Lords Sitting of 2 March 1978

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.

SPEEDOMETER TESTING
Lord ALLEN of ABBEYDALE: 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 encourage the provision of facilities for a motorist to test his speedometer, so that he will have a means of knowing whether he is complying with speed limits and with the law about the accuracy of speedometers.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I understand that most vehicle manufacturers are prepared to make such facilities available either through agents or speedometer manufacturers. However, my right honourable friend in another place intends to consult the manufacturers and other bodies concerned to see whether any improvement is needed in the present arrangements.
Lord ALLEN of ABBEYDALE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that Answer, which is rather more encouraging than I expected, in view of the fact that we discussed law enforcement yesterday may I ask this: Is it not likely to bring the criminal law into disrepute if it is so uncertain that it is impossible to know whether or not one is complying with it? Would it be possible for those facilities to be provided on a scale so that the very many motorists involved can take advantage of them?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I understand that the accuracy of speedometers in new cars is within the tolerable allowance, which is plus or minus 10 per cent.; and they do not usually alter their accuracy with a lot of use. When the speedometer does alter it tends to err on
604
the side of safety and to indicate a speed faster than that being travelled. Perhaps it might reassure the noble Lord if I tell him that regulations have been brought into operation to require type approval by the Department of Transport of speedometers in all cars produced after the beginning of October 1978 and brought into use after 1st April 1979.
Lord ALLEN of ABBEYDALE: My Lords, if I may ask just one more question: Is it not slightly discouraging to learn that speedometers get worse?—in that it encourages frustration and bad driving if you are following a chap in the outer lane who will not budge, in the fond but totally erroneous belief that he is complying with the speed limit applicable to that particular bit of road.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, there are problems; but if the noble Lord wants to get his speedometer tested there are many manufacturers of speedometers, as I said, who will make this service available, at a cost to the noble Lord.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, if the speedometer gets worse as the car gets older, the same applies to police cars. Therefore, the police cars chasing the people in front of them are more likely to catch them when they are in fact below the speed limit.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, my noble friend on my left assures me that police cars are regularly tested, so that the circumstances mentioned by the noble Earl cannot arise.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, arising out of that, might not speedometers be included among the other things which have to be tested in the annual MOT test?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we have looked at that and suggestions have been made to us that the testing of speedometers might be included in the MOT test, but it would add very substantially to the cost. The test would not be simple; either a rolling road would have to be used or an actual road test, and every minute that is added to the MOT test takes roughly £1 million more out of the pockets of motorists applying for the tests.
Viscount MONCK: My Lords, would the noble Baroness be kind enough to inform my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, where in Devonshire he can obtain these facilities?—in view of the fact that, for the second time, he has now been stopped on the M.3 by the Hampshire police, who said that he was doing 85 when he thought he was doing 58.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, far be it from me to question what the noble Lord says or what the Hampshire police say, but I should be very happy, if the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, requires it, to let him have a note of any manufacturers or speedometer manufacturers who will do the testing for him.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, would the noble Baroness confirm or otherwise the statement that she made about the 10 per cent. error, and in that connection would she say whether this applies to what I suppose one would call the radar equipment which is carried in police cars now, whereby they do not even have to follow you? May I say that on the particular occasion referred to by the noble Viscount I was accused of doing 87 miles an hour, whereas according to my speedometer I was doing 78. Could the noble Baroness tell me whether these 10 per cent. limits are included in these radar contraptions?—because one cannot argue with the machine.
Baroness STEDMAN: Perhaps one cannot argue with the machine, my Lords, but you can challenge the speedometer reading in open court. You are allowed to do that if you think that your speedometer is better than Vascar: that is up to you, my Lords.

THE FUTURE OF BROADCASTING
3.13 p.m.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: 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 when it is now expected that the White
606
Paper on the future of broadcasting will be published.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, the White Paper will be published when the Government have completed their consideration of the Report of the Committee on the Future of Broadcasting, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, and of the many comments we have received on it.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether, when the White Paper is published, it will contain long-term decisions on the major recommendations made by the Annan Committee, or whether it is more likely to be an interim document and in the nature of a holding operation, dealing only, or mainly, with extensions of the BBC charter and the IBA Act?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I would obviously prefer to give an indication of what is in the White Paper when the Government have decided on its contents. But, inevitably, I think that some of the longer term issues raised in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, will be dealt with in the White Paper.
Lord TAYLOR of GRYFE: My Lords, in asking a supplementary question, I should like to declare an interest as a director of a television company. I should like to ask whether, in view of the inevitable delay in dealing with the big issues that are involved in the revised arrangements, there could be any advice immediately on some of the agreed recommendations of the Annan Committee, such as the avoidance of duplication in featuring major sporting events. I gather that we are now heading for three weeks of World Cup football every night for four hours, and something might be saved by the BBC if there was some preparedness to co-operate in avoiding such duplication.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes, my Lords, I am well aware of this point, which has been raised on a number of occasions. I think that this is really a matter for the broadcasters themselves—

607
the IBA and the BBC—to settle. I do not think that it is a matter for the Government.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that, in any case, any decision on what is to be done in respect of the White Paper or the Annan Committee Report must await a debate in Parliament?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Indeed, my Lords. It would be our intention, of course, once the White Paper had been published, to have debates in Parliament. I do not think that it would be right to make decisions before the White Paper had been published.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, if it is within the purlieus of editorial decision not to duplicate sporting events on television, can the noble Lord possibly give an undertaking on something which is within the purlieus of politicians? For heaven's sake!, can we not have Party political broadcasts on every channel at exactly the same time, as they are much less interesting than the World Cup?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am quite sure that all of the politicians hearing the noble Earl have listened with care to what he said.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the time allowed for representations and views on the Annan Report is yet closed, or whether it is possible still to submit views?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the period in which we invited people to make comments has, in fact, closed. But if anybody wished to make representations even now, we should be glad to consider them.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, accepting my noble friend's difficulty about saying what is likely to be in the White Paper, may I ask him about something which will, perhaps, be left out of the White Paper? Does the admirable decision by Her Majesty's Government, to allow the BBC to go ahead last week and launch its imaginative BBC Radio Taunton station, mean that She Government have decided to reject
608
the recommendation of the Annan Committee to set up a local broadcasting authority, and to take away local radio from the BBC and the IBA, a rejection which some of us would wholeheartedly support?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I think that the question that has just been asked has answered the previous question by Lord Trefgarne; namely, that the period for representations is obviously still open. The fact is that the question of the future of local broadcasting is an important matter, but it will be dealt with in the White Paper, and will not be dealt with until it is published.

ULSTER SECURITY FORCES: PROTECTION
3.17 p.m.
Lord SWINFEN: 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 steps they are taking to safeguard members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Ulster Constabulary and their families from being murdered by means of sabotage to their private vehicles.
The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett): My Lords, members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Ulster Constabulary are constantly reminded of the need to maintain careful vigilance in the interests of their personal protection. The RUC give regular advice on the security precautions which are considered essential for the safety of members of the security forces and their families, but it would not be in the best interests of security to reveal precise details of such advice.
Lord SWINFEN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer and I realise that, for security reasons, he cannot go too deeply into the matter. However, I wonder whether the Government would consider making grants or loans to members of the security forces to build garages for their own private vehicles, where they do not have garages at the moment, as this would surely lead to greater security?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, that is certainly a point which has not been put to me before, and I will undertake to consider it. It is, unfortunately, a fact that some cars parked in garages have been booby-trapped, as well as cars left outside the homes of members of the security forces, so I am not sure whether that experience shows that garages provide very much greater protection. But I will undertake to consider the point.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that almost every day, despite declarations about precautions being taken to avoid more of these cruelties and atrocities, they still occur? We must feel horrified by what is happening. Are we not now in a state of war in Ulster? In those circumstances, ought we not to take the requisite steps in order to deal with the situation?
As we seem to allow these things to happen every day as if they were casual events, may I also ask whether it would be desirable for my noble friend the Leader of the House to rise to his feet and, on behalf of every Member of your Lordships' House, condemn unanimously what is happening there?.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, any attacks on innocent civilians or members of the security forces are condemned unanimously, I have no doubt, by all Members of your Lordships' House and repeatedly by members of the Government and members of the Opposition with particular responsibility for Northern Ireland. I can assure my noble friend that those of us who have an interest in Northern Ireland and work there are very well aware that these cowardly attacks are continuing. Also we are well aware that so far this year 144 people have been charged with serious crimes in Northern Ireland. While there has been a series of successful booby trap attacks on members of the security forces, there have also been a very large number where members of the security forces, taking the advisory precautions which I have mentioned, have seen the bombs, or whatever the device may have been, before they went off and the attack has been successfully foiled.

HOSPITAL CLOSURES AND SURGICAL WAITING LISTS
3.21 p.m.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: 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 how many hospitals it has been their policy to have closed, how many operating theatres have as a result been put out of action and by how much the waiting period for surgical cases has thereby increased.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is a part of the management responsibility of area health authorities, not that of the Government nor of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, to review the use of their resources and to ensure that they are wisely deployed. This process necessarily involves change—for example, the building of new hospitals, improvements to others, and, in some cases, the closure of those which are inefficient, only partly used, or of least benefit to patients.
Closures of hospital units are often the natural consequence of new hospital developments. In 1976 and 1977, there were 173 closure decisions, the great majority of which were agreed locally by the community health councils. Information on the number of operating theatres affected is, I regret to say, not available centrally. Closures should not generally have any significant impact upon the waiting period for surgical cases, which I readily admit—and I did so last Tuesday—is much longer than we would want to see.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply, but may I suggest that this is a very serious position. In my part of the country, we have 1,332 waiting list cases. This is very largely due to the fact that, although we had two hospitals, we now have only one, and the consultant surgeon there has an 18 months' waiting list, even for urgent cases. The loss of the hospital which was closed has deprived us of an operating theatre and it has been turned into an administrative body. The number of administrative staff has gone

611
up from 70,000 in 1971 to 101,000 in 1976, and although I do not have the latest figures I understand that they are higher still. Would not the Minister agree that we ought to be increasing operating facilities and the number of consultant surgeons rather than the numbers of administrative staff?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the supplementary question which the noble Baroness has asked requires a very detailed reply. At this stage I do not wish to try to deal with specific hospital situations. However, 70 per cent. of all hospital closures relate to units of fewer than 50 beds. It is these hospitals which are not productive from a health point of view. They are often under-used and cost a great deal of money to service. Hospitals are not closed unless area health authorities are convinced that an adequate service can be provided for that area by another hospital. Where there were two hospitals and one has been closed, it does not follow that a less efficient service is being rendered to the people in that area.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain one thing which I find puzzling today and which I found puzzling the other day? How can the Minister say that, if one closes a hospital and removes the facilities, it nevertheless has no effect on waiting lists?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if you close a hospital, you do so because it is too small, because it is uneconomic, or because it is offering only a limited medical service. By transferring whatever facilities there are to another hospital giving a much wider coverage, you can offer a better service, and that often speeds up the waiting list.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that it is deplorable that the overall shortage of operating theatres should have been intensified by the action taken at the Dulwich Hospital? Patients are being deprived of operating facilities because of industrial action that is being taken by an irresponsible few.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we had better not go into that matter. If
612
the noble Lord wants to go into matters of that kind, I should like to remind the House that in 1975, when the consultants were on strike and working to rule, the waiting lists were increased by 70,000.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, can the noble Lord say why we had better not go into something? Is not that gross impertinence to Parliament? Parliament has the right to inquire into anything.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I said that we had better not go into it because I have a more than adequate answer.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, then perhaps the noble Lord might like to give it as opposed to hectoring people on this side of the House.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, if I may turn to the subject of beds, is the noble Lord able to give us the net figure of beds closed in those 173 hospitals?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in the last two financial years we have provided about 11,000 beds in recently built or converted buildings. During that period I think I am right in saying that there has been a reduction overall of something like 13,000 beds. I do not know whether that answers the noble Lord's question.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what is the position with regard to the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, apart from the fact that this is wide of the Question, I said at the beginning that I do not think that I ought to try to discuss the situation of particular hospitals.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, we appreciate the care which my noble friend has taken in giving us these answers, but could he say what criteria are contained in the formula before a hospital is closed? Secondly, is my noble friend aware that the incubus of administration has a frustrating effect upon surgeons and consultants and that often this in itself can cause delays? Finally, is it not therefore time that Parliament should look at this administrative incubus and decide whether the

613
number of administrators should be lessened and that the number of surgeons and consultants who do the real job should be increased?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with regard to my noble friend's last point, may I remind him that it was the re-organisation introduced by the Party opposite that seriously increased the number of administrators in the National Health Service. I have already given noble Lords a number of reasons why hospitals are closed and I do not propose to go over that ground again. I am afraid that I have forgotten my noble friend's other point. However, where hospitals have been closed, it is because it is possible to offer a more effective service in another hospital in the area.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, to return to the question of waiting lists, is it not a fact that, if you close a hospital because, as the noble Lord says, the facilities are not good enough and transfer people to another hospital where the facilities are greater, you add to the waiting list of that other hospital, which is already, presumably, a long one?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as I have said, by closing one hospital, one can very often add to the efficiency of another. There is the question of staff; there is the question of medical personnel; there is also the question of operating theatres which are not going to be used but which could be used in another setting.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, while recognising that this may be so in certain cases, is it not true, from the figures the noble Lord has given, that there is a net loss of 2,000 beds?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, that is true, but I would remind your Lordships that a good many of these result from the closure of hospitals and hospital wards where there have been patients undergoing psychiatric treatment. It has been part of the policy of this Government to try to get as many people as possible out of institutional psychiatric hospitals and return them to the community. If I may say so, we have been very successful in doing this. In those
614
cases, it has not been necessary to use a great number of beds, and in that sense there has been a reduction.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that an efficient modern hospital can maximise the use of the beds available and of the operating theatre facilities?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, that is the chief reason for a policy that we have at the moment of building what we call "nucleus" hospitals, which will give a great deal more flexibility at the present and in the future.

