Schedule 1 - Listed judicial offices

Justice (Northern Ireland) Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 4:45 pm on 29 January 2002.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland) 4:45, 29 January 2002

I beg to move amendment No. 56, in page 70, line 9, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrates'.

Photo of Mr Peter Pike Mr Peter Pike Labour, Burnley

With this it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No. 57, in page 70, line 9, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrates'.

Amendment No. 43, in clause 3, page 2, line 43, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrate'.

Amendment No. 58, in schedule 3, page 76, line 8, leave out 'District Judges (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrates'.

Amendment No. 59, page 76, line 11, leave out 'District Judges (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrates'.

Clause 9 stand part.

Amendment No. 45, in clause 11, page 9, line 11, leave out 'District Judges (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrates'.

Amendment No. 61, in schedule 4, page 82, line 31, leave out 'District Judges (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrates'.

Amendment No. 62, page 83, line 7, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrates'.

Amendment No. 63, page 83, line 11, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrates'.

Amendment No. 64, page 84, line 18, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrate'.

Amendment No. 65, page 84, line 23, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrate'.

Amendment No. 66, page 84, line 28, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrate'.

Amendment No. 67, in schedule 5, page 85, line 22, leave out 'District Judges (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrates'.

Amendment No. 46, in clause 15, page 10, line 22, leave out 'District Judges (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrates'.

Amendment No. 47, page 10, line 23, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrate'.

Amendment No. 48, page 10, line 24, leave out 'District Judges (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrates'.

Amendment No. 49, page 10, line 25, leave out 'District Judges (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrates'.

Amendment No. 50, page 10, line 26, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrate'.

Amendment No. 51, page 10, line 29, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrate'.

Amendment No. 52, page 10, line 30, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrate'.

Amendment No. 53, page 10, line 31, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrate'.

Amendment No. 54, page 10, line 34, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrate'.

Amendment No. 55, in clause 19, page 12, line 26, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrate'.

Amendment No. 68, in schedule 6, page 87, line 28, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrate'.

Amendment No. 69, page 87, line 29, leave out 'District Judge (Magistrates' Courts)' and insert 'Resident Magistrate'.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland)

This long list of amendments relates to the nomenclature of magistrates and proposes replacing ''District Judges (Magistrates' Courts)'' with the term ''Resident Magistrates''. I had hoped that the list was comprehensive, but I understand that it might not be, and a few more amendments will be required to tidy the matter up if the Government are minded to accept the alteration.

When the review body sat, there was no controversy about the name of resident magistrates. However, the review body took it upon itself to come to the following conclusion, in paragraph 6.142. It is worth reading it out as a classic example of the bureaucratic tidy mind at work.

We have a further recommendation to make which is intended to demonstrate publicly that the magistracy is an integral part of the judiciary. In looking at the titles of the various tiers of judiciary, we gave some thought to the nomenclature of resident magistrates.

Having got that far, it is worth noting that at no stage does the review report anybody expressing any concern about the nomenclature of resident magistrates in the course of their work. It continued:

As we note in the next chapter, the term 'resident' has its origins in the nineteenth century when there were particular reasons for wanting office holders to live in the district where they held office. It has no meaning or relevance in the modern context. Moreover, we think that there is an opportunity, through a name change, to demonstrate publicly that the magistracy is an integral part of the judiciary. We recommend that legislation be passed to redesignate resident magistrates as district judges (magistrates' courts) . . . We favour retention of the term magistrates' court as it is commonly understood and reflected in a very large number of legislative provisions.

As we have seen from the number of amendments that are needed to the Bill to implement the renaming of resident magistrates, the term is widely used and well understood in Northern Ireland, not least by the profession itself.

The view of the resident magistrates should be the determinant as far as the view of the Committee is concerned. In their latest submission to the Minister they say:

The majority of Resident Magistrates maintain their objection to the change of name. We made a number of points re same on two visits to the Review Commission and also made written submissions. We understand from our other sources that part of the reasoning for change is similar to that in England and Wales (ie Section 78 of the Access to Justice Act 1999), which was to more fully recognise the status of stipendiary magistrates as members of the professional Judiciary.

It is the view of the Association that in Northern Ireland that our status and indeed our key role in the professional Judiciary particularly over the last 30 years has always been fully recognised.

