SHORT TITLE, EXTENT ETC. (Hansard, 29 June 1993)

HC Deb 29 June 1993 vol 227 cc926-31 926

§ Amendments made: No. 19, in page 84, line 4, after '23,' insert

§ '( Appeal against order forfeiting drug trafficking cash),'.

§ No. 20, in page 84, line 4, after '71,' insert

§ '( Power to extend certain offences to Crown servants and to exempt regulators etc.),'.

§ No. 21, in page 84, line 5, at end insert—

§ 'paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of Schedule ( Extensions and exemptions).'.

§ No. 22, in page 84, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 and insert—

§ '(3) The following provisions of this Act extend only to Great Britain—

§ sections 13(9) to (11), 21(3)(e), 24(2), (3) and (7) to (10), 28 to 31, 33(1), 34, 66(1) and 72; and

§ paragraph 3 of Schedule ( Extensions and exemptions).

§ (4) The following provisions of this Act extend only to Scotland—

§ sections 17, 19, 20(2), 21(3)(c) and (d), 22(2), 24(12) to (15), 25(2), 32, 67, 68, 74 and 75; and

§ paragraph 2 of Schedule (Extensions and exemptions ).'.

§ No. 23, in page 84, line 15, leave out from '43' to 'extend'.

§ No. 24, in page 84, line 17, at end insert—

§ '( ) The provisions of Schedules 4 and 5 have the same extent as the provisions on which they operate.'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

§ Mr. Trimble
I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 84, line 30, leave out from 'period' to end of line 36 and insert 'containing provisions corresponding to part I and sections 16, 18, and 28 to 31, shall be laid before each House of Parliament within a period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.'. This is a simple amendment, and it would be a simple job. This is a funny Bill. It contains a range of provisions, some of which apply directly to Northern Ireland. I am delighted to see pass through the House primary legislation which applies to Northern Ireland, as it gives Northern Ireland Members an opportunity on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report to participate in the debate.
Although that aspect of the Bill is commendable, there is also a hangover from the bad system of legislating for Northern Ireland, because there are provisions for Orders in Council. Worse than that: we have provisions for an Order in Council under what my right and hon. Friends call the theft clause. We call it that because it was first used in a theft Bill. It is appropriate to call it a theft clause, because it steals from us even that little fragment of parliamentary procedure that the direct rule regime allows to us. When Orders in Council are proposed and debated in the normal way, we have an opportunity to contribute in a discussion that is sometimes limited to 90 minutes, without the opportunity to amend. However, at least there is a little discussion. Clause 77(11) is what we call the theft clause. It provides that equivalent legislation to part of the Bill can be made for Northern Ireland by Order in Council, subject to negative resolution. Therefore, it deprives us of the opportunity of any debate on the issue.
I know that, with the negative resolution procedure, there is the theoretical possibility of gaining sufficient support to have a debate. That is only a theoretical possibility and for Northern Ireland Members there is no substance in it. Therefore, authorising the negative 927 resolution procedure is saying that Northern Ireland Members will not be allowed an opportunity to discuss legislation for Northern Ireland.
Why is it in the Bill? It already makes substantial provision for Northern Ireland and additional provisions for Northern Ireland were included in Committee. The theft clause applies to merely half a dozen clauses. It does not make sense.
The amendment would require an affirmative resolution procedure in the normal way. That would at least be an improvement on the situation, but it would still be open to all the objections that we have to the Order in Council procedure. The amendment does two further things. The clause mentions provisions that correspond to drug trafficking legislation. Amendment No. 8 deals with the definition of conspiracy.
In Committee, I asked the then Minister of State why we were not making equivalent legislation for Northern Ireland, which in all respects is the same as that of England and Wales, because the Bill changes the definition of conspiracy in the law of England and Wales and in the law of Scotland. The then Minister replied: In the way that these matters are conducted, I transmitted his worries"— those are my worries, which I had expressed to the Minister several days before the sitting— to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who is considering these matters. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that at this stage I cannot go beyond that statement."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 27 May 1993; c. 57.] I had assumed that I would subsequently hear the result of the consideration from the Minister or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. A month has passed, but I have heard nothing. I repeat the question that I asked on 27 May: why are no provisions being made for changes in the law in Northern Ireland equivalent to part I?
I suspect that the answer is that the Northern Ireland Office is having great difficulty in doing anything.

§ Rev. Martin Smyth
My hon. Friend's concern is shared by many Northern Ireland Members. The Order in Council procedure and the tardy response of the Northern Ireland Office are exasperating. The children's order should have been published no later than today, but despite a delay of 10 years. it is still coming.

