HC Deb 21 February 1957 vol 565 cc717-24

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

9.44 p.m.

Mr. Knox Cunningham (Antrim, South)

There are two matters relating to the Rhine Navigation Convention upon which I want to put questions to my hon. Friend. One is a matter of considerable general importance to the shipping community. It is a practical rather than an academic question. The other is a constitutional matter and one which I believe to be of importance. Before I put these questions, however, I want briefly to state what I believe to be the present position.

As the House knows, the Admiralty Court in this country has a world-wide jurisdiction For example, if a collision takes place between two Ruritanian vessels in the inland waterways of Holland, on one of the Great Lakes, or a thousand miles up the Amazon, and one of those vessels is subsequently arrested in this country, the Admiralty Court has jurisdiction over the case.

Since 1st January this year, when the relevant part of the Administration of Justice Act, 1956, came into force, such world-wide jurisdiction has been limited. By the limitations contained in Section 6 of that Act, No court in England or Wales shall have Jurisdiction to determine any claim or question certified by the Secretary of State to be a claim or question which, under the Rhine Navigation Convention, falls to be determined in accordance with the provisions thereof and any proceedings to enforce such a claim which are commenced in any such court shall be set aside. By Section 8 of that Act, the Rhine Navigation Convention' means the Convention of the seventh of October, eighteen hundred and sixty-eight, as revised by any subsequent Convention. There are other Sections of the Act, to which I need not refer in detail, which apply these provisions to Scotland and to Northern Ireland. Therefore, we are here dealing with a limitation upon jurisdiction which affects every court in the United Kingdom.

What is that restriction which has been placed on the jurisdiction of our courts? I do not ask my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, nor, indeed, would it be proper for him to attempt in advance, to say how the Secretary of State would apply the Convention to the facts of any particular case. It must be for the Secretary of State, and for him alone, to decide whether, on the information before him, the claim or question in any particular case falls within the provisions of the Convention.

I do, however, ask my hon. Friend to say what type or class of claim comes within the Convention. Certain claims are listed in paragraphs (a) to (s) of Section 1 (1) of the Act. Which of these claims come within the Convention? This is a matter of practical importance to the shipping community, for, unless it is clear which claims come within and which claims fall without the Convention, a ship may be arrested in this country on apparently quite proper grounds but subsequently the plaintiffs may find that the court has no jurisdiction to try the case and, in consequence, they may have to pay costs and perhaps damages for wrongful arrest.

May I give two instances? Under paragraph (j) any claim in the nature of salvage comes within the Admiralty jurisdiction of our courts. Does such a claim fall within the Convention? Does the jurisdiction of the Rhine Navigation Convention include the Rivers Lek and Waal, which take the waters of the Rhine down to the open sea? It is by no means unusual to have salvage cases in those waters. What would be the position if a ship were arrested in this country in a salvage action for services rendered off the Hook of Holland?

My second instance is under paragraph (s), which covers claims for loss of life or personal injury. If two British ships under compulsory pilotage in the New Waterway at the Hook of Holland came into collision, causing heavy loss of life, would the widows and other dependants be met in the courts of this country with a certificate which would ensure that their claims must he set aside? As I understand the position, the Secretary of State will have no alternative but to issue such a certificate, if the class of claim falls within the terms of the Convention. His discretion lies in the question whether or not the claim falls within the Convention, and not whether or not a certificate should, in justice, be issued.

If these claimants are barred from the courts of the United Kingdom where can they go for justice? What assistance can they obtain from the Rhine Navigation Tribunals unless there is some ship or other property in the Rhine to meet their claim? I ask my hon. Friend to clarify the present position. The United Kingdom is not a party to the Rhine Navigation Convention of 1868. Since that date the Convention has been amended. Last month I called at the headquarters of the Rhine Navigation in Strasbourg to obtain a copy of the present-day Convention. It is still in the hands of the printers. I hope to have a copy when it is released. In any event, the text is in French. When, before, has it become necessary to understand modern French legal terms in order to interpret an English Statute?

I am putting these questions because it is my hon Friend's Ministry which was responsible for the insertion of the limitation in this Statute. I appreciate that the Rhine Navigation Convention was referred to in the Treaty of Versailles, and that it was therefore recognised by the nations which signed the Treaty. I also appreciate that in Brussels, in 1952, when certain conventions relating to the arrest of sea-going ships, sister ships and certain rules concerning civil jurisdicton in matters of collision were discussed, it was agreed that those Conventions should not apply in cases covered by the provisions of the revised Rhine Navigation Convention of October, 1868.