So there is no concern from the people who would be the supposed victims of the situation that their roles are not understood. The other reason why I would urge the Government to give serious consideration to the amendments is that the term ''Resident Magistrate'' is not only one that is widely understood among the legal profession, it is also one that, in terms of pre-partition Ireland, has a literary meaning, initially through the successful book ''Some Experiences of an Irish R.M.'' which was subsequently dramatised as a television series. People are immensely familiar with that piece of Irish literature. Some might say that my sympathy for retaining the name results from the fact that the hero of the book—a Major Sinclair Yeates, who narrates the stories—is described in the ''Oxford Companion to Irish Literature'' as one who

combines the wide-eyed naivety of the straightforward Englishman abroad—

that is sometimes how I feel when dealing with Northern Ireland legislative matters—

with a tolerant and fun-loving disposition—

I shall allow others to make that judgment—

equipping him perfectly for the rough-and-tumble of the Irish village.

It may also be said that the Minister fits the role of the major's friend and inveterate antagonist Flurry Knox. The Minister and I may be antagonists in Committee and on the Floor of the House, but I regard him as a friend just as Knox and the major were friends. We have both been members of several Standing Committees, and I have come to know him extremely well.

The literary reason for retaining a name is worth while because of the culture that surrounds the judiciary. It is not necessary to change the name; it is well understood in Northern Ireland. The resident magistrates themselves want to keep the name. Although resident means that the magistrates are required to be resident in a particular place, I also take it to mean permanent—which is precisely what it is. I hope that the Government look kindly upon the amendments.

Photo of Edward Garnier Edward Garnier Conservative, Harborough

I agree with the conclusion reached by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). I am only sorry that the English equivalent, the stipendiary magistrates, did not take a similar view. When we were debating the equivalent clauses of the Bill that became the Access to Justice Act 1999, we all knew what a stipendiary magistrate was. They knew what they were, and they and the legal profession knew what their job was, and there seemed to be no need to change a familiar and understandable job description—or, to use the nomenclature of the review of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland, there was no need to change it at all.

I was about to go into battle on behalf of the stipendiary magistrates when I was told that they wanted to change their name, so for once, the wind was taken out of my sails. They wanted to be called

district judges because they wanted to be able to say that were members of the judiciary; they did not want to be confused—no one I know would ever have confused them—with what they thought of as ordinary lay magistrates. They now have what they want, and I am sure that they will greatly enjoy the change of name.

One of my colleagues at the Bar rather waggishly thought that Queen's bench masters who work in a long corridor in the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand had put it about that they wanted now to be called ''corridor judges'' because they, too, could enjoy the excitement of being members of the judiciary. However, it turned out to be a little joke. It seems that Queen's bench masters are happy to remain Queen's bench masters.

I tell you these rather unexciting stories, Mr. Pike, simply to say how pleased I am about the information given to us by my hon. Friend that the resident magistrates want to remain resident magistrates. If stipendiaries want to become district judges, and have their names changed by statute, let us do the same for Northern Ireland. If RMs want to remain RMs, let them remain so.

Photo of Lembit Öpik Lembit Öpik Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire

The Bill proposes a change in name. It is worth remembering that a strong justification for that exists. Paragraph 6.142 of the review of the criminal justice system recommended the name change. I apologise if the matter has already been covered. Such was the shock of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mrs. Calton) that she virtually choked as she listened to the hon. Gentleman's speech. She has made a full recovery, I am glad to say.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland) 5:00, 29 January 2002

For the record, I would like to point out that I was not actually speaking when the hon. Lady left the Room incommoded.

Photo of Lembit Öpik Lembit Öpik Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire

My hon. Friend was anticipating the hon. Gentleman's speech, and felt it safer to wait outside. I say these things in jest, but I know from painful experience that irony translates badly in the record.

As I said, paragraph 6.142 of the report recommended the name change. It states:

We have a further recommendation to make which is intended to demonstrate publicly that the magistracy is an integral part of the judiciary. In looking at the titles of the various tiers of the judiciary we gave some thought to the nomenclature of resident magistrates. As we note in the next chapter, the term ''resident'' has its origins in the nineteenth century when there were particular reasons for wanting office holders to live in the district where they held office. It has no meaning or relevance in the modern context. Moreover we think that there is an opportunity, through a name change, to demonstrate publicly that the magistracy is an integral part of the judiciary. We recommend that legislation be passed to redesignate resident magistrates as district judges (magistrates' courts). We favour retention of the term magistrates' court as it is commonly understood and reflected in a very large number of legislative provisions.

Therefore, the proposals reflect faithfully the recommendations of the review of the criminal justice system.

