The Commissioner-General in Malaya has reported to me that he is satisfied on the evidence that the Malayan Communist Party has been mainly responsible for planning and arranging for the carrying out of the present violent attack on established government and the campaign of murder of peaceful citizens; and is the mainspring in the present disturbances and the directing and nerve centre of the whole subversive movement. The object is to declare a Communist State as soon as the party's adherents obtain control, by means of ruthless violence, of any substantial area in Malaya.

I have, therefore, agreed to the request of the local governments that the Malayan Communist Party should be banned, together with three other satellite bodies which are either actively involved in the present fighting or serve as recruiting grounds for the terrorists and as organisations for supply and intelligence. The bodies in question are those styling themselves the Malayan People's And Japanese Army, the New Democratic Youth League and a Malay Youth League.

In proscribing these subversive organisations the local governments have explained that their members have abused their democratic rights by inciting violent revolution and by participating actively in the present attacks on individual members of the public, whole villages, estates, farms and isolated police stations. The party has been a collecting and forwarding agency for cash, food and other requirements to support bandits and guerilla bands. We have no desire to suppress political opinion, but there can be no place in an ordered society for bodies which seek to overthrow established government by violence and to attain their ends by murder of innocent people.

The right hon. Gentleman has announced serious steps which he is taking in Malaya. We support him in the steps which he is taking, but we must point out that the announcement which he has just made of evidence of a widespread and long concerted plot to overthrow government in Malaya is in striking contrast to the complacency and the indecision with which the situation was faced earlier this year. There are two questions I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman. The first is whether he is satisfied even now that adequate steps are being taken in Malaya and that the full magnitude of the task is realised? Evidence that I and I think other hon. Members get from Malaya is that local opinion is still thoroughly unhappy, and in particular cannot understand the reason why further military reinforcements have not been sent. The second question is this: All too late this plot has been discovered in Malaya, discovered only when the action which it is sought to take had already been embarked upon. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that we are in a position in other territories under his control to detect these plots, if they exist, before they lead to action, and not only after?

On the last point, I should say that the Government are very concerned in regard to the whole of its public relations arrangements and intelligence organisation, and we have, in recent months, given particular attention to this aspect of the problem. In regard to the situation in Malaya itself, there is absolutely no complacency on the part of the local administration. Everything possible is being done to cope with this situation. The Legislative Council, the Executive, the principal representatives of His Majesty's Government have mobilised all available resources. We have supplied them, as far as we possibly could, with all the further resources demanded. In regard to military reinforcements, we have met all demands that have been made upon us, and we have brought to the notice of the administration that, as far as we possibly can, we will meet them in all the demands that are made. At the present time, there is nothing which has been asked for which has not been met; indeed, we have been more than forthcoming to meet the desperate situation there.

As this is possibly the last opportunity that we shall have of discussing this situation before the House rises, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will answer some of the points put to him a week ago but which he refused to answer then. The first question I should like to ask him is this: What was the date when the Malayan Government asked for this action to be taken against the Communist Party? My second question is: Why they were not warned by the police and military Intelligence that this sort of thing was likely to happen? Thirdly, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there are sufficient arms in the country? If so, why do we keep on hearing about radio equipment being sent by air and special requests being made to Australia? My next point is: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that planters today on isolated estates are unable to obtain arms and cannot even get ammunition for shot guns? Is that the situation which the right hon. Gentleman will defend? Is the responsibility here or in Malaya? Finally, when will the new High Commissioner be appointed, and who will he be?

I am not in a position to make an announcement about the new High Commissioner in Malaya, but I hope very shortly to be able to do so. With regard to supply of equipment, ammunition and the necessary weapons, both for the police and the subsidiary forces which have been created, there has been flown into Malaya a fair proportion of additional supplies which have been asked for, and the remainder will be supplied very rapidly.

They are not there now.

Obviously, there has been a degree of re-organisation and development of forces, with additional demands for weapons and ammunition, and a great deal is already in Malaya. In addition, deficiencies or shortages are being supplied.

Will the Minister answer my point about military or police intelligence? Were the Government warned or not, or is it a fact that they were warned and did nothing about it? It must be one or the other.

I certainly do not appreciate the point that has been made. The administration has taken all suitable steps at all points in regard to the situation there. It is easy for people to be wise after the event, but I can assure the hon. Member that the administration on the spot has tried to strengthen the police to meet the new situation that has arisen by developing the public services, collecting arms and dealing with certain types of subversive agitator by deportation and so on, and in every way has tried to cope with that situation.

May I ask the Minister if he will believe that I am absolutely positive of what I say when I repudiate as a foul slander this attack on the Malayan working class? May I ask whether it is not the case that there are more murders of peaceful citizens in this country than there are in Malaya; and is it not a fact that there is no plot, but that there has been quite openly on the part of the Malayan Communist Party and other organisations a quite legitimate demand for Malayan independence and for the industries such as tin and rubber being taken out of the hands of the Imperialists who have control of them and who exploit the people of Malaya? Has the Minister read the statement made on behalf of the Labour Party by Professor Laski? It says:

"This savage invective is intended to strip the veil from these bourgeois foundations of the existing order, the concealment of which is one of the ways in which capitalist civilisation hides its real purpose from the workers whom it makes its slaves."

Will the Minister take note of that, in connection with this report which has come from one who deserted the working class and went over to the Tories, as palpable and obvious evidence of the treachery with which the bourgeoisie treat the working class of this country and of Colonial countries? I repudiate the lies that appear in this report.

