could not be answered. However, I am sure the noble Lord will agree with me that I should obey the wishes of the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, rightly said that there is no simple solution to this problem, nor indeed is there real scope for partisan recrimination. The situation is far too serious and too important. He asked what Her Majesty's Government are endeavouring to achieve: precisely what his Government were trying to achieve when they were in office, coming fairly near to success once or twice; that is to say, to secure the orderly and peaceful transition from the present system of government in Rhodesia into one based on majority rule. The noble Lord then questioned the persistent validity of the Anglo-US proposals embodied in Cmnd. 6919. I could not disagree with him more than on what he said about the invalidity of those proposals. I think they are now even more important, for this reason. Internal discussions are taking place in Salisbury and my right honourable friend has clearly stated that it is not part of his policy to discourage or to frustrate those in any way. Indeed, he has said that he would welcome the implementation

879
of the Six Principles from whatever source the proposals came, including, of course, Salisbury. But Salisbury is not enough on its own. If a peaceful, orderly settlement is to be arrived at there must be a ceasefire, and the people who cease firing are those who are firing, and that means the Patriotic Front. So there is that element differing from the otherwise no doubt commendable efforts in Salisbury.
Secondly, for a settlement to be durable and to "stick" there must be international acceptability. That is, not only acceptability among the nations of the Nine, who are in accord on this matter—and it is important (is it not?) that we move with our friends and allies in the Nine and in NATO—but acceptability in the world authority, the organisation of the United Nations, on which turns the ultimate, we hope the imminent, abrogation of sanctions. So in no way do we discourage or deplore any attempt in Salisbury or anywhere else to reach agreement. We are bound to continue with the practical conditions for a durable solution which are fairly set out in the Statement of the Anglo-US proposals and in the Command White Paper, and that is why Her Majesty's Government are continuing on this course. There is no other conceivably successful course except to proceed in this way.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, rightly reminded us of the grim fact that the armed struggle continues and may well continue until a generally acceptable solution is in sight. I agree with hint. Everything we do and say must be addressed to securing a ceasefire and making possible the rational calendar of settlement, agreement, transfer to a resident commissioner, the holding of free, fair elections leading to an orderly and peaceful transfer of power on an agreed independence day. I repeat, this is not easy. Successive Governments have found it complicated and difficult but I believe that the course we are following is the only possible course for us. Now I most freely and gladly give place to my noble friend Lord George-Brown.
4.18 p.m.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, I am grateful for the courtesy which my noble friend—with whom I had the
880
pleasure of working for a short while in the Foreign Office—was willing to show me. On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, I give notice that I will at some stage consider and see how we can raise the matter of the assumption that habit and custom sometimes become protocol and protocol then becomes rule, because it seems to me that those of us who lead rather smaller Parties—in my case, my own—also have some rights in this House.
I do not propose to ask the House to hear me at length today. It happens that not only did I score a "bull" for today, I also have time reserved on the 14th February when, if the House agrees, it will be my intention to open a debate on this subject, which will be a more suitable occasion for me to be heard at greater length. I now put it to my noble friend that there are many of us who are not normally to be found associated with those who speak on Rhodesian matters from the Opposition Benches but who, despite what he has said, fear very much that the present Foreign Secretary is allowing himself to drift into a position in which he is not merely seeking to work with all parties but is showing rather exceptional priority and almost partisanship for those who boast of their power to kill and conduct armed bloody struggle, and showing much less than that for those who are seeking to negotiate on behalf of the same people—the black residents of Rhodesia—a settlement by a peaceful means.
Is my noble friend aware that even in this Statement the words "Patriotic Front" are now used to mean only the self-proclaimed guerrillas and terrorists, and nothing nearly so dignified is ever applied to Bishop Muzorewa or the Reverend Sithole or Chief Chirau in Rhodesia itself? It is that which I want to raise with him in the first place. Will he put it to his right honourable friend that he is worrying some of us who saw his assumption of office with rather more enthusiasm than we are now able to feel? The Statement says:
On the basis of these proposals we"—
that is, Great Britain and, presumably, the Americans, although it is a little ambiguous—
"are prepared to accept responsibility for bringing the territory to independence following elections".

