HC Deb 19 June 1961 vol 642 cc933-5
9. Mr. C. Johnson

asked the Lord Privy Seal in what circumstances and for what purpose it became necessary to make the Kuwait (Repealing) Order, 1961, laid before Parliament on 1st June, 1961, terminating Her Majesty's jurisdiction within the territories of the Ruler of Kuwait, soon after arrangements for the exercise of such jurisdiction had been made by the Kuwait Orders of 1959 and 1960.

Mr. Heath

The Kuwait (Repealing) Order, 1961, became necessary because the process of transferring jurisdiction to the Ruler has now been completed. The final Queen's Regulation transferring jurisdiction was made on 1st April, 1961.

Mr. Johnson

Is the Lard Privy Seal aware that the Repealing Order has caused a great deal of concern in Kuwait, particularly since it does not seem to have been made at the request of the Ruler? Why was it necessary to terminate the existing jurisdiction so early as 1st July?

Mr. Heath

The hon. Gentleman has a Question down about the latter part of his supplementary question. This policy has been going on since 1959—there were the two Orders of 1959 and 1960—and, of course, it has been done in the closest co-operation with the Ruler as part of the general transference of jurisdiction.

10. Mr. C. Johnson

asked the Lord Privy Seal whether any prior consultation took place with the judges, officials and lawyers practising in the British Courts referred to in the Kuwait (Repealing) Order, 1961, laid before Parliament on 1st June 1961, before the making of the Order; and why no provisions have been made in respect of pending or part-heard cases and for the preservation and protection of the rights of British and British-protected litigants.

Mr. Heath

The Kuwait (Repealing) Order, 1961, was the natural outcome of the Kuwait (Amendment) Order, 1960, prior to which the judges of the courts were consulted. The 1960 Order and subsequent Queen's Regulations providing for the transfer of jurisdiction made the intention of Her Majesty's Government clear to all persons, including lawyers practising in the British Courts The final Transfer Regulation of 1st April, 1961, provided that outstanding cases would continue to be heard by Her Majesty's courts. The Repealing Order Gives notice that the courts will close on 1st July. I am assured that the period of three months which has thus been allowed is sufficient for the cases outstanding on 1st April to be cleared in accordance with the normal procedure.

Mr. Johnson

I accept that transfer of jurisdiction was inevitable, but can the right hon. Gentleman give any reason why specific protection should not have been given to pending and part-heard cases and, in particular, to appeals now before the British courts? Is he aware that there is a substantial backlog of cases in the Kuwaiti courts and the result of the Order is likely to be interminable delay in pending cases since they will be heard under different jurisdiction operating under a different legal procedure and probably with a different substantive law, apart from the fact that all the documents in any case will have to be translated into Arabic? Does the Lord Privy Seal regard that as satisfactory?

Mr. Heath

We were advised that the period of three months between 1st April on which the transfer was made and the closing of the courts on 1st July would permit time for these cases to be disposed of. Since the Order was made, we have heard that it is possible that one case will not be concluded by 1st July. We have complete confidence that it can thereafter be dealt with by the Kuwaiti courts.

Mr. Fletcher

Will not the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter again? While there is no possible objection in principle to the making of these orders, and handing over jurisdiction to the courts of Kuwait, is he aware that there is considerable protest at the speed with which it is being done, and the failure to protect those litigants who have commenced proceedings in the British courts and cannot get them completed in the time allowed? The time allowed by the Order is unreasonably short. Will he not look into it again?

Mr. Heath

As I said, we have had one case brought to our attention. However, if there are other cases which the hon. Gentleman would like me to consider, I will be glad to look into them.

Mr. Johnson

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.