Amnesty in Respect of Certain Acts

Part of Clause 3 – in the House of Commons at 11:15 pm on 12 December 1979.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Ted Rowlands Mr Ted Rowlands , Merthyr Tydfil 11:15, 12 December 1979

I understand that the Lord Privy Seal is saying that there is nothing in the Bill that gives immunity to firms or individuals who are subject to investigation or reports to the DPP in relation to breaking sanctions. The Lord Privy Seal nods in agreement. That is confirmed.

The first part of the argument is whether, despite that, it is worthwhile adding amendment No. 13. Although the Minister said that the proposal was redundant, many pieces of legislation have a catch-all final subsection which makes doubly sure that there are no loopholes. That is frequently done. Indeed, clause 3(4) looks pretty like one. Irrespective of what went before, that subsection was added to make doubly sure. We are suggesting the addition of a subsection (5) to make doubly sure that the statements made by the Lord Privy Seal are well and truly enshrined in the Bill.

The second point, which has been pressed by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) and others, is not so much in relation to the Bill as to the Government's intention about outstanding cases. The Lord Privy Seal said that the Attorney-General would behave in a propor legal manner in reviewing the cases and that political considerations would not come into it. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for York about that aspect of his judgment—called the public interest—is also relevant.

The Lord Privy Seal said that we should be discussing not this Bill but the Government's powers to make orders under the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979, presumably to clear the decks and to wipe the slate clean. There is no power in the 1979 Act to clear the decks.