881
That contrasts very oddly with Mr. Mugabe's statement to the Press yesterday in which lie said, according to this morning's issue of The Times—and I have no reason to think that it is inaccurate—that he, with
"Mr. Nkomo, foresaw [their organisation] itself playing a substantial role and the British a supervisory role"—
it almost seems to me that "supervisory" there could be rendered "subordinate"—
"in 'a kind of partnership' … But he made clear that the Patriotic Front guerillas must guarantee the irreversibility ' of a transition period leading to free elections".
Will my noble friend tell me how he equates Mr. Mugabe's view of who will be responsible for maintaining law and order and peaceful progress during the transition period with what is said in the Statement? On that basis, if Mr. Mugabe's statement describes what is to be the position, how can the British Government equate his party with the other parties? How can the British Government say that they must be able to exercise a veto over what he has done? I should not want to be in Bishop Muzorewa's position nor in that of the Reverend Sithole, or Chief Chirau, let alone in Mr. Smith's position, if the guerrillas are to be the force that maintains the situation during the process to independence.
As I say, we can leave longer debate on this to 14th February, but I should like my noble friend to comment on those two points. There may be reasons for the Opposition taking the view which they take; but it seems to me that there are very powerful reasons for some of us who are associated with the Labour Party, and who still call ourselves Socialists, taking the view that I am putting forward now.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am bound to say that my noble friend has expressed with moderation but nevertheless with great force legitimate anxieties about the course of events. But I cannot agree with him that his reservations could in any way apply to the purpose and the performance of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. I have worked with him for some months now and there could be nobody more dedicated to achieving
882
a peaceful and orderly transition of power in Rhodesia than the present Foreign Secretary.
Nevertheless, I know that he pays great attention to everything that my noble friend says. As I said, he has great experience and a record of distinguished service in these matters. I can assure my noble friend—he does not need me to assure him of this—that my right honourable friend will pay very close attention to what he has said. Indeed, I shall be discussing these exchanges with him.
My noble friend went on to query the use of the term "Patriotic Front". We describe certain organisations by the titles that they arrogate to themselves. I sometimes refer to the "Rhodesian Front", but is it, in spite of the fact that it calls itself the Rhodesian Front, the Front that represents the whole of Rhodesia? Of course, the Patriotic Front does not have a monopoly of patriotism in and in regard to Rhodesia.
That brings me to a fundamental point which I suspect my noble friend wanted me to make absolutely clear. We have made clear that the Patriotic Front is only one element, albeit an important one, in a Rhodesian settlement. It cannot have a veto, nor can it exclude the other parties; but, as a major party to a ceasefire, a solution which excludes it is most unlikely to be viable. That is they position of the Patriotic Front. I believe that that is what my noble friend skilfully wanted me to make absolutely clear. I hope that I have.
He quoted Mr. Mugabe. Mr. Mugabe is entitled to his views and front time to time he makes them known. So are we. Our views are contained in the quotation from the Statement to which my noble friend referred. It may well be that between those two attitudes—that of Mr. Mugabe and what is contained in this Statement—there may be future negotiation. Everything is capable of discussion, but that does not mean that everything is acceptable. It is a matter of opinion which we hope may resolve itself into a matter of consensus. I hope that I have covered the ground which my noble friend himself covered. I can absolutely assure him that everything he has said will be very carefully considered—and I mean that—by my right honourable friend and myself.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I want to ask my noble friend to focus attention on one aspect of this problem. He spoke about the undesirability of recriminations. No one wishes to indulge in recriminations. But there is a great deal of frustration among those who watch his right honourable friend going from place to place without apparently being able to reach his destination. That is the trouble. My noble friend has said—and no doubt this is what the Foreign Office and the Government say—that there must be a ceasefire before there can be a settlement. Suppose that there is no ceasefire—then there can be no settlement. Is that what we are to understand? Is there no possibility that, as a result of protracted negotiations—and they have been protracted—there could be a settlement which would lead to a ceasefire? If we are to wait until Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe obtain what they want, there will no settlement at all. Is that not obvious?
We read about what is going on in the various newspapers and documents which some of us receive and we wonder whether there will ever be a settlement. We wonder whether there is not a certain amount of trouble because of resentment against Mr. Smith's attitude? When Mr. Smith said that the British Government should keep out of this, that may have caused some resentment. I should like to know why we want to be enthusiastic about the Patroitic Front. So far as I can gather from its tendencies and operations, the Patriotic Front is a body of terrorists. We shall never convince them, no matter what we do. Even if we achieve some kind of internal settlement, there may be trouble afterwards. In those circumstances, will my noble friend, who obviously realises, as we all do, the intricate nature of the problem and who is anxious to obtain a settlement (as is his right honourable friend), address himself to this question: Suppose we do not get this ceasefire, what will be the result?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I hope that we can at least agree that it is worth while—I would say essential—to obtain a ceasefire as a prerequisite to an agreement; otherwise, we might get an agreement which would be for an indefinite period, and would be at the mercy of the men of blood, regardless. The object of these talks in Malta
884
is to make it if not impossible then highly impracticable for the people who apparently, to some extent at least, believe in armed struggle, to carry on with that despite the fact that the great majority of the people involved have agreed to a settlement.
I have respect for the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Shinwell. I have tried to put it down here. I shall look at it again in the Official Report. I could not prejudge the possibility of a settlement that could lead to a ceasefire. He has great experience. I doubt if this is on, but certainly it should be considered. I will add only one point in reply to him. He said that he deplored recrimination. Coming from my noble friend that is news indeed, because it is part of his charm and his appeal to this House and the other House that he recriminated so well and continues to do so.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, will the noble Lord say whether the proposition that a settlement must depend upon the consent of the gunmen applies equally to Northern Ireland? Surely it is a very dangerous proposition to accept. There is one other question I should like to put to him. I assume that the Foreign Secretary is talking to Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe because he considers them to be the responsible leaders and commanders of the guerrillas. Those guerrillas have committed a number of quite atrocious murders; murders of priests, of nuns, of women, of children, of black servants massacred in quarters. Has it occurred to the Foreign Secretary to ask of those two gentlemen whether those actions of their followers have their approval, and if they have not their approval, to ask of them whether they have ever considered taking some disciplinary action with regard to the people who commit that sort of murder?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I can reply briefly to those two points. Of course the consent of the Government is vital in the longer or shorter term to any worthwhile settlement. The fact that it is not immediately obtainable in every part of the world does not invalidate that as a basic principle and a practicable one. On the question of atrocious conduct by nationalistic leaders, the record throughout history and in all

885
imperia is strewn with stories of those who were denounced for atrocities while they were leading insurgent movements and then feted as heads of Government by those who previously denounced them. So I would not be too selective about anybody in Rhodesia, whether black or white, as to whether in the future his previous crimes, if they were such, may not be forgiven.
Lord PEART: My Lords, we have spent 31 minutes on this Statement. I know that it is important, but I think we have had the case argued very well.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, as a general rule I think that the noble Lord the Leader of the House is quite right. However, senior Members of your Lordships' House, such as the noble Lords, Lord George-Brown, Lord Shinwell and Lord Paget, have naturally been given way to by those on the Back Benches. Perhaps one of my noble friends who is not so senior might be allowed to ask one last question.
Lord PEART: My Lords, yes, but then another noble Lord would like to conic in. Please, one last question.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, as a very junior noble Lord, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, this question: if an internal settlement is arrived at—and it seems a possibility or even a probability that this might be the case—which fulfils the principle that it is a settlement which is acceptable to the Rhodesian people as a whole, and then the Patriotic Front say, "We do not accept this and the guerrilla war will go on", what would then be the attitude of Her Majesty's Government?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Earl poses a hypothesis, but he is entitled to do so without commitment to a view. I think my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has put the point very succinctly regarding the nature of any agreement that might emerge from what we call internal discussions: the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. That proof would be how far it ensures that everybody has been
886
involved and has had an opportunity of agreeing, and how far it has made it impracticable, if not impossible, as I see it, for armed struggle to continue. Nobody can foresee these things in full detail. All I say is—and I ask the noble, Earl to consider this—that clearly we mist make a tremendous effort to achieve a settlement within the ambit of the Six Principles, as the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition said, or, as I would say, within the Command Paper and the Anglo-United States proposals, in the belief that if we get that, then the ceasefire is equally obtainable. It is a matter of judgment. We could be here a very long time arguing this point.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, may I ask one final question?
Lord PEART: Quickly.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, it will be very short. Will the Government recognise that a great many people in this country have much sympathy with the great efforts which are being made inside Rhodesia by Bishop Muzorewa and the other black leaders and by Mr. Smith to reach an internal settlement? It seems extremely important that the Foreign Office should be able to follow these negotiations in great detail, because they are bound to affect the attitude of our own Government. Have the Government adequate representation in Rhodesia, in Salisbury, at a proper, effective, educated diplomatic level to follow what is going on and report constantly to the Foreign Secretary?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we are adequately informed.

