HL Deb 06 July 1987 vol 488 cc526-31

7.10 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd April be approved.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Limitation (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order, a draft of which was laid before your Lordships' House on 2nd April 1987, be approved. This draft order, is based on the Law Reform Committee's recommendations contained in its 24th Report, implemented in relation to England and Wales by the Latent Damage Act 1986. It also amends the law of limitation in respect of libel and slander actions.

There is a general principle that a plaintiff must commence a civil action for damages within a particular period if he is not to be barred from doing so. In Northern Ireland, as in England and Wales, the general principle is that the limitation period starts to run against the plaintiff from the date of the accrual of his cause of action; that is—in non-legal terms—from the date when he first has the right to bring the action. In negligence cases (apart from personal injury cases) the ordinary limitation period is six years and the cause of action accrues when the negligent act or omission constituting the breach of the duty of care results in damage. In many cases the damage follows quickly upon the negligent act and is perfectly obvious. But there are cases where the resulting damage does not arise until many years after the breach of duty; and there are other cases where the damage is not discoverable until long after the six-year limitation period has expired.

In 1980, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone referred the matter of latent damage to the Law Reform Committee, which considered that the present law was unjust. The six-year period might well elapse before the potential plaintiff could reasonably be aware that he had a right of action. On the other hand, a potential defendant might find himself exposed to a negligence action many years after his breach of duty in cases where the damage was long delayed, so that he might not be in a position either to contest the claim on the basis of his records or to meet it with adequate insurance cover.

The Law Reform Committee made a number of recommendations intended to remedy the potential injustices to plaintiffs and defendants. Article 3 takes account of the committee's principal recommendations. These were, first, that the ordinary limitation period of six years should be subject to an extension which would allow the plaintiff three years from the date of discovery or the date on which he could reasonably have discovered significant damage; and, secondly, that non-injury negligence claims should, in the absence of deliberate concealment on the part of the defendant, be subject to a long stop which would operate to bar them after 15 years from the breach of duty. Article 4 contains two consequential provisions recommended by the Law Reform Committee. The first deals with the situation where the disability (in this case unsoundness of mind) arises after the accrual of the cause of action. The second disapplies the long stop in cases involving deliberate concealment by the defendant.

Article 5 enables persons who acquire property which is subject to latent damage to succeed to the right of action in respect of that damaged property. Although this is achieved by providing successive owners with new causes of action, the same limitation periods are effectively preserved as if the damaged property had not been transferred. I mentioned at the outset that the order makes some changes in respect of limitations in libel and slander actions. Article 6 takes account of changes made in England and Wales in the Administration of Justice Act 1985 by reducing the limitation period in libel from six years to three. And, like the 1985 Act, the order provides for a new extension of one year, for which leave of the High Court is necessary, where certain facts were not known to the plaintiff until after the three-year limitation period had expired. The order before us is a useful, if rather technical, law reform measure which is of considerable benefit. With that explanation, my Lords, I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 2nd April be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)

7.16 p.m.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, it is my first pleasurable task to extend a warm welcome to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, to his office in the Northern Ireland department. Those of us who regularly attend to Northern Ireland business in your Lordships' House appreciate the courtesy, patience and help at all times of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and indeed the help which we have always received from his private office. The noble Lord knows that he can draw on a fund of goodwill from your Lordships' House, but he has never to my knowledge taken advantage of his position.

The draft order now before the House is the first Northern Ireland order of this Parliament. It is a short order but it effects important changes in the limitation law as it applies in actions arising out of the tort of negligence. I do not know how the interested organisations have responded to the draft order and I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that it receives the support of the relevant parties in Northern Ireland.

The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has explained that its provisions follow those of the Latent Damage Act 1986, which in turn was based on the report of the Law Reform Committee, which had considered this complex subject for some four years before it formulated its proposals. In those circumstances I would not seek to venture to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has said, except to say that we agree in general from this side of the House that it will be a valuable order and we are therefore pleased to support it.

7.18 p.m.

Lord Hampton

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order. I, too, should like to welcome him back to his position on the Government Front Benches and to support what the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, has said. We are very grateful to him for his courtesy and we also congratulate him on his continual cheerfulness in difficult circumstances.

I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, who has the advantage of legal knowledge. The order is somewhat technical and I have only one point to raise. I understand that this order is to bring the law in the Province into line with that of the mainland, and paragraph 9F(1) reads: An action for damages for negligence, other than one to which section 9A applies, shall not be brought after the expiration of fifteen years from the date … on which there occurred any act or omission". There are further qualifications, but the one question that I should like to put as a layman is: is 15 years not a very long time before which justice must be seen to be done?

Lord Fitt

My Lords, I too associate myself with the words of welcome which have been expressed across the Floor of the House to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. Since taking up his appointment in the Northern Ireland office I too have found him to be most helpful and courteous in every way.

However, I feel that I must draw his attention to the concern which has been expressed by the Incorporated Law Society of Northern Ireland about the whole question of law reform. It has already been stated that these orders are couched in somewhat legalistic terms and only those with a legal background—and we have to be grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, is in the House tonight—or who have otherwise been fully briefed would he aware of the full implications of these orders.

