CITATION, EXTENT AND COMMENCEMENT (Hansard, 17 August 1991)

§ Mr. Fraser
May I ask the Solicitor-General a question about subsection (3) of clause 2, which reads: This Act shall come into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which it is passed. If the Bill intends that the law should be what everyone understood it to be, why the interval of two months? For a period of two months, foreign corporations that thought that they were foreign corporations before the Bill was introduced will no longer be foreign corporations. They will have a ghostly existence. Then they will return to the 436 existence that people thought that they had before this legislation was set in train. I cannot understand why it is necessary to have a gap of two months. Would not it be sensible to table a manuscript amendment on Report to delete subsection (3) from clause 2?

§ Mr. Harry Barnes
First, I should like to point out to the Solicitor-General that I have been here for the entire proceedings and that the reason why I made the comments that I did during the stand part debate was issues raised during the Second Reading debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). He alerted me to various issues which were wholly in order with reference to clause 1(3). I should have been brought to order if my comments had been irrelevant.
Clause 2(2) extends the Bill's provisions to Northern Ireland and I should like an explanation of that. Northern Ireland is usually dealt with in a very peculiar way in the House. It is usually dealt with by Orders in Council and Northern Ireland Ministers are brought in. Under normal circumstances, clause 2 would have said that the Bill did not extend to Northern Ireland and an Order in Council would have been made at a later stage. For example, the issue could have been dealt with by the Northern Ireland Committee in which during a recent debate on electricity privatisation the Government were defeated by 17 votes to 12. That would have given an opportunity for a fuller debate and for deeper consideration of the Bill as it affects Northern Ireland.
I realise that Northern Ireland Members have had the opportunity through the procedures of the House to table an amendment to clause 2(2) and also to raise the matter now if they are discontented. I believe that at least three Northern Ireland Members voted in support of clause 1, so I presume that they find little wrong with the measures as they affect Northern Ireland. The problem sometimes arises that hon. Members are alerted to matters by coming to the Chamber and listening to other hon. Members—as I did to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South —and then becoming interested in the debate and aware of the possibilities. That has not occurred in this case with regard to Northern Ireland Members but that is not necessarily something for which to criticise them as there is a host of measures sweeping its way through the House.

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
More often than not legislation contains a regulation-making power which extends it to Northern Ireland. Often that regulation-making power extends to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. Can my hon. Friend explain how the Bill will be extended to such areas within the territorial waters of the United Kingdom and whether the Bill contains a regulatory power to allow the Bill to be extended in that way?

§ Mr. Barnes
That is an appropriate question which I am sure the Solicitor-General will answer because we are discussing the Bill's application to tax havens. Therefore, the question whether the powers will apply to those areas is of considerable significance. Indeed, it might be one of the most important considerations in tonight's debate, although some important measures have already been discussed.
The Bill emerged from another place where there are a number of peers who previously represented Northern Irish constituencies in the House. I do not know whether at any stage there was an input in another place regarding Northern Ireland, but this is the first mention of the Bill's 437 extension to Northern Ireland during tonight's debate. I can see that there may be some arguments in favour of such an extension and in favour of our talking about a United Kingdom measure rather than about a Great Britain measure because some of the corporations concerned may operate within both areas.
It would also be interesting to know whether the legislation fits in with legislation in other countries. It is the general practice that the law operates in such a way that, even if states are not recognised, the corporations that operate there will be. That may have particular relevance to the position in Northern Ireland. The legislation in Ireland may have a connection with the Bill. Indeed, this might be a matter for the Anglo-Irish Agreement and may have already been discussed through such avenues. No Northern Ireland Minister is present tonight, but I am sure that the Solicitor-General will take up those points.