This would not be the first occasion on which an organisation has renamed itself to stay with the times. Who can ignore the fact, for example, that the hon. Gentleman's party used to be called the Tory party and changed its name to the Conservatives, just as Windscale renamed itself Sellafield?

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland)

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I should like to point out that ''the Tory party'' has always been a nickname, inherited not least from the bandits who inhabited Tory island off the north coast of Ireland. It was a term of abuse. However, the name ''Conservative'' has been used consistently since the forming of the modern Conservative party, which is not something that can be said for the Labour party.

Photo of Lembit Öpik Lembit Öpik Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, because it was a cheap one-liner and I deserved the rebuke. However, let us remember that no great benefit results from sticking to names that could be regarded as being slightly problematic.

Photo of Lembit Öpik Lembit Öpik Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire

Indeed, as hon. Members know, we changed our name when parties merged to reflect more accurately who we were—until we got it right, which we have.

Let us move swiftly on. Government Members sagely point to the unstoppable evolution of the Liberal Democrats as the party of the 21st century, and the review of the criminal justice system suggests that a similar change should be made to a name. The practical justification for changing the name, in simple terms, is to make the body more accessible, as the new words are more user friendly for the public, who actually use and interface with the system. That is a matter of judgment, but we feel that the change would be small but useful, and should not cause the slightest concern about the abandonment of tradition.

Photo of Edward Garnier Edward Garnier Conservative, Harborough

I apologise, Mr. Pike, for what is probably an unnecessary intervention. However, I worry when the Liberal Democrats use words such as ''user friendly'' and ''accessible'' in relation to the matters that we are discussing. Next, they will be asking for members of the judiciary to sit in workshops and deal with people in tents. The hon. Gentleman's arguments are interesting and amusing, and all the other adjectives that one can apply to the party that he represents, but we all know what an RM is. The RMs know what an RM is and the public of Northern Ireland are wholly familiar with the expression. Surely, it is essential that we do not change that which there is no need to change.

Photo of Lembit Öpik Lembit Öpik Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire

That is a matter for the Committee to decide. I do not share the hon. Gentleman's optimism that the existing terminology is regarded as more attractive than the proposed terminology, but let us not make heavy weather—[Interruption.] or heavier weather, of the issue. The recommendation has been made and argued for rationally. The Government have taken account of the recommendation in their work and, for that reason, the Liberal Democrats believe that it is common sense.

Photo of Mr Seamus Mallon Mr Seamus Mallon Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Pike. We have had a most interesting discussion on a serious decision. I share the literary nostalgia of Somerville and Ross. I do not quite see the resemblance between the Minister and Flurry Knox, but perhaps I will discover the resemblance before the next three weeks are up.

There is a fundamental point here. I have nothing against the term ''resident magistrate'', but why was the term ever invented in the 19th century? I do not purport to know but I will hazard a guess. It was because, like everything else at that time, there were not only absentee landlords but, absentee judges, who did not live in Northern Ireland and seldom, if ever, went there. As a device to ensure that there was some semblance of identity with the populace, the requirement for residency was introduced. I may be wrong and that may be fanciful, but I venture to suggest that it is right. Why was that required? That question goes to the heart of our deliberations in Committee.

When the term was invented and, indeed, when Somerville and Ross wrote about the Irish RM, there was no judiciary in the current sense. There was big house justice, not justice of the people, for the people, by the people, or anything verging on that. The judiciary was exclusive, not in capability but in status. I have nothing against the term ''resident magistrate'' but I have a lot against the concept of a judiciary reserved for one section of the community. I am not talking about Catholics and Protestants or Unionists and Nationalists but about big house inhabitants having the preserve on the process of justice. We must get away from that because it goes to the heart of many of the problems associated with the justice system.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland)

I have been trying to find the reference in the review to the background to RMs, but I have failed, so I shall have to paraphrase. One of the key roles of resident magistrates was to counteract the perceived bias of the lay magistracy. The resident magistrate, who had to be a qualified barrister or solicitor, was introduced in order to address precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. The history of resident magistrates, in terms of addressing the issues about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned, is on the side of the angels. It is, perhaps, another argument in favour of retaining the term.