§ Mr. Trimble
I thank my hon. Friend for that comment, which is apposite to the present situation. Children legislation for England and Wales was enacted four years ago, and the Black report was published 10 years ago. I know that, throughout his time in the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) has pressed the Northern Ireland Office to do something about the Black report, but more than 10 years later, and four years after the enactment of equivalent legislation for England and Wales, nothing has been done.
That ties in with my second point about amendment No. 8, which would oblige the Northern Ireland Office to lay before the House an Order in Council identical to provisions in the Bill, which consequently would not require any detailed work and preparation, within three months.
There is no reason why that cannot be done. The Bill's passage through the House has taken some time. The draftsman has had plenty of time to consider its 928 provisions. No great drafting is necessary to work out the equivalent Northern Ireland legislation. I am sure that it should be ready, yet it is not.
Similar problems have arisen before. Hon. Members may remember that I raised this matter on the Adjournment some time ago and cited a number of examples of where the Northern Ireland Office had not been able to get things done within a reasonable time. There had been delays of up to a year, when it had merely to copy the equivalent legislation for England and Wales.
The amendment has three purposes—to ensure, first, that we have a proper debate on Northern Ireland legislation; secondly, that we have equivalent legislation to part I on conspiracy to keep our law in step with that, in England and Wales; and, thirdly, that the Order in Council be laid within three months. Those are reasonable proposals. As the Minister has acknowledged a couple of times this evening, I have been reasonable, and I hope that he will now reciprocate.

§ Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)
I support the spirit of what the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) has said: where there is no difference between Northern Ireland law and the law in England and Wales, it makes sense to keep in step. In the case of some areas of law in which Northern Ireland had different legislation, one could understand a delay. I hope that Ministers will adopt the hon. Gentleman's practical and sensible proposals.

10.30 pm

§ Mr. Maclean
To fulfil the United Kingdom's obligation to implement the terms of the European Communities directive on money laundering, it is essential that provisions corresponding to clauses 16 and 18 be enacted for Northern Ireland as quickly as possible after the Bill becomes law. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland intends to bring forward an Order in Council under the negative resolution procedure to achieve that end and to enact provisions in respect of other serious crime, similar to those dealt with in clauses 28 to 31.
With regard to part I and the rest of the Bill, my right hon. and learned Friend will be considering the extent to which other provisions ought to be reflected in Northern Ireland legislation and will bring forward proposals in due course. I can do no better than communicate to my right hon. and learned Friend the hon. Gentleman's exhortation that the legislation be introduced as soon as possible.
However, I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's condition that there should be placed on other Ministers and myself a duty to lay legislation within a certain time. I ask him to accept the assurance of our good intention. We wish to take this step as soon as possible. I hope that the good spirit in which the hon. Gentleman spoke in Standing Committee and in which he has spoken in the House today will be continued by his withdrawal of the amendment.

§ Mr. Trimble
I must first correct a very serious mistake on the part of the Minister, who, I appreciate, is a comparative newcomer to the awful shambles created by the way in which the House of Commons deals with Northern Ireland business. We are not talking here about secondary legislation. Orders in Council made under this procedure will be primary legislation.
929 In addition, the Minister's case is contradictory. He said that legislation complying with the European directive must be enacted as soon as possible, yet he cannot accept a requirement that this be done within three months.
But there is another point. As the European directive requires us to keep in step, the obvious step to take is to make provision in the Bill, and thereby avoid any worry about time limits. The Bill contains provisions relating to Scotland, which has a separate statute book. There would be no difficulty in including, after clauses relating to England and Wales and to Scotland, a provision relating to Northern Ireland. All that is required is a little effort on the part of the draftsmen and a little imagination on the part of Ministers, as well as a little willingness to exercise legislative powers responsibly.
I should like to direct the Minister's attention to a very valuable report published a couple of weeks ago by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. I refer in particular to the appendix, in which the author, setting out the case in great detail, says that, in effect, the squalid procedure adopted by the Government amounts to their saying that they are not required to exercise the legislative function in respect of Northern Ireland either fairly or willingly and responsibly.
The Minister may not be fully aware of it, but the implication of what he is saying is that he will not make the effort to handle Northern Ireland business fairly, willingly or responsibly. As for what he said about part I, he is repeating what his predecessor said more than a month ago, which was that he would be writing to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who would presumably communicate with me and my right hon. and hon. Friends. I wonder when the Secretary of State will make the effort to read the communications and reply to us.
Nevertheless, as I said in relation to an earlier amendment—[Interruption.] I hear the blandishments and suggestions of Conservative Members that we press the amendment to a vote. If they can assure me that they will support us, we shall willingly give them the opportunity to do so. Will they rise and confirm that? I see, however, that it is nothing but words. I have no desire to keep the House longer than necessary, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Amendment made: No. 38, new schedule—