JUDICATURE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
Committee stage resumed.
Clause 29 [Co-ordination of exercise of jurisdiction in relation to persons under disability]:
On Question, Whether Clause 29 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.38 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: Perhaps this point can reasonably be said to come under

887
Clause 29, and it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I raised it because it is connected with the two previous points I made about mental patients. The officers detailed in Schedule 3 includes two statutory officers whose work is connected with jurisdiction with respect to persons under a disability; in this case, mental patients. The two statutory officers I am concerned with in Schedule 3 are the Master (Care and Protection) and the Registrar (Care and Protection).
As I understand Part 8 of the MacDermott Report on the Supreme Court in Northern Ireland, at the moment the Chief Clerk, in addition to being responsible for Chancery Chambers, is the Registrar in Lunacy, and the Deputy Chief Clerk is his Assistant Registrar. In this capacity the Chief Clerk and his assistant deal with the business of the Northern Ireland Department for the Affairs of Patients, which I mentioned previously in my remarks. I do not know what the volume of the work in the Department amounts to. In England and Wales the Court of Protection is dealing, I understand, with about 20,000 patients at any one time and has an establishment of about 165 people. The weight of work and the establishment needed are presumably less in Northern Ireland.
What I want to ask first is whether it is really necessary to create two new appointments in Northern Ireland under Schedule 3, of persons to be responsible for the Department for the Affairs of Patients, when this work has hitherto been done, so I understand, by the Chief Clerk and his Assistant Registrar as part of their other duties. Further, is it necessary to describe these new posts in the archaic language of the 1871 Act? Here I am returning to the point I made previously, but it is an important one when describing statutory officers who are undertaking the sensitive work of dealing with the affairs of patients and their relatives. Perhaps I should have raised this point under Clause 28. However, I think it is for the convenience of the Committee that I get through the points I wish to raise, of which these are the last on the question of mental patients.
The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett): It might be helpful if I told the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that the Department of Health and Social Services, with which, as he knows, I am concerned in Northern Ireland, was consulted fully in the drafting of the Bill. None of the points he has put today has been put to the Department by any of the interests concerned in Northern Ireland, though naturally I appreciate that these matters may have come to their attention rather later in the day. Nevertheless, I have not heard any concern expressed on these various points.
My noble and learned friend has explained the decision which has been taken about looking at the law as laid down in the 1871 Act. While that Act is in use it is necessary to refer to the terminology used in it. It will not be until that is reviewed and new legislation is introduced that these terms will be able to be dropped. However, if I undertake to look at the various points which the noble Lord has made, in particular in regard to the mentally handicapped, and the provisions in this Bill, and to write to him before the next stage, perhaps that will set his mind at rest.
Lord BELSTEAD: I shall be most grateful.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clauses 30 to 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Appeals to Court of Appeal]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 19, line 5, after ("interlocutory") insert ("order or").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment to bring the provisions of Clause 35(2)(g) into line with the remaining provisions of the clause and is designed to avoid doubt as to whether the provisions of subsection (2)(g) extend to interlocutory orders as well as to interlocutory judgments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Composition of Court of Appeal]:
4.43 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 20, line 21, at end insert ("with the consent of both parties to the appeal, reference or matter").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this Amendment is to require the consent of both parties to an appeal if the Lord Chief Justice is to direct that the hearing is to be held before two, and not three, judges. I understand that provision for an appeal to be heard by two judges is a repetition of existing legislation and I am advised that it is only fair to admit that, when counsel for the parties ask for a three-judge hearing, the Northern Ireland Appeal Court invariably agrees to that. Nevertheless, it is with the wording of the Bill that the Committee must be concerned and one need only look at the next provision—subsection (3)—to find that if, in a two-judge hearing, there is a difference of opinion, the hearing must be re-heard. There must be occasions—perhaps in some commercial cases or when one of the litigants is an elderly person—when the parties can ill afford this possibility. For these reasons, I beg to move.
The Lord CHANCELLOR: In a final appeal in Northern Ireland, three judges sit on every possible occasion in order to obviate the danger of a two-judge appellate tribunal being in disagreement. But it is not always practicable to obviate that danger and, in the interests of the expeditious despatch of business, it is thought valuable for the Lord Chief Justice, having read the papers in the given case, to use his discretion to direct that the appeal be heard by only two judges. In practice, where difficult questions of law are likely to arise, he invariably directs that the appeal must be heard by three judges. The system has worked fairly and effectively in Northern Ireland since 1921; in the last 30 years, there have been only two cases in which a Court of Appeal comprised of two judges has failed to reach agreement. That is not a bad record over 30 years. In one of those cases, the court, realising before the conclusion of the argument that it was going to be divided was immediately reconstituted as a court of three judges. Accordingly, I think the danger of extra cost and inconvenience to the parties, against which the Amendment is designed to safeguard, is very
890
slight indeed, and, in my submission, it is outweighed by the facility for the quicker despatch of business which the clause as it stands provides.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am grateful for the guidance which the noble and learned Lord has given me. I had rather hoped that, even if my Amendment was not acceptable, the Lord Chief Justice should have to have regard to the wishes of the parties, but I must accept, as it were, the guidance I have been given by the noble and learned Lord that that is precisely what the Lord Chief Justice mould do. Indeed, so wonderful are the ways of the law that, apparently, according to the noble and learned Lord, a court where it appeared that there was not going to be agreement was reconstituted during the proceedings. As a layman, I did not understand that that could be done. I feel much comforted and I am glad that I moved the Amendment, which I ask leave to withdraw.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clauses 37 to 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Exclusive jurisdiction in trial on indictment]:
4.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 46 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord BELSTEAD: I have a point to raise on this clause and I apologise if the answer should be perfectly obvious to me, This is the first of the clauses under Part IV of the Bill which for the first time, establishes Crown Courts in Northern Ireland, and I simply wish to ask whether the Crown Courts in Northern Ireland will be hearing the scheduled offences. The Diplock courts, which so well I remember being set up, have done remarkable work; it is remarkable that there has been no breath of criticism from any quarter of the working of those courts, except perhaps from a few people whose only work is subversion. If my memory serves me right, when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, produced his valuable and important report about two years ago, it was again recorded in that report that the Diplock courts