I think the House will appreciate that a decision so far-reaching as this would not have been taken without the most extreme care, and that this represents no attack on political opinion at all, but the normal operations of a State which must preserve itself against subversive agitation when resort to violence is openly advocated. I want to assure the hon. Member on this point that this is no attack on the working class in Malaya. It is not a working class movement which is involved. A great deal of this agitation has been fomented by aliens from outside, and some aliens who have taken up residence in the Peninsula. This is not a nationalist movement, nor is it a movement for independence. It is a deliberate campaign to undermine the authority of Government, and in every way to establish a completely different type of order on the basis of ruthless violence and the destruction of property and human life.

Would the right hon. Gentleman, if he can do so without a breach of security, state whether he has been in communication with the Home Office to see that there is no inter-communication of any sort between the Communist Party in this country and the Communist Party in Malaya? Can he give an assurance on that point, in view of the fact that statements have been made by Communists outside that they are supporting the murder of British citizens?

The police State.

This is obviously a difficult question to answer on the Floor of the House, but we do take our responsibilities seriously in all matters like that.

I quite understand.

Whatever the origins of the outbreak of violence in Malaya may be, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that those who have perpetrated these crimes against individual British citizens will be pursued with all the resources of justice that he can possibly command out there?

That is so, and already there have been a very considerable number of arrests and suitable action has been taken.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in consultation with the Secretary of State for War, he would look again at the question of a partial disclosure of the Forces available, because there is a widespread impression that they are inadequate, and there may be some gain to the Communists in that regard? I appreciate the need for a total security blackout where we have one hostile organised army facing another, but that is not the case in Malaya, and I think there might be some gain by a partial disclosure.

I can only say that that point has received very careful consideration, but it would be unwise for a statement on this point to be made in regard to the security arrangements and the reinforcements which we have in mind.

After spending some two months in Malaya in the early part of the year, I am convinced that the extreme elements there did try to capture the trade union movement. They were frustrated, I think, to a large extent in their attempt. I do not want the Minister to use the action of the extreme elements to prevent the growth of the legitimate and healthy trade unions. I am glad that he has sent out trade union advisers to help these people, and I hope we will continue the policy of helping the trade union movement in Malaya. So far as—

I must point out that this is not a Debate. The hon. Member must confine himself to asking questions on the statement.

I want to refer to a point which was raised by the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans). It concerns the knowledge which was in the possession of Sir Edward Gent and reported in the local Press shortly after his death. Sir Edward Gent had the knowledge—

The hon. Gentleman is not asking a question.

I cannot put it in the form of a question, so I will put it later on.

I wish only to reassure my hon. Friend that we have taken no action which is prejudicial to the trade union movement, and we are doing everything in our power to ensure its growth.

I think there is deep disquiet on this question of the amount of our resources there. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he has met all the demands that have come from Malaya, but, as he knows, the G.O.C. there, fine soldier as he is, has only recently arrived. What we want to know is whether he, in consultation with the Secretary of State for War, is satisfied that in fact demands have been met which seem to be adequate to deal with the problem which the right hon. Gentleman knows is facing us in Malaya. If he is not satisfied, will he cause these reinforcements to be sent without waiting for demands from Malaya?

I think I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that all demands have been met, that we have been in the closest consultation with the Government on the spot in regard to their needs, that the Minister of Defence, with the appropriate Service Departments, is in the closest touch with the requirements of Malaya, and that at the moment in this regard there is no more that can be done because the local people are satisfied, having considered the whole plan of their campaign, as to their requirements.

The right hon. Gentleman then takes responsibility for saying that no further reinforcements are required in Malaya?

I certainly could not say that. I say that in this present phase of operations the local authorities have all the requirements. We have been looking well ahead in order to meet any possible demands for new reinforcements, and that situation is adequately covered.

Could the Minister give an assurance that in so far as this extremist movement which has resorted to violence has been fomented from alien sources, its members will be deported?

Powers have been given to the local government in regard to the deportation of aliens, and in some cases of British subjects, who have not hitherto come under these particular orders.

So far as action in Malaya is concerned, has the local administration had a free hand or has reference had to be made to the Colonial Office? If so, has such reference caused delay?

There has been no delay as a result of reference to the Colonial Office. The local authorities on the spot have been given the most ample powers to cope with any emergency situation which has arisen, and there has been no attempt in London to hamper or restrain the local authorities in dealing with the situation as adequately as the circumstances demand.

What steps are being taken to safeguard the ordinary civilian population, who are neither Communist nor terrorist, from violence on either side? Could the Minister tell us something about the activities of the Air Force? Could he say whether the Air Force is in action and is attempting to suppress terrorism and Communism by attacks from the air, and how is the ordinary civilian, the Malayan, being protected from violence from the air? Will the Minister also say whether he has given consideration to the fact that if indiscriminate attacks are made on Malayan villages from the air, this might inflame the ordinary population and endanger the lives of the British planters?

The ordinary population desires protection—

From the air?

—and it is that protection which is now being accorded them. There is no indiscriminate bombing of villages at all. It is the normal requirement of government that so far as possible it should safeguard the lives and protect the property of the citizens, and the Malayan Government are trying to do that to their utmost.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to undermine the illegal elements in Malaya is to encourage the legal ones, such as the trade union movement?

It is not legal.

The trade unions are legal.

No.

They are properly constituted and are run on proper lines in Malaya. They are run in a democratic way. I happen to have attended a conference of the whole of the railwaymen who were forming their joint industrial council when I was in Kuala Lumpur. If the Minister would encourage these genuine trade unions it would do more than anything else to undermine the illegal elements. Is the Minister aware that wages in Malaya have gone up three times and prices have gone up six times? Will he help the legitimate trade unions in their demand for an increase in wages, which will do more than anything else to undermine the illegal elements?