BOTSWANA DEFENCE FORCE: REPORTED INCIDENT
3.31 p.m.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, in accordance with Standing Orders, I gave Private Notice to Her Majesty's Government through the Leader of the House of my intention to ask a Question in the following terms:
"Whether any report has been received from the British High Commission in Gaborone regarding the incident on 27th February in which 15 members of the Botswana Defence Force were killed in Botswana by the Rhodesian Security Forces?"
My Lords, it is my duty on this occasion to make it clear that I am appealing for a reconsideration of the decision of the Leader of the House, and I must now leave it at that.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I have considered the noble Lord's request to put a Private Notice Question. A Private Notice Question may be asked on a matter of urgency, and it is for the Leader of the House in the first instance to decide whether the Question is of sufficient urgency to justify an immediate reply. As Leader of the House, I decided that this Question, about an incident which occurred on Monday and was reported in the Press on Wednesday, cannot be regarded as of sufficient urgency on Thursday. If it had been a question of great urgency it would have been more appropriate to raise it yesterday. I hope the House will not press the matter.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, if I may reply to that, as I understand I am entitled to do, the report only appeared on the

615
tapes, as far as I know, yesterday afternoon. I was certainly not aware of it before yesterday afternoon. The urgency involved in this is as follows. This is an incident the seriousness of which is perhaps not generally realised, where a small country of this sort loses a high proportion of its existing defence force, consisting at the most of a few hundred men, in an incident which took place on its own territory in violation of the territorial integrity of that territory. It is of the greatest importance that we in this House should show our concern and sympathy for Botswana at this time, because the consequences of this sort of incident, if this continues, is likely to affect the stability of the régime and the country, and have very far-reaching effects. That was the reason why I sought at the earliest possible moment open to me to ask this Private Notice Question.
Lord PEART: My Lords, may I say that I am standing by the tradition and Rules of the House on this matter. I am sorry if the noble Lord did not read the Guardian that morning; it was in the Guardian. In any case, there is another important point. I would add that, as a member of the Government, I am aware that the incident is not a matter for which the Government have responsibility, although it is one which is, of course, a cause for regret. I hope we can pass on to the next business.

THEFT BILL [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich).
Lord HALE: My Lords, as there are no Amendments down for the Third Reading. I am advised that the few observations I desire to make could more appropriately be made on the Question that the Bill be read a third time than on the Question that the Bill do now pass. I propose to follow that advice. I wish to clear up one or two matters, or to add to the information about them, which arose partly in Committee and partly on
616
Report. Perhaps I can put the case to which I refer as an example. It is rather complicated, but I will endeavour to do it as briefly as I can.
A well-known London solicitor some months ago had been acting for a client who had acquired an old property which she wished to convert into residential holiday accommodation. She employed a local builder for the purpose, and at his insistence she provided him with a very substantial sum for the purchase of materials. There were very considerable delays, some, I admit, on both sides. The builder, having purchased a large stock of materials, removed them from the site, and indeed later used them, or most of them, on somebody else's property. The lady consulted the solicitor. Of course he was confronted with a situation of some complexity, some evidence of crime, obvious evidence of tort, and a possibility of a counter-claim for breach of contract, because the lady had rescinded the contract and so on—the sort of case that is a nightmare, and with only £500 involved does not look likely to benefit anyone very much either by a possibly abortive prosecution.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, in the course of some very pungent remarks about the law at Committee stage, said this:
"I wonder how the French get on. They have quite a simple penal code and it deals with this kind of question. I venture to believe that they probably write the thing on a half sheet of notepaper, and the courts find no great difficulty in getting on with it; and they seem to live a prosperous and happy life and enjoy many of the good things of life as well as we do".—[Official Report, 31/1/78; col. 689.]
As it happened, the property was in France and the place of jurisdiction must be in France, and the solicitor had to take his case to the French courts instead of to the British courts.
I propose briefly to say what happened. He wrote to the Procureur de la Republique in Perigueux and sent to him a sworn affidavit of evidence, the bills and papers and so on. After an interchange of correspondence, the procureur said he had decided to refer the matter to the juge d' instruction. The House will recollect that the similarity between the juge d'instruction and the procurator fiscal North of the Tweed has been a matter of

617
comment, and usually of favourable comment, for some considerable time. The juge wrote and said it was a matter of some complexity. The solicitor said that he happened to be going near Perigueux, and could he make an appointment to see him. He got a firm appointment to see the juge d'instruction. He arrived dead on time. He found that the defendant, or accused, was sitting there, also summoned. They were rushed into an office where the procurator fiscal, assisted by a shorthand typist, typed out the evidence as it was being taken. The defendant said he would pay back the money. In the course of the proceedings the juge said this—because of course it is not his job to prosecute; he refers it, in any event, to the Chambre des mises en accusation who really consider the question of prosecutions—he thought there was fair evidence of a theft, but he doubted whether it would result in a conviction or any useful purpose, and suggested that they should come to terms.
They came to terms. The good lady typed out a contract, the seal of the court was affixed, the gentleman was warned that if he did not keep up his promised instalments of £50 a month the juge d'instruction still had power to cause a further supplement of information and to decide again on the question of prosecution. Then the instalments were paid regularly, and this very distinguished solicitor's comment is, "The result was perfect". I venture to suggest in the circumstances that that was the result that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, might well have anticipated. My noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich said that we may have to examine other methods and so on; and, of course, the matter is still being considered by a very distinguished committee.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich for the very great courtesy he has shown throughout these slightly contested proceedings and for the very great ability that he has shown in defending every word of this measure. I think that all of the proceedings are greatly to his credit.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Hale for what he has said, and I shall gladly look at the point that
618
he has raised, which inevitably goes rather outside the confines of this somewhat narrow Bill. However, my noble friend has raised an interesting question about the system in France. I should like to reflect upon it and shall gladly write to him about it.
3.42 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I should like to add one or two words to the discussions and debates that we have had on this Bill because obviously, as it now stands, the substance of the Bill has been materially changed from the original Government Bill.
We on these Benches appreciate only too well the difficulties which have arisen, and have continued to arise, as regards Section 16(2)(a) of the Theft Act 1968. We believe that there was a very valuable attempt by the Criminal Law Revision Committee to look at this clause in the Theft Act and to make new proposals. Certainly I and my noble friends on these Benches have joined the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in his Amendments because we thought that that was a more practical approach.
If one looks at the report of the debate that was held on this clause during the discussions on the Theft Bill in 1968, in the Official Report of 12th March 1968, at column 165, one will find, as one so often does in legal matters, the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, who there drew attention to the fact that there had not been nearly sufficient attention paid to the fact that it was the obtaining of services that was a crucial part of the Bill. As he said at that time, services can be very expensive; and they can, of course, if there is no payment for them—through fraud or deception—cause immense hardship and loss to the person providing the services who has been a victim of fraud. If the noble and learned Lord said that in 1968 it is surely even more true in 1978.
Therefore, I think that the new approach in the Bill as it now stands is very much more realistic and in line with the thinking put forward at that time. Certainly my own belief—and I said this during the Committee stage—is that we shall not get a satisfactory drafting of this Bill until the Law Commission has finished its discussions, deliberations and review of

619
fraud and conspiracy to defraud, especially when, in our consumer society, we see the spreading of the use of credit cards and cheques, with more and more opportunities for defrauding and more and more sophistication in methods of payment and in the different kinds of services that are now being provided to the general public.
Therefore, although I accept that the Criminal Law Revision Committee has produced a very valuable work in its report, I personally prefer the form of the Bill as it now stands and I hope that it will go forward.
3.40 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to speak again. I should not wish in any way to spoil what will undoubtedly be a most harmonious occasion by returning to any of the disputes that have arisen on this Bill. However, I should like to say a few words to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and I say them in no partisan sense because, as I said yesterday, I do not think it appropriate to deal with these matters in that way.
However, one point which has, I am bound to say, mystified us, is the fact that when what is now the Criminal Law Act was in another place we received representations from the right honourable and learned gentleman who leads the Opposition on these matters in another place, who tabled what was, in fact, the Bill as drafted. He asked for that Bill as drafted to be added to the Criminal Law Act. I am bound to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, led her colleagues into the Lobby against what Sir Michael Havers asked us to do, and therefore she will understand our slight mystification as regards these proceedings.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM BILL [H.L.]
3.44 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 4 [Jurisdiction in respect of offences committed outside United Kingdom]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 27, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
("(7) For the purposes of this section any act done—

(a) on board a ship registered in a convention country, being an act which, if the ship had been registered in the United Kingdom, would have constituted an offence within the jurisdiction of the Admiralty; or

(b) on board an aircraft registered in a convention country while the aircraft is in flight elsewhere than in or over that country; or

(c) on board a hovercraft registered in a convention country while the hovercraft is in journey elsewhere than in or over that country,

shall be treated as done in that convention country; and section 7(2) of the Tokyo Convention Act 1967 (meaning of "in flight" or, as applied to hovercraft, "in journey") shall apply for the purposes of this subsection as it applies for the purposes of section 1 of that Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment arises as a result of what I am bound to say was a most perceptive question about the meaning of the words "on board", which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked about during the Committee stage of the Bill. Our inquiries into that led us to the conclusion that subsection (7) as drafted gave the United Kingdom jurisdiction over the craft of a Convention country to a greater extent than the United Kingdom possesses jurisdiction over its own craft. This Amendment is intended to rectify that anomaly. I beg to move.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter has asked me to express his gratitude to the noble Lord the Minister, and to apologise to the Minister and the House for the fact that he is unable to be present today owing to a pressing business engagement. However, he is grateful for the attention given to this point by the Minister and for the Amendment. I do not think that he has had time to see the wording of the Amendment; but assuming that the wording is what he wanted, we would accept it willingly. I thank the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Power to apply provisions of Act to non-convention countries]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4:
Page 5, line 37, at end insert—
("or
(c) a United Kingdom dependency within the meaning of the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967,")
Page 5, line 38, after ("direct") insert—
("(i) in the case of a country within paragraph (a) or (b) above,")
Page 5, line 42, after ("country") insert—
("or
(ii) in the case of a country within paragraph (c) above, that the provisions of section 4 above shall so apply in relation to that country;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4 en bloc. Amendment No. 2 arises from the Amendment to subsection (1) of Clause 5 which the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, moved at the Committee stage of the Bill. Its purpose is to enable the United Kingdom to enter into arrangements with United Kingdom dependencies on lines similar to, but not identical with, those with foreign and Commonwealth countries not party to the Convention for which provision is of course, made under this subsection. These Amendments incorporate the Amendment of the noble Baroness but with two additional Amendments.
The effect of these three Amendments to the subsection is to enable the Secretary of State to apply only Clause 4 of the Bill in relation to a United Kingdom dependency as if it were a Convention country. I beg to move.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, all I have to say once again to the Minister is: "Thank you very much".
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

JUDICATURE (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
Report received.
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: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1. Clause 2(1) provides that the High Court of Northern Ireland shall consist of not more than five puisne judges together with the Lord Chief Justice who shall be the President of the Court.
The main purpose of the Bill is to restructure the courts of Northern Ireland based on three valuable reports which were prepared in Northern Ireland. Parts I to IV of the Bill relate to the Supreme Court and are based upon the report from the Committee under the chairmanship of the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord MacDermott, and which included the present Lord Chief Justice, Sir Robert Lowry.
Because the MacDermott Report recorded a sharp increase in the number of actions disposed of by the Supreme Court 10 years ago, when that report was published, and because, as all noble Lords will know, the Northern Ireland Judiciary is working under considerable pressure dealing with criminal cases, scheduled offences and civil actions, I put down an Amendment in Committee to increase the maximum number of puisne judges from five to six. In reply, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out that, because the Lord Chief Justice and the Appeal Judges also undertake first instance work of all kinds in Northern Ireland and because the number of sitting days in the courts has recently been increased, the Amendment should not prove necessary.
However, since then, the Government have been good enough to furnish me with figures showing the number of actions set down and disposed of in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court during the last 10 years, and there is no doubt that the figures show that the pressure of work in Northern Ireland last year was more than four times heavier than in 1968. That is really a remarkable increase.
In addition, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has been good enough to write to me indicating that he has been giving further consideration to the matter of the number of puisne judges in Northern Ireland and that he would welcome the opportunity to give the Government's conclusions at this stage

623
of the Bill. For those reasons, I have again ventured to put down Amendment No. 1 on the Marshalled List for the Report stage of the Bill. The Amendment will have the effect of increasing the number of puisne judges in Northern Ireland from five to six. I think that, in the light of the letter which the noble and learned Lord was good enough to write to me, it may be possible that the Government will find that Amendment No. 1 is acceptable to them. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I am sorry that I was taken somewhat by surprise at the speed of the earlier legislation. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich upon the expedition which he has effected. I can only hope that we shall make equally speedy progress with the Bill now before your Lordships.
At the Committee stage, we discussed a similar Amendment and I then indicated that I was unwilling to raise the maximum number of judges in the High Court in the way suggested. But since then I have had further information about the increase in the volume of civil business in the High Court which has taken place in the course of the last few years. A few figures may illustrate the problem. Between 1968 and 1974, the number of actions set down for trial in the Queen's Bench Division fluctuated between 786 and 1,336, but in 1975 2,017 actions were set down for trial. In 1976 the figure was 2,333 and there was a slight drop in 1977.
Why this increase happened is not known, but it has resulted in substantial arrears. The judges and all the others concerned in the Supreme Court have tried to cope with the backlog of work by sitting an extra 20 days a year—and, if I may be permitted to say so, that is an interesting and admirable precedent. As a result of their efforts, the arrears have fallen slightly compared with the number at the same time last year, but the signs are that the flow of cases will continue at its present high level.
At present, there are four judges of the High Court but, as I explained earlier, judges of the Court of Appeal help out by hearing cases at first instance. Moreover, there are other factors which can limit the amount of work of which the
624
High Court is capable of disposing, but it would clearly be most unfortunate if at some future time the limit on the number of judges were to prove to be the main bottleneck, if that is not too irreverent a way to describe a lack of judges. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that it would be desirable to have the slightly increased room for manoeuvre which the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, would provide. I do not think that I need make an additional appointment to the High Court at present, but it would, I think, be useful to have this power in reserve. Accordingly, I am happy to accept the Amendment.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I should very much like to welcome the acceptance by the Government of this Amendment. I am quite sure that it would be wrong to throttle justice by not allowing the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to have the ability to appoint a further judge of the High Court if he felt it to be necessary and if he felt that the back-up operation for deciding the cases at the right time was available. If they became available and it would shorten the list, I am sure that it would be right to provide for a sixth judge.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble and learned Lord for accepting this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [The Court of Appeal]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 28, leave out ("and privileges").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Divisions of the High Court]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 14, leave out ("on the recommendation of the Lord Chief Justice.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it may be convenient in speaking