891
had worked exceedingly well. What I am now seeking to ask the noble and learned Lord in respect of those courts—which I have always thought of as being rather special courts because they were specifically set up to be single-judge courts and to try scheduled offences (the special terrorist offences set out in the relevant Schedule to the Emergency Provisions Act)—is whether those scheduled offences are to be tried before Crown Courts.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Undoubtedly the Crown Court will have jurisdiction to try scheduled offences, but it will do so, of course, without juries, as is the procedure for dealing with scheduled offences. That jurisdiction will remain, and the procedures will remain. In fact, the jurisdiction has been exercised both by High Court judges and by other judges until now; and, as I have said, the Crown Court as now constituted will have that jurisdiction.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that information.
Clause 46 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Committal for trial on indictment]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 30, line 20, leave out ("prescribed") and insert ("specified").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment bringing paragraph (b) into line with the remainder of Clause 48 (5), in which references are to the "specified" period rather than the "prescribed" period. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 49 to 52 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Clause 53 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 [Control and publication of rules]:
4.54 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 37, line 29, leave out ("an") and insert ("a significant").
The noble Lord said: I understand that the Rules Committee is confined in its rule-making powers by the need to obtain Treasury approval if a new rule involves an increase of any sort at all in public expenditure. The effect of this Amendment is to relax the stipulation to the extent that Treasury permission will be needed only if a rule would involve "a significant" increase in public expenditure. In moving this Amendment I must admit to your Lordships that I believe the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act 1925—that is, for England and Wales—is drafted in very much the same way as this Bill. On the other hand, it is interesting that the word "significant" has recently begun to creep into Bills which have passed through Parliament.
A Bill which had its Third Reading in your Lordships' House today, the Medical Bill, has in its Explanatory Memorandum reference to a "significant" increase in expenditure by the General Medical Council; again, there is a reference which I found, admittedly in an Explanatory Memorandum, to a "significant" effect on public service manpower in the State Immunity Bill; and a Bill which we are going to be taking on Tuesday, the Suppression of Terrorism Bill, refers to "substantial prejudice". I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not "shoot me down" on the ground that the word "significant" is difficult to define. If, on the other hand, the noble and learned Lord tells me that it is not in line with the 1925 Act, then I am afraid there will be nothing I am able to say. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Clause 56 as it is now drafted requires the concurrence of the Treasury in the making of any Rules of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland which will involve an increase in expenditure out of public funds. It is a standard provision in all statutory rule-making powers, and its purpose is fairly obvious,

893
I think. In these times the importance of Treasury control over all increases in public expenditure, however slight they may be, is important, particularly where, as in this instance, no member of the rule-making authority is a member of the Government or answerable to Parliament.
Furthermore, the noble Lord's Amendment would, I think, introduce an uncertainty as to what degree of increase in public expenditure would amount to a "significant" increase. Those wanting a great deal more would no doubt regard it, however great it was, as wholly insignificant; but those who have to find the money from the taxpayer might not be ready and willing to take the same view. That is the reason why the word "significant" is not included in the Bill; although I take note of the fact that a certain amount of laxity seems to be creeping into the Statute Book by the excessive use of words of uncertain meaning and limitation.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply. There is, I think, a serious point here, and it is a familiar one, or should be a familiar one, to those of us who live on this side of the water but are venturing to legislate, as we have to, for Northern Ireland. It is this. I am advised that on one occasion a rule could not be made for really quite a long time because it was said to involve an increase in expenditure out of the Legal Aid Fund, although it was not likely to exceed £50, so it really was a very small amount.
What I should have liked to ask, through the Government, is whether it would perhaps be possible for the Treasury, which, after all, is sitting in London, to have some working arrangement with the Rules Committee, which, after all, is sitting in Belfast. I am sure this is something which would be appreciated on the other side of the water, so that unconscionable delays should not occur. With that, I will of course withdraw the Amendment.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am advised that, provided the Treasury is consulted in good time, there ought to be no grounds for anxiety from the point of view of delay.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.58 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 37, line 43, at end insert—
("(4) It shall he the duty of the Secretary to the Rules Committee to make due arrangements with Her Majesty's Stationery Office for the reprinting and sale of Statutory rules and other instruments to which the provisions of the Statutory Rules Act (Northern Ireland) 1958 apply; such arrangements shall to made at intervals not exceeding 5 years in duration").
The noble Lord said: Clause 56 provides for the control and publication of rules which are provided by the Statutory Rules Act (Northern Ireland) 1958. I understand that the rules of the Supreme Court were last published in 1936, and have been out of print for some time. This does not appear to be a very satisfactory situation, the more so as the 1958 Act regulations—that is, those made under Section 4 of the 1958 Act—exempt from any provision of that Act any rule or class of rules, provided adequate arrangements exist for bringing, so far as is reasonably practicable, the exemption to the notice of persons affected thereby, and for supplying copies thereof to anyone who wants a copy of the exemption. From a reading of the principal Act, it would appear desirable for the Supreme Court rules to be reprinted and put on sale at reasonably regular intervals, and the effect of this Amendment is to provide for this at intervals of not more than five years. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am aware that the current edition of the Rules of the Supreme Court is over 40 years old, as the noble Lord said, and that it has been out of print for many years. I have no doubt that this has caused a good deal of inconvenience both to the courts and to the practitioners. That is the bad news. However, I have some good news. It is that a complete revision of the rules of the Supreme Court is currently in hand and, I hope, will be available before the end of this year. That will result in the new edition of the rules being much closer to the corresponding rules in England and Wales. In accordance with modern practice in these matters, which is immensely beneficial, the new edition will be made available in loose-leaf form so as to enable the rules to be updated more easily and more conveniently. That new

