HC Deb 08 April 1960 vol 621 cc844-54

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

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Tom Driberg (Barking) rose—

Mr. Speaker

I am aware of the short notice in which the hon. Member is involved. May I ask whether he has had an opportunity of giving the Minister some notice?

Mr. Driberg

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have, and the Minister concerned, the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, has been good enough to come here at very short notice, of course. I am grateful to you, Sir, for according me this opportunity; I apologise to the House generally for the shortness of the notice; and I am grateful also to the Minister.

The matter which I wish to raise is of some urgency, as I will explain. It is a matter concerning which I put down a Motion, with the support of one hon. Friend, last month: That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her graciously to withhold her Assent from the Summary Jurisdiction Bill, lately passed in the Legislative Council and the House of Keys, which gives magistrates in the Isle of Man wider powers of imposing corporal punishment on children and young persons. It is clearly a rather unusual step to take in this House, to seek to frustrate the completion of a legislative process in respect of a Measure passed in the Isle of Man. But I hope I can show that it is not by any means impossible for this House to take cognisance of such matters. I can do so most simply and directly by quoting from the Memorandum supplied by the Home Office to the MacDermott Commission on the Constitution. The Home Office Memorandum states: In the domestic field, Tynwald legislates for the Isle of Man…. By itself, Tynwald is not competent to make law…. Acts of Tynwald now depend for their validity on ratifica-lion by the Queen in Council. The Memorandum goes on to say: The Home Secretary is responsible for recommending to the Privy Council whether to ' confirm, finally enact and ratify' Acts of Tynwald, after consulting those of his colleagues concerned…. It is rare in the extreme for the Royal Assent to be withheld: but the Royal Assent is not a mere formality…. Most Acts of Tynwald affect no one outside the Isle of Man, and the Privy Council is not concerned unnecessarily to oppose the wishes of the Island's own legislation in domestic matters. On the other hand an Act of Tynwald might have unacceptable repercussions outside the Island…. And the possibility that the Royal Assent might be withheld in these or similar circumstances can never be discounted. That does surely show that we are perfectly entitled today for a few minutes to consider this Bill, passed by the House of Keys at the beginning of March, and I hope very much—perhaps it is a little optimistic of me to do so— that the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to tell me that his right hon. Friend and he have decided to accept the Motion standing in my name and have agreed that we should present a humble Address to Her Majesty asking her to withhold her Assent. Or, if the correct procedure be otherwise, I hope that the Home Secretary in the exercise of the functions described in his own Department's Memorandum, has himself decided to advise the Privy Council that the Royal Assent should not be given to this Measure from the Isle of Man.

Mr. Speaker

I think that the strict form must be, considering the question which the hon. Member is asking, that he cannot, even in camouflaged form, as it were, move or urge the acceptance of a Motion, although no doubt he can talk about it.

Mr. Driberg

I am much obliged, Mr. Speaker. I think that I have conveyed sufficiently to the Joint Under-Secretary the point that I was trying to make, and the hope that, perhaps, I must not expect him to fulfil, but, nonetheless, which I venture to hope that he will.

I should explain also, Mr. Speaker, that I have to raise this matter today because no other opportunity will arise before Easter. The Home Secretary was good enough to inform me that he had received the legislation in question from the Isle of Man, but that it would not be possible for the Privy Council to consider it before Easter—which I take to mean that the Privy Council will be considering it shortly after Easter. This, therefore, is the last opportunity I can take.

There are two reasons why it seems worth discussing this matter briefly today. First, I am not in the least anxious to detract in any way from the historic and picturesque dignities and privileges of the Isle of Man and its Legislature. I do not suppose that any of us in this House would wish to do so, any more than we would wish, as the Home Secretary rightly said when I raised this matter before, to become involved in a head-on clash or collision between the two Parliaments. There are all sorts of constitutional reforms which might be adopted some day in the Isle of Man without in the least infringing those historic dignities and privileges. It may well be, for instance, that some of its inhabitants hope that some day it will be a constituency represented in this House, like England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. But that is a matter which one cannot embark upon today.

I should be grateful, however, if, in his reply, the Joint Under-Secretary could do anything to clarify the rather obscure constitutional relationship which exists. The Home Office Memorandum, which I have quoted, goes some way in that direction, but there are certain obscurities which still need clearing up.