625
to this Amendment if I describe the purpose behind this and several similar Amendments which I shall be moving later. In accordance with the undertaking which I gave at the Committee stage, I have tabled a large number of Amendments—the first of which we shall be coming to shortly—to transfer responsibility for the administration of the courts in Northern Ireland from the Secretary of State to the Lord Chancellor.
As I explained at that time, that change has also necessitated another look at the balance of responsibilities between other authorities named in the Bill, and in particular between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice. In doing this, my officials and I have had regard particularly to the experience gained by my Office during the six years since the Courts Act 1971 came into operation, which is particularly relevant because in many respects this Bill reflects for Northern Ireland what has been done for England and Wales in and since the Act of 1971 and in other subsequent legislation. Although I shall explain briefly each Amendment which is of this type—that is, which has been prompted by the shift in ministerial responsibility that I have mentioned, but which is not directly consequential upon it—I hope that this preliminary explanation may be of assistance to the House.
The present Amendment relates to the alteration of the divisions of the High Court. Under the Bill as it stands at present, it would have been for the Secretary of State to advise Her Majesty to make an Order under Clause 5(2), but he would not have been able to do so save on the recommendation of the Lord Chief Justice. With a change in ministerial responsibility, it will be for the Lord Chancellor to advise Her Majesty, and in these circumstances it seems appropriate to remove the statutory requirement of a recommendation from the Lord Chief Justice. As a matter of practice, however, the Lord Chancellor would be in close consultation with the Lord Chief Justice and would seek his advice in any matter of importance like this in relation to the Supreme Court. May I add that I have the supreme satisfaction of knowing that the Lord Chief Justice has approved of every Amendment which I shall be moving in the course of this afternoon's proceedings,
626
which is a matter of great strength and comfort to me and I hope some reassurance to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, in moving this Amendment the noble and learned Lord was good enough to refer to the general point that he had decided and announced at the Committee stage of the Bill that it would be right for the Lord Chancellor to be responsible for the court service in Northern Ireland and that, as a result, a very long list of Amendments to this Bill are necessary and other Amendments also which have arisen in the judgment of the Government in a connected nature. This is one such Amendment. The first of the Amendments which we shall come to which actually transfers the responsibility for the court service in Northern Ireland from the Secretary of State to the Lord Chancellor is Amendment No. 7. It might be for the convenience of the House if I said that the noble and learned Lord's office has been good enough to furnish me with a list of all these Amendments to which the noble and learned Lord has referred, and so far as they lie within my capabilities, having gone through them I am in agreement with them all. I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord not only for his decision but for the speed and care with which the alterations have been made to the Bill.
The Lord CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention which, if I may say so, is characteristic of him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Judges of one court empowered to assist another].
4.3 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 30, leave out subsection (3).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this Amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 6. This pair of Amendments has the effect of transferring from the Lord Chief Justice to the Lord Chancellor—and I hope that I may be forgiven for referring to the Lord Chancellor as such throughout these observations; it sounds appallingly conceited but it is probably more convenient

627
and less confusing because it is to the holder of the office that I am referring; it may well be that I shall continue to have that privilege for a little time yet, but that is the explanation at any rate of what appears perhaps at first sight to be a series of vanities of which I am guilty-the function of asking county court judges to sit and act as High Court Judges when it is necessary to do so. These Amendments also transfer this provision from Clause 6 to Clause 7. Clause 7 is the one which deals with the Lord Chancellor's requests and appointments.
The Lord Chief Justice will retain the responsibility for making requests to judges of the Supreme Court under Clause 6(1) and (2). A county court judge who is sitting and acting as a judge of the High Court by virtue of this provision will be able to deal with not only cases in the High Court itself but also those classes of cases in the Crown Court which are designated for trial by a High Court judge. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Further assistance for transaction of judicial business]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 35, leave out from ("and") to ("or") in line 37 and insert ("before his appointment to that office had practised for not less than ten years at the Bar of Northern Ireland;")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this Amendment it may be convenient if I also discuss Amendments Nos. 9 and 67 dealing with a similar drafting point. They make no change of substance but improve the drafting. May I make this general observation. There will be a number of subsequent drafting Amendments, and for the saving of time it may suffice for my noble friend and I to say so when we come to those Amendments. Of course, if any matters arising on the Amendments call for explanation by any noble Lord my noble friend and I will endeavour to answer the query.
So far as this Amendment is concerned, as the Bill stands the qualification of a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary in Clauses 7 and 9 is that before his appointment as such he was qualified for appointment as a judge in the High Court. If, as is quite possible, he was at that time a Lord
628
Justice of Appeal this is perhaps an odd way of expressing the qualification. The real purpose is to ensure that such a Lord of Appeal has at some time practised for 10 years at the Bar of Northern Ireland. The Amendment to Clause 99 makes no change either of substance but improves the drafting. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 41, at end insert—
("(2) A county court judge shall, if requested to do so by the Lord Chancellor, sit and act as a judge of the High Court.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 4. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 8, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Chancellor").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this Amendment it may be convenient to discuss also a multiplicity of Amendments, Nos. 17, 18, 20, 28, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 46, 47, 55, 60, 64, 65, 70, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80 to 82, 89, 100 to 102, 110, 113, 115 and 116. The purpose of these Amendments will be immediately apparent to your Lordships. They are designed to transfer responsibility for all the courts in Northern Ireland from the Secretary of State to the Lord Chancellor in accordance with the undertaking which I gave at the Committee stage. In some instances the opportunity has also been taken to make minor drafting improvements, but the only substantive effect of all the Amendments to which I have referred is to transfer the ministerial responsibility.
I do not think it is necessary for me now to repeat the arguments which were rehearsed in relation to this issue at the Committee stage, but I hope the Amendments will be acceptable to your Lordships. May I draw your Lordships' attention particularly to the new clause, Amendment No. 82, which has the effect of transferring to the Lord Chancellor the responsibility for administering all the inferior courts. I beg to move.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like wholeheartedly to

629
welcome this Amendment and every other Amendment that goes with it. While there might be a time when I would wish the noble and learned Lord not necessarily to occupy that seat, his office certainly represents continuity which has the fullest confidence of all my friends in Northern Ireland who represented to me that this is the case. Certainly all my friends would wish the noble and learned Lord well, and if we do not necessarily wish him to be there permanently I am sure he will understand that. I should like to welcome this and say most sincerely that the continuity of his office is something which will assure us in Northern Ireland of the integrity of the courts for many years to come.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Additional provisions as to persons rendering judicial assistance]:
4.10 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 15, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Every person while sitting and acting under section 6 or 7 shall, subject to subsection (3), be treated for all purposes as, and accordingly may perform any of the functions of, a judge of the court in which he is sitting and acting.
(3) A person shall not by virtue of subsection (2) be treated as a judge of the court in which he is sitting and acting for the purposes of any statutory provision relating to—

(a) the appointment, retirement, removal or disqualification of judges of that court;

(b) the tenure of office and oaths to be taken by such judges; or

(c) the remuneration, allowances or pensions of such judges.").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment which improves on the provisions of Clause 8(2), which it replaces. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Qualifications of judges of High Court and Court of Appeal]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 36, leave out from ("and") to end of line 38 and insert ("before his appointment to that office had practised for not less than ten years at the Bar of Northern Ireland,")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment was taken with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Exercise of functions of Lord Chief Justice]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 10:
Page 5, line 5, after first ("or") insert ("if").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this again is simply a drafting Amendment designed to make the clause easier to understand.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, since I spent the greater part of this morning industriously reading through the Amendments to this Bill, and because I could only find one conceivable error in all the Amendments which have been tabled and this was it, may I occupy the time of the House for one minute to explain why I think that this is possibly not the best wording to use and to draw attention to what I regard as the rather curious wording in the rest of the clause.
Dealing with this earth-shattering question of whether we should insert "if" I would suggest, with all respect to the draftsmen, that a preferable word would be "because". May I read the subsection as it would then read:
"… if the Lord Chief Justice is not available because of absence or other reason or because his office is vacant, …".
I suggest that that is more appropriate. The meaning is exactly the same, but instead of inserting "if" we are to retain the same words and use the word "because". It may be of small moment, but I suggest that that might be an improvement, if only euphoniously.
The more urgent matter is that the wording of the rest of this clause seems to me in one particular to be quite extraordinary. May I read it to the House:
"Anything which by virtue of this Act or any other statutory provision is for the time being authorised or required to be done to or by the Lord Chief Justice …".
If I leave out the "or by", it reads like this:
"Anything which by virtue of this Act or any other statutory provision is for the time being authorised or required to be done to … the Lord Chief Justice …".

631
I do not know what you do to a Lord Chief Justice. It may be that this provision is put in because of the special circumstances of Ireland, and the fact that there may be a lot of people there who want to do something special to the Lord Chief Justice.
If one reads on, it becomes even more extraordinary because it says that if anything is authorised by this Act:
"to be done to … the Lord Chief Justice"
then in the absence of the Lord Chief Justice—that is, if he is not available because of absence or other reason, or his office is vacant, that may
"be done during such unavailability or vacancy to … the senior Lord Justice of Appeal …"
So if you cannot get at the Lord Chief Justice and do anything to him, then this magnificent clause gives you power to do the same thing to the senior Lord Justice of Appeal.
I fancy that this is intended to cover not only what may be done by the Lord Chief Justice, anything that may be authorised or required to be done by the Lord Chief Justice, but also to cover circumstances in which a representation is being made to the Lord Chief Justice; then the word "done" is used in order to cover that situation. I suggest that it is not necessary to put in "to", because if somebody is being authorised to make an application to the Lord Chief Justice, or is required or authorised to do it, then the retention of the words, "by the Lord Chief Justice" is entirely sufficient, because what is then done by the Lord Chief Justice is either to grant or refuse the representation. I suggest, therefore, that the words "to or" are in fact otiose, and indeed slightly risible. On that account I would earnestly commend to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack that possibly before Third Reading it might be considered whether "done to" might be omitted.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I want immediately to assure noble Lords that no mayhem or other action of an unfriendly character in relation to the Lord Chief Justice is contemplated at all; it is to deal with the situation, for instance—as indeed the noble Lord himself indicated in looking for an explanation—if an application is made to the Lord Chief
632
Justice and something is done to the Lord Chief Justice by reason of that application. We shall certainly have a look at this again. I think that the inclusion of the word "if" appears to be necessary. However, I am willing at greater leisure than I immediately have to look at this again. Therefore, I shall not press this Amendment, but we can return to this earth-shattering issue between the noble Lord and myself at a later time. With your Lordships' leave, I shall not move Amendment No. 10. I hope that that is the appropriate way of dealing with it. Amendment No. 10 is not moved. I hope that I have not incurred the eternal displeasure of my noble friend Lord Melchett by so early a surrender.
Clause 12 [Appointment of judges]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, line 12, leave out ("becomes") and insert ("is").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is another drafting Amendment, but it is of some significance. The word "becomes" in the second line of Clause 12(1) suggests that an appointment of a new judge to the High Court or the Court of Appeal can only be made following the death or departure of another judge. But, in accordance with Amendment No. 1, it may be desirable to add a new judge to the strength of the Bench, thereby increasing the total within the limits permitted under Clauses 2 or 3. That is achieved by substituting the word "is". This, incidentally, brings this provision into line with the comparable provision for England and Wales. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Co-ordination of exercise of jurisdiction in relation to persons under disability]:
4.20 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 12:
Leave out Clause 28.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 28 transfers from the Lord Chief Justice to the High Court jurisdiction in matters relating to mentally disordered