§ The Solicitor-General
The Bill is receiving diligent scrutiny and I am happy to answer the questions. I apologise to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes). I am sorry that I did not notice him in the Chamber and I am glad to have been able to have answered his questions twice.
As the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) may recall from his days as a Minister, two months is the normal period for the coming into effect of a Bill. However, the hon. Gentleman has a good point in that as the Bill is retrospective for the reasons discussed, there will be a ghost period in which we wait for it to come into force and then say that it has always been in force. It does no harm. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, the notion of the two-month period, which I sometimes think is rather unnecessary—but such settled conventions last a long time—is to allow the knowledge of the Bill to go round the United Kingdom before it comes into force.

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
Does the Solicitor-General accept that for a long time legislation came into force on Royal Assent? The practice of it coming into force later came when so much was done by secondary legislation, with the consequent need to prepare regulations. Surely if the legislation is to come into effect without having to have secondary legislation, there is no reason why there should be a two-month delay from Royal Assent. The fact that the legislation applies would be more likely to get publicity with Royal Assent than it would two months later, when people have lost track of it.

§ The Solicitor-General
As so often, the hon. Gentleman makes points with which one is inclined to agree. This is a matter of convention. There are arguments both ways, and he has put the other argument. I understand it.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East asked about Northern Ireland. He asked whether the legislation could not be introduced through the other method. The answer is that we are dealing with commercial relationships which were believed to be well established and are to be put back into the position in which they are as though they had always been well established. Consequently, it is unnecessary to leave it to a further legislative process. There is no dispute in the Committee that that is a wise thing to do, so the idea that it should be done under the one trouble is sensible.
Points were made about other countries. Other countries may have to meet the problem if they have 438 common law systems. Australia has already met the problem and has legislated in a similar way. I hope that that is illuminating.

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
I had hoped that there would be a brief mention of the position of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. The way in which British legislation applies to those areas is complicated. As I understand it, more often than not it is applied through a regulating power, or on the face of the legislation. As we suffer somewhat from corporate bodies operating from the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, the matter needs to be clear. Will the Solicitor-General clarify whether the legislation will apply to the Isle of Man and to the Channel Islands? If it will not apply, why is it not necessary for it to do so?

§ Mr. Cryer
The Solicitor-General's response on the question of allowing two months before the Act comes into force is not adequate. On that basis, just because of a convention the delay could last months and months—not just two months, but six months. The Government would not mind because the retrospective provision would fill the gap. It is extraordinary that we are legislating on the basis that, as the Solicitor-General explained in his Second Reading speech, the Bill is necessary to clarify the legal position. Indeed, we are rushing through all the stages of the Bill tonight. There will be no mature consideration. We are having Second Reading, Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading in one evening, along with several other Bills. That is an abuse of the House.

§ Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield)
They want to nod it through.

§ Mr. Cryer
As my hon. Friend says, the Government are disgruntled because my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and our Back Benchers are giving the Bill a searching examination. The Government had cleared the decks for a June election, but now that they are sinking in the opinion polls they have put off the election and are finding bits and bats of legislation that should have been carried out on a planned basis. They are having to trample on parliamentary rights with a junior Law Officer's jackbooted heel to force that legislation through. It is not good enough.
The Solicitor-General's response is unsatisfactory. He said that the Bill was vital and urgently needed because the legal position was unclear. Given that, it is extraordinary that clause 2(3) allows two months' delay, apparently for the information to circulate. The Solicitor-General said that the two months was stipulated in order to allow people to find out about the Bill. How many companies will be involved? How many quasi-states are there which are not recognised by this country? Surely we should have some idea. Will there be 20 letters, 30 letters or 100 letters? Will the details be published in the London Gazette? That will not take two months. Indeed, the retrospective element shrewdly pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood means that it will not matter whether the Government are efficient. The retrospective legislation will sweep it all through, no matter what period is specified.

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett
My hon. Friend is the distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on 439 Statutory Instruments, so he will be aware that one of the principles always put forward by that Committee is that, whenever possible, one should be able to find out what is happening by studying what appears on the face of legislation, whether primary or secondary. If the Bill was not to take effect from Royal Assent, would it not have been better if the Government had specified a date? Then, whoever picked up the Act could read that it would come into force on 1 September or 1 October, rather than having to check the parliamentary record to find out when it had received Royal Assent and then add two months to that date.