There is a greater measure of economic stability in Malaya today than has been the case in the last year or so. We have had very considerable difficulties which apparently account for the disturbed state of the territory during the last two years, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we are doing all in our power to encourage trade unionism and give it every possible kind of advice in order to foster its healthy growth.

It is illegal.

The right hon. Gentleman said that local military demands have been met and that he is looking ahead as to the need for further reinforcements. While I in no way wish to cast any reflection at all upon the local commanders, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give an assurance that the local demands have been met completely, without any restriction upon them whatsoever, and that they are not affected by other commitments which we have to meet?

I think that question should be addressed to the Minister of Defence.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This is a technical Measure, but happily a short one. It has been agreed to by another place without a great deal of debate. Its main purpose is to make plain by enactment what constitutes the laying of documents before Parliament. Certain doubts have been expressed and this Bill is designed to remove them. Those doubts arose in the following way. Before the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, came into operation on 1st June last, subordinate legislation which had to be laid before Parliament under any Act did not generally have to be so laid before it came into effect. The usual provision was that it should be laid as soon as may be after it was made. But, under the Statutory Instruments Act, Section 4, a new procedure was laid down as follows: The object of this Standing Order, with its Amendment, was to enable Instruments to which it applies to be laid before the House at times when the House might not be sitting—for example, on a Saturday or during a Recess. The reason for that was that we desired—and I think that there was general agreement in the House about this when the Standing Order was passed—to reduce the occasions upon which it would be necessary to use the special procedure of the proviso to Section 4 (1) of the 1946 Act to which I have referred.

When a similar Standing Order was moved in another place, objection was taken on the grounds that it was ultra vires. It was argued that it would have the effect of amending Acts of Parliament by providing a new system of laying Instruments and, in particular, that Section 4 of the Statutory Instruments Act implied that the process of laying there referred to was the process in force at the time of the commencement of the Act and, therefore, that it could not be altered consistently with the Act.

I think that most hon. Members who take an interest in this matter know that there was a very sharp division of opinion, both lay and legal, on this point. The result was that, after consideration, the Government came to the conclusion that the only prudent course would be to settle those doubts by introducing this present Bill to clarify the legal position. That is the reason for Clause 1.

I will now turn to Clause 2. The opportunity of the presentation of this Bill has been taken to amend a flaw which, we are advised, is to be found in Section 4 (1) of the 1946 Act. The special procedure laid down in that Section requires notification to be given to the Lord Chancellor or to you, Sir, forthwith, if it is essential that an Instrument shall operate before copies can be laid. But no provision has been made for the eventuality that one or other of those offices might be vacant. Clause 2, therefore, provides that, if it happens that one or other of the offices is vacant at the material time, it will be enough to notify the new holder of the office immediately upon his appointment, and that such notification will be effective.

11.36 a.m.

I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a few questions about this Bill. First, why is it necessary? Most of us understood that the laying of documents before Parliament meant that Parliament was there to receive them. No doubt, departments have found certain inconveniences under Section 4 of the Statutory Instruments Act, but this Bill is really taking away Parliamentary supervision and giving a charter to departmental convenience. I think there is no doubt about that, and I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, which side is he on—on the side of the Departments or on the side of the House of Commons? His heart is on one side but I am afraid his tongue is on the other. That is the sum and substance of what we are doing today.

Why was Section 4 of the Statutory Instruments Act ever passed at all? Surely, it was to try to keep the Departments up to the mark and to make them lay their rules and orders forthwith and as soon as may be—a thing they did not always do. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the Home Office made fire regulations in 1941 and forgot to lay them until 1944, and we had to pass an Indemnity Act to tell the Home Secretary that he was quite innocent and so on. Nevertheless, that omission in laying did not make the slightest difference to the validity of the regulations.

Section 4 of the Act tells the departments that they must lay their instruments before they operate. The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us very much—and I can well understand why—on the proviso about when they operate before laying, when it is found essential that they should so operate, because that is my charge against what is being done today.

The Solicitor-General, who, I am glad to see, is here today, spoke about Section 4 when the Statutory Instruments Bill was in Committee and referred to the proviso in Section 4 (1) and to the safeguards which are necessary when essentiality is claimed—that the notification and the reason should be sent to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Lord Chancellor. Perhaps I might remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman of something he said on 20th November, 1945, which he cannot say today. If he will refer to the Committee debate, column 673 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see that he said:

My right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will be replying to the Debate, but, perhaps, I may just deal with this point, as I am referred to as not having mentioned it. The fact is that Rules in another place are different from the Rules here. Our Standing Order was quite in order.

The Standing Order, as a Standing Order, was quite in order. But what was it doing? It was trying to override Acts of Parliament. I cannot quote what was said in another place, but the Solicitor-General will know very well what was said when I refer to what an ex-Lord Chancellor said. If he will look up the Debate which I should be out of Order in quoting, he will see that it was the case that this Standing Order was said to override Acts of Parliament. I am not a legal expert at all, but that is what was said by an ex-Lord Chancellor. If I were allowed to quote what he said I certainly should.

What is the safeguard now? What is the advantage of this synthetic laying of orders when Parliament is not sitting? How does it help Parliamentary supervision? During the holidays no Votes and Proceedings are published to tell Members of Parliament what regulations are being laid, and so forth. We can go to the Library in the holidays to see what has been published, whether it has been laid or not. That is the only method by which we can know. By this new procedure officials are to hang about to receive Statutory Instruments during the holidays, and I do not think there is much wisdom in that, either. We are being asked to say that Standing Order 94 is all right. It talks about "deeming" something—deeming something to be laid which is not laid. We do not deem that two plus two make four: we know it. We start deeming when we want to make the total three or five instead of four. That is what is being done here. Standing Order 94 plus this Bill are designed to lessen Parliamentary supervision, and to cut down the safeguard about which I took the opportunity of reminding the Solicitor-General a few minutes ago.

