I want to say a good many words about section 2. What I have to say will relate also to some of the later sections. With regard to the figures which are mentioned in section 2, the Minister in the course of his Second Stage contribution, did not refer to the background to the decision which went into the production of these figures. It seems to me that he has produced arbitrary figures. For example, he has chosen a figure of £30,000 which was very convenient because it is a multiple by two of the original figure of £15,000. Throughout the Bill all the figures are multiples of two in each case. What is the logic and the reasoning behind the production of these figures? I am worried that no consideration has been given to the likely effect on the lower courts of this legislation. It seems to me that the effect could be enormous and I am worried that this legislation may be legislation for chaos.
In his Second Stage contribution the Minister did not give any indication of the likely outcome and what the increase in business might be in the lower courts. He has an opportunity today as we go through the various sections to remedy that matter. I hope he takes that opportunity because we need to know the basis for a particular decision. In section 2 how did he arrive at the figure of £30,000? Did he just think of a number? Did he increase the original figure by inflation over the ten-year period since 1981? Was it a case of doubling the money? It seems to me that it is an arbitrary decision and that there is no basis in it for logic and fact. It certainly did not appear like that on Second Stage. The Minister did not justify in any way whatsoever the insertion of a figure of £30,000 and why a figure of £29,000 or £35,000 was not put in place. I am worried about the effects of this decision as I am about the effects of section 3 and other sections also. I want to know if there is any analysis available and, if so, I want to hear it before I accept section 2 and the following sections.