§ Mr. Cryer
My hon. Friend is right. The timing is not clear. Often we do not know when Bills receive Royal Assent. At some stage, Mr. Speaker reads out a list of Bills that have received Royal Assent on a certain day, and that list is included in Hansard. That does not make the timing clear. People have to look up the date in Hansard and calculate two months from that date. Furthermore, the index to Hansard is not published for several weeks, if not several months, after the publication of the weekly edition. Almost certainly, by the time the index is published so that people will easily be able to look up the date of Royal Assent, the two months will have passed. The notion that two months' delay will give an easy opportunity for publicity is not true. People will not easily be able to find out the date of Royal Assent and calculate from that the date on which the Bill will come into operation. The procedure is curious; my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has made a good point.

§ Mr. Skinner
Does my hon. Friend want to speculate on whether there is a connection between the fact that the Bill will not come into force until two months after the date on which it is passed and a possible impending general election? Has this been done deliberately? Do the Government have plans afoot? After we pack in here on 25 July, they will have two months in which to put out their propaganda in the Tory media, and there will be no opposition in Parliament because Parliament will not be sitting. Is it not just conceivable that there is a connection with an early election? Does my hon. Friend have a comment to make on that?

§ Mr. Cryer
The Bill may give some sort of status and legal personality to a number of dubious organisations that are about to erupt in scandal. Perhaps the Government want to be able to say, if that happens, that the Bill is not yet law because they were deliberately allowing a breathing space to that they could weed out such organisations. Of course, that is highly speculative and I would not want to go too far down that road.
If the Minister wants to allow an opportunity for publicity as opposed to simply following the convention it would have been far better to issue a one-sheet statutory instrument saying that the Act, as it will then be, comes into force on a certain date. Such a document would be obtainable from HMSO and would be listed in the index of statutory instruments. People would know where to look for it, and the position would be clear and unequivocal. Not even this Government could charge a substantial sum for one sheet of paper; indeed, I should have thought that they could issue such a document free of 440 charge. Under the terms of general primary legislation giving that authority to Ministers, such statutory instruments do not even have to be laid before Parliament; they can simply be issued.
If the Minister is serious about informing people about the Bill—incidentally, I am all for legislation, both primary and secondary, being known of and understood, and all for the date at which it will start to operate being made clear—that is the course that he should take. I do not think that the route that he has chosen in clause 2 is satisfactory.

§ The Solicitor-General
It is nice to be able to give what I think will be a thoroughly helpful answer to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer). This may have escaped his attention, but there will not be too much difficulty, when he buys his copy of the Act, in knowing the date from which the two months run because the date of Royal Assent is on the front of the printed Act.
In answer to the question that the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) asked about the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, they are not covered because they are not in the United Kingdom.

§ Mr. Haynes
I think that there is a bit of a fiddle going on here. That is why the Opposition need to scrutinise the Bill. It is all right for the Solicitor-General: when he stands up at the Dispatch Box, he represents the Government. Irrespective of all the arguments advanced by my hon. Friends tonight, he is the Government here tonight, and he knows exactly what is going on.
There is another point about this. Look at the Conservative Benches. That is where the decisions are made—over on that side of the House, not here. We are the Opposition and we have to scrutinise legislation such as this. If we had not had a proper Committee stage, that lot over there would have just slipped it all through and nobody would have been any the wiser. The fact that the Opposition have challenged the Bill—particularly this clause and the previous one—means that we are now getting to know what is all about. What disturbs me is that when the Division is called, Conservative Members will come out of the woodwork or from the dinner table and go into the Lobby without knowing what they are voting for. That is what we are saying.