Only this morning I received a communication from the Incorporated Law Society of Northern Ireland complaining about the whole system of law reform in Northern Ireland. It draws my attention to the fact that the society feels very dissatisfied with the way in which legal changes and law reform are debated in this House. It says quite clearly that totally insufficient attention is given to issues of law reform and, consequently, changes in the law because they are brought to this House through Orders in Council and in the absence of adequate debate and scrutiny. I think anyone looking around the House this evening would not dare to disagree with those sentiments.

It has been explained to me that in 1965 the Law Commission was brought into being to look into the law reform problems of England and Wales. The following year the Scottish Law Reform Society was formed. In Northern Ireland there is no comparable organisation. In the 22 years of its existence since 1966, no Northern Ireland voice has been heard on the Law Commission. There has been no Northern Ireland appointment from the legal profession—and I am certainly not here to defend the legal profession in Northern Ireland—and no Northern Ireland voice has been heard in the deliberations which have taken place in the Law Commission.

It appears that behind these orders, decisions will be taken and advice will be given by senior civil servants in the various Northern Ireland offices. I hope that the representations, which I understand have already been made to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and, indeed, to the Lord Chancellor over a month ago, will be given urgent attention and that the recommendations from the Northern Ireland Office contained in the submissions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be acted upon. It may be that there is nothing offensive in these orders, but that is not clear to someone like myself who has no legal experience and who does not represent a Northern Ireland constituency, as I did in another place at another time.

When such orders come before the other House a Member of Parliament has all the requisite means at his disposal to make the required inquiries. Sometimes he can be inundated with advice from particular sources in Northern Ireland. However, that does not happen in your Lordships' House. We are a backwater in relation to the promulgation and the enforcement of legislation. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will clarify this order, and the other orders are which very much the same, or they will be understood only by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. I think I am quite at liberty in saying that the noble Lord himself, outside of the brief which he has obtained from a civil servant would not be entirely aware of all the ramifications of these orders. It is in the interests of this House and this legislation that the justice of these orders should be clearly explained. That would ease the position in Northern Ireland where, as I say, great concern has been expressed by the Law Society of Northern Ireland. I hope that he will be able, through his honourable friend the Secretary of State in the other House to consider with some urgency the representations which have already been made by the Incorporated Law Society of Northern Ireland.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, all three noble Lords who have spoken in reply to my moving of this order have been more than kind about my reappearance in this position, speaking on Northern Ireland. I reply to them and, indeed, to everybody who has been so kind to me in Northern Ireland and in your Lordships' House with two words: "I blush". As your Lordships will be aware, the praise which is directed at me should be directed at those who support and brief me through the long hours of night and day and, indeed, the early morning, too.

It is a great pleasure to serve everybody in Northern Ireland and to do one's best in your Lordships' House having that responsibility for Northern Ireland. I am most grateful for the comments which have been made and pari passu I am delighted that all three noble Lords who have spoken will be able, for the time being at least, to give us the benefit of their wisdom, experience and hard work on Northern Ireland orders—though perhaps not necessarily orders as complicated or as technical as those now before us.

I begin by attempting to reply to at least two comments. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, asked who had been consulted and what recommendations we had received. The first order was generally welcomed by all those who commented upon it. The Law Society of Northern Ireland was, I am given to understand, content but the Law Society made a plea for an up-to-date print of the Statute of Limitations as amended. We are of the opinion that the best solution to the point which has been made by the Law Society—probably with some justification—would be consolidation. I am able to tell the noble Lords, Lord Fitt, Lord Prys-Davies and Lord Hampton, that we are considering such an order. I do not want to commit my noble and learned colleagues and my right honourable and learned colleagues in another place to such consolidation or to when it will take place. We are considering the position and that is what I stress this evening.

The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also asked how the integrated organisations replied. There was no objection to the draft order made by any of the interested parties. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, quite rightly, had one query regarding 15 years and he quoted, I think, new Section 9F in Article 3 of the order. However, I am given to understand that 15 years is considered as a longstop period of time barring. The Law Reform Committee considers it a balance between the extension given to plaintiffs and the fact that defendants would have to answer fairly stale claims, as I stressed in my opening remarks. It could be difficult for them to have total recall of what might have been done or the courses of action that might have given rise to a claim for negligence or something of that kind. The Law Reform Committee decided that 15 years was a reasonable period and we also believe this to a fair period.

I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, for his comment. He mentioned the Incorporated Law Society of Northern Ireland. I do not know whether that is the same as or part of the Law Society of Northern Ireland, which I mentioned earlier. I shall reply to him in the same vein as I replied to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, asked me about law reform in Northern Ireland. That point has been raised by the Law Society with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. It is being given careful consideration currently by my right honourable friend in consultation with my noble and learned friend.

I should like to try to put at rest the anxieties of the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and the Law Society. We are taking those anxieties seriously. We hope, again without time commitment, that we may have some news for them in the future. The noble Lord was most kind about anyone with a knowledge of law replying in your Lordships' House. I am no lawyer; I am a mere chartered accountant. However, 10 years ago I had a fairly solid apprenticeship in the law. I may have recourse to one of the Bills discussed by your Lordships' House 10 years ago when I deal with a later order this evening.

I agree that this order is of benefit to lawyers. That is not to say that we feel any malevolence towards the legal profession. This order covers a complicated subject and your Lordships would probably agree that it should best be left to the experts. I hope that I have given an adequate presentation of the order.

On Question, Motion agreed to.