House of Commons Hansard Debates for 31 Oct 1995

Column 196

present I limit myself to saying that the Statute of Westminster requires the assent of the Parliaments of the dominions to any alteration in the law touching the succession to the throne--I emphasise, the succession to the throne.

The Regency Act 1937 does not have that effect. It merely erects a mechanism in case the sovereign is incapacitated. That is why, in substance, the Statute of Westminster requirements do not bite on the provisions of the 1937 Act.

Mr. Mackinlay: The Regency Act 1937 was enacted in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of Westminster. From what I can ascertain, the dominions were consulted on that occasion, which buttresses my argument that its amendment or repeal would have to be conducted in accordance with the same procedure or procedures that have come into being subsequently-- for example, Canada now has a repatriated constitution.

In any event, there is also the question of common courtesy. The Government should have shown courtesy to the other 15 or 16 dominions by saying that we were contemplating making this marginal amendment and asking whether they had any objections or whether there was any impediment. That was not done, which was discourteous, but I think that it was also necessary because the 1937 Act was enacted in accordance with the Statute of Westminster.

The Solicitor-General: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is incorrect. When the then Home Secretary, Sir John Simon, moved the Regency Bill in this House, he made its function clear. He was explicit in explaining how it affected only the sovereign in the circumstances that I outlined. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no constitutional impediment and no discourtesy in regard to the proposed repeal. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office have been consulted. No one else ought to have been consulted, either in law or in courtesy. I must repeat that, in suggesting otherwise, the hon. Gentleman is in error.

Question put and agreed to .

Bill accordingly read a Second time .

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills), That the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House.--[ Mr. McLoughlin .]

Question agreed to .

Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to .

Schedule 1

Repeals

9.36 pm

Mr. Mackinlay: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in schedule 1, page 27, leave out lines 26 to 28.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in schedule 1, page 27, line 27, column 3, at beginning insert

`and communicated to the Governments of Her Majesty's Dominions'.

Mr. Mackinlay: I will not detain the Committee unduly, because I have referred to much of what I wanted

Column 197

to say on Second Reading. Nevertheless, I think that we are in danger of committing a serious error by including this repeal in the schedule. It would be appropriate, in accordance with amendment No. 2, to leave the Regency Act 1937 as it is. The Solicitor- General should raise with the Prime Minister the need for some review of legislation such as the Regency Act with other countries' Prime Ministers. If we trespass in making this repeal tonight, we will offend the constitutional position of several countries. It will certainly have political ramifications, because we will be rather arrogantly altering a law that forms part of their constitutions. The danger is that, at some stage, we will find that we are in great difficulty having crossed this line. I hope, therefore, that the House will be persuaded to change the Bill in accordance with my amendment. Constitutionalists in Canberra, for instance, may discover that it was wrong for us to have so acted.

In any event, I hope that if our proceedings are reflected upon elsewhere, others might say that we need to reconsider the regency legislation. I disagree with the Solicitor-General: the Regency Act does relate to the succession. He has put a narrow and wrong construction on it--in my view it is squarely part of the obligation provided for under the Statute of Westminster--which clearly states that such action must be taken with the dominions acting together. The Regency Act needs to be reconsidered, because, if ever we did need such a provision, there would be political consequences in other Parliaments, especially in Canberra. Some would take a leaf out of the book of the Prime Minister of the Irish Free State, who used the succession crisis in 1936 to abolish the post of governor general and create the presidency of the Irish Free State. The point that I made on Second Reading is valid: if the matter is treated with disdain and not addressed, it could have consequences in future.

The Solicitor-General: I invite the House to reject the amendment, if the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) persists with it. He is quite wrong to suggest that the Bill has any effect on the constitution of any other country. It says quite explicitly that it affects only the law of the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man. I repeat that it will not have any effect on the law of any other country.

Out of deference to and respect for the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Thurrock, who has obviously spent a good deal of time researching the matter, let me go into a little more detail, starting with the Regency Act 1937.

Section 2 of that Act made provision for a regency in the event of the total incapacity of the sovereign. Subsection(2) states that a declaration of the sovereign's incapacity under section 2(1) "shall be made to the Privy Council and communicated to the Governments of His Majesty's Dominions and to the Government of India".