The main point that I want to make today is simply this: this Measure, passed by the House of Keys and now awaiting the Royal Assent, is a Measure which extends powers of corporal punishment in a small and delightful island in which, I am informed, there is relatively little violent crime or gangsterism or juvenile delinquency. In that respect the Isle of Man probably compares with an English rural area rather than a large city.

Moreover, the point has been made to me by those Members of the House of Keys who got in touch with me about this matter that it is a very small island in which, so to speak, "Everybody knows everybody", as we often say of small places. There are only two exits from it, one by steamer and one by air. It would be extremely difficult for any violent criminal to get away with his crime and not be detected, known by the neighbours, and apprehended. So, intrinsically, it would seem unnecessary as well as retrograde to extend the existing powers of corporal punishment as this Measure does.

The point which directly concerns us is, surely, that it would be unfortunate if legislation in the Isle of Man got too far out of step or out of harmony with legislation passed by this House and in operation generally throughout the mainland of Britain—which I believe is referred to by people in the Isle of Man as "the adjacent island". It would be unfortunate if, for instance, our constituents—using the word "our" in its broader sense—who go to the Isle of Man in many thousands every summer for their holidays, were to find when they got there that, if they got into some slight scrape, they were subjected to much more severe penalties, including corporal punishment, than they would have been subjected to if they had stayed at home for their holidays or had gone to Brighton or Southend instead of to the Isle of Man.

We are therefore entitled in this House to look at this matter and to say publicly—and perhaps the Ministers concerned can find some tactful method of conveying our views to the Tynwald—that we hope very much that, while retaining their ancient rights of domestic legislation, the legislators of the Isle of Man will be rather careful not to get too far out of step with the mainland. If I may quote again what I have already quoted from the Home Office Memorandum: Most Acts of Tynwald affect no one outside the Isle of Man…. On the other hand, an Act of Tynwald might have unacceptable repercussions outside the Island. It is my contention that this Measure will have very unacceptable repercussions among some of the holidaymakers who might be going to the Isle of Man: they would consider it barbarous and retrograde that they or their children, or young people in their party, might be exposed to corporal punishment for relatively trivial offences. That is all I wish to say. I am extremely grateful to have had the opportunity of saying it. I still hope that the Joint Under-Secre-tary will be able to tell us that his right hon. Friend has decided to advice that the Royal Assent be withheld.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)

May I add a few words in support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) has said? I do not think there is any doubt about the constitutional position. Although the Isle of Man occupies a somewhat anomalous position in the Commonwealth, it is quite clear that the Parliament of the United Kingdom has power to legislate for the Isle of Man, and in fact frequently does so.

It is, of course, true that Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament only apply to the Isle of Man if it is expressly stated in the Acts that they are so to apply, but on a great many subjects Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament do apply—quite rightly so—to the Isle of Man, and, of course, citizens of the Isle of Man are citizens of Her Majesty and have the status of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

It is also perfectly true, as my hon. Friend has said, that in so far as the Tynwald has concurrent legislative powers, or powers to legislate on various matters, Acts passed by the House of Keys require the Royal Assent. If I may quote in support of what my hon. Friend has said, from what I think is a recognised authority on the constitutions of the British Commonwealth—namely, the work by Professor Keaton and Mr. Lloyd—it is there made quite clear that the Home Secretary has the constitutional duty of advising the Crown as to whether an Act of Tynwald should or should not receive the Royal Assent. I do not know what the precedents are for withholding the Royal Assent, but it is obviously not the same kind of formality as may be said to be the case with Acts passed by this House and another place.

It is also clear. I submit, that in exercising that discretion and that responsibility the Home Secretary is answerable to this House. Moreover, it would be possible, if thought right, for this House to legislate, I suppose if necessary on a Private Member's Bill, for the Isle of Man in a sense opposed to the wishes of the Tynwald.