633
patients and subsection (3) interprets the word "patients" by reference to the Lunacy Regulation (Ireland) Act 1871, which defines the mentally disordered in words which I ventured to criticise at the previous stage of the Bill. In Committee, I moved an Amendment to define patients by reference to the more modern Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Act 1961. The definition of a patient in Section 7 of that Act is:
"Persons suffering from mental disorder, persons requiring special care and persons deemed to be socially inefficient."
With, I regret, only short notice of that Amendment in Committee, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave me his view on three points. The first was that jurisdiction over mental patients was of two kinds, over their persons and over their property, and he said that the 1961 Act provided for the care of persons while the 1871 Act governed jurisdiction over property. Secondly, the noble and learned Lord said that the 1871 Act was still in use, hence reference to the principal Act was needed in this clause, and he gave an assurance that a complete revision of the law relating to mental health in Northern Ireland was under consideration. His third point was that my Amendment would have fallen outside the scope of the Long Title of the Bill.
I deduce from that that Clause 28 refers to jurisdiction over the property of a mental patient and transfers that jurisdiction from the Lord Chief Justice to the High Court. My first question therefore is this: exactly what is the extent of that jurisdiction to be?—and I ask that because, as I understand it, when a person becomes mentally ill in Northern Ireland and is admitted to hospital or some other form of care in the community, the social services department has a statutory duty to take immediate measures to ensure the safety of that person's property and personal effects. The Department for the Affairs of Patients must then be informed and a committee established to manage that person's estate, and from then on that Department is responsible. However, I am advised that, in practice, where the property of a mental patient is small, the responsibility is liable to remain with the health and social services board. I understand that this ad hoc custom, although it has worked all right, has been of some
634
concern to the boards, which have felt that they should be authorised in writing by the Department for the Affairs of Patients so that they are certain of what their power is.
All that procedure is for the care of property which, by Clause 28, is to fall within the jurisdiction of the High Court, yet I hope that it is clear from what I have said that statutory responsibility is being shared by the boards. They have the emergency responsibility when a patient becomes ill and, as I am advised, they have been accustomed to continue responsibility over small estates on a continuing basis. It would be useful to have it confirmed that this interpretation is correct so that we know the extent of the jurisdiction—in this case, in regard to the property of a mental patient—which is being transferred to the High Court by this clause.
At the same time, I would appreciate, a reassurance that responsibility for the person of a mentally disordered patient falls entirely within the jurisdiction of the 1961 Act, which places responsibility with the Northern Ireland Department for Health and Social Services, which, in turn, delegate that responsibility to the area boards. If that is correct, then the consequence is that, in assessing the extent of the mental disorder of a patient for the purpose of the care of his person under Section 15 of the 1871 Act—that is the section which the noble Lord has kindly advised me in a letter needs an inquiry—the health and social services are using the definition contained in Section 7 of the 1961 Act; that is, when deciding about the fitness of a mental patient with regard to the mental patient's property. But the High Court will continue to use the definition of a mental patient when it is deciding the fitness of the person of a mental patient by reference to the 1871 Act. I would only observe from this divergence of statutory definition that this is a compelling reason for hastening on with the statutory reform to which the noble and learned Lord referred in Committee. I am therefore asking whether the Government can give some forecast of the time-scale for that work to be completed: are we talking of years or months? I hope we are not talking of a very long time.
I apologise to noble Lords for the length of this intervention. My final question relates to Schedule 3, which is connected with Clause 28. The reallocation of the duties now discharged by the Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland and his Assistant as part of their duties to a Master and Registrar in Care and Protection, who will both be officers of the Supreme Court, presumably has some reason, but I am not aware of that reason. I realise that Clause 70 of this Bill makes it clear that the old name for the officers of the Supreme Court who are looking after the Department for the Affairs of Patients will now be dispensed with and that the new name for the two new officers will be "Officers in Care and Protection", and I think that this will be very acceptable to people working in the mental health field.
These two new appointments presumably imply some increase in the volume of work. Possibly more cases are to be handled within the Family Division of the High Court. I do not know, but in either case—whether there is more work being handled in the Family Division of the High Court or whether there is simply a greater volume of work—there are bound to be implications for health and social work staff. If staff are to be ready to respond effectively, they need to understand the nature of the changes that are being made in this Bill and the implications, if there are any, for resources, administration and training. I have asked three questions: first, are my assumptions as to the extent of the High Court jurisdiction under this clause correct? Secondly, when is the work of statutory revision likely to be finished? Thirdly, what are the implications of the two new statutory appointments in Schedule 3? I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I shall deal with the noble Lord's three points in the order in which he put them. First, I think his assumptions are exactly correct as to the extent of the powers: all that Clause 28 does is to transfer from the Lord Chief Justice to the High Court all the Lord Chief Justice's powers which were conferred by Statute and by the Royal Sign Manual connected with looking after the property and affairs of mental patients as defined in subsection (3). I
636
should be happy to give the noble Lord a little detail about what those powers are if he requires it, but he is quite right in assuming that the existing powers are being transferred and that there is no extension or diminution of them implied by the provisions of the Bill.
His second point was about the Review Body which is shortly to be set up by the Department for which I am responsible in Northern Ireland—the Department of Health and Social Services—to examine the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Act 1961. Certainly, our intention is to set up the Review Body in the near future. It will of course benefit from the very considerable work that has been carried out in England and Wales, and that is why the appointemnt of the Review Body has been held until now. I could not at this stage realistically give the noble Lord any likely time-scale for the Review Body's work; this is a complicated field, as our discussion of this clause has demonstrated. I am sure they will balance with great care the need for speedy action against the need to review matters which are contentious and difficult, and it would not be fair to the Review Body for the Minister to say in advance how long he expected it to take.
Dealing with the noble Lord's final point, there is no new work involved in the change of title from Registrar in Lunacy and Assistant Registrar in Lunacy to those of Master in Care and Protection and Registrar in Care and Protection; it is simply changing the title by which the existing people are called. As the noble Lord said, this is being done because it is hoped that this will be more appropriate to the functions of the office, and I think it will be very much welcomed by all those concerned in the field of mental health in Northern Ireland. So no new work and no new appointments are involved; it is simply a change in the title of the existing personnel. I hope that that brief explanation answers all the noble Lord's points, but if there is any further information I can give him I shall be happy to try to do so.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, may I ask the help of the noble Lord who has just spoken? Do I understand—I think I do—that the law is clear but the practice is not always in accordance with

637
the law? That is to say, when the department for the affairs of patients is notified, if the matter concerns only a small estate then I understand it is left for the social services board to deal with although they have not really got the jurisdiction. Therefore, I can only assume that the law is correct but the practice is different. Would this be right?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as I understood the noble Lord, Lord Belstead — and it was he who made this point, I think, not me—he was saying that on occasions the social services are asked by the legal authorities to continue to do some work with the person who is suffering from mental illness. I was not quite clear from what the noble Lord said whether this was work connected with the person or the property of the person concerned; but nevertheless, this is the practice. The social services boards, as the noble Lord said, are not entirely clear about their statutory duties and powers. This seems to me to be an area which will have to be considered by the general review body which I have announced will be set up shortly. As I understand it, there is no problem with the practice at the moment, though there may be some uncertainty. After the passage of this Bill the practice will continue in just the same way, and will be included in the major review which is going to be undertaken in Northern Ireland; and that seems to me to be the sensible course to follow.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the reply that he has given. I assure him that I will not rejoin at the same length as that at which I spoke before, but one important point arises. I understood the noble Lord to refer to the law revision as being revision of the 1961 Mental Health Act. I understood from what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said in Committee—and I will not quote the noble and learned Lord's words—that what we were really talking about was a revision of the law relating to mental health with particular reference to the 1871 Act. I hope that I have that right.
I do not think we really ever ought to forget the anxiety of those who are closely concerned with a mental patient,
638
either as friends or as relatives—anxiety which often fixes upon what is going to happen in the future to someone who is mentally ill. The long and short of it is that to use the archaic language of 100 years ago is in itself enough to dash whatever hopes such people may often retain. For that reason alone, I hope that what we are talking about is revision of the law as it relates to the 1871 Act and whatever revision of the law is necessary as it may relate to the 1961 Act in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord interpreted absolutely rightly what I was seeking to say when I spoke on my first point. I am advised that the health and social services hoards, on a purely ad hoc basis, very often find themselves going on administering very small estates of mental patients when a committee, as it is called under the 1961 Act, has not been formed for the protection of the property of that mental patient. As I am advised, the health and social services boards are very ready to do this work, but they have felt that perhaps they ought to have some legal standing to do it. I do not know, but I would have thought that it might have needed an amendment of Article 38 of the Health and Personal Social Services Order 1972.
I apologise for keeping the House so long. I do not think, though, it has been a bad thing. This is a clause relating to jurisdiction with regard to mental health; and, although it may be very well understood by the legal experts, the implications of it were not immediately evident to people like myself; nor, indeed, to those to whom we owe so much—the people who actually do the work of looking after those who are mentally ill and mentally handicapped in Northern Ireland. I have no doubt that I shall receive an assurance about the law revision at a later date, and I am perfectly happy to leave that. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 [Powers of Court for purposes of appeals]:
4.35 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 22, line 16, leave out ("heretofore").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 [Appeals to Court of Appeal under Criminal Appeal Act]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 23, line 16, at end insert ("for the purposes of").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this, again, is another drafting Amendment which, like those T shall simply refer to as drafting Amendments, makes no change of substance and is designed simply to make the clause easier to understand. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47 [Exercise of jurisdiction by Crown Court]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 29, line 7, leave out ("Lord Chief Justice") and insert ("Lord Chancellor").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is another Amendment which adjusts the balance of responsibilities within the Bill, this time in relation to the new Crown Court. The expeditious despatch of criminal business which will become my responsibility depends very much on having the right judges available to sit to try cases where and when they are needed. In England and Wales this is a responsibility which I already bear, and this Amendment would achieve the same position in Northern Ireland. Thus, although this is not an inevitable consequence of my assumption of responsibility, it seems to be a logical one. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 29, line 9, leave out from ("respectively") to end of line 10 and insert ("and all other matters relating to the distribution of Crown Court business shall be determined in accordance with directions given by the Lord Chancellor after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this Amendment I propose
640
to deal also with Amendment No. 19, which is consequential upon it. The second limb of Clause 47(2) of the Bill deals with the way in which cases are to be allocated to different levels of the Judiciary in the Crown Courts. Thus, for example, murder would be tried only by a High Court judge, while, at the other extreme, cases of petty theft which are to be tried on indictment could be tried by a county court or deputy county court judge. This grading of cases again follows the practice in England and Wales, save that here it is done by the Lord Chief Justice of England.
However, this is a matter which I think should more appropriately restin the hands of the Lord Chancellor, since it has implications for the good management and despatch of business, for which the Lord Chancellor is ultimately responsible. The new provision includes a requirement that the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland be consulted about this and other matters relating to the distribution of Crown Court business, and the Lord Chief Justice is content with this solution. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.40 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendments Nos. 17 and 18:
Page 29, line 13, leave out from ("by") to ("after") in line 14 and insert ("the Lord Chancellor")
Page 29, line 27, leave out ("or on behalf of the Secretary of State") and insert ("the Lord Chancellor").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 17 and 18 en bloc. They were discussed with Amendment No. 7.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 48 [Committal for trial on indictment]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 29, line 37, leave out ("Lord Chief Justice") and insert ("Lord Chancellor").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 16. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [Application of sections 54 to 56 to Crown Court rules]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 34, leave out lines 17 to 20 and insert ("namely—

(a) two county court judges nominated by the Lord Chancellor after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice;

(b) a resident magistrate nominated in the same manner; and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment, too, was discussed with Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 [The Supreme Court Rules Committee]:
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 35, line 14, leave out ("of whom the Chairman of the meeting shall be one").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 54(3) provides that the Supreme Court rules shall be made or altered only if there is a majority in favour of four members of the Rules Committee of whom the chairman of the Committee shall be one. This means that the approval of the Lord Chief Justice in his capacity as chairman is necessary to the making or amendment of any rules. This Amendment, which would remove this provision, is intended as no reflection on the Lord Chief Justice for Northern Ireland; rather it is to prove the rather unusual double veto which this clause taken with Clause 55 provides. If your Lordships glance at Clause 51(1) and (2) it will be found there that the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor also is needed before rules can be made. I should like to know whether this double veto on the decisions of the Rules Committee is deliberately intended and is considered necessary. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I recognise that Clause 54(3) effectively gives the Lord Chief Justice, as chairman of the Rules Committee, or whoever else may be taking the chair in his absence, a power of veto over any rule proposed by the Committee and that this is in addition to the powers of the Lord Chancellor under Clause 55. In England, the chairman of the Rules
642
Committee has a similar power to that which is proposed in Clause 54(3), but the difference is that here the chairman is the Lord Chancellor himself, anyway. Unfortunately, it simply would not be practicable for me to be present as chairman of the Northern Ireland Rules Committee.
Therefore, the answer to the proposal of the noble Lord is essentially a practical one. In matters of procedure in the Supreme Court, the Lord Chancellor will have to rely heavily on the advice of the Lord Chief Justice of the day, and this will be particularly so when he comes to decide whether or not to concur in rules that are made. If a particular rule had been made against the wishes of the Lord Chief Justice, that would be a matter to which the Lord Chancellor would clearly have to attach a great deal of weight, and it is unlikely in those circumstances that he would concur in such a rule.
Under the system as proposed in the Bill, on the other hand, the Lord Chancellor would know that any rule which came before him for his concurrence already had the blessing of the Lord Chief Justice; and this would clearly make his task of deciding whether or not to concur a good deal easier. For these reasons, I hope the House will accept that the Bill should be left unaltered in this respect.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation of the interdependence of Clauses 54 and 55. This I certainly accept, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 35, line 16, leave out subsections (4) to (6) and insert—
("(4) In the absence of the Lord Chief Justice, the senior judge present shall be chairman of the meeting.
(5) The Principal Secretary to the Lord Chief Justice or such other officer as the Lord Chancellor, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, may from time to time designate shall be secretary to the Rules Committee.
(6) Any expenses incurred by the Rules Committee shall be paid by the Lord Chancellor.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it may be convenient if, with this