The Law Commission has recommended the repeal of the reference to the Government of India. That is not surprising given that such a reference has been obsolete since the enactment of the Indian Independence Act 1947. That is obvious, as India and Pakistan became republics in 1950 and 1956 respectively. Many such obsolete

Column 198

references in pre-independence legislation were repealed by the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1976. It is only because of an oversight that those words remain on the statute book to this day. Had they been spotted, they would have been removed in 1976 and the hon. Gentleman would have been spared the endeavours in which he has obviously been engaged over the past few months.

9.45 pm

The hon. Gentleman's objection to this repeal seems to be based on his assertion that the provision relating to the Government of India cannot be repealed without consulting other Commonwealth countries in accordance with the Statute of Westminster 1931. As I have tried to explain, that is not the case. The Statute of Westminster requires the assent of the Parliaments of the dominions to any alteration in the law that touches the succession to the throne. I stress the words, "succession to the throne".

However, during the passage of the Regency Bill, it was made clear in Parliament by the then Home Secretary, Sir John Simon, that the Bill did not have that effect. It was merely a mechanism to enable the Crown to continue to operate when there was some impairment of the sovereign's health. So it did not require such assent prior to enactment, and it follows that no such assent is now required to repeal the Act or any part of it.

This Bill will have effect only on the law of the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man. It will have no effect on the law of any other country. For those reasons, I consider it appropriate that the obsolete reference to the Government of India in section 2(2) of the Regency Act should be repealed, as recommended by the Law Commission.

The Government also oppose amendment No. 3, which would have the effect of introducing additional repeals. As its long title makes perfectly clear, the Bill is based solely on the recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. The commissions have made no recommendations for the repeal of any part of the Regency Act, other than the reference to the Government of India in section 2(2). No evidence has been brought to the attention of the commissions or the Government that other aspects of the legislation are of no practical utility. In those circumstances, it will be wholly wrong for additional repeals to be inserted without further careful research and without the support of the Joint Committee. I invite the hon. Gentleman to consider this matter further and, if he is now satisfied, to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Mackinlay: I have reflected carefully on the

Solicitor-General's comments, and I am grateful for his detailed explanation. Clearly, I have had an opportunity to give this matter an airing on Second Reading and in Committee, so I do not wish to press it to a vote. I hope that the Government will consider the wider implications of the matters I have broached in Committee and on Second Reading. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn .

Schedule 1 agreed to .

Schedule 2 agreed to .

Bill reported, without amendment .

Bill read the Third time, and passed .

Column 199

Law Reform (Succession) Bill [Lords]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered .

Order for Third Reading read.--[Queen's and Prince of Wales's consent signified].

9.51 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time

The Bill represents a useful and uncontroversial measure of law reform. I should like to thank the Law Commission for the careful work which it has put into the preparation of reports on which the Bill is based. I commend the Bill to the House.

9.51 pm

Mr. Paul Boateng (Brent, South): This is a welcome, long overdue, modest reform. The Law Commission is to be congratulated.

Question put and agreed to .

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed .

Column 200

Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered .

Order for Third Reading read .

9.52 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time

I am sure that, once again, the House would wish to join me in thanking the law commissions--I must be careful to put that in the plural--for their careful and thorough work.

9.52 pm

Mr. Paul Boateng (Brent, South): This is a measure that has received careful and detailed consideration in another place and, albeit of necessity, less detailed but nevertheless careful consideration in Committee in this House.

We have had a number of concerns, not least in relation to the impact of the legislation on the freedom of expression. We have also quite properly made known our concern to ensure that the Bill does not in any way enable the impact of foreign jurisdictions and foreign law to inhibit such freedoms in this country. We are satisfied that the Bill in its current form has met those objections. We thank the Law Commission for the work it has done, and we are grateful for the detailed consideration given to the Bill in another place. We give the Bill a fair wind tonight.

Question put and agreed to .

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed .

Column 201

Civil Evidence Bill [Lords]

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered .

Order for Third Reading read .

9.53 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. John M. Taylor): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time

For the third time tonight I should like to express our gratitude to the Law Commission for its contribution to law reform and to all those who have helped the smooth passage of the Bill.

