HC Deb 22 October 1952 vol 505 cc1200-3

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Bing

In view of what the Home Secretary has said, it would be as well if he gave us some explanation of his view of the interpretation of subsection (2). I understood him to say that it enables the Government at any time to bring into force any provision, not as any particular Section or subsection of the Act, but as a separate part. Thus, at any time he might decree that Section 1 of the Visiting Forces (British Commonwealth) Act was repealed but that Sections 2 and 3 would continue in operation for a period; and at a subsequent date it would be possible for him to make an Order in Council declaring, for instance, that Section 2 was repealed. In that way, an Order in Council could be made for any particular provision which is dealt with in the Bill. We all regret that we have to ask it at this time of the night, but we must ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give us his views.

Take, for instance, Clause 15, under which an Order in Council is made in respect of territories. One suspects that the Channel Islands would be one territory, but of course they consist of a number of islands with different degrees of independence. Is it possible to make an Order in respect of Guernsey and not in respect of Jersey? The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that the Guernsey Legislature have certain powers over the courts of Alderney, that Alderney is to some degree dependent on Guernsey, and that Sark is in some degree dependent on Alderney.

Is he saying that the Order in Council can be made for the Channel Islands to as low a sub-division as we care to make it, or is he saying that the Order must apply, for example, to the territories designated in Clause 15 (3, a)? Is he saying that any particular matter can be singled out and brought into force at any one time and that any particular exception can be made; because, if so, that is a very wide and general power and does not leave much for the house. We are asked to legislate, in that case, while he says that he will pick out various parts of the Act and say, "We shall enforce this, but we shall leave out other parts." If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is entitled to say that by an Order in Council he is entitled to leave, say 10 words out of the Act, there is little point in our moving Amendments. I think it is desirable that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should clarify what he thinks is meant by this subsection.

I take the view that it means any particular Section or subsection or paragraph, but that it is not possible to split up a paragraph and to say that half of it shall apply and the other half shall not apply. What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view?

Mr. E. Fletcher

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has raised an interesting point, although the Committee will forgive me if I do not pursue him into all the matters connected with it. I am not particularly interested in the dissection of the Channel Islands. There are some very good stories about the Channel Islands, but I shall not inflict them on hon. Members at this hour of the morning.

The Home Secretary has invited the Committee to give him valuable time by the way he has drafted this Clause, enabling him to introduce a degree of flexibility in the manner in which the Bill is to be brought into operation. It may be asking too much, but I hope that we can at least have from the Home Secretary an assurance that one of the first Clauses which will be brought into operation is Clause 18. I regard that as the most valuable Clause of the Bill, because it repeals the United States of America (Visiting Forces) Act, 1942, which, as a number of hon. Members agreed earlier, ought not to be on the Statute Book any longer.

The Chairman

We have passed Clause 18.

Mr. Fletcher

We have passed Clause 18, but I am anxious to have an undertaking that it will be brought into operation at an early date pursuant to the powers given to the Home Secretary in Clause 19, which we are discussing. It is important, as I am sure the Home Secretary will agree, because we cannot have in existence at the same time, for example, the United States of America (Visiting Forces) Act, 1942, and this Bill in relation to the United States. That would produce an absurd situation.

I am hoping that one of the first things that will happen will be that Clause 18 will come into operation by virtue of an Order in Council under Clause 19. Is it intended that in relation to the United States, an Order in Council shall be made applying the Bill to the United States, soon after Clause 18 is brought into operation? I do not mind if there is some delay on that. I do not think other hon. Members would mind, because I still hope that, in view of what has been said in this debate the Home Secretary will see that no Order in Council is made under Clause 19 applying this Bill to the United States until we have reciprocal arrangements with the United States, which the Home Secretary is hoping to get, but about which so many hon. Members are doubtful. I hope that the fact that we may not get these arrangements with the United States will not be made an excuse for any delay in bringing into operation Clause 18.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe

It will certainly not be used as an excuse for not bringing about repeal of the Act. I think the hon. Member will remember, if he turns back his mind to the less harmonious part of our discussions, that that was one of the reasons I gave for the course we discussed.

The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has raised a fascinating point. I had to argue the subject of the provisions of that Act in the House of Lords; and, speaking from memory, I would have said that if one has an enacted statement which is divisible and can stand independently, that would be a provision of the Act. I think that is the best definition I can give. Then, of course, each collection of words would have to be considered according to that test.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Bing

As it is so late, I am quite satisfied with what the whole Committee will consider a somewhat inadequate explanation. When dealing with future legislation, it is possibly rather desirable to be a little more precise and decide exactly which department can be dealt with at one time. I shall not pursue the matter. I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his short explanation.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.