§ Mr. Skinner
When I came into the House earlier, I saw gangs of Tory Members outside the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre. There were also about 20 cameras there and the Tory Members were clamouring and queuing, waiting to say what a wonderful conference the economic summit has been. They wanted to say what had been agreed previously—all those bland statements about apple pie and motherhood. That is why they are not in the Chamber. They do not care about democracy or about this place. All they are worried about is trying to get on the box to say that their grey Prime Minister has been able to chair a meeting—big deal. That is what they are up to and why they are not in here. But they will come in when there is a vote—which there will have to be—and the Tory Whips will be on the door, kicking them in, saying, "Get in here and vote for the Tory party"—and they call it democracy.

§ The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Paul Dean)
I am sure that when the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) replies to that intervention he will remember that we are debating clause 2 stand part.

§ Mr. Haynes
I am surprised that you said that to me, Sir Paul. You know me, Sir Paul, and I know you. I have never abused the Chair yet. I would admit to it if this were the first time that I was abusing the Chair; but I am not, so I am surprised at you rising to challenge me in that way. I do not travel the road that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is travelling tonight, although I agree with most of what he said. He made a first-class speech on retrospection before you took the Chair, Sir Paul. But this is a different ball game and I am seizing my opportunity because I have seen what is happening tonight and it happens far too often.

§ Dr. Godman
Clause 2(2) states that the Act extends to Northern Ireland. As a Scottish Member, I think that it should read, "This Act extends to Scotland" also. I asked the Solicitor-General a question about this earlier. It is important in any Act that due consideration is given to the status of Scottish law.

§ Mr. Haynes
I gave way to my hon. Friend many times in the Standing Committee that considered another Bill that also involved the Solicitor-General. I would give way any time to my hon. Friend because he is always bothered about the Scottish end of things. He is right—I did not hear the Solicitor-General mention Scotland, but, having heard my hon. Friend's intervention, perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will rise to put him in the picture.

§ Dr. Godman
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, with his characteristic courtesy, gave me the assurance earlier that the Bill, and especially its concept of legal personality, is wholly admissible in the Court of Session —in other words, in Scottish law.

§ Mr. Haynes
I do not understand my hon. Friend because he always talks about the Solicitor-General like that—he is always saying nice things about him. I do not understand it because some of the things that the Solicitor-General does on behalf of the Government are awful, wicked things—and this is one tonight. There is no doubt about it. People outside do not know exactly what is going on in relation to clause 2, which is why we are having this debate to scrutinise the provisions properly—

§ Mr. Skinner
rose—

§ Mr. Haynes
Here comes my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover. I had better give way to him.

§ Mr. Skinner
I have got an idea—[HON. MEMBERS: "No".] Perhaps it would be a good idea in June or mid-summer to transfer our debates on to the Terrace, which is where they are all boozing. Before I entered the Chamber, I did a check and there are about 200 Tory Members out there. They talk about speaking to the masses. We have about five or six Tory Back-Bench Members here in the Chamber. Quite a number of our people are here but others are engaged on different issues. Many Tory Members are down on the Terrace.
9.45 pm
We should put it to the appropriate Committee that the House of Commons Chamber should be shifted on to the Terrace. The debate there might be different. We could have semi-drunk people joining in. We could have television too. The whole thing could be a sort of elongated 442 "Spitting Image". When I think about it, there is a whole range of possibilities. Round about June, when the weather changes, we could shift the debate to the Terrace.
Of course, the Speaker's House is on the end of the Terrace. So he would not need to bother about being in the Chair. He could poke his head out of his first-floor window and be in charge of the proceedings. It has endless possibilities. All those who want to booze could booze at the same time as they reckon to be listening to speeches. They could have a bookie's run because the Tories have a bookie's runner. They could take bets.
Then the boats would come by and every so often we could change places. Just think of it. Obviously, no one has thought about it before. When the proceedings on Bills go late into the night, we could have all-night sittings on the Terrace. It is not for me, but obviously many people prefer the Terrace to coming here.