895
system will also obviate the necessity for entirely fresh editions to be regularly reissued—or, rarely reissued, as was the case in the past. In view of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord may think his Amendment is not necessary.
Lord BELSTEAD: My apprehension is that the noble and learned Lord has met my point completely. If I remember aright the 1958 Act from my reading and slight understanding of it, if exemptions or alterations to the rules are made, the responsible officer must notify these; and, from what the noble and learned Lord has said, these alterations could be slipped into the practitioner's loose-leaf file in the same way as some politicians, during the course of complicated Bills find themselves slipping pieces of paper backwards and forwards into their supporting documents. I beg to leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clauses 57 to 59 agreed to.
Clause 60 [Taxation of costs.]:
5.2 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 39, line 4, at end insert ("which shall provide for appeals to be made.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 15. The power to tax costs rests now with the court concerned and that power is delegated to the Master (Taxing Office) from whom there is a right of appeal. Clause 60 (1) allocates the jurisdiction of the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the Crown Court for taxation of costs to the Master (Taxing Office); but if there is no intention to remove the right of appeal I should have thought it was desirable, indeed necessary, to add words clarifying this; and this is the effect of the Amendment. If the Government were to accept this Amendment, it strikes me that it might be necessary to amend also Clause 55 (1)(a)(v) so that the Rules about the taxation of costs shall be in accordance with Clause 60. That, of course, will depend upon the response of the noble and learned Lord to this Amendment.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The Bill already provides in Clause 55(2)(e) for rules of court to be made:
"…providing for the review of any jurisdiction exercised by such officers …".
This will enable the Rules to provide for the review of decisions of the Master (Taxing Office); and such rules will so provide.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 agreed to.
Clause 62 [Trial with and without jury.]:
On Question, whether Clause 62 shall stand part of the Bill?
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: The practice in Northern Ireland of trial in front of a jury for civil injuries and such like cases differs from that in the rest of Great Britain. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord has any figures to show that the damages awarded in these forms of cases of trial in front of jury are greater than in England and Wales. The insurance companies when they put up our premiums assure us that one of the reasons why the premiums are so high—and they are very high—is because it is trial in front of jury instead of trial by judge alone.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I have no statistical information, but, even if I had, I doubt whether it would be of great value because no one case is like the next. This is part of the problems and difficulties of litigation. I have no information which can throw any helpful light on this and I doubt whether any would be found by however hard-working a statistician.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: If it is right here to have such cases in front of a judge without a jury, what is the justification for having them in front of a jury in Northern Ireland?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: It is simply because that is the preferred system in Northern Ireland. That, I am afraid, is the answer. It is as simple as that.
Clause 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 to 65 agreed to.
Clause 66 [Certain affidavits taken abroad admissible without proof of seal etc.]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 41, line 14, after ("England") insert ("and Wales").
The noble and learned Lord said: This remedies a very serious omission in the Bill. I should never again be able to return to the Principality if it were not put right. It leaves out "Wales", by a gross and terrible inadvertence which this Amendment will remedy. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 67 [Subpoenas in other parts of the United Kingdom]:
On Question, Whether Clause 67 shall stand part of the Bill?
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: I should like to ask whether subpoenas which will be operated within the United Kingdom also apply to the Isle of Man. I ask this because I find that the Prime Minister in another place said that certain islands are part of the United Kingdom and directly under the Westminster Parliament, while the Isle of Man is not. The Isle of Man is very close to Northern Ireland and there are very close links. I wonder whether that is an omission.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am told that, apparently, it does not apply to the Isle of Man. How serious is that omission, I do not know. We shall have to look at the point. I am advised that that is the position. A most interesting matter has been raised.
Clause 67 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 17 to 30 not moved].
Clauses 68 to 94 agreed to.
Clause 95 [County courts and county court divisions]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 55, line 40, after ("court") insert ("at any place").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, as the Bill stands, this Amendment relates to the functions of the Secretary of State but they will of course be transferred to me in accordance with the undertaking that I have already given. In speaking to it, therefore, I shall refer to the Lord Chancellor as the responsible Minister.
This Amendment will clarify the essential purpose of orders made by the Lord Chancellor pursuant to the new subsection (2)(d) of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 as substituted by Clause 95. Without this Amendment, paragraph (d) would enable the Lord Chancellor to make general provision concerning the nature of the business to be transacted by any county court, while paragraph (a) enables him to specify the places in which the county courts are to be held. Paragraph (d) does not, however, enable the Lord Chancellor to make specific provision for the hearing of certain types of case at particular venues: for example, to provide that appeals arising from a specified petty sessions district shall be heard at a particular venue within the county court division. As it is possible that sittings of the court could be held for limited purposes at certain places within a division, it is desirable to demonstrate in paragraph (d) that the Lord Chancellor's power to make appropriate orders extends to his specifying the business to be transacted at each court venue within a division. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 95, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 96 agreed to.
5.13 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 35:
After Clause 96, insert the following new clause:

899
Civil jurisdiction exercisable by circuit
registrars
" .—(1) section 61 of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 there shall be inserted the following section—
61A.—(1) Subject to subsection (3), any action in which the amount claimed, or the value of specific chattels claimed, does not exceed £300 shall, save as otherwise provided by county court rules, be heard and determined by a circuit registrar in accordance with those rules.
(2) Any order, decision or determination made by a circuit registrar by virtue of subsection (1) shall for all purposes (including the right of appeal) have the like effect as a decree pronounced by a judge and shall be embodied in a decree accordingly.
(3) Where in any action to which subsection (1) applies the amount claimed, or the value of specific chattels claimed, does not exceed £200 the circuit registrar shall, save as otherwise provided by county court rules, deal with the claim by way of arbitration in accordance with those rules.
(4) Save as otherwise provided by county court rules, no costs shall be awarded in connection with an action which, in accordance with subsection (3), is dealt with by way of arbitration.
(5) In its application to an arbitration under subsection (3), the Arbitration Act (Northern Ireland) 1937 shall have effect with such modifications as may be prescribed by county court rules.
(6) References in subsections (1) and (3) to an amount claimed include references to a balance claimed in the circumstances mentioned in section 10(1)(a)(b) and (c).
(7) The power conferred by Article 8(2)(a) of the Administration of Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1975 on the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, by order to increase the sum specified in any of the statutory provisions set out in column 1 of Schedule 1 to that Order shall include power so to increase the sums specified in subsections (1) and (3).
(2) Her Majesty may by Order in Council—

(a) direct that sections 71(1), (2) and (3), 76(1)(a) and 82(3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 (which impose financial limits on the jurisdiction of courts of summary jurisdiction in debt and ejectment proceedings) shall have effect with the substitution for the sums for the time being specified in those provisions of such higher sums as may be specified in the Order;

(b) abolish any civil jurisdiction exercisable by courts of summary jurisdiction;

(c) confer on circuit registrars any civil jurisdiction additional to that for the
900
time being exercisable by them under or by virtue of this Act.

(3) An Order in Council under subsection (2) may make such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplementary provisions (including the amendment or repeal of any statutory provision) as appear to Her Majesty to be necessary or proper for giving full effect to the provisions of the Order.
(4) No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order under subsection (2) unless a draft of the Order has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
The noble and learned Lord said: This is an important new Clause. In speaking to Amendment No. 35, I ask leave also to consider Amendments Nos. 50, 57, 64 and 74 which are inter-related. Although this Amendment again refers to the Secretary of State, this will be changed to a reference to the Lord Chancellor later, in accordance with my undertaking. The Committee will remember that during the debate on Second Reading, I indicated that we would be bringing forward Amendments relating to the jurisdiction of circuit registrars and, in particular, to the establishment of a small claims jurisdiction. That jurisdiction has proved most valuable in England and Wales in making the processes of the courts more amenable and litigation to be undertaken without risk of high costs. It is a procedure which has now been used by thousands of litigants of small means up and down the country. I am sure it will also be welcomed in Northern Ireland.
The new clause, which I now move, embodies the amendments to which I have referred, and seeks to provide for the inclusion in the County Courts (Northern Ireland) Act 1959 of a new Section 61A outlining the extent to which the civil jurisdiction of the county court will be exercisable by circuit registrars. Broadly speaking, subsection (1) of the new clause would enable the new circuit registrars to exercise the general civil jurisdiction of the county court in actions founded on contract or tort up to a monetary ceiling of £300. However, that w ill be subject to county court rules which will not only provide the detailed procedure which will apply but also may restrict the types of case or circumstances in which this jurisdiction will be exercisable by circuit registrars. I can say that it will be comparable to the jurisdiction of county court registrars in England and Wales. So rules which can be more easily amended than primary

