HL Deb 20 March 1952 vol 175 cc861-6

4.6 p.m.

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Orders in Council for facilitating international traffic

(2) An Order in Council under this section may provide— (b) for extending any privilege conferred by the Order to persons not entitled thereto by virtue of any such international agreement, or in relation to vehicles brought temporarily into Great Britain by such persons, being persons or vehicles satisfying such conditions as may be specified by or under the Order;

(5) Any statutory instrument containing an Order in Council under this section, or regulations made under any such Order, shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), after "persons" (where that word first occurs) to insert: resident outside the United Kingdom who are temporarily in Great Britain but are. The noble Earl said: I said in the course of the Second Reading debate that we were taking rather wide powers in this Bill but over a restricted field. On examining the clause to which this Amendment is proposed, we found that it could be interpreted to apply to a wider field than we consider absolutely necessary. Accordingly, we are proposing this Amendment, which slightly restricts the field over which the powers may be exercised. It will be made clear by this Amendment that it will not be possible for the wide powers for which we are asking to be exercised in respect of persons resident in the United Kingdom. It was never intended that they should, of course, but on examination of the Bill it appeared that that interpretation might be possible. We have therefore put forward this Amendment which excludes possible application of the powers to persons resident in this country. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 4, after ("persons") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD HENDERSON

I raised a point on this particular clause of the Bill on Second Reading. The explanation given by the noble Earl then was satisfactory, but the Amendment which he has now moved clears the matter up and makes things much more precise. So far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HENDERSON moved, in subsection (5) to omit all words from the beginning of the subsection to "regulations" and to insert: No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order under this section unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament; and any statutory instrument containing". The noble Lord said: During the Second Reading debate on this Bill I called attention to the provision making the Orders in Council issued under this Bill subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. It seemed to me, as I said at the time, that it was a somewhat unreasonable request to ask Parliament to accept this procedure, in view of the fact that, as stated in the first paragraph of the Explanatory Memorandum, the main purpose of the Bill is to enable effect to be given—and this is the point—not only to the United Nations Convention on Road Traffic of 1949 but also to any future international convention or agreement on motor traffic. When conventions are before the House, so that your Lordships can see the intention of the provisions, it is probably quite right for the Government to ask for the Negative Resolution procedure to be applied. Had that been the case, I should have had no point to raise. But when we are asked, at the same time, to accept the Negative Resolution procedure for Orders in Council, in respect of conventions or agreements of the future, which do not yet exist and the contents of which no member of your Lordships' House can at this stage foretell, it seems to me to be a somewhat unreasonable request. In the first case, when a Bill is laid, noble Lords have, of course, the opportunity of obtaining copies of the conventions referred to and studying them before giving powers to the Government; but in the second case it is quite impossible to study the conventions because they do not yet exist. I requested the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill to give consideration to this point, and I am grateful to him for the trouble which he has taken. I put forward this Amendment, to substitute the Affirmative Resolution procedure for the Negative Resolution procedure in respect of Orders in Council. I hope that the noble Earl will be as responsive to my Motion as he was to my request when I asked him to reconsider the matter. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 21, leave out from beginning to ("regulations") in line 22, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Henderson.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

When the noble Lord raised this matter before, I drew his attention to the fact that the normal procedure in respect of Treaties was by Negative Resolution. I can call in aid the Treaty of Peace in 1918, the Treaties of Peace of 1947 with Italy, Roumania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland, and also the Japanese Peace Treaty of last year. Normally, the procedure adopted in the past has been that of Negative Resolution. The noble Lord has drawn attention to the rather special circumstances of this Bill. It is unlikely, I think, except in a very confined sphere, that we should lay down definitely the procedure to be adopted for future Treaties. Clearly, important Treaties have to be treated on their merits. However, we recognise that this is a special case, and without saying that it necessarily falls into any particular category, I shall be happy to accept the Amendment.

LORD HENDERSON

Before the noble Earl sits down, may I say that I accept the statement which he has made about normal procedure for dealing with Treaties. But during the Second Reading debate, I did draw on my recollection of the passing of the Bill relating to diplomatic immunities and privileges. When it went through this House we had exactly the same point pressed upon us—namely, that the Negative Resolution procedure was not proper to that type of Bill. In those days, being quite as responsive to reasonable pressure as is the noble Earl in these days, we substituted the Affirmative Resolution procedure for the Negative. I mention that point because it shows that there is not a strictly uniform procedure for dealing with Treaties and agreements entered into by the Government.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT SWINTON)

I wonder whether I may say one word about this matter. Twice now we have accepted the Affirmative Resolution procedure instead of the Negative—I think in both cases justifiably—but we accepted it, not because it dealt with an Order in Council affirming a convention, but because the kind of convention which it would be sought to affirm by an Order in Council might be one either making considerable changes in the law of this country or else affecting rights under contracts entered into by citizens of this country, not in the future but in the past. Therefore, both cases were held, and I think rightly held, to be of a wholly exceptional character. Diplomatic immunities fall into the same category. Diplomatic immunities mean that we confer extraordinary rights upon the persons who benefit by them and deny rights to our own citizens who are damnified by the actions of persons who are given diplomatic immunity. That seems to me to be justifiably brought within the Affirmative Resolution procedure, because it is a very strong thing to do. I say this because I know the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, has been quite fair about this matter, but I hope our action here will not be prayed in aid against us when making delegated legislation, of which we have to make considerable use. It must not be taken as a matter of course that the Negative Resolution procedure is not the right one. I should say that the Negative Resolution procedure is the normal form, and we should adopt the Affirmative Resolution procedure only where the re are really exceptional reasons in that particular case.

LORD HENDERSON

I am in full accord with the noble Viscount. Indeed, he has made the speech for my case better than myself. The point on which I raised my appeal to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, was that there was an exceptional provision in the Bill—namely, that we are taking power to deal with conventions and agreements which are not yet in existence. If that provision had not been in the Bill, I should not have raised the question of the application of the Negative Resolution procedure to Orders in Council.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Orders for facilitating international traffic in Northern Ireland]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subsection (2) to omit "Every Order in Council made by the Governor of Northern Ireland in pursuance of this section," and to insert: No recommendation shall be made to the Governor of Northern Ireland in Council to make an Order under this section unless a draft thereof has been laid before the Parliament of Northern Ireland and has been approved by resolution of each House of the Parliament of Northern Ireland;".

The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will recall that on Second Reading I said that we were making special provision in regard 1o Northern Ireland. In view of the Amendment which has just been accepted, it has been agreed by both the Government and the Government of Northern Ireland that precisely the same arrangement should exist there. Accordingly it becomes necessary to make the Amendment which I now move in Clause 2, the effect of which will be that the Parliament of Northern Ireland, acting under an Order in Council of the Governor of Northern Ireland in Council, will also act through the Affirmative Resolution procedure.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 37, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 38 and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD HENDERSON

We agree with the proposed Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The following three Amendments are consequential. I beg to move.

Amendments moved—

Page 2, line 42, leave out ("Order or")

Page 3, line 1, leave out ("Order or")

Page 3,line 7, leave out ("Order or").

—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

House resumed.