I assume that this is the source from which the limitation to exclude the Convention arose, but this limitation now appears for the first time in an English Statute. The predecessor of my hon. Friend put it there. Will my hon. Friend help to explain its terms and clarify its provisions?

The second matter to which I wish to refer is the constitutional one. The Rhine Navigation Convention is defined in the Act as the Convention of 1868, as revised by any subsequent Convention. As I have said, the United Kingdom is not a party to the Rhine Navigation Convention. If, next year, these foreign countries agree upon a new Convention to revise the present one, it will automatically affect the jurisdiction of the courts of the United Kingdom. It will do so under the terms of the present Act without Parliament having considered the revised Convention or having approved its terms, or even being aware of its existence. When, if ever before, has such power over the jurisdiction of our courts been left in the hands of foreigners?

I hope that my hon. Friend will give an answer to the points which I have raised, if not to all of them now, then at some later date. If he will clarify the present position it will be of the greatest assistance to the shipping community and to its advisers.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine (Rye)

I want to add one or two words in relation to the last point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Knox Cunningham). It is said that the Rhine Navigation Convention means the Convention of the seventh of October, eighteen hundred and sixty-eight, as revised by any subsequent Convention. I tried to find out how and when any such revision had taken place. My hon. Friend said that in 1868 we were not a party to the Convention. The parties were France, Bavaria, Baden, Hesse, the Netherlands and Prussia. There was a revision in 1898 and in 1923 there was a Protocol.

So far as I can see, the Protocol was ratified by this country two years later in 1925. But none of these documents are easy to come by, and it would be of the greatest assistance if my hon. Friend could explain what steps will be taken to keep those who are practising in the law in this country in touch with what is going to happen if there is a revision which takes place by a subsequent Convention. The investigation which has to be undertaken to find out where these documents are today involves quite a lot of research. I am sure it would be of the greatest assistance if some steps could be taken to see that these were more readily available if there were any revision in the future.

The only other point that I wish to raise is this. Although it is said that the Rhine Navigation Convention means the Convention of 7th October, 1868, I apprehend that the whole of these proceedings may be out of order because there is no such Convention at all. The Convention is, in fact, dated 17th October, 1868, and perhaps I had better leave the matter there.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Airey Neave)

Both my hon. Friends the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Knox Cunningham) and the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Irvine) have raised important matters with regard to the Rhine Navigation Convention of 1868. The Convention to which I understand my hon. Friends are referring is the one of 1868, signed by a number of parties, governing the course of traffic on the Rhine.

It was given rise to by the Treaty of Paris on 30th May, 1814. The Convention signed at Mannheim is what my hon. Friends have been discussing. The date that I have in the translation of the Acts of the Rhine, which was made by the Control Commission for Germany in 1947—and of which I would be very glad to provide my hon. Friends with a copy if they wish because, as they have said, the text in the Library is in French—is 17th October, 1868. So that, I think, is the Convention to which we are referring. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South, who raised this matter, has referred to a number of points which I shall endeavour to answer. He has not given me notice of one or two of them and on those I shall endeavour to reply to him later.

My Department, as he rightly says, is concerned with the matter because the two Brussels Conventions dealing with civil jurisdiction in the matter of collision and the arrest of seagoing ships gave rise to Parts I and V of the Administration of Justice Act, 1956. As my hon. Friend has said, that enabled Her Majesty's Government to ratify those two Brussels Conventions. There are two general points under the Rhine Convention of 1868 which I should like to make in answer to my hon. Friend, and then reply to some of the other points in more detail.

The first point is with regard to the limitation of Admiralty jurisdiction under Section 6 of the Administration of Justice Act, 1956. I want here to make a point, not of law, but on the practical effects which my hon. Friends fear from that provision under Section 6 of that Act. I am advised that it is unlikely that that limitation will have general effect in practice. In fact, it does not seem likely that there will be many cases, or that there have been many cases or would be likely to be, which the Admiralty Division of the High Court could have dealt with, but for the passing of that section.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

Mr. Neave

The next point that I wish to make is in regard to the text of this Rhine Convention of 1868. It is perhaps best known to international lawyers as the Mannheim Convention. The only authentic text is a French one. There is a copy in the Library, but I would indicate, in referring to the provision of the English text, that it should be clearly understood that that is not regarded as authentic. The translation by the Control Commission, which I have already mentioned, includes the additional Protocols and the Rhine Navigation Clauses of the Treaty of Versailles.