901
legislation will make the detailed provision for the exercise of circuit registrars' jurisdiction and will state the limitations within which that jurisdiction will operate. That should provide the necessary flexibility for the effective and equitable operation of this new system.
Subsections (3) to (5) of the new Section 61A of the County Courts Act will create a new small claims procedure for cases in which the amount claimed does not exceed £200. These will normally be dealt with by circuit registrars by way of informal arbitration. The details of the arrangements will be filled in by county court rules which will provide, among other things, for such cases to be tried in the ordinary way if both parties object to arbitration, and for cases of particular difficulty to be referred to the judge.
Subsection (7) of the new Section 61A enables the figures for the circuit registrars' jurisdiction and for the small claims jurisdiction to be increased by Orders in Council. Subsection (2) of the new clause introduces for the first time power to alter by order in council the financial limit on certain parts of the jurisdiction of magistrates' courts. It will also enable the civil jurisdiction of magistrates to be abolished by subordinate legislation. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for his suggestion at Second Reading that this might be done, and we have taken the opportunity to do so in this new clause. Most of that civil jurisdiction of magistrates' courts is already exercisable by the county courts as well. Power is also conferred in subsection (2) to confer new jurisdiction on the circuit registrars.
Subsection (3) of the new clause enables an Order in Council to make incidental and supplementary provision as necessary; and by subsection (4) such orders will be subject to Affirmative Resolution. The other four Amendments are, with one exception, purely consequential on the introduction of this new clause. I will say a further word about one of them when the time comes. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: I should like to study what the noble and learned Lord has said. I am sure that members of the Committee on all sides will agree that this is a sensible provision to be included in this legislation. Regarding the remark made about order-making powers—which I raised on Second. Reading—it is not very
902
often that from the Opposition side of the Committee one recommends an order-making power; but where the civil jurisdictions of the circuit registrars and the magistrates' court are concurrent and, as the White Paper itself said, in the light of how the circuit registrars' work develops it may be necessary, in the future, to look again at the powers of the magistrates' courts, it seemed that to have to do this by primary legislation was not very sensible. I am grateful to the Government for acting upon the suggestion that I ventured to make and for including that in subsection (2)(b) of this new clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 97 agreed to.
5.20 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 36:
After Clause 97, insert the following new clause:
Qualifications of county court judges and deputy judges
".—(1) In section 103(1) of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 for the words from "unless" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words "unless—

(a) he has practised for not less than ten years at the Bar of Northern Ireland; or

(b) he has been a deputy judge for not less than three years."

(2) For section 107 of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 there shall be substituted the following section—
"Deputy judges.
107.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may appoint as deputy judge—

a) a person who has previously held the office of judge;

(b) a person who is qualified to be appointed to the office of a judge;

(c) a resident magistrate;

(d) a solicitor who has practised for not less than ten years as a solicitor in Northern Ireland.

(2) The appointment of a person as a deputy judge shall specify the term for which he is appointed.
(3) Subject to subsection (4), the Lord Chancellor may, with the agreement of the deputy judge, from time to time extend, for such period as he thinks appropriate, the term for which the deputy judge is appointed.
(4) Except where an appointment is made under subsection (l)(a), neither the initial term for which a deputy judge is appointed nor any extension of that term under subsection (3) shall be such as to continue his appointment as a deputy judge after the end of the completed year of service in which he attains the age of seventy-two years.
(5) A deputy judge shall, while he is so acting, have the like authority, jurisdiction, powers and privileges as a judge in all respects.
(6) Where the hearing of any proceedings duly commenced before any deputy judge is adjourned or judgment is reserved therein, that deputy judge shall, notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) or (4), have power to resume the hearing and determine the proceedings or, as the case may be, to deliver the judgment so reserved.
(7) There shall be paid to every deputy judge, except a resident magistrate, such remuneration and allowances as the Lord Chancellor may, with the concurrence of the Minister for the Civil Service, determine."."
(The noble and learned Lord said: It might be convenient to consider with this Amendment Amendment No. 76. This, again, is an Amendment of some significance. The effect of the Amendments is to make solicitors and resident magistrates eligible for appointment as deputy county court judges. That is achieved by a new section, Section 107(1) of the County Courts Act. By virtue of the new provisions which will be inserted in Section 103 of the County Courts Act, persons who have been deputy county court judges for not less than three years will be eligible to be appointed as permanent county court judges. Your Lordships may recall that a similar change was made in regard to England and Wales by the Courts Act 1971. The feeling in your Lordships' House at that time was that it was right that appointments to this level of the Judiciary should become open to the solicitors' branch of the legal profession; and this new clause will make a similar change in Northern Ireland.
The position will not be exactly comparable because there are no recorders in Northern Ireland as we have in England and Wales, but solicitors will be able to obtain judicial experience and will be tested, if I may put it in that way, for their competence in that work by being appointed deputy county court judges before being eligible for a permanent appointment, and indeed, being so for not less than three years.
Another avenue for solicitors to reach the county court bench will be through a change in respect of resident magistrates, for which appointments solicitors are already eligible. By making that
904
change, the new clause will benefit all resident magistrates, whether they were barristers or solicitors before being appointed, by enabling them to be appointed as deputy county court judges and then, after three years, making them eligible for appointment to the county court bench.
I should mention in this connection a small Amendment I shall be moving later, which will increase from six to seven years the length of time for which a solicitor or barrister must have practised before becoming eligible for appointment as a resident magistrate. That minor change is designed merely to bring the position in Northern Ireland into line with that of stipendiary magistrates in England and Wales. I may add that this Amendment is in addition to the provision in Clause 105 of the Bill, which introduces, for the first time in respect of Northern Ireland, a provision comparable to that which has existed in England and Wales since 1961, enabling a practising barrister who has been a solicitor or a solicitor who has been a barrister to count his time in the other branch of the profession towards any qualifying period which may be laid down, by Statute or otherwise, for eligibility for appointment to office or for any other purpose.
I hope that all these provisions will widen the field of choice for judicial appointments and will help to maintain the high quality of the Judiciary in Northern Ireland. I may say that I have myself found, as Lord Chancellor, that the changes which have been made in England and Wales have enabled me to appoint as circuit judges several former solicitors who have proved highly competent to perform the work of the Crown Court.
Subsections (2) and (3) require the period of appointment of a deputy judge to be specified and enable that period to be extended. The remaining provisions of the new Section 107 of the County Courts Act simply restate the existing provisions relating to deputy county court judges, with necessary consequential Amendments. I beg to move.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: I should like to welcome this new clause. I accept that it is going to be only permissive and is not going to require the