§ Mr. Haynes
I shall not travel down that road, Sir Paul. One thing is for sure. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover has let me know where all the Tories are. They are out there on the Terrace when they should be in here. If Mr. Speaker poked his head out of the first-floor window, he would see them all there instead of in here. I hope that he takes that into consideration when he calls Members in the Chamber. They are swanning around out there instead of being in here.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover makes a good point. He could not stop himself laughing when he was making it, but it is important and it is true.

§ Dr. Godman
When I referred to the clause and its failure to mention Scotland, I paid a compliment to the Solicitor-General. I took exception to my hon. Friend's response to my remarks about the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has a comprehensive knowledge of Scots law. When I put questions to him about Scots law, I always receive a reasonable answer. I am anxious to put the record straight with regard to my hon. Friend's response.

§ Mr. Haynes
Here we go, a bit more flannel for the Solicitor-General.

§ Dr. Godman
It is not flannel.

§ Mr. Haynes
It is. I want to make another point now. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is representing the Government. He is introducing a Bill in this House on behalf of the United Kingdom. He has not said that he is not doing it for Scotland. He is doing it for the United Kingdom in this place. My hon. Friend is challenging the Solicitor-General, if my hon. Friend only realises it.

§ Dr. Godman
Will my hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Haynes
Wait a minute. I have not finished yet. There is something else that I want to say. I remember when my hon. Friend was a real disciplinarian. I suggest that he is needed on the other side of the House to discipline that lot. He is an ex-red-cap. You know what a red-cap is, Sir Paul. He is a real disciplinarian. I have seen him in action. He appears to be nice and gentle in this place but I have seen him on the other job. He can be really vicious. We talk about the glasshouse and that kind of thing. That is where they had red-caps. But the point is that he is taking me away from my drift. I did not want to abuse the Chair.

§ Dr. Godman
Will my hon. Friend give way?

§ Mr. Haynes
He is at it again.

§ Dr. Godman
May I point out to the youthful hon. Gentlemen in this House who have not done national service that a red-cap is someone serving with the corps of Royal Military police?

§ Mr. Haynes
I think that hon. Gentlemen knew that.

§ Dr. Godman
I am sure that they did not. The Royal Military police is made up of a fine group of people—decent, honourable and fair-minded. My question to my hon. Friend has nothing to do with the Royal Military police and the fact that I may or may not have put people into the glasshouse once upon a time. I have to put these questions to the Solicitor-General because we do not have his equivalent legal representative from the Scottish Office on the Government Front Bench. Occasionally, I have to ask him questions, as I have done on clause 2. We do not have a Law Officer sitting on the Treasury Bench representing the Scottish Office. That is a matter for serious regret.

§ Mr. Haynes
My hon. Friend is correct, but the Solicitor-General is not in a great hurry to answer the point. I would give way to him willingly if he was prepared to answer the question. I remember all the questions that my hon. Friend asked him upstairs on the Children Bill, and the Solicitor-General answered them all. My hon. Friend was right to put them on behalf of Scotland. Today, it seems that the Solicitor-General is not prepared to come to the Dispatch Box to answer my hon. Friend's questions.

§ Mr. Martin Redmond (Don Valley)
rose—

§ Mr. Haynes
Now my hon. Friend is at it. I give way.

§ Mr. Redmond
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am having a little difficulty following his drift, as it varies. It may well be that Scotland is not mentioned in the Bill because we are getting used to the idea that Scotland will drift away from England. The parliamentary draftsmen could well have started introducing legislation which will not need to be altered when Scotland gets devolution. The Government may well intend to spring that surprise on us. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will provide clarification.
Will my hon. Friend comment on the issue of retrospection? I am a relatively new lad in parliamentary terms and one seeks knowledge all the time. Perhaps the Solicitor-General could comment on this, but I understand that there is great difficulty with retrospective legislation. I thought that implementation had to be from the date on which legislation became law and, obviously, got Royal Assent. I can think of many instances in the past when —[Interruption.] I am sorry, Sir Paul, I thought that you were calling me to order.