643
Amendment, I also deal with Amendments Nos. 87 and 88. This Amendment replaces the last three subsections of Clause 54. The new subsection (4) merely improves and simplifies the drafting of its predecessor and makes no real change of substance. The change effected by Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 produces a new feature in the substituted subsection (5), namely, a change of title for the Permanent Secretary to the Lord Chief Justice who will, in future, be known as the "Principal Secretary". Now that the Supreme Court is to be largely staffed by civil servants, it will save confusion if this statutory officer, who will not be a civil servant or a member of my Department in any sense, does not bear a title which has particular and special Civil Service connotations.
Your Lordships may be interested to know that this statutory officer will continue to bear also the title of Clerk of the Crown, formerly of the Crown and Hanaper. It appears that the ancient title of this office, which corresponds to that noble office, the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery in England, derived from the fact that in former days the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland was also the custodian of the hanaper, or basket, in which were carried the writs. It would be clearly inappropriate if he had been called "the basket"; and so he was called the Hanaper, the Clerk of the Crown and Hanaper. The new subsection (6) simply transfers responsibility for expenses incurred by the Supreme Court Rules Committee from the Secretary of State to the Lord Chief Justice. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to
4.48 p.m.
Clause 55 [Rules of court]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 36, line 23, leave out from ("sittings") to ("officer") in line 24 and insert ("of any court, division, judge or statutory").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Clause 55 deals with the powers of the Supreme Court Rules Committee in Northern Ireland to make rules of court and this Amendment makes a small modification in those powers. One effect of this Amendment would be to remove
644
the reference to vacations from Clause 55(2)(a) because this is already dealt with in Clause 57(1).
The other effect is to remove the references to regulation of offices and all officers of the Supreme Court and confine the Rules Committee's powers of regulation to the sittings of the statutory officers. The reason for this change is that the other officers of the Supreme Court will in future be members of my Department and their duties are, therefore, more appropriately regulated by myself or by my responsible officials on my behalf, rather than by rules of court. The judges and the statutory officers, as defined in Schedule 3, will not be members of my Department and will, therefore, continue to have their sittings regulated by rules of court. This is what the Amendment achieves. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 58 [Sittings of High Court and Court of Appeal]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 38, line 10, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) The places at which the High Court and the Court of Appeal sit outside the Royal Courts of Justice and the places outside the Royal Courts of Justice at which any other business of those courts may be conducted shall be determined in accordance with directions given by the Lord Chancellor.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is another Amendment which is designed to improve the machinery of the administration and it also transfers certain powers from the Lord Chief Justice to the Lord Chancellor. The old sub-section (2), which this Amendment replaces, did not provide the degree of flexibility as to the places of sittings of the High Court that experience in England and Wales has shown to be desirable. The effect of the new subsection is, therefore, to take this matter out of the realm of subordinate legislation by way of rules of court and to give the Lord Chancellor a power to give directions—and not just temporary directions as under the old subsection—as to where the High Court shall sit.
Not only will this enable me and my officials to deal with situations as they arise—for example, a sudden crop of

645
cases away from Belfast—but also to alter the pattern on a more permanent basis so that, for example, if there were at some future time to be a rise in the amount of High Court business at Londonderry, and it looked like being a permanent development, arrangements could be made under this new provision for sittings of the High Court to be held there as often as necessary without the need for further legislation. I beg to move.
On Question Amendment agreed to.
The Lord CHANCELLOR The Lord CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 38, line 17, leave out ("with a jury") and insert ("by the court").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is somewhat similar to that of the one which I have just moved, and that is to provide greater flexibility for the places of sitting of the High Court in the interests of justice and of the convenience of the parties and witnesses. Subsection (3), which would be altered by this Amendment, complements subsection (2) by enabling the court to order trial in another place in a particular case. It may happen, for instance, that the trial in question will require the attendance of a large number of witnesses who all come from a particular district and that therefore it would be more convenient for the trial to be held in that district.
Alternatively, there could be strong local feeling about a particular case, and although that is not likely to affect a High Court judge sitting by himself, justice would be better seen to be done if the trial were held outside the area in question. As it stands, the Bill restricts this power of the court to order trial in another place to actions or issues which are to be tried with a jury, and the effect of this Amendment would be to extend that power to all civil proceedings. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 60 [Taxation of Costs]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 39, line 3, after ("Office") insert ("or such other statutory officer as may be designated for the purpose by the Lord Chancellor after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice").
The noble Lord said: my Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is, again, to enable better facilities to be provided for the despatch of High Court business outside Belfast. Clause 60 deals with the taxation of costs, and subsection (1) vests the jurisdiction in the Master (Taxing Office), who is one of the statutory officers listed in Schedules 2 and 3 and who has an office in Belfast. This Amendment will enable the Lord Chancellor to appoint other statutory officers, who would probably be the new circuit registrars outside Belfast, to have jurisdiction to tax bills of costs as well. Before making any designation of a statutory officer, the Amendment requires the Lord Chancellor to consult the Lord Chief Justice. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.56 p.m.
Clause 68 [Departments]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 43, line 1, leave out subsections (2) to (5) and insert—
("(2) The business to be assigned to each department shall—

(a) be prescribed by rules of court; and

(b) subject to any directions given by the Lord Chancellor under subsection (4), be transacted under the supervision of the statutory officer specified in relation to that department in the second column of Schedule 2.

(3) The Lord Chancellor may by order made after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice establish at such place as may be specified in the order a branch office of the Probate and Matrimonial Office which—

(a) may transact such of the business of that Office as may be so specified; and

(b) shall, subject to subsection (4), be under the supervision of a circuit registrar.

(4) Statutory officers shall discharge their functions in accordance with directions given by the Lord Chancellor.
(5) The Lord Chancellor may by order made after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice at any time modify Schedule 2 by—

(a) removing any department and any entry relating thereto from that Schedule;

(b) adding any department and any entry relating thereto to that Schedule;

(c) amending the name of any department or amending any entry relating to any department in that Schedule.

(6) An order under subsection (5) may make provision for any incidental, consequential,

647
transitional or supplementary matters for which it appears to the Lord Chancellor to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of the order to provide, and may amend or repeal any statutory provision (including any provision of this Act) so far as may be necessary or expedient in consequence of the order.").
The noble and learned Lord said: my Lords, this Amendment is not as substantial—in spite of its length—as it may appear to be; much of it consists simply in a rearrangement of the existing provisions of subsections (2) to (5) of Clause 68. Those changes of substance which are made by this Amendment are designed to improve the administration in the light of the change in Ministerial responsibility. The new subsection (2) largely restates its old equivalent, but with the important modification that the supervision which the statutory officers will exercise over their respective departments in the Supreme Court will be subject to any directions given by the Lord Chancellor under subsection (4). If the Lord Chancellor is to discharge his responsibilities effectively and be answerable to Parliament for the despatch of business in the Supreme Court, it is necessary for him to have this degree of control over the administration.
The new subsection (3) simply restates in slightly different language the provisions of old subsection (5), but with the same proviso that the supervision officers—the circuit registrars, in other words—will be subject to the Lord Chancellor's directions in the way they administer the branch offices of the Probate and Matrimonial Office. The new subsections (5) and (6) replace old subsections (3) and (4), respectively. The difference here is that the Amendment proposes a simplified procedure for modifying Schedule 2 to the Bill and thereby, as and when necessary, rearranging the departments of the Supreme Court. This departmental structure is a wholly administrative matter and, although it is right that it should be set out in an Act of Parliament, there is really no justification for a very formal style of subordinate legislation—by Order in Council—to alter administrative structures of this kind. The Amendment therefore proposes that this power should be exercisable by the Lord Chancellor by a simple order instead, and I hope that this will be acceptable to the House. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 69 [Officers and staff]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 43, line 30, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Chancellor").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment was moved with Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendments Nos. 29 to 31:
Page 43, leave out lines 36 to 38 and insert—

("(c) magistrates' courts;

(d) the Enforcement of Judgments Office; and

(e) coroners' courts;

as appear to him to be necessary and such officers and staff shall discharge their functions in accordance with directions given by the Lord Chancellor").>
Page 44, line 26, leave out ("and")
Page 44, line 29, at end insert ("and
(v) the officers of, and other persons employed for the purposes of, coroners' courts;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31, it may be convenient if I also speak to Amendments Nos. 95 and 123. The system of coroners' courts in Northern Ireland was not originally covered by this Bill; but following the decision at Committee stage to transfer the ministerial responsibility of the administration of the courts to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, it seemed right that the administration of coroners' courts should also be transferred. Although the numbers involved are very small indeed, it would also be convenient if the staff of coroners' courts were brought within the new unified courts service which will be established under the powers contained in Clause 69 of this Bill.
The first of these Amendments thus makes the appropriate change to Clause 69(1) and also, incidentally, underlines the fact that the officers and staff of the new service will be under the Lord Chancellor's control. Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 make similar changes to subsection (4).
Amendment No. 95 makes consequential drafting changes in the Coroners' Act (Northern Ireland) 1959, of which the majority are straightforward and consequential upon the decision to transfer

649
ministerial responsibility. Some of these Amendments re-state changes already effected by the Northern Ireland (Modification of Enactments—No. 1) Order 1973 and will enable part of that order to be repealed.
Finally, Amendment No. 123 provides for the repeal of two provisions in the Coroners' Act 1959. Section 4, at present, places responsibility on the Secretary of State for the provision, maintenance and equipment of accommodation for the holding of coroners' courts. Such accommodation will in future be provided by the Secretary of State for the Environment under the Administration of Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1954, as amended by Schedule 5 to this Bill. The definitions in Section 40 which are repealed by this Amendment are redundant, following the transfer of ministerial responsibility. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 29 to 31.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendments Nos. 32 and 33:
Line 30, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Chancellor")
Line 42, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Chancellor").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 together. These were discussed with Amendment No. 7.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 34:
Line 43, leave out second ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this Amendment, I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 35. Taken together, these Amendments make provision for the abolition by order of the office of under-sheriff and for the transfer of the functions of that office to such other persons or bodies as may be specified in the order. Your Lordships are already aware of the contents of Clause 104 which, in making new provision for under-sheriffs to take account of the territorial re-distribution of courts, clearly contemplates the continued existence of this ancient and historic office. This is, of course, right, and in seeking your Lordships' agreement to add to Clause 69(5)
650
a reference to the office of under-sheriff, the Government are doing no more than seeking to include in the Bill a power which may in future prove unnecessary.
The office of sheriff was introduced in Ireland soon after the first settlement of the English, and since then has been regulated by numerous statutory provisions. However, since the enactment of the Judgments (Enforcement) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 and of a Local Government Order in 1973, almost all the functions of the under-sheriffs in Northern Ireland have been abolished or transferred to other bodies. Indeed, this Bill provides for the abolition of their functions in relation to the assessment of damages by a sheriff's jury. Apart, therefore, from their ceremonial functions, many of which will disappear with the passing of the assizes, the future rôle of under-sheriffs in Northern Ireland will be confined to the important task of summoning jurors.
Noble Lords will be aware that a new system for the preparation and revision of jury lists in Northern Ireland was introduced in 1973 to take account of the abolition of the property qualification for jurors and the consequential wider jury franchise. This system, however, preserved the distinction between those officers who prepare the jury lists and those who subsequently summon jurors from those lists.
I am pleased to say that I am advised that the new system in Northern Ireland has been found to operate both fairly and efficiently. I can assure your Lordships that if, at some future date, it proves necessary to abolish the office of under-sheriff in Northern Ireland, the abolition of the office will not be allowed to disrupt the arrangements for the selection and screening of jurors in Northern Ireland, for which alternative provision preserving the existing safeguards will certainly be made. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 35:
Line 44, at end insert ("and under-sheriff").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendments Nos. 36 to 38:
Page 45, line 5, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Chancellor")
Page 45, line 13, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Chancellor").
Clause 70, page 45, line 18, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Chancellor").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 36, 37 and 38 en bloc. These were all discussed with Amendment No. 7.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 39:
Line 22, leave out subsection (2).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment would leave out subsection (2) of Clause 70 because it will no longer be necessary. Under subsection (1), the Lord Chief Justice will retain the responsibility for appointing the statutory officers to the offices listed in column 1 of Schedule 3, and the Lord Chancellor's concurrence will be required for such appointments. The intention is that such concurrence will be necessary as regards the individual appointee as well as generally as to the total numbers and terms and conditions of service. Subsection (1) perhaps does not make this entirely clear at present and I shall be moving an Amendment at the next stage to clarify the matter. This being so, the requirement in subsection (2) for ministerial concurrence in appointments to statutory offices mentioned there is unnecessary and can be omitted. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 40:
Line 39, leave out from ("experience") to end of line 41.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this Amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 117. Its purpose is to take away a restriction on appointments to the office of Master of the Taxing Office so that, where necessary, a barrister can be appointed. Your Lordships will observe that the qualifications for appointment to the statutory offices listed in Schedule 3 are specified in columns 2 and 3 of that Schedule, and Clause 70(3) provides that,
652
normally, such a person must have those qualifications or else already be the holder of another listed office before he can be appointed. But subsection (4) makes an exception by providing that the Lord Chief Justice—and this would have to be with the Lord Chancellor's concurrence, pursuant to subsection (1)—can appoint any barrister or solicitor to any of those offices, despite the fact that he does not have the necessary number of years' standing and even if he does not belong to the branch of the profession which is specified in relation to that office. This is a useful provision, enabling an appointment to be made, for example, from the ranks of those who have served for many years in the Supreme Court without any legal qualification but have then qualified as a barrister or solicitor at a later date and who would be well fitted to discharge the duties of a statutory officer thereafter.
In these circumstances, the restriction of appointments to the office of Master of the Taxing Office to solicitors is not altogether appropriate. Furthermore, there is some doubt as to whether this restriction applies also to transfers between officers under subsection (3). It would no doubt be unusual for a barrister to be appointed as Master of the Taxing Office, but there can be circumstances in which a barrister might be the best man for the job, and it would be a pity if he were excluded from consideration by this provision in the Bill. Amendment No. 117 removes a similar restriction from the transitional provisions. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.10 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 45, line 42, leave out from ("68") to ("functions") in line 43 and insert ("the functions of the holder of each office listed in column 1 of Schedule 3 shall include the").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is simply a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendments Nos. 42 to 44:
Page 46, line 11, leave out from beginning to ("at") and insert—("(5) The Lord Chancellor may by order made after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice.")
Page 46, line 19, leave out ("Order in Council") and insert ("order")
Page 46, line 21, leave out ("Her Majesty") and insert ("the Lord Chancellor").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this Amendment I will also speak to Amendments Nos. 43 and 44, which are consequential upon it. Their purpose, like Amendment No. 27, is to simplify the procedure whereby the structure of the departments of the Supreme Court can be changed by making the necessary alterations to Schedule 3. These Amendments would dispense with the requirement of a formal Order in Council to achieve this, and would enable it to be done simply by an order made by the Lord Chancellor after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 45:
Leave out Clause 74 and insert:
Deputies and temporary appointments.
("74.—(1) If it appears to the Lord Chief Justice that it is expedient to do so in order to facilitate the disposal of business he may, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, appoint a suitably qualified person—

(a) to act as a deputy for any statutory officer, or

(b) to act as a temporary additional statutory officer, during such period or on such occasions as the Lord Chief Justice, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, thinks fit.