That being, I submit, the strict constitutional position, the only other question is whether this is a matter in which the Home Secretary ought to have regard to views expressed in the House and ought to advise Her Majesty to withhold assent. It seems to me that there is very great force in what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking—namely that on a matter such as corporal punishment, on which there is a good deal of feeling throughout the Commonwealth, it is most undesirable that provisions should be introduced in the Isle of Man which are out of step and out of line with the obvious tendencies in this country which have frequently been indicated by the liberalising speeches of the Home Secretary and the hon. and learned Gentleman. I therefore think that it would be a most regrettable and retrograde step for the Home Secretary to exercise his responsibility and function in assenting to Measures in the Isle of Man of which he would not approve if they were introduced into this country.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton)

I assume that the hon. Member is speaking for himself in putting forward the constitutional view of the matter which he has put forward, rather than for his party.

Mr. Fletcher

Yes. I should make it clear that I am speaking for myself, as I always do in an Adjournment debate. I have no reason to suppose that my views would not be supported by other members of the party, but I am speaking for myself, and I earnestly urge the hon. and learned Member to have regard to views which I have reason to think would be widely held in the House. This matter has arisen only at very short notice.

I do not think there is any doubt that the Home Secretary has a responsibility to this House, for which he could be criticised in the House by the appropriate procedure. I hope that, in addition to dealing with the constitutional position, the hon. and learned Member will tell the House on this occasion that, on the merits of the argument and in view of the general prevailing climate of social opinion on this subject, he will give the Home Secretary's reasons for advising Her Majesty to withhold her consent.

4.18 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton)

The Motion which we are discussing is, "That this House do now adjourn." As, however, the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) has referred to a Motion which he has on the Order Paper about legislation in the Isle of Man, perhaps I may be permitted to say that, as far as I am able to find out, his Motion is without precedent and is not one which it would be constitutional for this House to accept. Moreover, I am advised that if the House were to accept it it would have no constitutional effect.

The hon. Member for Barking asks me what advice my right hon. Friend will give to Her Majesty in Council about this matter. I am at some disadvantage in that this matter has been raised at very short notice, and there are a number of constitutional points on which I myself would have preferred to take advice. I am not even sure that I would be constitutionally correct in saying at the Dispatch Box at this moment what advice my right hon. Friend might give to Her Majesty in Council. The Bill was sent to the Home Office under a covering letter dated 31st March and was, therefore, despatched by the Island Government on that day. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has not yet considered the Bill or what advice he might give upon it.

The hon. Member for Barking said one thing with which I am sure that we can all agree. He said that he was anxious not to detract from the independence of the Isle of Man. It is the independence of the Isle of Man which governs the constitutional position with which we are faced. Her Majesty's Government are not the Government of the Isle of Man. Her Majesty is, of course, the Queen of the Isle of Man, as she is of her other possessions.

The hon. Member for Barking referred to the Memorandum of Evidence given by the Home Office to the Commission on the constitutional relationship between the Isle of Man and the United Kingdom. He quoted from paragraph 12. It is also important to bear in mind paragraph 10 of the Memorandum, and I think that I should quote from it: The exercise of Parliament's power to legislate for the Isle of Man is now in practice restricted in the main to matters such as external defence, postal services, merchant shipping and aerial navigation which, in the words of the present Home Secretary, ' transcend the frontiers of the Island and are, therefore, conceived on a broader canvas '. A good recent example is the British Nationality Act, 1948. British nationality is common to the British peoples throughout the world, and thus not suitable to be dealt with by local legislation in a dependency. The Act accordingly applies to the Isle of Man. Even in these fields it is now more normal for Acts of Parliament not to apply directly to the Isle of Man but to contain a provision enabling them to be extended to the Island by Order in Council with exceptions, modifications and adaptations. This convenient procedure allows time for consultation with the Isle of Man Government about the precise terms of an Act's application to the Island. A point which I should stress by way of postcript to that quotation is that on those occasions on which Parliament has legislated for the Isle of Man we have done so only by agreement and with the consent of the Island Government and Parliament, which, as hon. Gentlemen may know, are so closely interwoven in their very unusual and ancient constitution.

The hon. Member for Barking, supported by his hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), attempted to overcome what I may describe as their constitutional difficulty by saying that the legislation of the Isle of Man should not be allowed to get out of step with the legislation of this Parliament. Perhaps the best comment that one can make upon that is one which has already appeared in an extremely wise and, so far as I am able to tell in the short time available to me, accurate leading article in The Times on 22nd March of this year.

Mr. Driberg

Is it the Isle of Man Times or The Times of London?