Photo of Mr Seamus Mallon Mr Seamus Mallon Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. However nostalgic we are, if we are to look at this anew, for the sake of the ordinary person—and we must use him as our touchstone, because the law belongs to the ordinary person, not to the resident magistrate or the corridor judge or whatever they want to call themselves—we must use new terms for a new approach and a new attitude to the whole process of the administration of justice. I can understand why resident magistrates want to continue with their title. I can understand why other terminologies would be attractive. However, as a lay person, I know what a judge is and I know that he is there to perform a specific role. I also know that there is a hierarchy among judges and I can understand that people looking at a justice system can understand that. It is

important that we recognise the newness of what we are trying to do. If we start bringing old terminology or nostalgia into it, for whatever reason, we are not helping.

I support the Government. They are right to go for a new start and to give the position the right name. A judge is a judge is a judge, whatever fancy name is given to him or her—a point that we shall cover soon. I hope that the new name will hold. It is right that it should, because it does something more fundamental than any of the arguments that I or other hon. Members have made. It goes to the heart of identification with a system of justice that has probably never been fully in place—certainly not in the community where I live and which I represent—since the state was founded. If we are going to get there, let us have a new start and let us have it on the basis of terminology that has no hang ups; I repeat that I have no hang ups. I, too, am very attracted to the Somerville and Ross novels. I think that I saw every television episode of ''The Irish R.M.'' I can live, sometimes, with the patronisation in it and I can tolerate the stage Irishness that was sometimes expressed by Flurry Knox and others. However, I do not want to live with any residue of big house justice at a time when we should be creating a completely new system.

Photo of Sylvia Hermon Sylvia Hermon Shadow Spokesperson (Women), Shadow Spokesperson (Trade and Industry), Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs) 5:15, 29 January 2002

I regret to find myself in disagreement once again with the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). First, on the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland, these are recommendations to the Government. They are not set in stone. A recommendation does not have to be accepted unless the arguments for it carry weight. Change for change's sake, as a cosmetic exercise, should not be welcomed by the Committee. If the provision changed the substance of the work of resident magistrates, I might agree with it, but just to change their title, in what appears to be a cosmetic exercise, should not be countenanced. The resident magistrates are in favour of continuing with their current title, and I wonder to what extent the Minister consulted them before making this proposal.

Photo of Des Browne Des Browne Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Northern Ireland Office, Parliamentary Secretary (Northern Ireland Office)

I have not read the books referred to, nor indeed, to my recollection, have I seen any of the television programmes. I may have done, but if I did, they did not impress themselves on me. I prefer, for obvious reasons, which I will come to, the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) on whether I fit the character of Flurry Knox, because she tells me that Flurry Knox—

Photo of Des Browne Des Browne Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Northern Ireland Office, Parliamentary Secretary (Northern Ireland Office)

Perhaps I can help myself, first; then we will see whether I need any further help.

I am told that Flurry Knox is a rogue and is always up to some mischief or other, constantly in trouble and always has a scam—I can live with that. I am told that he is also a master of foxhounds—I cannot live with that. I would not like it to go uncontradicted that I would allow myself to be compared to a master of foxhounds. Further, I am told that he is married to a beautiful woman—I can live with that. I am told that

he gets his friend, the hapless English magistrate, into all sorts of bother, so that the locals can take advantage of him. If the hon. Member for Reigate wishes to live with the description of the hapless English gentleman, I am quite happy to live with the bulk of the description of Flurry Knox, although I may have to defend myself against some elements of it.

I am grateful for the support given to the amendments by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh. I feel slightly embarrassed about what I am going to say about both of them. The amendments concern the Bill's provisions to rename resident magistrates as district judges (magistrates courts). All hon. Members have, to some degree, understood the reasons for this recommendation from the review.

My hon. Friend arrived at his view of the history of the position of resident magistrate from his knowledge of the matter, but shares that view with the review. I do not think that anybody has any objection to the continued use of the name, although both the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and my hon. Friend expressed views on the importance of change, which I will come to in a moment.

Essentially, although we are discussing several amendments, there is only one substantive amendment in the group—No. 44, which deletes clause 9, thereby retaining the title of resident magistrate. The rest of the group are consequential on that amendment.

The Bill's provisions follow the review recommendation, which was intended to demonstrate publicly that the magistracy is an integral part of the judiciary. I have said, and no doubt will say on several occasions in this Committee, that it is my intention, where possible, to follow the recommendations of the review. However, the content of this debate has made it clear that some of the recommendations are more important and symbolic than others.