(2) A person acting in an office by virtue of an appointment under subsection (1) shall have all the powers of a person permanently appointed to that office.
(3) Where for any purpose it is necessary for a judge of the High Court or the Court of Appeal to sit outside Belfast, he may, with the approval of the Lord Chief Justice, appoint a judge's registrar.
(4) The Lord Chancellor may pay to any person appointed under this section such remuneration and allowances as he may, with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service, determine.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is largely a drafting Amendment which, apart from transferring the relevant responsibilities from the Secretary of State to the Lord Chancellor, improves the wording of this clause. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 75 [Official Solicitor]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendments Nos. 46 and 47:
Page 48, line 5, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Chancellor").
Clause 77, page 48, line 31, leave out from ("the") to ("may") in line 32 and insert ("Lord Chancellor").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 en bloc. These Amendments were discussed with Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 48, line 34, after ("in") insert ("or near").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor Amendment to provide more flexibility as to the location of the office of the Accountant General of the Supreme Court. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 79 [Accountant General to keep bank account]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 49, line 18, leave out from beginning to ("with") in line 19 and insert ("Lord Chancellor may,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 79 deals with the duty of the Accountant General of the Supreme Court to keep a bank account. Hitherto, by Statute that account has had to be kept with the Bank of Ireland, but Clause 79 enables other banks to be designated instead. This follows a similar change made in England by the Administration of Justice Act last year. This Amendment not only transfers the responsibility for designating other banks to the Lord Chancellor, but also removes the requirement of consultation with the Lord Chief Justice. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 81 [Investment of funds in court]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 49, line 42, after ("court") insert ("or by the Lord Chancellor").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is another Amendment which is designed to provide slightly more flexibility in the administration of the Supreme Court. Clause 81 makes provision for the important question as to how funds in court should be invested. Sometimes such funds—for example, where they represent damages paid to children—remain in court for long periods, and it is important that they should be well invested so as to maintain and, if possible, enhance their value during the child's minority.
Ultimately, most funds will probably be invested in the common investment schemes referred to in Clause 82, but at present no such schemes exist which are tailored to the needs of Northern Ireland. In the meantime, it is desirable that the list of designated securities under Clause 81 should be kept up to date, and it may not be practicable for rules of court to be made or revoked as swiftly as is necessary for this purpose. The ultimate decision as to how funds are to be invested is, of course, a matter for the court, but this Amendment will enable the Lord Chancellor to provide, by way of a list of designated securities, the best advice which is available to him on this question of investment. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 82 [Rules as to funds]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 50, line 38, after ("accounts") insert ("or effects").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor drafting Amendment, which will enable the court to deal not only with money and accounts which have not been the subject of any dealings for a considerable period, but also with other effects. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 84 [Provision for default to be made good]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendments Nos. 52 and 53:
Page 51, line 24, leave out from beginning to ("officer") in line 25 and insert ("Where any").
Page 51, line 29, leave out from ("as") to end of line 31 and insert ("is necessary for making good the default shall be paid by the Lord Chancellor.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if I may speak to Amendment No. 53 with Amendment No. 52, these are primarily drafting Amendments. The only change of substance which they make is to dispense with the need for a certificate by the Lord Chief Justice as to the amount involved, where money is lost as a result of a default by any officer serving in the Supreme Court. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 94 [Relief from ejectment]:
5.18 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 55, line 5, at end insert—
("(3) This section applies to a grant at a fee farm rent or securing a rent by condition and, for the purposes of such application, references to the lease, to the landlord and to the demised premises shall be construed, respectively, as references to the grant, to the grantor and to the premises granted.
(4) For the purposes of this section—

(a) references to a lease or grant include references to a sub-lease or sub-grant respectively, and

(b) references to the landlord or grantor include references to any person to whom the estate or interest of the landlord or grantor has passed.

(5) This section shall not operate to restrict any other power of the court to grant equitable relief.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this Amendment I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 118 to 120, which are consequential. It proposes to extend the powers of the court to grant relief against forfeiture in ejectment actions for non-payment of rent due under a lease to actions for non-payment of rent due under a fee farm grant. This extension is desirable, because the provisions which Clause 94 is intended to replace—namely, Sections 70 and 71 of the Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment Act (Ireland) 1860, and known, apparently, to generations of Irish lawyers as Deasy's Act, after Baron Deasy, who, as Solicitor-General for Ireland, was apparently largely responsible for it; and his name has achieved immortality as a consequence of it—are applicable to the great majority of fee farm grants in Northern Ireland, and it would be wrong to curtail the court's present powers to relieve for non-payment of fee farm rents.
Moreover, the Amendment will keep the powers available under Clause 94 in line with those which the court may exercise under Section 14 of the Conveyancing Act 1881 to grant relief against forfeiture, in cases of breach of covenant other than a covenant to pay rent. Subsection (4) of that section extends the court's powers to fee farm rents and derivative leases and the proposed new subsections (3) and (4) will effect a similar extension of Clause 94. The proposed new subsection (5) will ensure that the specific powers exercisable under Clause 94 will not inhibit in any way the general powers of a court to grant equitable relief—including relief against a forfeiture—which are continued by Clause 86(2)(a) of the Bill. There is a great deal of additional learning which has been supplied to me. However, I hope that it will be unnecessary for me to burden noble Lords with it, and I shall not do so unless I see powerful indications from a certain quarter that I should give your Lordships a full explanation of the Statute Quia Emptores and sub-grants "non obstante Quia Emptores". However, if noble Lords deprive me of that pleasure, I am content to beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 95 [County courts and county court divisions]:
5.20 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 55, line 13, leave out ("Secretary of State after consultation with the").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 56:
Line 16, leave out ("by order") and insert ("in directions given").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 56, I propose to refer also to Amendments Nos. 57, 58 and 59 which, taken together, provide a further example of the preferred method of exercising flexible control of courts administration to which I referred earlier.
Although it has been the practice hitherto for the Secretary of State to make provision by order as to the holding of county courts, the experience gained in my Department in recent years points to the advantage of enabling those administrative details to be governed by directions. The appropriate reference to such directions has therefore been inserted in subsection (2) of the new Section 1 of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959, and the substantial Amendment follows at the beginning of the new Section 2 of that Act.
Having considered the detailed purposes for which provision should be made in Section 2, I have formed the view that apart from the places at which courts are to be held and the number of ordinary sittings to be arranged in each year, I should also be concerned with the ordinary hours of sitting of county courts, the nature of the business to be transacted and the occasional need to cancel a sitting where insufficient business is forthcoming. The final Amendment is consequential on that change. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendments Nos. 57 to 59:
Line 31, leave out from ("The") to end of line 32 and insert ("Lord Chancellor may give directions as to—").
Leave out lines 37 to 40 and insert—

("(c) the ordinary hours of sitting of county courts;

(d) the nature of the business to be transacted by any county court at any place;

(e) the cancellation of any sitting of a county court for which provision has been made under this Act where there is no, or insufficient, business to be transacted at that sitting; and").

Page 56, line 3, leave out from ("the") to end of line 5 and insert ("Lord Chancellor to be necessary or proper").
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 96 [Times of sitting of county courts]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 56, line 9, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Chancellor").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendments Nos. 61 to 63:
Line 11, leave out ("times") and insert ("days").
Line 17, leave out ("times") and insert ("days").
Line 18, leave out ("times") and insert ("days").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 61, together with Amendments Nos. 62, 63 and 72, are intended simply to clarify the main purpose for which Section 4 of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 was drafted. It will be clearer to refer to days of sitting rather than to times, which was the expression formerly used. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 61 to 63 en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendments Nos. 64 and 65:
Line 20, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Chancellor").
Clause 97, page 57, line 11, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Chancellor").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 64 and 65 en bloc. These Amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 7.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 66:
Line 29, leave out ("this Act") and insert ("any statutory provision").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, one of the purposes of the new Section 61A which will be inserted in the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 by Clause 97 of the Bill is to enable additional civil jurisdiction to be conferred on circuit registrars. While the new Section 61A(2) itself provides that such additional jurisdiction may be conferred by Order in Council, it is of course possible for any Statute to confer jurisdiction upon such officers, and this Amendment simply tikes account of that possibility. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 99 [Qualifications of county court judges and deputy judges]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 58, line 31, leave out from ("who") to end of line 32 and insert ("has practised for not less than ten years at the Bar of Northern Ireland;")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment was taken with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 100 [Assignment of resident magistrates].:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 59, leave out lines 19 to 21 and insert:
Appointment and assignment of resident magistrates.
("100. For section 9 of the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 there shall be substituted the following section—
9.—(1) Her Majesty may, on the recommendation of the Lord Chancellor, appoint fit and proper persons to be resident magistrates, being persons who at the dates of their appointments have practised for not less than seven years either as a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland or as a solicitor of the Supreme Court.
(2) Without prejudice to section 7, a resident magistrate on his appointment shall forthwith take the oath of allegiance and the judicial oath as required by the Promissory Oaths Act 1868.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this Amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 106. This Amendment completes the substitution of an express statutory definition of the role of the Lord Chancellor in the appointment and assignment of resident magistrates in Northern Ireland as prescribed by Section 9 of the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 which has hitherto been defined in the Modification of Enactments Order 1973. Apart from the consequential Amendments made to the two subsections which are to be replaced, this Amendment also takes account of an Amendment which was approved by noble Lords in Committee. This increased from six to seven years the period of professional practice in Northern Iceland required of persons who seek to be appointed as resident magistrates, and Amendment No. 106 removes that Amendment from Schedule 5. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord why subsection (2) is necessary? I am sure that it is desirable but I do not quite understand why it is necessary. Subsection (2) is printed at the top of page 10 of the Marshalled List.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it is a provision that, on his appointment, a resident magistrate shall forthwith take the oath of allegiance and the judicial oath, as required by the Promissory Oaths Act. That I would expect to be a reasonable requirement. I do not know that I need to say more.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I think that is a most satisfactory reply, and I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I think that it would be helpful to both my noble and learned friend and the noble Lord opposite if I told them that this is a perfectly standard provision for judicial appointees. My noble and learned friend was perfectly correct in the full reply which he has already given.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, by leave of the House may I say that I was not deliberately being disruptive. What I do not quite understand, and perhaps the Government would like to write to me, is this. If this is already written into legislation, I do not quite see why it needs to be repeated. That is my only point. I apologise to the noble and learned Lord; there is no reason why he should pick up all these points.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am absolutely fascinated! I shall write to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.30 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 69:
After Clause 100 insert the following new clause:
Retiring age of resident magistrate may be 72.
(". In section 11 of the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 there shall be added at the end the following subsection:
"(2) A resident magistrate appointed in accordance with this Act shall vacate his office at the end of the completed year of service in the course of which he attains the age of 70:
Provided that where the Lord Chancellor considers it desirable in the public interest to retain him in office after that time, the Lord Chancellor may from time to time authorise him to continue in office up to such age not exceeding 72 as the Lord Chancellor thinks fit".").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is quite simply to give to the noble and learned Lord, in his office as Lord Chancellor, the option to allow resident magistrates to continue in that position up to the age of 72. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am happy to accept this Amendment in principle. The present compulsory retirement age for resident magistrates in Northern Ireland is 70. This Amendment is designed to enable me to prolong the tenure of office up to the age of 72. This is the position in England, and I think it is appropriate that it should be done also in respect of Northern Ireland. But there are some technical defects in the Amendment at the moment with which I do not think I need trouble the noble Viscount. If he will agree to withdraw the Amendment, I will ensure that the point is restored in an appropriate form in due course.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord for accepting the principle of the Amendment. I am sure that it will be greeted with a great deal of satisfaction. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 101 [Petty sessions and petty sessions districts]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 59, line 33, leave out ("The Secretary of State, after consultation with").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment was taken with Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 71:
Line 36, leave out from ("The") to end of line 37 and insert ("Lord Chancellor may give directions as to—").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it may be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 73 with this Amendment. The first Amendment makes the same change in respect of control of administration in the magistrates' court as that now

