Amendment No. 2 is consequential on amendment No. 1 and these may be discussed together.
Immature Spirits (Restriction) Bill, 1972: Committee and Final Stages.
SECTION 1.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 2, subsection (1) (c), line 19, after "United Kingdom" to add ",the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands".
When the Bill came before us I raised the question of the drafting of it. For some reason not explained at the time by the Minister, and which I still do not understand, instead of describing the area in respect of which transactions arise accurately as "the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands", the method adopted by the draftsman was to call them falsely "the United Kingdom" and then to rectify this in a special subsection (3) in which the United Kingdom is incorrectly defined as "Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands". I see no merit in this; it makes the Bill longer because it is necessary to have this separate subsection. It is true that if my amendment is accepted it will be necessary to make similar amendments in lines 21 and 22 but, even so, the Bill would be tidier and, above all, we would not have attempted by virtue of legislation in this House to suggest that the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, which are not part of the United Kingdom, are part of it. They have, of course, a separate jurisdiction and are not part of the United Kingdom any more than Malta or Gibraltar are part of it. It is not appropriate for us to attempt in any way to suggest that the Isle of Man, a Celtic country, and the Channel Islands, which are more French than British in race, culture and language, should be assimilated into the United Kingdom. As there is no valid reason for this, it seems to be simply loose drafting. I put down the amendment; unfortunately, it was not taken at the time. Objections were raised to it and so it has come before us again now. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will accept it and get this minor piece of legislation quickly through the House.
The Minister considered the matter and indicated to me on 18th May last that no change in the meaning given to the United Kingdom in the Bill is necessary. The amendment, as put forward by the Deputy, would not, in any event, be adequate. The words "the Isle of Man and Channel Islands" would have to be included twice more in the Bill to achieve the effect desired by the Deputy. My instructions are to resist the amendment.
The Parliamentary Secretary has not explained why he wants the Bill this way. He simply says that the Bill, having been drafted wrongly, in my view, the Minister sees no reason to put it right. That is not an adequate statement in this House. There must be some reason for drafting the Bill incorrectly, some reason for seeking to describe the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man as part of the United Kingdom when they are not. The Parliamentary Secretary owes it to this House to come clean and tell us the reason. Is there some reason? If there is not surely we must accept the correct legal definition and should not attempt to interfere in our legislature with the degree of independence which the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands possess. If there is some good reason for it we are prepared to consider it in this part of the House. If there is no reason for it then I am not prepared to accept the suggestion that these areas should be considered by this country to be part of the UK when they are not. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give any reason whatever for drafting the Bill in the way in which it was drafted.
Even the Deputy's own drafting could be found to be incorrect. To achieve the purpose he has in mind it should be "the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands" instead of "and".
I am quite prepared to accept any drafting amendments of that kind.
It is a very small Bill. It only regularises the position in relation to vodka.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary give me any reason for drafting the Bill in this peculiar way and tell us why the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are, or should be deemed to be, part of the UK? We should not do things without reason.
This is in accordance with long standing practice. In its present form, the Bill avoids unnecessary repetition by adopting the drafting device of stating that, for the purpose of the Bill, "the United Kingdom means Great Britain, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and Channel Islands." This has no wider significance than the implementing of the intention of the trade agreement as it relates to the vodka which was referred to on the Second Stage.
The Parliamentary Secretary said it would be necessary to put the phrase in three times. I do not think there is any significant difference in the number of words. If you describe it correctly it takes 24 words, by this incorrect description it takes 21 words. It is hardly suggested that we should offend the susceptibilities of the peoples of these two territories for the sake of saving three words in legislation.
As I have said, this approach is of long standing. Similar provisions will be found in section 1 of the Finance (Agreement with the United Kingdom) Act, 1938, in paragraph 3 (1) of the Imposition of Duties (No. 159) (Customs Duties and Form of Customs Tariff) Order, 1966, which is the principal order giving effect to the provisions of the trade agreement and the various other statutes and orders enacted in a similar context. In other words, we are following the same form as we have followed in other Acts.
It is a bad precedent which we should now change. I suggest the Parliamentary Secretary should be courteous enough to accept the amendment.
My instructions are not to do that.
Then I think the Minister should be here instead of the Parliamentary Secretary acting under instructions with no discretion to even consider the effect of the debate and the points made.
The Minister made his decision in this matter.
Without hearing the debate? That is called parliamentary democracy?
The Minister read the debate.
The Minister cannot have read this debate. It only just happened.
He read the original debate. The matter has been discussed with him; this is his decision on it; the proposed amendment is not acceptable.
Without regard to opinions and feelings of the people of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands?
That is only a quibble.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill."
On the section, I should like to take the opportunity to register a protest against the system under which a Minister does not come himself but sends a Parliamentary Secretary without discretion to listen to the debate and with instructions as to what to do. This has not been the normal practice in this House and, if I am to be told there is a precedent for that, too, that precedent should be changed.
I am sure the Minister would have liked to have been here to take the debate himself but, unfortunately, he just could not do so. I am just filling in for him. If I have not satisfied the Deputy, I am sorry, but I still think that matter is rather unimportant.
The Minister should have left the Parliamentary Secretary the discretion to hear the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Next Stage?
If the House will agree, now.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.