905
Lord Chancellor to appoint anybody in fact, but it seems to me that from the resident magistrate's point of view we shall have a career structure which will no doubt encourage people of quality to go through with that. I do not quite see how a deputy judge, who is a resident magistrate and is appointed a deputy judge, will gain the same experience that a recorder gains in this country, because I understand that a recorder sits for a particular period each month, whereas in Northern Ireland it is likely that a deputy judge might be appointed only for a day. Perhaps it does not work quite like that, in which case I am sure the noble and learned Lord will tell me. But I wonder whether, in the way I see it working at the moment, our deputy judges will gain equivalent experience before they arrive at the point where they can be appointed as a proper county court judge.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I apprehend that the experience which a deputy county court judge will have, during the course of the three years when he will have to have been so appointed, will provide the necessary experience for him and, if I may say so, the necessary opportunities for his capacity and qualities to be decided. We anticipate that the frequency of his employment will certainly be no less than that which is the experience of recorders and that, on the strength of that experience, it will be possible for the Lord Chief Justice and others who will be advising me to form a view of the suitability of the applicant for appointment as a county court judge proper.
Lord BELSTEAD: It is very valuable to be able to ask these questions in this way of the noble and learned Lord, because of course we are questioning the Minister who will be responsible for making the appointments to the Judiciary. I should like to pursue what my noble friend Lord Brookeborough was putting to the noble and learned Lord, and I do so in nohostilesensetowards the members of the profession of solicitor. Like many other citizens, I benefit very much from their advice and so am in no way imbued with any hostility towards them. However, I must say that, when listening to the noble and learned Lord, I wondered whether, if you fulfil the
906
office of recorder in this country and presumably have a court list of your own which is made up some time beforehand, and are given advice as to when you are going to sit and in fact you sit for a guaranteed minimum period of time, that really is the same sort of apprenticeship, if I may use that term, as being a deputy judge in Northern Ireland. There, as I understand it, although they do extremely valuable work, they sit very much on an ad hoc and sudden basis and presumably, if suddenly asked to sit, will probably take the less difficult rather than the more difficult cases.
I ventured to ask the noble and learned Lord a question about the Crown Courts when we got to Clause 46. I did so because I had an eye to this Amendment we are now dealing with. Here it seems that the boot is on the other foot and one is dealing in. Clause 46 with very serious cases. The noble and learned Lord was good enough to tell me that the Crown Courts will be able to hear scheduled offences, and I should be interested to hear from him whether deputy judges will sit as Crown Court judges—as indeed, so far as I know, they can do, because this new clause provides in subsection (5) that:
"A deputy judge shall, while he is so acting, have the like authority, jurisdiction, powers and privileges as a judge in all respects".
I should have thought that perhaps it was not so appropriate that a deputy judge should have the onus of sitting in a Crown Court and I wonder, if that is the case, whether it ought not to be spelled out in the new clause. Further, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would think it appropriate that judges appointed by this method should sit in the Crown Court. I am simply asking for the noble and learned Lord's view.
While I am on my feet may I ask a couple of questions about resident magistrates? Without going into detail, I speak with admiration of what resident magistrates have done, very often under great danger, in past years, and so with no hostility at all. But, again, I wondered on reading the new clause whether the office of stipendiary in this country is a stepping stone to a judgeship. I was not aware that this was so. I wondered, as I read the Bill, whether it is really appropriate, now that the whole appellate