I do not get the sense that this issue will divide the community of Northern Ireland, but the reasons why the review recommended it are set out. The review concluded that the term ''resident'' had no meaning or relevance in a modern context, as there was no particular reason for wanting officeholders to live in the district in which they held office. Its recommendation was also designed to bring Northern Ireland into line with England and Wales, where the title of stipendiary magistrate has also been phased out. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough made the important point that stipendiary magistrates in England and Wales were keen to embrace the change for whatever reason, which was important for the acceptance of that recommendation. Whether others regret it or not is of little importance.

In my experience, the adjective ''resident'' is often attached to judges. It does not necessarily mean in the modern context that the judge lives in the jurisdiction, but that he or she is the regular judge in that court. It differentiates that judge from a circuit judge or temporary judge. People often use the term more

loosely and not as accurately as this as an adjective for judges. I am not certain that it has the same meaning for ordinary people that it may have had when it was attached to magistrates, when resident magistrates were introduced.

The arguments that I rehearsed in short from the review and those put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh have considerable merit. However, as the hon. Member for North Down said, the recommendations are not written in stone, and once the Government have considered them, they must take responsibility for deciding whether they should be translated into legislation and implemented. The Government therefore listened to the views that were raised during the two consultation periods on the review. They presented a mixed message. Although some agreed with the recommendation, some, not least members of the Resident Magistrates' Association, expressed their opposition to it. The Resident Magistrates' Association opposed the name change, pointing to the long history of the resident magistrate in Northern Ireland and his longer history in Ireland more generally. We accept that there is a growing strength of feeling that the name should be retained, not least as expressed in the submission from the Resident Magistrates' Association that was received on 10 January after the Bill was introduced. Neither we nor anyone else who supports the Government's settled view intend to cause any offence to resident magistrates. There was never any intention to cause such offence or to remove a name that has been synonymous with effective justice that has been applied evenly over many years.

It may be appropriate at this point to say a few words about the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh about the importance of change and symbols of change when change takes place. I agree with him that, for there to be a fresh start, it is sometimes important to show that it is a fresh start and that people can leave baggage from the past behind.

A significant number of judges are listed in the schedule and in clause 2, but interestingly, the only change is in relation to resident magistrates. It is not as if the change is one among several; it is the only change that the review proposed. Members of the review panel may have argued this had they chosen to, but the change was not proposed to benefit the modernisation of the justice system, but to clarify the status in the judicial pecking order of resident magistrates by calling them judges, and doing away with an adjective that has lost any current sense or relevance.

Given that there appears to be growing support for the retention of the name, the Government are prepared to reconsider the amendment. We are not prepared to accept it today, because several technical amendments not included in the group might need to be made. The Government want to go back to consultees, especially those who have taken an interest in the matter and have supported the change, to clarify our interpretation of their views and to engage with them about the process. That is good manners, apart from anything else. I turn to look at

my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh as I say that, given his contribution to the debate.

Photo of Mr Seamus Mallon Mr Seamus Mallon Social Democratic and Labour Party, Newry and Armagh

I should be interested if the Minister would inform us from where the weight of opinion in favour of the term ''resident magistrate'' has come. I suspect that it has not come from the populace at large, but I do not know. The Minister is obviously aware of where the pressure has come from. In the past two or three years I have discussed the subject, pending legislation, with many people, and the change did not keep anyone awake at night to the extent that would suggest a Government change of position.

Photo of Des Browne Des Browne Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Northern Ireland Office, Parliamentary Secretary (Northern Ireland Office)

My hon. Friend's point has been made in another guise in Committee. The provisions of the criminal justice review may not have captured the imagination of the man on the Newry omnibus, but it does not alter the fact that our consultees have expressed a view on the subject. I made special reference to the Resident Magistrates' Association and the importance of the stipendiary magistrates position in England and Wales in relation to the proposed change of name. Some consultees have expressed no view one way or another.

Off the top of my head, I cannot remember the position in consultation of the party represented by my hon. Friend. I would not be surprised, and it would probably not surprise him, if its submission made no reference to the name change at all. I am not entitled to interpret from that that it was supportive or neutral about it. There is growing pressure from a number of discrete sources on the issue, but a number of discrete sources have contributed to the consultation in any event. The Resident Magistrates' Association made its submission, in which it set out the clear argument for the retention, after the Bill was tabled.

The amendments give me the opportunity to suggest that the Government are prepared to reconsider the issue, go back to people in the time available and give them an opportunity to engage with us on the issue in the changed circumstances. I accept that the issue is not exactly earth shattering, but if it will not be to the detriment of the administration of justice to do so, it is appropriate for the Government to take into account the position of those who hold the title and discuss their views with others. I understand that several consultees expressed support for the change. We should return and engage with them. If issues additional to those raised by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh are relevant to the Committee, we should hear about them.