What we ought to be wanting to do—what all Members of Parliament ought to be wanting to do—is to strengthen the effect of Section 4, and to insist upon laying before operation. If this cannot be done an explanation ought to be given us. This Bill amends Section 4 and weakens Parliamentary supervision. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. But it does. We should have been told honestly that it was doing that, and told frankly and honestly what was being done. I do hope that we shall have this matter cleared up. I do not think this is the right way to treat Parliament.

11.45 a.m.

We all respect the great experience of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Ayr and Bute (Sir C. MacAndrew), gained by reason of his long handling of Statutory Instruments and Statutory Rules and Orders as Chairman of the scrutiny Committee, but I really think he is doing a great injustice to himself as well as to this Bill by describing it as a Bill which in any way prevents Parliamentary control over subordinate legislation.

I did not say "control." I said "supervision."

Parliamentary supervision over subordinate legislation. Those of us who sit on these benches are just as anxious as the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his hon. Friends are to preserve Parliamentary supervision over subordinate legislation in every possible way. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman really must have misunderstood what I, at any rate, conceive to be the very limited and very sensible purpose of this Bill. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to have overlooked the fact that under the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, there are, in fact, two safeguards to the public. One is Section 3, which imposes the requirement of publication. The second is Section 4 which imposes the requirement that Statutory Instruments should be laid before Parliament. I remember quite well the discussion which took place on the Bill of 1946 on Second Reading and in Committee. It was largely as a result of representations which were made in Committee by those of us who sit on this side of the House—as well as by hon. Members opposite—that Section 4 was very considerably strengthened in the degree of Parliamentary supervision for which it provided.

I think the point at issue in this Bill can best be understood if we remind ourselves that the essence of Section 4 is, to ensure that Statutory Instruments are laid before Parliament and do not come into operation until they are so laid, except in that very limited class of case which was referred to as the minority case. I think I am right in saying, though I speak subject to correction, that practically all the 2,000 or 3,000 or so Statutory Instruments that have been passed during this Session—not merely since the Act was passed—and which have been considered by the scrutiny Committee, have all fallen under the majority provisions. The Section provides that Statutory Instruments shall be laid before Parliament. Now this House and another place are masters of their own procedure, and I think it is quite wrong and quite unfair for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to refer to a Standing Order of this House as having been designed to override Acts of Parliament.

I should not like to be misquoted. I did not say it was designed to do so, but that the highest legal opinion was that that was the effect of it.

I do not understand how that can be. I should have thought it was quite impossible for Standing Orders of this House to override Acts of Parliament. Clause 1 of the Bill we are now considering is designed to remove any doubts. The point arose in this way. The Act of 1946 says that Statutory Instruments shall be laid before Parliament, but it does not provide how the laying before Parliament shall take place. Therefore, the laying before Parliament, whether before this House or another place, is a matter for the domestic regulation of this House or of the House of Lords. We are entitled to make our own domestic regulations in our own way and to say how documents that have by Acts of Parliament to be laid, shall be laid. We have so provided in our Standing Orders, with the consent of the House.

I should have thought that, far from there being any attempt on the part of the House of Commons to override the provisions of an Act of Parliament, this Bill is itself a recognition by the Government of the desirability of preserving up to the hilt the maximum Parliamentary control. In order that there may be no doubt whatever about the matter, this Bill ensures that the provisions for compliance with Section 4 of the Act of 1946 are in future to be prescribed by an Act of Parliament itself.

As I understand it, that is the whole object of Clause (1), and it seems to me a very desirable object. Historically, I think that it is interesting, because, for the first time, so far as I am aware, it gives statutory effect not merely to Standing Orders and Sessional Orders of this House but also to the practice of this House. I think that it is valuable in that respect, because it recognises, what is a well-known fact, that the rules and regulations by which we govern ourselves in this House are by no means exclusively contained in the Manual of Standing Orders or, indeed, in Erskine May, but that we rely very largely on the practice of the House accumulated and built up over the years. Clause (1) enshrines that constitutional principle that the practice of the House has the same validity as our formal Sessional Orders or Standing Orders.

I think, therefore, that Clause 1 is eminently desirable. In passing, I think this is the right time—as this is the first occasion on which we are discussing the operation of the Statutory Instrument Act, 1946—to say that, despite the abuse which we frequently hear about subordinate legislation, my experience is—and I think that it is the experience of all members of the scrutiny Committee—that the system designed by the Act of 1946 is working extremely well in practice.

Why alter it?

The whole burden of my contention is that we are not altering it; we are merely clarifying it.

An hon. Member referred to what happened in Recess, but there is nothing in the Bill which in any way changes Parliamentary control in Recess. Statutory instruments have been made in Recess in the past, and will be made again in the future. There is nothing in the Bill which by one iota increases the power of Government Departments to sign Statutory Instruments during the Recess. I was saying, because I thought it important to emphasise the fact in view of the misunderstanding that frequently arises about subordinate legislation, that the machinery designed by this Government in the Act of 1946 for securing the vigilant control by this House over subordinate legislation is in fact working extremely smoothly and successfully. Hundreds and indeed thousands of rules and regulations have to be made to give effect to the principles and policies of this Government as supported by this House, and representing the wishes of the country. The overwhelming majority of Statutory Instruments call for no criticism and no complaint at all. They are scrutinised at frequent intervals by the scrutiny Committee and reported on to this House. The system that has been devised for enabling the Government to give effect to the details of their legislation has worked extremely smoothly, and in a way which preserves all the principles of Parliamentary control and supervision.