After dealing with those two general points my hon. Friend made two further points of importance. I am glad that he was able to give me notice of them. He wished to know the types of claim which fall to be determined under this Convention of 1868. I have seen the memorandum which he sent to my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General about this. He asks in particular what would be the position with regard to collisions between vessels; whether the Secretary of State would certify that a claim for damage lay. As my hon. Friend rightly says, I cannot tell him without knowledge of the particular circumstances which may arise. But Article 34 of the Rhine Convention of 1868 gives the Rhine navigation tribunals jurisdiction in certain matters.

Article 34 (2) (c) refers to damage caused by watermen or raftsmen during a voyage or in landing. I am advised that that would certainly include a collision, but of course, for this purpose we are concerned with the River Rhine between Basle and the open sea. Although I have not taken advice on the specific point as to whether it includes the Rivers Lek and Waal I should have thought that it did, but I will confirm that with my hon. Friend.

He also asked whether widows' claims, for example where death has followed from such a collision, would be met, and what would be the position with regard to the loss of life. I will take advice upon that point and inform my hon. Friend. His original question about collision between vessels would, I am advised, be included under that Article, that is to say, damage caused by those who are engaged in plying craft during a voyage or in landing between Basle and the open sea on the River Rhine.

My hon. Friend asked about the position with regard to salvage and whether under the Rhine Convention of 1868 navigation tribunals had jurisdiction in matters of salvage. I am advised that they do not. There is in fact no reference to salvage in the Article of the Convention to which I am referring. That is a point mentioned by my hon. Friend in his letter to my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General.

On the second group of matters which my hon. Friend raised, as I understood it, he complained that Section 8 of the Administration of Justice Act, 1956, might cause the following situation to arise. He suggested that a new Convention or a revised Convention could alter the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court in this country without Parliament having any say in the matter at all. I hope to put his fears at rest on that point. I have looked into it carefully, and I want to put it to him in this way. In Section 8 (1) of the Act of 1956, reference is made to the Rhine Navigation Convention—and I note that it is of 7th October, but I think it must clearly be the same one—of 1868. It says that it means that Convention … as revised by any subsequent Convention. I think that my hon. Friends were rather concerned about what that meant. Clearly, the question is: would this definition include future conventions or revisions after the date of the passing of the Administration of Justice Act, 1956. or does it include only conventions up to the time of the passing of that Act?

I am advised that the word "subsequent" in the reference to any subsequent convention can be taken to mean up to the passing of the Act and not afterwards. That sounds a somewhat technical point, but I do not think that the position is a really difficult one. It is unlikely that my hon. Friend's fears that an Amendment to the Convention can take place without consultation with Parliament are well founded, for this reason. As he said, the United Kingdom was not a party to the Rhine Convention of 1868, but the United Kingdom is a party to the Treaty of Versailles, 1919, and under Articles 354 to 362 of that Treaty the Convention of 1868 is adopted by the Treaty and is modified by it, so that the United Kingdom is bound by that Treaty in that way to the provisions of the Rhine Convention of 1868.

As my hon. Friend knows, it is now the constitutional practice in this country not to consent to any treaty or convention, or indeed any amendment thereof of a far-reaching kind, without consulting Parliament. I am advised that the Rhine Convention—and indeed, it seems clear enough, the Treaty of Versailles—could not be amended so as to affect this country without her consent. Therefore, it seems certain that Parliament would be able to discuss the matter.

My hon. Friend raised a number of rather detailed points which I have not yet dealt with; but, as he will understand, I did not have notice of them. I will take advice about them and inform him of it. I hope that I have satisfied him upon the main point of which he gave notice. The matter is, of course, of importance to those concerned with Admiralty questions but although the points which he raised show that there was need for clarification, it does not seem to me that the practical effects are likely to be very serious.

Mr. Knox Cunningham

Will my hon. Friend confirm that any subsequent Rhine Convention will have no effect at all under Section 6, and that it is only any Amendment of the 1868 Convention up to the date of the passing of this Act which in fact will have effect? I understood him to say that, but I should be grateful if he would confirm that that is what he understands the position to be in his Ministry.

Mr. Neave

I am so advised. There has been consultation with the Law Officers in this matter, and I am advised that the position is as my hon. Friend stated.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Ten o'clock.