663
provided in respect of the county courts; that is, that control should be exercised by the directions of the Lord Chancellor rather than by order. The second Amendment—No. 73—is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendments Nos. 72 to 78:
Line 39, leave out ("times when") and insert ("days on which")
Page 60, line 5, leave out from ("to") to the end of line 7 and insert ("the Lord Chancellor to be necessary or proper.")
Clause 103, page 61, line 27, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Chancellor")
Line 30, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Chancellor")
Clause 104, page 61, line 35, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Chancellor")
Line 42, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Chancellor")
Page 62, line 4, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Chancellor")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I move the next seven Amendments en bloc. No. 72 was discussed with No. 61, No. 73 with No. 71, and Amendments Nos. 74 to 78 were all discussed with Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 112 [Oaths and affidavits]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 65, line 40, at end insert ("the Lord Chancellor or by")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to add the Lord Chancellor to those who by subsection (3) of Clause 112 have the power to authorise officers performing duties in relation to any court to administer oaths or take affidavits. Commissioners for oaths themselves will continue to be appointed by the Lord Chief Justice by virtue of the provisions of subsection (1), but it is very much for the convenience of members of the public if officers of the court can administer oaths or take affidavits. This Amendment would enable the Lord Chancellor to designate certain officials of an appropriate rank to perform that function, while preserving the power of the judge of the court to do so in his discretion should the need arise. I beg to move.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, may I give an example and ask whether it meets the case. There are places in Northern Ireland where there is one solicitor operating in the town and he is the commissioner for oaths; no other commissioner for oaths exists. Will this in every case enable the clerk of the petty sessions automatically to be the commissioner for oaths over an area rather wider than is covered by the actual jurisdiction of his court? Will he in fact be a full commissioner for oaths?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am advised that it would be doubtful whether it would be proper to make them full commissioners for oaths, so enabling them to do work for which they are paid fees, outside the course of their ordinary duties. Since 1976 all solicitors in Northern Ireland have automatically been commissioners for oaths, and therefore there is not the same shortage of commissioners in country districts as there may have been before 1976. Secondly, while I am aware that most clerks of petty sessions are in fact appointed commissioners for oaths, following the normal procedure which applies to anybody else who is not a solicitor, these clerks will in future be members of the new court service; I am doubtful whether it would be right to single them out by a provision in the Bill that they should by virtue of their office be commissioners for oaths when other members of the new service such as chief clerks of county courts may have claims which are equally strong. One of the purposes of this Amendment is to enable the Lord Chancellor to designate one or more officers in each court to take oaths and affidavits in the course of their duties in relation to their courts, and the possibility of so designating clerks of petty sessions was in my mind when this Amendment was tabled.
With regard to the general point about the expense of applying to become a commissioner for oaths and the restrictions, geographical in nature, which are often imposed on such appointments, I agree that perhaps this is a matter which needs looking at, and the Lord Chief Justice has said that he will be glad to consider it with me. I hope that will be of some satisfaction to the noble Viscount.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: I thank the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 116 [Fees]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendments Nos. 80 to 82:
Page 68, line 9, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Chancellor")
Page 68, line 15, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Chancellor")
After Clause 116, insert the following new clause:
Transfer of certain functions relating to courts to Lord Chancellor.
(" .—(1) The functions heretofore exercisable by the Secretary of State under the enactments listed in subsection (2) and under any instrument made under any such enactment are hereby transferred to the Lord Chancellor.
(2) The enactments referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a) in the Administration of Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1954, sections 11 and 14;

(b) the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959;

(c) the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959;

(d) the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 (except section 46);

(e) the Judgments (Enforcement) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969; and

(f) Article 8 of the Administration of Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1975.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 80 to 82. These were discussed with Amendment No. 7.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 118 [Making and control of subordinate legislation]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendments Nos. 83 and 84:
Page 69, line 1, leave out from ("by") to second ("to") in line 2 and insert ("the preceding provisions of this Act to make an order or")
Page 69, line 6, leave out from beginning to ("shall") and insert ("this Act (except an order under section 68(3) or 116 or regulations under section 109)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 83 and 84. The effect of Amendment No. 83 is to make all ordinary orders, apart from Orders in Council, which are dealt with in subsection (3), subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament, except an order under Clause 68(3), which is the power to establish a branch of the Probate Office, Clause 116, which provides for the fixing of fees, and regulations under Clause 109,
666
which will lay down the procedure for the enrolment of instruments in the Supreme Court.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
5.40 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendments Nos. 85 and 86:
Line 17, after ("Order") insert ("in Council").
Line 18, after ("Order") insert ("in Council").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 85 and 86, which are purely drafting Amendments.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Departments of the Supreme Court]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendments Nos. 87 to 89:
Page 75, line 4, column 2, leave out ("Permanent") and insert ("Principal").
Schedule 3 [Statutory Offices]:
Page 76, line 10, column 1, leave out ("Permanent") and insert ("Principal").
Page 76, line 12, column 4, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Chancellor").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 87 to 89. Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 were discussed with Amendment No. 22. Amendment No. 89 was discussed with Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 89, line 30, at end insert—
"In section 18 for the words from "a fee of one shilling" to the end substitute the words "such fee as may be prescribed by rules of court made under section 55 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978".".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 90. This Amendment relates to an outdated provision of the Juries Act (Ireland) 1871 which covers the fee payable for a printed copy of the panel of jurors summoned by the under-sheriff for a particular court. The existing provision has fixed the fee at the now sadly unrealistic figure of one shilling. The Amendment would substitute a more flexible provision enabling

667
the appropriate fee to be fixed by rules of the Supreme Court. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 96, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 97.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 91. With this Amendment, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 92 and 121. These Amendments are consequential on the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill which was passed by the House at the beginning of last month and which is now under consideration in another place. This consolidation Bill will consolidate the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 and certain subsequent amending enactments, and it is intended to come into operation on 1st June this year. A consolidation will therefore be in force before the present Bill, so it becomes necessary to replace the references in this Bill to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 with the corresponding references to the new consolidation. That is the effect of these three Amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 97, line 26, at end insert—
("The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978
In section 2(1)(a) and 3(1) for the words "of the Supreme Court" substitute the words "of the High Court or the Court of Appeal". For section 6 substitute—
"Court for trial of scheduled offences.
6.—(1) A trial on indictment of a scheduled offence shall be held only at the Crown Court sitting in Belfast.
(2) A person committed for trial for a scheduled offence or two or more offences which are or include scheduled offences shall be committed to the Crown Court sitting in Belfast and section 48 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 shall have effect accordingly.".
In section 7(6) for the words "Court of Criminal Appeal" where they twice occur substitute the words "Court of Appeal".
In section 33(5) for the words from "shall" to the end of the subsection substitute the words "shall, if he was committed to the Crown Court sitting elsewhere than in Belfast, be treated as having been committed to the Crown Court sitting in Belfast".
In section 33(7) for the words "the Belfast City Commission" substitute the words "the Crown Court sitting in Belfast".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 91. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 100, line 6, at end insert—
("The Administration of Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1954
For section 11 substitute—
"Local custody and control of court-house accommodation.
11. The Lord Chancellor may give directions as to the local custody and control of any courthouse accommodation provided or maintained under this Act.".
In section 14(1) for the words from the beginning to "may licence" substitute the words "The Lord Chancellor" and for the word "Ministry" where it twice occurs substitute the words "Lord Chancellor".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 93 and I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 122. Amendment No. 93 would substitute in the Act of 1954 a new section representing a distillation of lengthy and now outdated provisions. Amendment Nos. 93 and 122 also take account of the forthcoming transfer of ministerial responsibility for the courts in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 94:
Line 8, at end insert —
(" ( ) in subsection (2) for the words "Ministry of Finance" substitute the word "Treasury";").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 100, line 50, at end insert—
(" The Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959
In section 1, for the words from the beginning to "responsible" substitute the words "The Lord Chancellor shall be responsible".
In section 2(1) for the words from the beginning to "may appoint" substitute the words "The Lord Chancellor may appoint"

669
and for the words from "the Minister, after" to the end substitute the words "the Lord Chancellor, after consultation with the Treasury, may determine and may also, in exercise of his powers under section 69 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978, appoint coroner's officers and other officers to assist such coroners".
In sections 2(2) and 3 for the word "Minister" substitute the words "Lord Chancellor".
In section 5 for the words from "moneys" to the end substitute the words "moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom".
In section 6(2) for the word "Minister" where it twice occurs substitute the words "Lord Chancellor".
In sections 26 and 27 for the word "Ministry" wherever it occurs substitute the words "Lord Chancellor".
In section 36(1) for the word "Ministry" wherever it occurs substitute the words "Lord Chancellor", for the words "Ministry of Finance" substitute the word "Treasury" and for the words from "or coroners' officers" to "by the Ministry" substitute the words "or registered medical practitioners employed".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 95. This Amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 29. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 101, line 1, at end insert —
("For section 5 substitute—
"Additional and extra-ordinary sittings.
5.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may, "where he considers it expedient to do so so for the purpose of avoiding delay in the administration of justice, give directions for the holding of sittings of the county court in addition to the ordinary sittings fixed under this Act.
(2) Subject to county court rules and to any directions given by the Lord Chancellor under section 2 or subsection (1), a judge may, in addition to the ordinary sittings, sit at any other time or times for the hearing of any proceedings where he is satisfied that such additional sitting is necessary or expedient for the doing of justice between the parties.".
In section 6(2) for the words from "from hearing" to the end substitute the words "or circuit registrar from hearing and determining any civil action which he is authorised by any enactment or by county court rules to hear and determine".").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is largely a drafting Amendment but it makes one change of substance.
670
The new Sections 2 and 4 of The County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 provide for the Lord Chancellor to give directions as to the ordinary sittings of county courts, and for a calendar of such sittings to be published in advance for the forthcoming year. Section 5 of the County Courts Act makes provisions for additional sittings to be held if necessary, and the difference which this Amendment will make is that the Lord Chancellor will be able to order additional sittings for the purpose of transacting all kinds of business and not just for criminal appeals from magistrates' courts. It is not likely that this power will often be used in relation to the transaction of ordinary civil business, but it is clearly necessary that it should exist so as to enable the system to cope if there is a sudden increase in business in a particular district which, in the absence of this power would lead to delays. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendments Nos. 97 and 98:
Page 101, line 7, after ("words") insert ("tried").
line 10, at end insert—
("In section 38 for the words "section sixteen of the Summary Jurisdiction Act (Northern Ireland) 1953" substitute the words "section 85 of the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 97 and 98. They are both purely drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 101, leave out lines 25 to 31 and insert—
"In section 89—

(a) in subsection (1) for the words "Ministry of Finance" substitute the word "Treasury";

(b) in subsection (3) for the words "names of the county court judge and the clerk of the Crown and peace for the time being" substitute the words "name of such officer of the county court as may be designated by the Lord Chancellor".

In section 100—

(a) in subsection (1) for the words "Every clerk of the Crown and peace" substitute the words "Such officer of the county court as may be designated by the Lord Chancellor under section 98(3)"

671
and for the words from "transferred" to the end substitute the words "transferred to the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom";

(b) in subsection (3) for the words from "transferred" to the end substitute the words "transferred to the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom under subsection (1) is so entitled, the court may by order so declare, and the Treasury shall issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom such sums as may appear to the Treasury to be necessary to provide for payment thereof accordingly."."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 99. With this Amendment I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 103 and 105. These drafting Amendments effect textual changes in the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959. These are drafting Amendments and no more. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendments Nos. 100 to 103:
Page 101, line 33, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Chancellor").
Page 101, line 39, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Chancellor").
Page 101, line 42, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Chancellor").
Page 102, leave out lines 8 to 10 and insert—
("(a) for subsection (1) substitute—
"(1) Subject to subsection (1A), the Lord Chancellor may, if he thinks fit, remove a judge from office on the ground of incapacity or misbehaviour.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 100 to 103. Amendments Nos. 100, 101 and 102 were spoken to with Amendment No. 7. I spoke to Amendment No. 103 with Amendment No. 99. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 104.
Page 102, leave out lines 27 to 32 and insert—
("For section 106 substitute—
"Salaries and allowances of judges.
106.—(1) There shall be paid to each judge such salary as may be determined by the Lord Chancellor with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service.
(2) The salary payable to any judge shall begin from the date on which the judge takes the oaths required by section 105(3).
(3) The Lord Chancellor with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service may allow to any judge, for the
672
purpose of defraying his travelling and subsistence expenses, such sum as appears reasonable.".
In section 114(2) for the words from "by the Ministry" to the end substitute the words "by the Lord Chancellor with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service".
In section 116—

(a) for the words "Ministry of Finance" wherever they occur substitute the words "Minister for the Civil Service";

(b) for the word "Minister" wherever it occurs substitute the words "Lord Chancellor";

(c) for the word "Governor" in subsection (4) substitute the words "Lord Chancellor".

In sections 123(2), 125(3) and 126, for the words "Ministry of Finance" wherever they occur substitute the words "Minister for the Civil Service".
In section 132 for the word "Ministry" substitute the words "Lord Chancellor".
For section 134 substitute—
"Evidence of health.
134. Before recommending any person to Her Majesty for appointment as a county court judge, the Lord Chancellor shall take steps to satisfy himself that that person's health is satisfactory.".
In section 136 for the words from the beginning to the beginning of paragraph (a) substitute the words "There shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom" and for the words "Ministry of Finance" substitute the word "Treasury".
In section 137 for the words from "provided by" to "all expenses" substitute the words "provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom all expenses".
In section 138 for the words from "paid into" to the end substitute the words "paid into the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom".
In section 142(1) for the words from "the clerk of the Crown and peace" to the end substitute the words "a circuit registrar, commissioner for oaths, a justice of the peace or any officer of the court designated for the purpose by the Lord Chancellor".
In section 144 for the word "Ministry" where it twice occurs substitute the words "Lord Chancellor".
In section 145(1) for the words "the prescribed officer" substitute the words "an officer of the court designated by the Lord Chancellor".
In section 146—

(a) in subsections (2) and (6) for the word "Minister" substitute the words "Lord Chancellor";

(b) for subsection (3) substitute—

"(3) For the purposes of or in relation to any jurisdiction exercisable by county courts, any such rules and orders as are referred to in section 21(1) and (2) of the Interpretation Act or section 147 of this Act may—

(a) be made by the Rules Committee in accordance with the following provisions of this section; and

673

(b) be known respectively as "county court rules" and "county court orders".";

(c) in subsection (7) for the word "Ministry" substitute the words "Lord Chancellor";
(d) for subsection (10) substitute—
"(10) County court rules and county court orders made by the Rules Committee shall—

(a) be certified under the hand of the members of the Rules Committee, or any three or more of them; and

(b) when certified under paragraph (a), be submitted to the Lord Chancellor who, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, may allow, disallow or alter them.

(11) County court rules and county court orders made by the Rules Committee as allowed or altered by the Lord Chancellor shall come into operation on such date as the Lord Chancellor may direct.".
In section 147—

(a) for the words "make recommendations to the Minister with respect" substitute the words "make county court rules and county court orders with respect";

(b) at the end of paragraph (b)(ii) add the words "or by a circuit registrar.".")

