HC Deb 15 July 1966 vol 731 cc1897-903
The Minister of Defence for the Army (Mr. G. W. Reynolds)

I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in line 1, to leave out subsection (2) and to insert: (2) Where an order is made under subsection (1) of this section the occasion thereof shall forthwith be communicated to Parliament; and if Parliament is then separated by such adjournment or prorogation as will not expire within five days, a proclamation shall be issued for the meeting of Parliament within five days, and Parliament shall accordingly meet and sit upon the day appointed by the proclamation, and shall continue to sit and act in like manner as if it had stood adjourned or prorogued to the same day.

Mr. Speaker

With this Amendment the House will discuss the Amendment to it, in the name of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), to leave out "occasion" and to insert "making".

Mr. Reynolds

Almost all the Government Amendments on the Order Paper arise from points made in Committee. This is rather different from many of the others. Usually in Committee the Opposition try to bring in an argument that Parliament should have greater control over decisions, and in Committee there was discussion as to the ways and means by which it would be possible to inform Parliament of any action taken under these provisions to call out the Reserves. But though some arguments were designed to strengthen Parliamentary control, the further we got into the discussion the more difficult we realised that would be, because of the extreme difficulty of spelling out exactly what would happen. As the Clause is at present drafted, it means that Parliament in certain circumstances would have to be informed before the Order was made. The expression used is "Parliament", and immediately we have the problem whether that means both Houses of Parliament sitting or whether it means only one House sitting at any time. There could be different points of view.

Another difficulty, which has arisen since our discussions in Standing Committee, is that if one has to inform Parliament before the Order is made, exactly at what stage is the Order made? I am advised that an Order would be made once the Queen had signified her assent to it even though the Secretary of State had not put his signature upon the paper. Clearly, we could not go before Parliament with the Order before approaching the Queen for her consent. That is another difficulty which has arisen since our discussions in Standing Committee.

What we now propose is to put into the Bill provisions which unfortunately the House experienced in the last few weeks when the proclamation of emergency was made. Action has been taken on these lines in the last few weeks and, having looked at it, we feel that this is the best way of dealing with the problem now that it has been drawn to our attention. It will mean that the Order will be made and Parliament will be informed forthwith if Parliament is sitting. If one House is sitting, it will be informed, and the other House will be informed on the next occasion that it meets. We have made provision, if Parliament is not sitting, for Parliament to be recalled by proclamation within five days of making the Order. The original Bill provided a period of ten days, but there was some objection to that, and with modern communications it seems that five days is adequate time for the recall of Parliament. This fits in with the procedure which was followed during the last two or three weeks in the emergency.

This is a matter which arises from our discussions in Committee and I hope that it meets the point which was then raised, although I am sorry that it meets the point in a different way from that which some hon. Members thought. I hope that hon. Members will accept this method, which has been used in the last few weeks and which will make sure that whichever House is sitting is informed forthwith once the decision is taken—or that Parliament is recalled within a period of five days to be informed of an occasion which necessitated the call-out of the Reserves.

11.15 a.m.

Mr. Powell

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I have selected the Amendment to the proposed Amendment for discussion, but it will not be moved.

Mr. Powell

I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. In fact it would be more convenient if I could make in one speech the three points which I wish to make upon the Minister's Amendment. As the Minister said, the normal activity of an Opposition is directed to ensuring that Parliamentary scrutiny of the Government's acts is preserved and widened and our debates in Committee on this point were an apparent exception to that general rule. They were, however, only an apparent exception and they conformed to another rule. They were an apparent exception because everyone knows that in the event of an Order of this kind being made, it is the general support for it which any Government would have to have from Parliament that is the control upon the executive, and we are concerned therefore, in getting the right wording here—not with the control of Parliament over the executive which would have to be exercised in such a case but in ensuring that we put on the Statute Book words which are intelligible injunctions to the executive, which it is practicable to carry out, and terminology which as far as possible is unambiguous.

Our debates in Committee brought out the fact that the new form of drafting which the Government originally brought forward in Clause 5 was defective in a number of respects, and I think that we can therefore claim that the work done in Committee was useful. I am sure that the Government are now right in adopting the much simpler approach which is embodied in the Minister's Amendment. I should like to put forward three points in connection with it for consideration at subsequent stages of the Bill because, unless it is your intention, Mr. Speaker, to certify this as a money Bill, we shall fortunately have the opportunity at subsequent stages to have further thought and to make further improvements.

