§ 3.27 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE)My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly.
§ [The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
§ Clause 1 [Short title and interpretation]:
§
LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("taken with") and insert ("and")
§ The noble Lord said: This would appear at first sight to be merely a drafting change perhaps devoid of any real importance. In the context in which the words appear a change of that sort does to some extent impinge upon principle and is of some importance for the reasons which I would now venture to give. Clause 2, by a process that your Lordships may wish to investigate in rather more detail later in our proceedings, makes auto- 461 matically part of the law of England the actual wording of a great many Treaties. From the time that this Bill becomes law—as I hope it will—the words in those Treaties to which Clause 2 appertains will be as much a part of the law of England as any Finance Act, Bill of Rights or any other Act. That being the effect of Clause 2 it becomes absolutely imperative that the Committee should know precisely what Treaties we are talking about. In order to know what those Treaties are one has to turn back to Clause 1, which is the definition clause, in which one should find clearly and specifically set out what those Treaties are.
§ As a matter of general complaint, I would venture to say this. The situation being as I have, I hope, correctly described it, it would, I should have thought, have been highly desirable that all those Treaties that fall within the scope of Clause 1 which have up to this moment been entered into should be actually listed, perhaps in a Schedule to the Bill. A liege should know what are the Treaties portions of which are, from the time of the passing of this Bill, to be in their actual wording part of our own law.
§
My first complaint is that those Treaties are not listed. One has to work them out by seeking to apply the definition in Clause 1 of the Bill. In those circumstances, I submit that it is of the greatest importance that that definition should admit of no doubt in its interpretation if any change can be made which makes it more precise in its application. The definition refers to the:
the Treaties' or ' the Community Treaties '
as meaning in the first place
pre-accession treaties, that is to say, those described in Part I of Schedule 1".
§ That is clear enough. Then follow the words "taken with" and then paragraph (a) which refers to the Treaties that were entered into on January 22, 1972, which in the Bill is described as the entry date; namely, the date on which the Treaties were entered into making this country, as from January 1, 1973, a member country of the European Community.
§ It is in the middle of that definition that these words "taken with" appear. I cannot myself discover or think of any 462 reason why the extremely experienced and skilful draftsman whose work this is did not use the ordinary English word "and". What is the difference between "and" and "taken with"? I should have thought that in ordinary parlance, if one were asking oneself what Treaties one is talking about, one would say, "Treaty A and Treaty B and Treaty C and Treaty D. "That, I should have thought, admits no doubt. You are talking about those four Treaties. But I cannot quite make out what the draftsman had in mind when, instead of using that simple English precise word "and", he substituted for it the words "taken with". Therefore, in his drafting "the Treaties" means the pre-accession treaties set out in the Schedule taken with the accession Treaty, if I may so describe it, of January 22, 1972. What does that mean? Does that mean that both of those Treaties come within the definition, or does it mean that both are to be regarded as constituting one Treaty?
§ I would ask the noble Earl who I believe will reply to this debate: What is the difference between the expression that the Treaties we are talking about are "Treaty A and Treaty B", and the expression that the Treaties were are talking about are "Treaty A taken with Treaty B "? My respect for the draftsman is so high that I am sure there must be a perfectly simple reason which has eluded me. I have been puzzling over it, but I have not yet lighted upon the reason which would explain the matter at any rate to me. I therefore put this Amendment before your Lordships for consideration as a matter of some importance, because it is essential that we should know, as they are not listed, what it is we are talking about. I would ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House if he would be so good as to give me the answer to the simple question: What is the difference between the expression "pre-accession treaties and the accession Treaty", on the one hand, and the expression, "pre-accession treaties taken with the accession Treaty", on the other hand? There must be some difference. There must be some reason why the draftsman has chosen that terminology, and I should be very grateful indeed if the Government would be so kind as to say what that is.
463§ I am perfectly prepared, so far as I am concerned, to assent to the position if there is a reason. But if there is not, I would respectfully submit to your Lordships that this is an example, to which we should attach importance, of a lack of precision which could have been avoided, in a context where precision is of the highest possible importance. That is the case I venture to put before the Committee, and I hope it will be given an answer which will answer the simple question which I have, probably only too innocently, asked.
§ LORD BESWICKI want to say, if I may be allowed to say, following my noble friend, and my name is down to the Amendment—
EARL JELLICOEMay I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment to say that the Home Secretary has now started to make a Statement in another place, and if it is for the convenience of your Lordships' House I would beg to move that the House do now resume.
§ Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House resumed.