The Bill abolishes the rule against the admissibility of hearsay evidence in civil proceedings in England and Wales. It will make the law easier to understand and to apply. I commend it to the House. 9.54 pm

Mr. Paul Boateng (Brent, South): We join the Minister in thanking the Law Commission. However, the best way to demonstrate our thanks to that august body would be to complete in its entirety the programme of work that it proposed, which we have considered during the present Session. I very much hope that we shall do that before the end of the Session.

If we do so, the Minister's words may have a slightly less hollow ring than they currently have--not as a result, I must add, of anything that he has said or done. If only the actions of some other hon. Members who are sitting behind him were not such as to give his words the rather hollow echo that they have tonight.

Column 202

I do not refer to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), who is sitting behind the Minister, but, as is often the case, to those faceless, nameless ones whose visage and name feature only too clearly in the minds, not least the silent ones who sit on the Treasury Bench. We know who they are, and we will have no hesitation in naming them in the fulness of time. Now is not the time to do that; now is the time to wish the measure well. It is long overdue. We welcome the review of the hearsay rules as they affect civil evidence. A similar review is necessary in relation to the way in which they affect criminal evidence, and we look forward to the time when that task has been completed and we are able to take through the House measures aimed in that direction. The court should be concerned primarily with being a forum in which the truth is able to speak for itself. The abolition of the hearsay rule in relation to civil evidence makes that more likely to be the case than it was hitherto. Question put and agreed to .

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed .

DEREGULATION

Ordered,

That Mr. Anthony Coombs be discharged from the Deregulation Committee and Mr. David Martin be added to the Committee.-- [Mr. McLoughlin.]

PROCEDURE

Ordered,

That Andrew MacKay be discharged from the Select Committee on Procedure and Mr. Piers Merchant be added to the Committee.-- [Mr. McLoughlin.]

Column 203

UNESCO

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. McLoughlin.]

9.56 pm

Mr. Mike Gapes (Ilford, South): Last week, the Prime Minister was in New York, participating in the 50th anniversary celebration of the founding of the United Nations. The United Kingdom was a founder member of the UN, and the Labour Government, building on the work of the wartime coalition, played a key role in its establishment on 24 October 1945. The Prime Minister was able to speak to the United Nations General Assembly on 23 October 1995.

In two weeks' time, on 16 November, there will take place in Paris the 50th anniversary celebrations of another important international organisation-- the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation--yet, as things stand, no British Minister will attend or speak, as our Government will be absent as a member of that 184-state forum, only sending officials along to observe.

That is especially saddening, because the United Kingdom played the leading role in founding UNESCO, which was established as a result of a British initiative taken in 1942, during the war. UNESCO was established and its constitution deposited in London, where its headquarters was initially based, and its first director-general and its assistant director-general for science were British.

The principle aim of UNESCO is to contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among the nations through education, science and culture, in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law, and for the human rights and fundamental freedoms that are affirmed in the charter of the United Nations.

For many years, UNESCO did very good work, with Britain having a dominating influence in every aspect--professional or otherwise. However, there were growing criticisms, which led, in 1984, at the height of the cold war, to the withdrawal of the United States, followed, one year later, by a similar decision by our Government. The following reasons were given at the time: the Government thought that the so-called new world information and communication order was a potential threat to the freedom of the media; the concept of people's rights was controversial and was thought to challenge the universal declaration of human rights; there was thought to be some threat to freedom of transnational corporations to operate; there was thought to be duplication of the work of some other UN agencies. It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Knapman.]

Mr. Gapes: There was thought to be some lack of control over budgets, and much inefficiency in the administrative structures within UNESCO at that time. The organisation was also criticised for having too many people based at its headquarters and too few out in the field.

The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs considered the withdrawal from UNESCO in 1985. It came to the conclusion, shared by the Conservative majority on the

Column 204

Select Committee--since 1979, all Select Committees on Foreign Affairs have had a Conservative majority--that withdrawal from UNESCO would be prejudicial to Britain's interests in science, culture and education, was likely to damage Britain's relations with the Commonwealth and the third world, and could have unhappy consequences for Britain's relationship with the United Nations as a whole. In 1990, following the experience of Britain being outside UNESCO for five years, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs returned to the issue. It concluded that, because of its absence from UNESCO, Britain was failing to participate in important international initiatives in the fields of education, science and culture as fully as it might. Its report stated:

"never has the need for such initiatives been greater, as political events in Europe, and all over the world, create a demand . . . which UNESCO is well designed to satisfy."