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment seeks to make a number of textual changes to the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959. As has been the case with many Amendments which we have already considered today, the great majority of these changes are of a drafting nature and are consequential upon the transfer of ministerial responsibility. The remainder, with two important exceptions, restate changes effected by the Northern Ireland (Modification of Enactments—No. 1) Order 1973. Accordingly, there are only two changes of substance with which I need trouble your Lordships.
The first, which concerns the appointment of county court judges, is the substitution, in the 1959 Act, of a new Section 134, the provisions of which are identical to those of Section 16(4) of the Courts Act 1971. The original Section 134, when read with the provisions of Section 116(2) and (3), provided a special procedure whereby applicants for appointment to the county court bench in Northern Ireland could elect not to furnish evidence of their state of health prior to appointment, but if they did so elect they were
674
required to serve a longer than normal term for the purposes of pension entitlement.
I consider that the time is now appropriate to discontinue this complex and little-used procedure and to place prospective county court judges in Northern Ireland on the same footing as prospective Circuit judges in England and Wales in respect of ultimate and entitlement for pension.
The second important change to which would draw attention concerns Sections 146 and 147 of the County Courts Act which relate to the making of county court rules. At present the procedure for making these rules in Northern Ireland differs from that which applies in England and Wales. However, now that the Lord Chancellor is assuming ministerial responsibility for the administration of all courts in Northern Ireland, it is appropriate for the several rulemaking procedures there to correspond so far as possible to their counterparts in England and Wales. I beg to move.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I was interested in the explanation which the noble and learned Lord gave of new Section 134. Certainly it is persuasive that this should be right—that there should be a health check on judges before they take up their appointments. If the work of judges is anything like the work of the noble and learned Lord this afternoon, who not only has had to speak for the Government but who also has had to act as Chairman, then I think that is some indication of the sort of stamina which is needed.
Before we continue may I say that I hope the noble and learned Lord will not think that the silence of my noble friend and I implies that we are not closely following what is going on; but we have, as it were, reached that stage of the Bill where, if we were playing bridge, I think we should invite the Government to lay their hand down on the table.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am prepared to do anything that is reasonably suggested, but I think that we have to go through this procedure. I observe the watchful care and attention which the noble Lords are paying to every

675
word that is spoken or, indeed, approved of.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT: moved Amendments Nos. 105 to 107:
Page 102, line 34, at end insert—
("In Part III of Schedule 2—

(a) in paragraph 1, for the words from "provided by" to the end substitute the words "provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom";

(b) in paragraph 2, for the words from "payable" to "derivative" substitute the words "payable out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, the derivative";

(c) in paragraph 3(1) for the words from "paid into" to the end substitute the words "paid into the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom";

(d) in paragraph 3(2) for the words from "payments out" to "will secure" substitute the words "payments out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom and payments into the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom as will secure".")

Page 104, leave out line 30.
Page 104, line 47, at end insert—
("In section 12(1) for the words from the beginning to "the salaries" substitute the words "The Lord Chancellor may, with the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service, determine the salaries".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 105 was spoken to when we dealt with Amendment No. 99; Amendment No. 106 was spoken to when we considered Amendment No. 68, and Amendment No. 107 is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
5.54 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 105, line 5, at end insert—
("In section 20 for the word "Ministry" where it twice occurs substitute the words "Lord Chancellor" and for the words "Ministry of Finance" substitute the word "Treasury".
In section 22 for the word "Ministry" substitute the words "Lord Chancellor".
In section 23—

(a) for the word "Minister" wherever it occurs substitute the words "Lord Chancellor";

676

(b) in subsection (2) for the words from "the majority" to the end substitute the words "shall include at least two resident magistrates, one practising barrister and one practising solicitor";

(c) in subsection (4) for the words from "by the Minister" to the end substitute the words "by the Lord Chancellor on the advice of or after consultation with the Rules Committee and after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice".

In section 24 for the word "Minister" substitute the words "Lord Chancellor".
In section 25(1) for the word "Ministry" substitute the words "Secretary of State" and in section 25(2) for the word "Minister" substitute the words "Lord Chancellor".")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment represents a series of textual changes to the Magistrates Court Act (Northern Ireland) 1964. The majority of changes are either purely consequential upon the transfer of minissterial responsibility, or they re-state provisions of the Northern Ireland (Modification of Enactments—No. 1) Order 1973. There is one change about which I should say a little and that is the textual Amendment of Section 23 concerning the Magistrates' Courts Rules Committee and the making of court rules.
Heretofore Magistrates' Courts Rules in Northern Ireland have been made by the Secretary of State on the recommendation of the Rules Committee. With the transfer of ministerial responsibility, it is appropriate that rules should henceforth be made by the Lord Chancellor and that the procedures should correspond to those which apply to the making of similar rules in England and Wales. This is achieved by Amendments noted at paragraphs (a) and (c). The opportunity has also been taken to clarify the provisions of Section 23 in respect of the composition of the Rules Committee which will remain at a maximum of nine but which will include at least two resident magistrates, one practising barrister and one solicitor. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 109:
Line 13, at end insert —
("In section 46 for the word "Governor" substitute the words "Secretary of State".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendments Nos. 110 to 123:
Line 21, at end insert—
("In section 95 for the word "Ministry" wherever it occurs substitute the words "Lord Chancellor".").
Line 35, at end insert—
("In section 152(2) for the words from "paid into" to "so, however" substitute the words "paid into the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom so, however".").
Line 38, at end insert—
("For section 168 substitute—
"Expenses.
168.—(1) Any expenses incurred by the Lord Chancellor in performing his functions under this Act or any increase in the expenses of the Lord Chancellor in defraying any sums authorised by this Act to be paid, or which are attributable to the performance of any function conferred by this Act, shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
(2) There shall be charged on and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom the salaries payable to resident magistrates under this Act or the Resident Magistrates (Belfast) Act 1911.
(3) Any expenses incurred by or in connection with the Rules Committee shall be defrayed as part of the expenses incurred by the Lord Chancellor in performing his functions under this Act.".").
Page 109, line 41, at end insert—
(" The Administration of Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1975
In Article 8(2) for the words "Secretary of State, on the recommendation of" substitute the words "Lord Chancellor, after consultation with" and for the words "Secretary of State" substitute the words "Lord Chancellor".").
Schedule 6, page 112, leave out lines 33 to 37 and insert—
(" 9. Until an order under section 68(3) comes into force in relation to any place in which heretofore there was established a district probate registry, that registry shall continue in existence and—

(a) shall be deemed to be a branch office of the Probate and Matrimonial Office;

(b) may transact such of the business of that Office as may be specified in directions given by the Lord Chancellor; and

(c) may be placed under the supervision of a circuit registrar.

10. Unless and until an Order in Council under section 69(3) comes into force any person heretofore holding office or serving in or in connection with county courts or magistrates' courts shall continue to do so as if he had been
678
appointed under section 69(1) upon the terms and conditions on which he heretofore held office or served.")
Page 113, line 14, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Chancellor").
Page 113, Line 27, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Lord Chancellor").
Page 114, line 21, leave out ("except that of Master (Taxing Office).").
Schedule 7, page 116, line 47, at end insert—

("12 & 13 Vict. c. 105.

The Renewable Leasehold Conversion Act 1849.

Section 21.")

line 49, at end insert—

("14 & 15 Vict. c. 20.

The Fee-Farm Rents (Ireland) Act 1851.

In section 1, the words from "and save and except" to the end of the section.")

Page 120, line 10, at end insert—

("50 & 51 Vict. c. 33.

The Land Law (Ireland) Act 1887.

Section 7.")

Page 123, leave out lines 2 to 6 and insert—

"1978 c..

The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978.

Section 34(1).")

Page 124, line 58, at end insert—

—1954 c. 9 (N.I.).

The Administration of Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 1954.

Section 12. In section 13(1) and (2) the words" (whether in the same or another county)". Section 13(6). In section 16(1) the word "(Ulster)". Section 16(2). Section 17. Section 22. Section 24. Section 26. Section 29.")

Page 125, line 26, at end insert—

(" 1959 c. 15 (N.I.).

The Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959.

Section 4. Section 36(2). In section 40 the definitions of "Ministry" and "Minister",")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I move Amendments Nos. 110 to 123 en bloc, if that is in order. Amendment No. 110 was spoken to with Amendment No. 7. Amendments Nos. 111, 112 and

679
114 are drafting Amendments. Amendments No. 113, 115 and 116 were also spoken to when we discussed Amendment No. 7. Amendment No. 117 was taken with Amendment No. 40. Amendments Nos. 118 to 120 were spoken to with Amendment No. 54. Amendment No. 121 was spoken to with Amendment No. 93. Amendment No. 123 was spoken to when we discussed Amendment No. 29. I hope that that goes some way towards laying our cards on the table, as the noble Lord requested. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 125, column 3, leave out lines 27 to 40 and insert—
("In section 3(1) the words "by the Ministry".
Section 3(2).
Section 6(2)(b) and (c).
In section 10(4) the words from "Except'. to "1956".
Section 14.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this Amendment I will speak to the next three Amendments—Amendments Nos. 125, 126 and 127. In moving this Amendment, I should like to make a correction to it. After the words "Section 6(2)(b) and (c)" the words "Section 7" should be inserted, and I propose to move the Amendment in that form. This repeal of Section 7 of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 is consequential on Amendment No. 58. I hope that that is in order. These Amendments effect further repeals to the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959. Section 7 is repealed because the ordinary hours of sitting will, in accordance with Clause 95, be provided for in directions given by the Lord Chancellor under Section 2 of the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959.
Sections 108 to 110, and Sections 112 and 113 deal with the appointment of the staff of the county court service and other county court officials and are replaced by the provisions of Clause 69 of the Bill when read in conjunction with the transitional provisions Schedule. Sections 116(2) and (3) and 146(1) are repealed consequential on Amendment No. 103. The other additional repeals are either consequential on the transfer of ministerial responsibility of the courts
680
or simply prune the Act of "dead wood" in preparation for a new reprint. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendments Nos. 125 to 127:
Page 126, column 3, leave out lines 3 to 5 and insert—
("Sections 108 to 110.
In section 111(1) the words from the beginning to 1954".
Sections 112 and 113.
Section 115.
Section 116(2) and (3).")
Page 126, column 3, line 8, at end insert—
("Section 146(1).")
Page 126, column 3, line 20, at end insert—
("In section 152(1) the definitions of "Minister" and "Ministry".
Section 154(2).
Schedule 1.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 124, as indeed were Amendments Nos. 126 and 127. I beg to move these three Amendments en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendments Nos. 128 and 129:
Page 126, column 3, leave out lines 47 to 51 and insert—
("Section 14(2).
In section 22 the words "by the Ministry".
Section 23(3) and (8).
In section 24(a) the word "fees".
In section 25 the words from "of the Ministry" to the end of paragraph (a).
Sections 27 to 29.")
Page 127, column 3, line 7, at end insert—
("Section 173(2).").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with this Amendment I will speak to Amendment No. 129. These Amendments provide for additional repeals to the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964. Sections 27 to 29, which provide for the appointment and duties of clerks of petty sessions, are repealed, since adequate provision on these matters can now be made under Clause 69 of the Bill. The repeal of Section 23(2) is consequential on Amendment No. 108. The other new repeal is consequential on the transfer of ministerial responsibility for magistrates' courts. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendments Nos. 130 to 134:
Page 127, column 3, line 16, at end insert—
("Sections 4 and 5.")
Page 127, column 3, leave out lines 51 to 55 and insert—
("In section 129(1) the definitions of "the Minister" and "the Ministry".
In Schedule 4, Part II, the entry relating to section 70 of the Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment Act Ireland 1860.")
Page 128, line 16, at end insert—

"S.I. 1972/965 (N.I. 15)

The County Courts (Additional Sittings)(Northern Ireland) Order 1972.

The whole Order.")

Page 128, column 3, leave out line 17 and insert—
("Article 6(2), (4) and (6)(b).
Article 14(4) and (5).
In Schedule 1 the entries relating to the Fines (Ireland) Act 1851, the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959, the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959, the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964 and the Judgments (Enforcement) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969.
In Schedule 2 the entries relating to the Coroners Act (Northern Ireland) 1959, the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 and the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1964.
In Schedule 3 the entries relating to the Fines Act (Ireland) 1851 and the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959.
In Schedule 4 the entries relating to the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959 and the Judgments (Enforcement) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969.")
Page 128, line 19, column 3, leave out from ("28") to end of line 20 and insert ("38(d) and (e), 43, 44, 49 and 60").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment, and indeed all the rest of the Amendments, contain consequential repeals and it might be convenient for the House if I moved them en bloc. Amendment No. 130 provides for the repeal of
682
Sections 4 and 5 of the County Courts (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 1959. Amendment No. 131 provides for the repeal of two provisions of the Judgments (Enforcement) Act (Northern Ireland) 1969. The first is consequential on the transfer of ministerial responsibility. The second is consequential on the repeal by Schedule 7 of Section 70 of the Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment Act (Ireland) 1860.
Amendment No. 132 provides for the repeal of the County Court (Additional Sittings)(Northern Ireland) Order 1972. Schedule 5 to this Bill now provides for a new Section 5 to be substituted in the County Courts Act (Northern Ireland) 1959. Finally, Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 provide for the repeal of references in the Northern Ireland (Modification of Enactments—No. 1) Order 1973, to the Fines Act (Ireland) 1851 and numerous other enactments. The relevant provisions of the Fines Act (Ireland) 1851 are repealed by the Bill and the effect of the Modification Order on the other four Acts is subsumed in the textual amendments to those Acts which are now contained in Schedule 5 to the Bill. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 130 to 134 en bloc.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, before we say Farewell, and I hope Amen, to the conclusion of this massive list of Amendments, may I thank noble Lords for their participation, and particularly my noble friend Lord Melchett for assisting me. May I thank all noble Lords who have, with such patience and careful attention, attended upon our proceedings and assisted us by their presence in furthering the Report stage of this important Bill. May I also thank noble Lords who have spoken on the Opposition side.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.