I come to Clause 2, which, I agree, is not so simple, and I would like to have the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. I agree that Clause 2 does include something new and novel. The right hon. Gentleman said that it was designed to amend a flaw in the 1946 Act. I am a little doubtful whether if that particular flaw had been discussed in 1946, the House would have been prepared to deal with it in the way proposed in Clause 2. What does it say? Although the majority of statutory instruments have to be laid and do not come into force unless they are laid, there is provision in exceptional cases and cases of necessity that they may come into force before they are laid. In those cases notification has to be sent to the Lord Chancellor and to Mr. Speaker. I think that we all agree that provision ought to be made for the contingency of a vacancy arising in the office of the Lord Chancellor or of Mr. Speaker by death or resignation; but I am not so happy about the contingency of a vacancy in office arising by the Dissolution of Parliament. Would that mean that in future the Executive of the day after the Dissolution of Parliament, when all opportunity of legislating had ceased, would still be able to enact subordinate legislation?

There may be only the Lord Chancellor and no Mr. Speaker, and no one to whom inquiry can be made until there is a new House of Commons elected; and one cannot assume that there will always be only a short interval between the Dissolution of one Parliament and the election of another. I should have thought that the basic constitutional principle must be that in the interval between the Dissolution of one House and the election of another there can be no legislation. One might argue that as a corollary there should be no subordinate legislation. I should have thought that any Government in such circumstances would have been extremely unwise to issue any subordinate legislation except, perhaps, where there would be no possibility of controversy; I should have hoped that, if the Bill in this form is passed, any Government would have recognised the necessity of hesitating a long time before passing any subordinate legislation after the dissolution of one Parliament and before the election of another.

11.58 a.m.

I wish to support what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Northern Ayr and Bute (Sir C. MacAndrew). The Financial Secretary said that in his view the Standing Order which we passed last November was valid. If it was valid, then this Bill is quite unnecessary so far as this House is concerned. It may be that it is desirable that we should pass a Bill, but surely references to proceedings in this House could be eliminated. If the Standing Order is invalid, it should be revoked and not dealt with in this way. In my view both the Bill and the Standing Order are unnecessary.

I think that the position was quite satisfactory and well understood under the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946. There it was clearly provided that if it was essential to bring a statutory instrument into operation before it could be laid that could be done subject to report and explanation to Mr. Speaker. By that way, if it was necessary to bring a statutory instrument into operation during Recess, when it could not be laid until Parliament met again, there was no difficulty. But an explanation was required, and it has become the practice of Departments to treat it in a very casual way. If it is convenient to make statutory instruments and bring them into force during a Recess, they do so without regard to whether that is essential or not.

I think it was the intention of Parliament, at the time the Statutory Instruments Bill was in the course of passage, that only in exceptional circumstances should Departments avail themselves of the proviso—only where it was really essential—and then they should explain to Mr. Speaker why it was essential. What they do now is automatically to bring them into operation, and we see on the first page of the Votes and Proceedings, when the House resumes, a list of these documents—dozens of them —which have been reported to Mr. Speaker. If one goes to the Library and looks for the explanation, all one finds is a statement that this was necessary simply because the House had not been sitting. That does not convey that they were essential. They might well have been brought into operation some time later.

The Government are getting much too casual about this, and I ask whether it is proper to attempt to carry this Bill through all its stages today. The Financial Secretary started by saying that this was a highly technical Measure. I quite agree; and it is something the House should have an opportunity properly to consider. It concerns quite important principles about procedure, and is a matter on which we should be able, after what has been said on both sides of the House on its Second Reading today, to put down such Amendments as we consider proper for the Committee stage, and then have a Report stage, and so on. Instead of that, I understand from what was said by the Lord President the other day that the Government are asking the House to see this Bill through its Third Reading today. I protest against that. Of course, it is all of a piece with the conduct of the Government in getting through that Standing Order—which now apparently is regarded with some doubts—at four o'clock in the morning on 5th November last. It is very largely owing to this attempt to rush things through in a slap-dash, casual way that the Government have got themselves into this difficulty.

If this Bill does not receive adequate consideration—which it cannot possibly receive in going through all its stages in the course of an hour or so this morning—it may well be that the Government will have to come to the House later on and ask us to amend this Measure. Also, I think that this Bill is misnamed. If the Government were quite honest they would call it the Statutory Instruments Act (Amendment) Bill—for that is what it really is. Again, the Government do not like to admit the necessity to amend one of their Bills, so they try to do it in another way by giving the Bill a very different name. In view of the discussion we have had—and no doubt there will be many more contributions—I very much hope that the Government will not attempt to get this Bill through all its stages today.

12.3 p.m.

The fact that the Financial Secretary should have been standing this morning at that Box to tell the House that this Bill was necessary because doubts had arisen as to the interpretation of an Act which came into effect only on 1st January this year, surely reflects precious little credit upon those responsible for the handling of these matters. I believe the hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) to be right in saying that one of the reasons for this is the inordinate hustle with which all these matters are being handled. Although this Bill was not even in the Vote Office and available to hon. Members on Monday of this week, it is now sought to bulldoze it through all its stages today, and I certainly add my protest to those that have already been expressed at this method of handling this matter.

After all, whether the Government like it or not, this is fundamentally a House of Commons matter; it is concerned with the mechanics of Parliamentary supervision and control over that vast flow of delegated legislation which, however satisfactory it may appear to the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher), pours out in an ever-increasing torrent upon the bewildered heads and bewildered minds of the citizens of this country. When we are dealing with the very small degree of effective control which we have in this House over this immense mass of Governmental and executive power, we are entitled to be treated with far more consideration than we have been shown over this matter.