907
jurisdiction from magistrates' courts will continue to rest with the county courts, that resident magistrates should be singled out in this new clause for special mention to be deputy judges and to hear appeals from the petty sessional courts—in other words, appeals from themselves and from their brethren—in their capacity as deputy judges.
I should be interested to hear whether the noble and learned Lord thinks that really it is so appropriate that resident magistrates should be specially picked out in that way, particularly as a resident magistrate must, under the Bill, have served a seven years' apprenticeship as either a solicitor or a barrister, and a solicititor who has practised for not less than 10 years will be eligible under this clause to be a deputy judge. This makes me further mystified as to why, in particular, resident magistrates have been picked out for inclusion in the four who may be appointed as deputy judges under this new clause.
The Lord CHANCELLOR: The position of the deputy judge will be that, while there will not be a minimum sitting requirement, as is the case with recorders, a record will be kept of how much and how long each deputy judge will sit, and therefore how much experience he will get. It will be on the basis of that accumulated information that a decision will be made as to whether he has qualified by experience and, as I have said, by the performance of his work, to be made a full-time judge. Of course, a recorder in England does not have to sit continuously for his period of duty. He can sit for shorter intervals, provided that he attains the necessary minimum total, which I believe is 28 days in the course of a year. I think that in practice these points can be worked out, so that the amount of experience and the opportunity for testing performance will be parallel or similar to what takes place in England, in regard to recorders.
Of course, deputy judges will not, in practice, be required to sit in the Crown Court when dealing with the Diplock scheduled cases. Obviously, you would entrust those cases only to the more experienced and, certainly, to none other than permanent full-time judges, and it is not conceivable that a deputy judge would deal with that class of case. I do not
908
think that we need have any anxiety about that. These matters would be supervised by the Chief Justice and the circuit administrator, and I am quite sure that they will work out satisfactorily in practice.
Of course, barrister stipendiaries in England can become circuit judges and, indeed, some have been so appointed. Solicitor stipendiaries can become recorders and then judges, also, in this country. I am very glad that tribute has been paid to the resident magistrates today and I should like to pay tribute myself. They have faced danger with courage, and done their work in a way which has caused admiration both in Northern Ireland and here.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said. As I was saying, it is valuable for us to be able to question the noble and learned Lord face to face, because it is he who will be responsible under this clause, and we are therefore in a fortunate position as opposed to another place. I think, also, that it was right to have asked the noble and learned Lord one or two questions. This is, after all, the first time that this Bill has been gone through in Committee, and this new clause may come under scrutiny again if not in your Lordships' House, in another place. If and when that happens, it will be important that the views of the noble and learned Lord are on the record for people to read. I have no other questions to ask on the new clause which I hope we may now agree to.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 98 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 37 to 39 not moved.]
Clause 99 agreed to.
Clause 100 [Supplementary]:
5.35 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 57, line 29, leave out ("96 and 97") and insert ("to (Qualifications of county court judges and deputy judges)").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is purely a drafting Amendment and is consequential on the inclusion in the Bill of two new clauses to which the Committee has agreed. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 100, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 not moved.]
Clause 101 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 43 to 45 not moved.]
Clause 102 agreed to.
Clauses 103 to 105 agreed to.
Clause 106 [Election courts]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 61, line 18, leave out ("election petitions") and insert ("parliamentary election petitions for the purposes of section 110 of the Representation of the People Act 1949 and section 72(2) of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962").
The noble and learned Lord said: With this Amendment, it may be convenient to discuss also Amendments Nos. 47, 53, 54, 65, 73 and 75. These Amendments all deal with the same point. They are designed to correct some minor drafting defects which have come to light with respect to the esoteric subject of election courts. They will ensure that the provisions of Clause 106, which relate to the composition of election courts, are linked to the appropriate statutory provisions of existing electoral law. A further inconsistency, which this group of Amendments seeks to put right, is the reference in the Representation of the People Act 1949, as it applies to Northern Ireland, and in the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962, to the actual composition of an election court. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 47:
Line 24, leave out subsection (3).
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is consequential on the last one. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 106, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 107 to 113 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 not moved.]
Clause 114 agreed to.
Clause 115 agreed to.
Clause 116 [Making and control of subordinate legislation]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 67, line 12, leave out ("or (2(6)") and insert (" , 62(6) or (Civil jurisdiction exercisable by circuit registrars) (2) ").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 50 has already been spoken to in relation to Amendment No. 35. Formally I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 116, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 117 to 120 agreed to.
Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
[Amendments Nos. 51 and 52 not moved.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 91, line 16, after ("Court") insert ("or the Court of Appeal").
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment was spoken to when I moved Amendment No. 46. Formally I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 91, line 17, at end insert—
("In section 110(1) for the words from "two judges" to "their seniority" substitute the words "the two judges of the High Court or the Court of Appeal for the time being selected under section 106 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978".")
The noble and learned Lard said: Similarly, this Amendment was spoken to when I moved Amendment No. 46. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 92, line 5, at end insert—
("The Administration of Justice Act 1960
In paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 for the word "accordingly" substitute the words "as references to a court of the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland consisting of two or more judges".").
The noble and learned Lord said: The paragraph to which this Amendment refers is part of a group of provisions which modify the Administration of Justice Act 1960 in its application to Northern Ireland. Paragraph 2 includes a reference to a Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division. Although such courts will continue with unchanged composition in Northern Ireland, they will no longer be known by the title "Divisional Court". Therefore this change in the wording of that paragraph is necessary to explain what it will be referring to in future. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.44 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 99, line 8, at end insert—
("In section 36 for the words from "tried" to the end substitute the words "at some other place in the same division or in any other division, he may order those proceedings to be transferred to a court sitting at such other place, and they shall be heard and determined by that court accordingly ".").
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is made necessary by the fact that under the provisions of Clause 95 of the Bill, Northern Ireland will be divided into new county court divisions and there will probably be fewer of them than at present. Section 36 of the County Courts Act as it stands enables a judge to transfer a case to another county court in another division if he considers that it would be more fair or more convenient to do so, but it does not enable him to transfer a case to another place within the same division. Unlike the present divisions, however, the new divisions will all have more than one place at which the court is held and it is clearly necessary, therefore, for the judge to have power to order the transfer of a case to another place within the same division while retaining the power to transfer a case to another division. This, it is hoped, will cater for the situation where a transfer within the same division will be more convenient for the parties and witnesses or will lead to a more speedy trial. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 57:
Line 20, at end insert—
("In section 71(3) at the end add the words "or by a circuit registrar".").
The noble and learned Lord said: When speaking to Amendment No. 35 which conferred jurisdiction on circuit registrars and upon which this Amendment is consequential, I indicated that there would be some points which I should like to make in connection with this Amendment. By adding the words "or by a circuit registrar" to Section 71(3) of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959, this Amendment will provide that a circuit registrar may exercise the jurisdiction and powers of a county court to the extent authorised by any enactment or by county court rules. This will enable rules to provide for the delegation by county court judges of any of their jurisdiction and powers to circuit registrars, as they do at present in respect of clerks of the Crown and peace and county court registrars. Such delegated jurisdiction will be in addition to the statutory jurisdiction of circuit registrars under the new clause. I bee to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 58 to 62 not moved.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 100, line 24, at end insert—
(" (c) in subsection (4) for the words "and (2)" substitute the words "and (1A)".").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is purely a drafting, consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 100, line 28, at end insert—
("In section 147(b) at the end of sub-paragraph (ii) add the words "or by a circuit registrar".").
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment has already been dealt with in connection with Amendment No. 35. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 102, line 4, at end inserts—
"For section 72(2) substitute—
"(2) An election court for the trial of petitions relating to parliamentary elections (in this Act referred to as a "parliamentary election court") shall consist of the two judges of the High Court or the Court of Appeal for the time being selected under section 106 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978."
In section 83(2), (3) and (4) for the words "Supreme Court" substitute the words "Court of Appeal"."
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 46. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 102, line 20, at end insert—
("In section 9(1) for the word "six" substitute the word "seven".")
The noble and learned Lord said: As I explained earlier during the discussions in Committee, this Amendment will increase by one year the period of practice required before a solicitor or barrister is eligible for appointment as a resident magistrate. Its purpose is merely to bring the eligibility for appointment as resident magistrate into line with the qualifying period for appointment as a stipendiary magistrate in England and Wales. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Lord CHANCELLOR The Lord CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 104, line 20, at end insert—
(" The Maintenance and Affiliation Orders Act (Northern Ireland) 1966
In section 10(2) after paragraph (e) insert—
"(f) section 27 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 ".")
The noble and learned Lord said: This drafting Amendment is consequential on Clause 27 of the Bill which deals with the maintenance and education of wards of court. Its effect will be to ensure that an order of the High Court made under Clause 27 will be regarded as a maintenance order for the purposes of Part II of the Maintenance and Affiliation Orders Act 1966 dealing with registration, enforcement and variation of such orders. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 68 to 70 not moved.]
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 rot moved.]
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Repeals]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 119, column 3, leave out lines 14 to 17.
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment was spoken to in connection with Amendment No. 46. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 124, line 8, at end insert—
"In section 147(b)(ii) the words "and by leave of the judge any action in which the sum claimed or the amount involved does not exceed fifty pounds"."
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment has already been discussed in connection with Amendment No. 35. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 124, line 22, at end insert—
("Section 72(4).
Section 83(5).")
The noble and learned Lord said: This again was discussed in connection with Amendment No. 46. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 126, line 19, column 3, after ("44(b)") insert ("and(e)").
The noble and learned Lord said: Finally, this Amendment has already been spoken to in connection with Amendment No. 36, and your Lordships will be happy to require no further words from me. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.