Mr. Renton

It is very strange. The quotation which I have is headed The Times, but it seems to be printed on paper which looks extremely like the Guardian paper. I will endeavour to ascertain exactly which journal it is. It should not be difficult. I have not been able to do so so far because I heard about this debate only a quarter of an hour before it started. For that reason, perhaps I shall be forgiven. This is the quotation, at any rate, referring to the Isle of Man: It enjoys by convention rather more independence from Westminster (though not from the Home Office) than Northern Ireland enjoys by the Act which gave it home rule. Manxmen are jealous of their privileges, which they have shown much perseverance in extending, and the House of Commons would be courting trouble if it sought to interfere, however worthy its intention. Therefore, whatever views hon. Members may have, and not all hold the same views about this matter, we must realise that there are domestic matters which are historically and constitutionally the essential and sole concern of the Parliament of the Isle of Man and are not the concern of this Parliament.

Mr. Driberg

When the hon. and learned Gentleman says "the sole concern", he is departing from the constitutional position as we had agreed it. He mentioned paragraph 12 in the Memorandum which I quoted. It is shown there that matters which have repercussions outside the island or raise questions of principle—which presumably his right hon. Friend considers this to be—are not the sole concern of the Island Parliament.

Mr. Renton

Ah, but the hon. Member will realise that in that passage of the evidence what is being discussed is not the function of our Parliament but the function of the Privy Council, and the question whether Her Majesty should be advised to give or withhold the Royal Assent. In view of the passage which the hon. Member has quoted, I must concede this much—that there would be certain occasions, and, indeed, there have been, and I have fairly recent precedents of three of them—

Mr. Driberg

What were they?

Mr. Renton

I will come to those in a moment. I have precedents of occasions when Her Majesty, on advice from the Privy Council, and in view, no doubt, of the advice given by the Home Secretary of the day, has refused consent to a Bill passed by the Isle of Man Tynwald. In other words, the point which the hon. Member makes, if it is a valid one, is much more a point for the Privy Council than it is for this Parliament.

I have not had time to consider the precedents which I have at hand. I have merely a note of them. They are these. There was an Isle of Man Bill on old-age, widows' and orphans' pensions. There was an Isle of Man Bill about the grading and marking of agricultural produce. That was returned to the Isle of Man by the Home Office for the correction of an error. Then there was the Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act, 1936, which was returned by the Privy Council office to the Home Office because the Law Officers in this country had advised the Home Secretary that it was not a Measure which could properly have retrospective effect. The Measure was returned by the Home Office to the Isle of Man for necessary amendment to be made in the Tynwald, and that was done.

The most recent example—and this is a fourth one—was the Douglas Corporation Electricity Bill, 1951. When the Bill was submitted to the Home Office with a request for the Royal Assent it was discovered to contain a provision which would enable the Corporation unilaterally to break its contract with holders of stock by suspending a sinking fund and deferring the paying of debentures. The Treasury felt that these were objectionable features of the Bill and the Corporation gave an undertaking under seal to the Treasurer of the Isle of Man that notwithstanding the Bill it would pay the stockholders. The Home Office drew attention to this when the Royal Assent was sought. However, the Privy Council Office consulted the Attorney-General here, who advised that Her Majesty could not properly be advised to approve a Bill containing an objectionable provision. The Isle of Man were informed of this, withdrew the Bill, and a revised Bill in an acceptable form was subsequently submitted and ratified.

In those various cases there were technical mistakes of one kind and another, and on each occasion the Royal Assent was withheld. In three out of the four cases, however, the mistakes were corrected, fresh or amended Bills were submitted, and received the Royal Assent. What the Privy Council does not appear to have done—as I say, I had only a quarter of an hour for research—is to look into the substance and merit of matters within the domestic jurisdiction of the Isle of Man, and said to themselves, "Well, our Parliament would not do this, therefore we shall advise Her Majesty to withhold her Assent". That has not been done, and it is what the hon. Member for Barking is really inviting the Privy Council to do. I do not think it can be done.

Naturally, I will invite the attention of my right hon. Friend to this debate, although I express no opinion as to whether he has any constitutional answer-ability to this House in the matter. That is the best information I can give the hon. Gentleman in the short time available.

Mr. Driberg

Thank you.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Five o'clock.