Judgments Enforcement (Attachment of Debts) (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 (Hansard, 13 December 1983)

§ The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone)
My Lords, I rise to beg to move that the order which is mentioned on the Order Paper, a copy of which was laid before the House on 14th November, be approved. The House will be aware that among the most useful remedies available to a judgment creditor are the garnishee order or the order for the attachment of debts. It is this form of order, for example, which enables the judgment creditor to get his hands on his debtor's bank account. Until the Supreme Court Act 1981, the scope of garnishee orders in England and Wales was limited to bank accounts. Section 40 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 widened the scope of the remedy to enable other forms of account, including, in particular, accounts with building societies and trustee savings banks, to be attached in this way. The purpose of this Order in Council is to make the remedy equally available in Northern Ireland.
107 The law in Northern Ireland relating to the attachment of debts is found in the Judgments Enforcement (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. Article 72(2) of that order provides that attachment in Northern Ireland is not to be available to accounts in the National Savings Bank, a trustee savings bank or, in effect, a building society. The effect of the draft order now before the House will be to bring into the field of attachment all those forms of account.
There is also now, in the Supreme Court Act 1981, covering England and Wales (that is by Section 40A, inserted by Schedule 4 to the Administration of Justice Act 1982) provision for garnishees—that is to say, the banks and building societies affected by these provisions—to have a standard allowance in respect of their expenses. A similar provision for Northern Ireland is contained in the draft order.
The Northern Ireland court service has consulted the legal profession, the Building Societies Association, citizens' advice bureaux, and the Department of Finance and Personnel at Stormont. The general view is that the draft order contains a welcome enlargement of the powers of the Enforcement of Judgments Office.
I intend to make judgment enforcement rules to provide, as in England and Wales, that attachment will be available only in respect of judgments or orders for £50 or more. I also intend to make an order under what will become Article 72A of the 1981 order, authorising deposit-taking institutions to deduct the clerical and administrative costs of complying with an order made under the new legislation.
I do not think that your Lordships will require me to go through the order in detail. It is perhaps sufficient if I add that Article 5 corrects two minor errors in Schedule 1 to the Bankruptcy Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, and that Article 1 provides that the main provisions of the order, contained in Articles 3 and 4, shall come into force under an appointed day provision. My Lords, I beg to move.

§ Lord Prys-Davies
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has given the House a full explanation of the major provisions of the draft order which is now before us. We understand that there have been consultations with the institutions in Northern Ireland, including the citizens' advice bureaux, which will be affected by the order, and that in general they welcome it. We on these Benches think it is important that we should see the problem as it is perceived in Northern Ireland, and the fact that the order is acceptable to such organisations is in itself a good reason for approving its terms.
Nevertheless, perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will explain the absence of discussions with the Northern Ireland Assembly. We should have thought that though they may be, and indeed are, unglamourous and dry, the principles embodied in the order should where possible have been discussed by the appropriate committee of the Assembly at the pre-draft stage.
108 The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has explained that the draft order enlarges the powers of the Enforcement of Judgments Office, thus bringing the law of the province of Northern Ireland into line with relevant law in England and Wales, which is contained in Section 40 of the Supreme Court Act 1981, and it therefore closes a gap. One appreciates that the 1981 order was approved a few months before the Supreme Court Act was passed by Parliament. Your Lordships will know that I am a new Member of your Lordships' House and this may well explain my difficulty. It is this. Why were not the provisions of Section 40 of the 1981 Act anticipated and incorporated in the 1981 order? Why has it taken two years to close the gap between the law on this subject in Northern Ireland and the relevant law in England and Wales, which does not appear to be a complicated procedure? However, that may be deceptive.
Again, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has explained that it is the Government's intention that sums of less than £50 shall be exempt from the attachment of debts procedure and that this is to be provided for in another order. Why should the draft order now before the House not contain a reference to this minimum sum? And when approximately will the new order be laid before Parliament? While we on these Benches approve the draft order, we would nevertheless be glad to have answers to the few points that we have raised.

§ Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge
My Lords, we welcome the order as bringing the law in Northern Ireland into line with the law in this country. We bear in mind that it is particularly suitable in Northern Ireland because there, much more than here, the nonpayment of dues has been used as a political weapon. Any strength that we can give to the law to enforce payment of judgment debts should be supported. I should also like to welcome to the Dispatch Box the noble Lord who has just spoken.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I am glad to think that this is not likely to prove a bone of very great contention this afternoon. If the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, whom I should also like to welcome, in conjunction with the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, will study the list of organisations which were consulted, he will see that they really consisted of the users of this type of instrument and method of attachment. I know of no reason why the matter should not be debated in the Northern Irish Assembly if it wishes to take the matter up. I am not experienced in the constitution of the Province and there may be some private reason for the Assembly not wishing to take it up.
I agree that the process of consultation takes some years, but it is common throughout our relations with the Province that having established a legal system in England and Wales. it does from time to time wish to make its own observations on its application to the six counties. I can only think of the survival of the civil jury as an example of where its practice is wholly different from ours. I have never been able to see why, but it attaches enormous importance to this.
As regards the £50 limit, it is not contained in the order because it is going to be included in the rules—a different form of instrument that I shall be making 109 myself. The order requires affirmative resolution of this House. The rules will not. I think that deals with all the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, but I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, who gave general support.