The Committee praised the work of the new director-general, Frederico Mayor, who had been elected in November 1987, and said that he was addressing those parts of the programmes to which the British Government had objected. It said that his proposals for structural reform held much promise. The Committee concluded in 1990 that, assuming those proposals were satisfactorily implemented,

"we see no reason why the UK should not rejoin UNESCO in a year's time."

The Government rejected the Select Committee's recommendations, and said:

"We will continue to monitor developments in UNESCO closely and look forward to the day when we can join a reformed organisation." The Select Committee returned to the issue again in 1993 when it stated:

"The British Government's objections to UNESCO's policies have been overcome. The only serious criticism of UNESCO still outstanding is the complaint that the organisation's expenditure and personnel are still concentrated at UNESCO's headquarters in Paris rather than being devolved to the field in those countries where UNESCO is working."

The then Minister of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg), who has now moved on to agricultural matters, said in his evidence to the Select Committee, that "the objections" to rejoining UNESCO were "financial". The Committee report concluded:

"The debate about UNESCO's policy, budgetary and management problems has been settled, broadly in the organisation's favour. Although further decentralisation is needed, we recommend that the United Kingdom should now seek to rejoin UNESCO".

Since the Government took us out of UNESCO in 1985, three Foreign Affairs Select Committees have considered the issue in detail and have recommended that we should rejoin. Despite their concerns, the Government have kept Britain out. Why? The main official reason is that "the objections are financial". The Foreign Affairs Committee was told that the cost of rejoining would have to be met from the existing Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Overseas Development Administration budget. But is that necessarily true?

The 1993 Select Committee report pointed out:

"We do not commend the Government's approach to UNESCO as an inevitable competitor with the ODA for a share of a limited budget. UNESCO's remit is by no means simply that of a channel for development aid: UNESCO's constitution describes the organisation's role as promoting international collaboration through

Column 205

education, science and culture to encourage universal respect for justice, the rule of law and the fundamental human rights and freedoms as affirmed in the UN Charter. Its work, in both developed and developing countries, includes the promotion of the free flow of ideas through the means of mass communication, advancing educational opportunities, conserving the world's cultural inheritance and encouraging co-operation in all branches of intellectual activity". The £10 million to £11 million subscription fee for rejoining UNESCO is a gross figure. It does not take account of income that could come to this country to partly, or perhaps wholly, offset that sum. It is a modest figure in relation to the total dues that we pay for membership of international organisations. The United Kingdom has always gained at least as much from UNESCO as we put into it. If we calculated our gains on purely selfish, material grounds, there is a strong case for rejoining UNESCO now. However, I submit that we should look at it in the wider context of what we lose by remaining outside UNESCO, and what we would gain by rejoining it.

If the cost of rejoining were £11 million, that would represent 0.31 per cent. of the total Foreign and Commonwealth Office-ODA budget. The Foreign Affairs Committee pointed out in 1993: "only a third of the estimated cost would have to be found from new sources".

That was because we were funding some UNESCO activities, even though we were outside the organisation. In 1991, the Select Committee was told that United Kingdom and United Kingdom-related receipts from UNESCO totalled £9.5 million. In 1994, such receipts amounted to twice the sum paid by the United Kingdom as its assessed contribution.

The £11 million subscription is a gross figure, and payments to United Kingdom nationals employed by UNESCO, whether in Paris or in the field, were not taken into consideration. Rejoining UNESCO would allow an increased participation by United Kingdom nationals in the organisation's staff. Like other international organisations, UNESCO employs United Kingdom staff. However, since we left UNESCO, it has not recruited new British staff to fill vacant positions. Consequently, the United Kingdom component of UNESCO's staff, which used to be disproportionately large, has been declining year by year. The result is that British influence, Britain's contribution, and Britain's abilities and skills in this important international organisation are increasingly absent.

We are now far less able to influence the outcome of decisions taken by UNESCO, and our diplomatic influence has been

correspondingly reduced. I must emphasise that UNESCO is not an aid programme, and the costs of membership should not come solely from the aid budget. Other departmental budgets, including those governing educational, cultural and scientific expenditure, should also be taken into consideration.

In 1993, the then Minister of State told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee:

"Of course we can join, we can go back in tomorrow, but in order to do that we have to find"

the money,

"because we are not going to get any new money".

Next Section

Home Page