The first point to which I would draw attention concerns the word "forthwith" in line 2 of the new subsection. I take it that this word which, incidentally, by a later Amendment No. 11, is being substituted for the words "as soon as may be", is intended to mean and will mean that at the first opportunity after the making of the Order there shall be a communication of the fact to Parliament and that consequently in the case of Parliament not being adjourned or prorogued but being dissolved, and there being no Parliament, the force of the word "forthwith" would be that as soon as a Parliament came into existence again it would be the duty of the Government to inform Parliament of the Order.

My second point is to draw attention to the word "expire" in line 3. It may be that there is precedent for use of the word "expire" in connection with Prorogation. I have not been able myself to make research into this matter, but I ask the Minister to check it before the Bill goes to subsequent stages because, whereas expiry is a natural and proper notion in relation to an Adjournment which implies absence for a period of time, it is difficult to see how "expire" can properly be anplied to Prorogation, which is an act of the Crown. I ask the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, to check whether there is already precedent for application of the word "expire" to Prorogation and, if not, whether he will consider whether some other formula would be appropriate.

Third, there is the point to which our Amendment refers. At an earlier stage, the Minister drew attention to the inconvenience, or possible inconvenience, which the use of the word "occasion" in this context in earlier legislation such as the Reserve Forces Acts of 1950 might involve, namely, that the Government would have to spell out to Parliament the precise nature of the occasion which involved the making of the Order and that this would mean either that there would be a trivial formality, a purely formal use of words, or that the Government might find that they had to say things which were inconvenient or embarrassing in the international situation.

I should have thought that, if we were looking at this question again, we need not import the difficulties which were believed to inhere in the word "occasion". Clearly, if such an Order were made, it would he within the right of either House of Parliament to stage a debate upon it. The parties would be guided by the nature of the political situation at the time, and any patriotic Opposition would nit wish to embarrass the Government in a national emergency by forcing a debate which might result in things having to be said publicly which were better not said publicly at that stage.

It seems to me that, by using the word "occasion", we still land ourselves in the old potential difficulty and that the Minister might go further in simplification by using the term "the making thereof", "the fact of the making thereof", or some other formula instead.

Mr. Reynolds

On the first point, I assure the House that "forthwith" does mean as soon as it can possibly be done, when the House is sitting or when it is recalled under the provisions of the Amendment. As I said earlier, the word "forthwith" is used here because we are following the precedent of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, in which the word "forthwith" and, later, the word "occasion" are actually used, and we thought it desirable to adopt a formula which has been tried and used on several occasions. It is known to work well. There is a slightly different point regarding the word "occasion", and I shall come to that in a moment, but the word "forthwith" here is based upon that successful precedent. It means as soon as may be, as soon as we can bring the matter before the Houses of Parliament when they are sitting.

As regards the word "expire", we are again trying to carry forward here the provisions of the 1920 Act, but I shall check the point raised by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) to make sure that it is all right.

The position is the same regarding the word "occasion". It follows the 1920 Act. There could be the difficulties mention by the right hon. Gentleman in the calling up of Reserves and not wanting to give too much public information, but there is now a slightly different consideration compared with what we were discussing in Committee. In Committee, we were thinking of the House being informed before the Order was made. This would give very little time to formulate a proper report on the occasion. Now, however, the House is to be informed after the Order has been made, which will give a longer period, perhaps only hours on some occasions but several days on others, for the preparation of a report.

Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware from newspaper and other reports that the Order has been made, and they will probably be aware from the same sources of what the occasion is. But the Government will be given an opportunity to express in their own form of words what the occasion is. I think that it can be done without giving information which ought not to be given, and we think it better to use the formula in the 1920 Act than to try to alter it for this particular type of action.

Mr. R. H. Turton (Thirsk and Malton)

The Minister's explanation regarding the word "occasion" is not very satisfactory. This is, of course, an escape from the muddle in which he was put before. First of all, he put down a form of words about informing Parliament which he had to agree, did not make sense. This suggestion was to try to provide for the proposal before the Cabinet to be communicated to the House rather than the occasion as referred to in the 1950 Act. I agree that he has now improved the Clause tremendously because it did not make sense before, but he has gone back to the word "occasion".

I am not convinced by his argument that, after all, everyone would know about the calling up, it would be in all the newspapers, and so on. This is the very thing which the subsection is designed to avoid. Parliament should be told first. That is our right, and that is why we have the word "forthwith". If Parliament is told first, the occasion will not be generally known. We want Parliament to be told not of the occasion but of the making of the Order.

I appreciate the difficulties at the Report stage, and I hope that the Minister will look at the matter again. We want it right. He has undoubtedly improved the Clause a great deal, but going back to the 1950 Act and using the word "occasion" is not an improvement.

Amendment agreed to.