The First Deputy Chairman
Order. I am so sorry, I did not intend to interrupt the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Redmond
I am so grateful, Sir Paul. Retrospection is important, especially when it brings benefits to the general public. When a glaring anomaly arises we are always told that retrospection cannot apply and that we must wait for legislation before it can be put right and benefit can be given, yet this is retrospective legislation. I have listened carefully to the comments made. Perhaps my 444 hon. Friend, from his great experience of the House, can tell us why it is important to include retrospection in this case when the Government have refused to do so in the past in respect of other cases.

§ Mr. Haynes
I get the drift of my hon. Friend's question. My hon. Friend also witnessed how nice Sir Paul can be when he made his mistake just now. My hon. Friend must realise that the Government are at it again. They are looking after their friends—this is what it is all about. They want to introduce legislation that will enable them to go back to help their friends who pour money into the coffers of the Conservative party. It is retrospection in their interests—that is what it is all about.

§ Mr. Redmond
rose—

§ Mr. Hayes
I am trying to answer my hon. Friend's question.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover made a first-class speech on retrospection that my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) probably missed. He made it clear how the Government were looking after their rich Conservative friends at the expense of the ordinary working-class folk of this nation. My hon. Friend made a first-class contribution and I hung on every word he said. His speech is my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley and I am sorry that he missed it.

§ Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)
My hon. Friend knows that I do not intervene often, but I believe that he has done a grave injustice to the Solicitor-General. I do not believe that my hon. Friend has taken into account that the Solicitor-General is probably grossly overworked. I do not want to do the right hon. and learned Gentleman an injustice, but there are only 10 Tory Members in the whole of Scotland. That is 10 out of 73 hon. Members. Instead of the Scots having their own Solicitor-General or equivalent advocate, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, poor man, is having to do two jobs. He must act as Solicitor-General in England and take on the equivalent post on someone's behalf in Scotland because the Tories just do not have enough Members in that country. My hon. Friend should take into account that after the next general election there probably will not even be those 10 Tories left.

§ Mr. Haynes
My hon. Friend is quite correct. However, he must realise that the Solicitor-General was party to what happened in Scotland in the general election when they lost those Conservative seats. He supported the policy that they fought in that election and he was party to the campaign document. It is his own fault if he is having to do two jobs at the same time. However, my hon. Friend was right to raise that point.

§ Mr. Skinner
The Minister for Sport has just come in.

§ Mr. Hayes
Well, that makes a difference, but he is outside the Chamber as far as I can judge. He is on the other side of Sir Paul.

§ Mr. Redmond
I asked my hon. Friend about retrospection in view of his great experience. Can he enlighten me why it is so desperately important in this legislation when the Government have argued in the past that retrospection cannot apply because it is not the sort of thing that one does? They have argued that one can legislate for the future only, not the past.
445 We used to have a different name for red-caps when I was in the Army and it was not as complimentary. The Government could be seeking to introduce this alteration to stop a trickle turning into a flood. After all, Lord King has announced that he is going to stop contributing to the Conservative party. This legislation may seek to rectify the balance. I hope that my hon. Friend can give me the benefit of his great experience and enlighten me as to why retrospection needs to apply in this case.

§ Mr. Haynes
I have two things to say to my hon. Friend. First, on clause 1 we had a full debate on retrospection, but we were never given a satisfactory answer at the Dispatch Box. Secondly, as I said at the beginning of my contribution on this clause, the Government are rushing the Bill through in the interests of their friends. Indeed, they wanted to nod it through without a debate. We have forced them to debate it because we want to scrutinise it properly so that people understand what is going on.

§ Mr. Redmond
I apologise for the fact that I was not here at the beginning of this debate. I can be in only one place at a time and I had previous meetings, but I am pleased that I have joined the debate. Given the tributes that have been paid to the Solicitor-General, by an hon. Member who was a red-cap, I am concerned—