HL Deb 19 July 1993 vol 548 cc587-90

7 p.m.

The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on recommitment) on this Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Commit tee (on recommitment).—(The Lord Chancellor).

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee (on recommitment) accordingly.

[The Lord Murton of Lindisfarne in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Repeals]:

The Lord Chancellor moved the amendment: Schedule 1, page 8, line 2, at end insert— ("Group 2—Piracy

11 Will 3 c. 7 Piracy Act 1698. The whole Act.
8 Geo. 1 c. 24 Piracy Act 1721 The whole Act.
18 Geo. 2 c. 30 Piracy Act 1744 The whole Act.")

The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to restore to the schedule to the Bill a number of repeals relating to the Piracy Acts which were not approved by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills as the consultation procedure on them had not been fully completed in time. The joint committee reported that the repeals appeared to be of no practical utility and expressed the opinion that they could be included in the Bill if no objections were raised on consultation. I am glad to report to your Lordships that the consultation on those repeals has been completed without any objections being raised. I am, therefore, proposing that the provisions be restored to the Bill.

However, the amendment does not restore the repeal of the Piracy Act 1837. Section 2 of that provision provides for the death penalty for piracy where murder is attempted. The Law Commission proposed that Section 2—so far as it applies to England and Wales—should not be repealed as matters to do with capital punishment are not appropriate for inclusion in statute law repeals legislation. However, it was proposed that Section 2 should he repealed in relation to Scotland because the death penalty there for piracy was repealed more than a century ago.

The view was expressed during the hearing of evidence by the joint committee that the retention of this provision for one part of Britain and not for another would be controversial on a topic on which there is a variety of strongly-held views.

I agree with the Law Commission's view that a Statute Law (Repeals) Bill is not an appropriate vehicle for discussing issues relating to the issue of capital punishment. It is important that Bills that do no more than tidy up the statute book should avoid matters of controversy, however relevant those matters may be in other contexts. The procedures appropriate to Statute Law (Repeals) Bills are not intended to deal with matters of controversy. Accordingly, the amendment does not seek to restore the Piracy Act 1837 to the schedule of repeals in the Bill.

I should add that the amendment has been seen by, and has the approval of, the chairman of the joint committee. I believe that it gives effect to the wishes of the joint committee, subject to the special point that I mentioned about the 1837 Act. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, took an interest in such matters in the joint committee. I have sought to keep them in touch with what I propose. I beg to move.

Lord Wigoder

As I was the member of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills who first raised the issue, I hope that it is appropriate if I say that I support the amendment. I hope that it meets with the approval of the Committee. The difficulty arose because the Law Commission not only proposed to repeal, as obsolete, the three piracy Acts mentioned in the amendment, but it also proposed to repeal three-quarters of a fourth piracy Act; namely, the 1837 Act. The one-quarter that the joint committee did not propose to repeal was Section 2, which provides for the mandatory death penalty for pirates; not only if they kill, intend to kill or attempt to kill, but even if they were to scratch someone in the course of a piratical enterprise. It appeared to me to be quite out of the question that Parliament should repeal three parts of an Act but not expressly repeal a fourth part relating to that particular offence, thereby implying that, in some way, Parliament in 1993 was suggesting that the section was not obsolete.

The latter was clearly a wholly unsatisfactory position. It would have given rise to a debate on the abolition of the death penalty in extraordinary circumstances. Such an event could have occurred as a result of a report of the Law Commission on a Statute Law (Repeals) Bill as considered by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. That would be a wholly absurd way in which such an issue should be raised again, if indeed anyone ever wants to raise it again. The 1837 Act has been dormant now for well over a century. The proposal by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor allows it to go peacefully back to sleep. I suggest to Members of the Committee that we all agree to leave it there.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the clarity of his exposition; and, indeed, if I may say so on behalf of my noble friend Lady Mallalieu, for the courtesy of his correspondence with her. We also welcome the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said that the Piracy Act can go back to sleep. I think that we would welcome a little more than that —possibly, euthanasia.

I imagine that no one who was party to the consultations actually wanted the death penalty on a mandatory basis for something which was less than the crime of murder. It is important—although, possibly, not of world-shattering importance—that the matter be tidied up. I entirely concur with the noble and learned Lord that the mechanism suggested was not appropriate. I should be most grateful if some indication could be given that at a fairly early stage Section 2 of the Piracy Act 1837, for the United Kingdom other than Scotland, may be disposed of peacefully, harmoniously and consensually.

The Lord Chancellor

I am grateful for the reception afforded to the amendments by both noble Lords who have spoken. It is a strange quirk that, while Scotland sometimes complains that it does not have as much of a legislature as England and Wales, it should in this particular matter do, something like a century ago, what we are talking about now in respect of Section 2 of the Piracy Act 1837. It is part of the recondite history of our legislative system which consideration of a Statute Law (Repeals) Bill sometimes puts forward.

I am certainly of the view that such procedures are not appropriate for dealing with the matter. I am grateful to the Committee for accepting the solutions which we have proposed.

In reference to the question about consultation asked by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, I should add that the Law Commission did not propose Section 2 for repeal. The consultation was on the question of whether the repeals proposed were satisfactory. Therefore, the particular point was not raised until, I believe, the matter reached the joint committee where it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. Therefore, the consultation did not really raise any points on the matter.

Obviously, the matter requires consideration. As I said earlier, such issues sometimes stimulate considerable debate. I think that Members of the Committee will understand that I cannot give any guarantees as to when it may be possible for the matter to be reviewed. Certainly, for my part, I shall not forget it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.

House adjourned at ten minutes past seven o'clock.