I suggest that a Bill which was being discussed in another place only on Monday, and which was not available for hon. Members to read on Monday afternoon, should not be pushed through all its stages today. Hon. Members are entitled to have much more time to consider Amendments for the Committee stage. Quite obviously, the Government have nothing to be proud about in their handling of the matter. They at least are not entitled to take the point that this matter is so perfectly in hand that they do not require the co-operation, criticism or assistance of Members of the House of Commons; or else, as the hon. Baronet said, they will be coming down here in a few months' time with another Bill say- ing that doubts have arisen about the interpretation of this Measure.

The hon. Baronet made very strongly a point which I hope the learned Solicitor-General will answer—as to the way in which the proviso to Section 4 (1) of the 1946 Act has been simply flouted and defied by the Departments. I hope we shall have an assurance—which I believe was also asked for in another place—that in future, when advantage is taken of the proviso to Section 4 (1) of the 1946 Act an explanation of the urgency of the measure will in all cases be provided. As the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr and Bute (Sir C. MacAndrew) said, that simply has not been done, and if any Amendment were necessary to the 1946 Act, I suggest that an Amendment on those lines might very profitably be put through in this Bill to make even clearer to the Departments their duty in this matter.

Even then, even subject to those criticisms, this Bill does not seem to me at all satisfactory. The hon. Member for East Islington said that it was an admirable example of Parliamentary control that by this Bill—and I took down his words—the conditions of complying with Section 4 of the 1946 Act were themselves to be laid down in an Act of Parliament. With great respect, that is not so. All this Bill seeks to do is to say that any Standing Order, of any sort or kind, which may at the material time be in force in this House shall cover compliance with the 1946 Act; any Standing Order not specified in this Bill—possibly a Standing Order not yet even made—shall amount to compliance. Therefore, it is quite misleading to say that the conditions of compliance are set out in this Bill. What is set out in this Bill is a blank cheque to this House to make any Standing Order it likes, and whatever Standing Order may be made, that shall be sufficient compliance.

Again, one other safeguard is nibbled away by Clause 2. It is provided that in the event of a regrettable vacancy in your office, Sir, and in the event of a vacancy in the office of Lord Chancellor, there shall be no notification at all to either House of the urgent reasons for laying an order until the office is filled; that is to say, we shall be deprived, in those circumstances, of the safeguard under Section 4 of the 1946 Act. I really cannot see why that is necessary.

If those regrettable circumstances should arise, there are other Officers of this House, such as the Chairman of Ways and Means, and in another place the Lord Chairman of Committees, to whom notification could be given without any particular difficulty, and I do not see why we should have this particular safeguard removed by this Bill.

Finally, I must say I do not share the satisfaction of the hon. Member for East Islington with the existing machinery of control of statutory instruments. I do not for one moment deprecate the work being done by the Committee of which the hon. Member is a distinguished member, and of which the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr and Bute is Chairman. But to argue from that that the position is so satisfactory that by this Bill it is quite right for this House not to increase but to reduce the safeguards, is quite wrong. I do not think that is the experience of hon. Members of this House who are not members of that Select Committee, and I am perfectly certain that it is not the impression formed in the minds of intelligent members of the public outside. I say to the Government, with respect, that if it be necessary, due to hasty and ill-considered draftsmanship in the 1946 Act, already to amend it after only seven months of operation, it surely would be far more satisfactory that it should be amended in the direction of giving greater Parliamentary control and not, as this Bill does if it does anything, giving less.

2.10 p.m.

I will endeavour shortly to reply to some of the criticisms that have been directed to this Bill. Let me say, first, that its object is extremely limited. It is correctly described as an interpretation Bill and I will try to indicate what it is intended to do. Section 4 of the 1946 Act provided, in effect, that instruments had to be laid before they came into operation. If they had to come into operation before they were laid because it was essential to bring them into operation immediately, then notification should be sent to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Lord Chancellor. That Act used the word "laid" and the question which is dealt with in the Measure we are now considering is what exactly is the mean- ing of that word. As the House well remembers the Act of 1946 was designed to tidy up and to reduce into some kind of coherent order what had been showing tendencies of getting rather out of hand—the subject of delegated legislation, in which the House is naturally deeply concerned and interested.

The question, then, with which this Bill deals is the meaning of the word "laid" in Section 4 of the 1946 Act. We took the view that it meant whatever the House—either this one or the other place, whichever is in question—from time to time considered as a matter of its own domestic arrangements as "laid"; it passes its own Standing Orders wherein it says what it will treat as "laid." The view which we took was that "laid" meant whatever the House in question from time to time decided, as a matter of its own internal domestic arrangements, to treat as "laid."

Proceeding upon the view that that was the meaning of the word "laid" in Section 4 of the 1946 Act, on 5th November we invited the House, and the House agreed, to introduce Standing Order 94, to provide that laying could take place by delivery of a copy of the instrument to the Votes and Proceedings Office on any day during the existence of a Parliament. Upon the assumption that that view of the meaning of the word "laid" in Section 4 of the Act was the correct one, that was a perfectly competent Standing Order. We were not trying to alter anything upon that view. It was perfectly competent if the 1946 Act talked about laying and meant by that whatever the House in question treated as a matter of its own internal domestic arrangements as laying—it was perfectly competent, then, to say, "Well, we will treat as 'laying,' handing in to the Votes and Proceedings Office at any time when a Parliament is in existence." Nobody was trying to alter an Act of Parliament. The Act used the word "laid" and the Standing Order was intended to be an application of that use. So far, so good. In another place it was sought to do exactly the same thing by a similar order—not an order in the same terms but one with the same general purpose.

The question was then raised as a matter of doubt whether that view of the word "laid" upon which this House had proceeded was the correct view.

