§ 2.43 p.m.
§ Lord GARDINERMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there is any way in which this House, or Parliament, can make a Minister make a commencement order bringing into force all the sections of an Act of Parliament which has received the Royal Assent.
§ The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones)My Lords, this can only be done by Act of Parliament. When an Act provides that it will come into operation on a day later than Royal Assent its date of operation is determined in accordance with the Act. Thus if the Act states that it shall come into force on a date to be fixed by order made by the Minister, and provides no more than that, it is within the discretion of the Minister as to when he brings the Act into force. Parliament may, of course, bring pressure to bear on him and require him to justify any inactivity. But, short of another Act, there is no way in which the Minister can be compelled by Parliament to bring that Act into operation. The Act may however itself place some fetter on the Minister's discretion. The device by which Acts may be brought into force by order provides useful flexibility. It may enable administrative arrangements to be made without which the Act could not operate.
§ Lord GARDINERMy Lords, while thanking my noble and learned friend for that Answer, may I ask him this question? If one takes a case such as Section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1974, does he realise that next month it will be three years since Royal Assent was given to that provision—three years in which the Minister has had only to make the order; three years in which the local authorities have had time to consider whether or not they will make any exempting regulation? When the section is not in force at all for three years, is not this really simply the Executive overruling the decision of the Queen in Parliament?
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I am familiar with that matter, which has been raised on a previous occasion. I am afraid the difficulty is not so much that of the Government or a Minister but of local authorities, who claim that the maintenance of a list of 1111 roads within their jurisdiction where parking on the verges or footways is, or is not, permitted would, in these days, subject them to excessive burdens at a time of economy in manpower and finance. That is their explanation. It is for your Lordships to decide whether or not it is convincing.
§ Lord GARDINERMy Lords, may I ask a second supplementary question? If one takes a case such as the Easter Act 1928, as my noble and learned friend knows, the Home Office has consistently interpreted the provision that before making an order the Minister is to take into account any view of the Christian Church as though it said that no order is to be made unless all the Churches are unanimous. Would my noble and learned friend be prepared to use the resources of his Office to assist the House on whether some proceedings in the courts could be taken for a declaration as to what is the true construction of the section, in proceedings no doubt entitled "The House of Lords v. The Home Office", or tell us what individual or groups of people could take such proceedings?
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I am charmed by that fascinating example of the affection which my noble and learned friend has always had for the Home Office. I shall certainly consider this, but I doubt whether I shall start upon such litigation. There are, if I may say so, enough problems of litigation lying around already. The Easter Act 1928 is a hardy perennial. If it is not too irreverent a way of putting it, we had a trial run on it again recently, and I fear, as on so many previous occasions, we came to no satisfactory conclusion.
§ The Lord Bishop of LONDONMy Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that Section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1974 was inserted by an Amendment in this House and supported in another place? Is there no way of redress so that the will of Parliament can be implemented in circumstances which many of us regard as those of quite improper delay on something which was the clear mind of Parliament at the time?
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I am well aware of the concern of 1112 the right reverend Prelate about this matter, but the only remedy available is by way of Parliamentary and political pressure upon the Minister and the local authorities concerned. As the Act was drafted, there is no statutory way whereby a Minister, or indeed a local authority, can be compelled to act. That is the way matters stand.
§ The Lord Bishop of LONDONMy Lords, will the noble and learned Lord then take notice that in July 1975 I was given an assurance in this House by the Minister that something was being done; that I was again given an assurance in January of this year that something was being done; but so far there is no evidence of anything having been done?
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I shall certainly bring those facts to the notice of my right honourable friend, and I shall do my utmost in the matter.
§ Lord SHINWELLMy Lords, are we to understand from these questions and answers that there has been much legislation passed by both Houses of Parliament which has never been consummated, in which case we have been wasting a great deal of time? Can my noble and learned friend tell us the extent to which such pieces of legislation have not been implemented?
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, your Lordships will have noticed from the two examples that we have been given so far that the incidents of non-consummation, if that is a suitable noun to use in these somewhat unrelated circumstances, are few and far between. But there are the two that have been mentioned. Of course, Parliament can limit and fetter a Minister's discretion, if it wishes to do so. We did it recently, for instance, in regard to the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act of last year. This provides that the Lord Chancellor may bring the Act into force by order provided that:
if any provisions of the Act are not in force on 1st April 1977, the Lord Chancellor shall then make an order bringing such provisions into force".No such order had been made by 25th March 1977, and I thereupon made an 1113 order bringing the Act into force as from 1st June 1977. So there is a clear mechanism by which, if Parliament is worried in a given case, it can in that way fetter the Minister's discretion and he will, as I hope I may be thought to have done in my case, do his duty.
§ Lord AIREDALEMy Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that the concern expressed by the right reverend Prelate is a concern of Parliament that blind people ought to be able to walk along the pavement without colliding with a vehicle that has been parked on the pavement?
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I am in entire sympathy with this matter and, indeed, when I was in another place this was a frequent source of complaint in one's constituency. I shall certainly bring it forward for consideration as a matter of urgency.
§ Lord DUNCAN-SANDYSMy Lords, can the noble and learned Lord assure us that the implementation of Section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1974, to which widespread importance is attached, will not have to wait until all local authorities are ready to implement it?
§ The LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, I should like to consider that point. As at present advised, it may not be necessary to secure universal compliance before the Act is brought into effect, but I should like to look at the point.
§ Lord GARDINERMy Lords, does my noble and learned friend appreciate that the Minister does not have to make any regulations but merely make a commencement order, and that there is no obligation whatever on any local authority to make exemption regulations if it does not want to do so?
§ The LORD CHANCELLORI am obliged for that comment, my Lords.