On the understanding that we will look further into the issues again later, I ask the hon. Member for Reigate to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Blunt rose—

Photo of Mr Peter Pike Mr Peter Pike Labour, Burnley 5:30, 29 January 2002

Order. Before I call Mr. Blunt, I want to clarify the position. The Minister referred to amendment No. 44—a delete clause amendment—which is not selected. Clause 9 stand part is, however,

included within this debate. When we reach that stage, we will take a formal vote but not debate it.

Photo of Des Browne Des Browne Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Northern Ireland Office, Parliamentary Secretary (Northern Ireland Office)

I am grateful for that clarification, Mr. Pike. I was just pointing out that amendment No. 44 was the principal amendment and that the rest were consequential. The deletion of the clause causes all the other consequences, although it is not being debated in this group.

Photo of Mr Peter Pike Mr Peter Pike Labour, Burnley

The Minister is absolutely right. We are debating clause stand part with this group. The amendment is not selected, but the principle behind it is.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland)

I am not entirely sure that I am grateful to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne for her literary knowledge. However, the Minister was gracious enough to accept the description—other than the master of foxhounds, which I thought had merit—allotted him, so I should assume to myself the description of a hapless English gentleman. I was not suggesting that the Minister was really like the character; I was interested in the characterisation of the relationship between Flurry Knox and Major Yates—the friendship and the inveterate antagonism across the Floor.

I welcome the Minister's looking further into the issue with an open mind. It is quite proper for him to talk again to consultees. The issue was raised by resident magistrates and was in a sense created by the review, which I regret. Had it been left well alone, no one would have raised any objection. Changing the name does not take matters any further.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire is slightly embarrassed by his enthusiastic lapdog loyalty to the Government. Had he been present when I introduced the amendments, he would have noticed that I read out precisely the part of the review that he read out—only I did so to mock it as an example of bureaucracy gone mad and he did so to laud it and pray it in aid. I shall leave it to the Committee and the wider world to establish which clause in the report is most appropriate.

Photo of Lembit Öpik Lembit Öpik Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire

I thank the hon. Gentleman for teaching me humility once again.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland)

I am getting used to the fact that we are all learning that.

Photo of Mr Tony McWalter Mr Tony McWalter Labour/Co-operative, Hemel Hempstead

Would the hon. Gentleman accept that the conjectural history outlined by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh regarding the origin of the expression ''resident magistrate'' might turn out to be real history? That would provide a major argument against retaining that term.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland)

If that turned out to be correct and resident magistrates were regarded with outrage throughout the history of jurisprudence in Ireland, there would be no point in retaining it. I believe, however, that the reverse was the case and that the role of resident magistrates was to deal with concerns about the administration of justice in late 19th century Ireland. As I said when I intervened on the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, we might justify retaining the name because of the principle of the

independence of the judiciary for which magistrates stood when the administration of justice was even more controversial than it is today.

Photo of Edward Garnier Edward Garnier Conservative, Harborough

The Minister has made a valuable contribution to judicial history in Northern Ireland, and I hope that if the Government retain their current position on Report, my Front Bench colleagues will ensure that we have time to re-argue the point. Many amendments and huge tranches of the Bill are often left undebated on Report because we are guillotined into a tight timetable. I would not want the Government to lead us into a trap of our own making, which is to lull us into a sense of security and return on Report having done nothing but without giving us any time to register a complaint. I am positive that this Minister, of all Ministers, would not think of behaving like that, but unfortunately he does not control the timetable. Others who are not here may take a different view about the use of the time. I put that point up for consideration while we are happily engaged in agreement with the Government.

Photo of Crispin Blunt Crispin Blunt Shadow Spokesperson (Northern Ireland)

I thank my hon. and learned Friend. That is one of the consequences of the extremely tight programme under which we will have to consider the points, but I know that the Minister said that he wants to revisit this discussion, and I take it that the Government's intention is now to retain the name of resident magistrates unless the Minister is convinced otherwise following his consultations.

The default position is that the Government will introduce amendments, and they have more resources than me to ensure that they are comprehensive and technically correct. I thank the Minister for his attitude and open mind, which is appreciated on the Opposition Benches. We hope sincerely that we can continue Committee proceedings in the spirit with which we have discussed these amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 1 agreed to.