When the matter began to be argued conflict of opinion developed and doubt was expressed whether the view of "laying" which had been adopted by this House was the correct view or whether the correct view is that "laying" means what is regarded as laying at the time the 1946 Act was passed. That was the rival view which was propounded. Those views having been expressed and doubts having been raised, it could not be said that the matter was pellucidly clear. Obviously it was not and clearly it was undesirable, in the view of the Government, that, there being any possible doubt as to the meaning of "laid" in Section 4, either this House or another place should proceed upon a view which might be the wrong view and might hereafter by a court of law be decided to be the wrong view. For those reasons, the Government decided that it must remove that doubt and say, by this new Bill, exactly what is meant by "laying."

We now say that what we now mean by the word "laying"—we are not amending the 1946 Act—and always meant by it was whatever the House from time to time, by reference to the time we are considering, chooses to treat as a matter of its own internal arrangements as "laying." That, I submit, is the commonsense, practical and sensible view After all, it is a matter for the House from time to time to say what it chooses to regard as "laying"—it is a matter for its own internal arrangement.

Is it not true to say that the only reason that the Bill is being produced today is that in another place they would not swallow the Standing Order?

It is unnecessary to use a term of that sort. It is not a question of anybody's swallowing anything. We are conscious of our responsibility in this matter, and that is the view we took. I am not saying whether or not that view is still held. I should not like to be interpreted as meaning that it is not still held or very strongly held, but, obviously, when there are counter-views, when there is a possibility that that view might be questioned in a court of law hereafter, it is unsatisfactory that the House should proceed upon a view which might subsequently turn out to be wrong.

That is why we have this Bill. We do not want the smallest possibility of uncertainty and we desire that Parliament should say by way of an enactment exactly what it meant by the word "laid" in the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946.

The word "laid" is one which is used in a number of statutes. What we are saying applies not merely to the 1946 Act, but to wherever the word is used in a statute. Unless there is an indication that a contrary interpretation is intended to be applied to it in the statute it shall be construed as meaning whatever the House from time to time chooses by its practice or by its Standing Orders to regard as laying."

I hope the House will agree that we are not trying, and never have tried to override, an Act of Parliament by means of a Standing Order. Obviously that would be quite improper and we would not do so. When we passed the Standing Order we invited the House to say—and the House agreed—that that was what we thought "laying" meant. I hope I shall not be interpreted as receding from the views I have expressed about its meaning. What I am pointing out is that other views have been expressed and we do not wish that there should be the slightest doubt of its meaning.

That being so, and assuming that our view was right, let us suppose that a Department, under Standing Order 94 of November last, handed in during a Recess to the Votes and Proceedings Office a copy of a statutory instrument; that would constitute a laying within the meaning of Section 4 and that Section, therefore, would have been duly complied with. In other words, if the Department wanted the statutory instrument to come into effect at, say, the end of the week, and handed it in to the Votes and Proceedings Office at the beginning of the week, that would constitute a laying within the meaning of Section 4, notwithstanding that it was done in the Recess because it was done during the existence of a Parliament. That would be the position if the view upon which we acted, and upon which we asked the House to act, was the correct view of what "laid" meant in the Statutory Instrument Act, 1946.

If, however, that was not the correct view, and if the correct meaning of "laid" in Section 4 of the Act of 1946 was laying, as laying was understood to be at the time that Act was passed, then, clearly, even if we complied with Standing Order 94 of November, 1947, we would not have complied with the Act, so that its laying would have been a complete nullity. But we would not be overriding any Act even then. The only result would be that the Department which complied with the Standing Order, thinking that it was thereby laying an instrument within the meaning of Section 4, would have been mistaken, and its action would have been a complete nullity. It would have been exactly as if nothing at all had taken place. We wanted to remedy the position by making it pellucidly clear that laying is what the House in which we are speaking at the moment has expressed in terms of its Standing Orders or practice. It is only for this limited object that the Bill has been introduced, and not to extend the powers of the Departments or to extend the scope of Executive authority at all The object is to remove the doubt

Does it remove the safeguard of which we were speaking on 20th November?

No, Sir

It does not remove the safeguard at all?

No, it does not remove it at all. May I explain the interrelationship? We wanted to be able to lay an instrument during the Recess without having to refer to the proviso. We say now, if the Bill becomes law, that we have the Standing Order of November, 1947, and that if we comply with that Standing Order we will have laid, and complied with Section 4; but the Standing Order only refers to a time when there is a Parliament. To start off with, therefore, we cannot lay under that Standing Order when Parliament has been dissolved. We must, however, comply with the proviso. We can only lay an essential instrument which must be brought into operation. We must then give notification to Mr. Speaker or to the Lord Chancellor.

Similarly, sometimes we cannot hand the instrument in to the Votes and Proceedings Office or comply with the analogous procedure in another place, for the reason that the office is closed. So then we cannot comply with the Standing Order. If it should happen that we have an essential instrument which must come into operation immediately, and if we want to make it come into operation when the office is closed, it can be done only by sending notification to you, Mr. Speaker, or to the Lord Chancellor. So that the procedure has still to be resorted to in the case of an essential instrument.

Perhaps I might make this comment. It is not desirable not to have this procedure whereby we can lay in the Recess. May I give the reason? The reason is that it is very often difficult to say that an instrument which clearly should come into operation is essential. May I give an example? Suppose we are imposing a control to prevent some undesirable practice. It may be very easy for the Minister to certify that this is an essential statutory instrument. Suppose the same Minister, at a later date, decided to relax the control because the mischief which he sought to control or prevent by the instrument had come to an end, and he wished to relax the controls which he had introduced. Can we say that the instrument is essential in a case of that sort, an instrument which introduces a relaxation? No doubt it is highly desirable that people should not be constrained by the measure of control after the mischief has passed, but can we say, therefore, that it is essential to introduce a relaxing statutory instrument?

It is difficult to say so. Therefore we must constantly have situations continuing which ought to be brought to an end but which cannot be brought to an end simply because an instrument cannot be laid, and it cannot be certified that an instrument is one that it is essential to bring into operation before it can be laid. That is the very limited object of the Bill—to remove that doubt which certainly should not exist in this category of legislation.

The second Clause of the Bill is to deal with the case in which for any reason, your office, Mr. Speaker, or the office of the Lord Chancellor, may be vacant, usually for a very short time. It says that in the very limited class of case where that should happen, it is possible that an essential instrument has to be made in that short period of time, say, during a state of national crisis, where it would not be in the national interest if it could not be made because it was impossible to notify Mr. Speaker or the Lord Chancellor.

While I appreciate fully the force of the case which the Solicitor-General is presenting, may I ask whether it is difficult to provide in such circumstances for notification to the Chairman of Ways and Means or to the Lord Chairman?

It is a matter of choice. I say quite frankly that we did not adopt that alternative I think the constitutional position undoubtedly is that when your chair is not occupied, Mr. Speaker, this House is constitutionally unable to take any steps to transact any business other than the business of electing a new Speaker. The reason that we did not adopt that alternative was that the only thing which could be done if Mr. Speaker received a notification in those circumstances was that he would have to put it into his pocket and wait until he was re-elected. Then he could act. We therefore should have been providing for what was virtually a nullity if we had adopted that alternative.

In another place the position is not the same. There are certain powers vested in the Lord Chairman. After all, this Bill comes from another place, and it is appropriate that they should decide that matter according to their own internal arrangements. It is for them to decide what they would prefer in this respect. Therefore, that being their choice in this matter and the Measure having come from another place, we thought it would not be proper to provide for what was really a nullity and that the best way of dealing with that situation was to say that the notification should, in that case, be given to you, Sir, or to any of your successors, as soon as he was appointed, or to the Lord Chancellor. We feel that that is the more sensible alternative of the two.

The Bill is to deal with a limited category or contingency where an essential Measure, probably in a time of national emergency, must be brought into operation during the very limited period of time when there is no Lord Chancellor and you, Mr. Speaker, are not the occupant of your present office. I hope that after this explanation the House will agree that this is an innocuous Bill, useful in its scope and purpose, and that hon. Members will agree to its Second Reading.

12.28 p.m.

This is not an agreed Measure. The only thing that was agreed was that we should take all stages today. We do not approve of that sort of procedure, but there must be a certain amount of give and take in the Parliamentary time-table. We recognise also that we are suffering because of the Government's surfeit of legislation, which sometimes leads to these inevitable consequences. We are very grateful to another place which is able to give time and consideration to improving on various Measures. We are also grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr and Bute (Sir C. MacAndrew) and other hon. Members, who give up so much of their time to the examination of statutory instruments. But, as I say, this is not an agreed Measure. Any of my hon. Friends who wishes to challenge this Second Reading is free to do so.

The suggestion was made by the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) that both sides of the House are equally interested in preserving Parliamentary controls over statutory instruments. I wish we could feel so. We have the recollection of the publication in the name of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer of the statement, which has never been repudiated, that he looked to the time when orders made in this House, taking any number of forms and in innumerable quantities, would not be capable of challenge in the courts. Those were his exact words. Therefore, we are naturally chary of giving what appear to be increased powers to the Executive of the day. The Solicitor-General dealt with the laying of orders during the Parliamentary Recess, and said that it would be necessary to show that it was essential that an order should be issued.

During a Dissolution.

Yes. A practice has lately grown up under which it is adequate for the Minister to say that the essential nature is proved by the fact that Parliament is dissolved. We ought to insist that if this practice is followed a real reason should be given for the essential nature of the Order, and it should not be adequate to say that it is essential to bring it in because Parliament is dissolved.

Secondly, when Parliament is sitting, Votes and Proceedings draw the attention of every hon. Member to statutory instruments which have been made, and we are in a position to make trouble for the Government if we cannot buy an order at the Stationery Office or collect it at the Vote Office a short period afterwards. As was pointed out by my hon. and gallant Friend, there are no Votes and Proceedings during the Recess. The Government should give an assurance that no orders will be made during the Parliamentary Recess which cannot be obtained at the Vote Office almost immediately afterwards or at the most within two days or cannot be bought at the Stationery Office during the same period. If that is done one of the fears of my hon. Friends will be in part removed.

Perhaps I might say straight away that we can give that assurance.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

CLAUSE I.—(Meaning of references to laying before Parliament.)

12.32 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, after "House," to insert:

"made or given after the coming into force of this Act and."

It might be for the convenience of the Committee if this Amendment and the next Amendment were discussed together.

The first Amendment is to secure that we shall have a new Standing Order and that the existing Standing Order about which there has been so much doubt and discussion should not be effective so far as Clause 1 is concerned. Having regard to the very hasty way in which the Standing Order was obtained at 4 o'clock in the morning on 5th November last year, and all the discussion there has been about it, it is highly desirable that we should make a new Standing Order after proper discussion.

The second Amendment is in page 2, line 1, to leave out from "House," to "nowithstanding," in line 3. It seeks to omit the words:

If it were necessary to do so, I should be pleased to second the Amendment.

I hope the Committee will not think it right to accept either of these Amendments. In the first place, it means throwing overboard what we have already done and unnecessarily re-doing what we have already done and considered. In November, 1947, we passed the Standing Order. No doubt it was late at night, but 1 see that I made it perfectly clear that its object was to enable statutory instruments to be laid when the House was not sitting. The hon. Baronet the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) was in the House on that occasion and asked a question. I agree that it was late at night, but I consider that the terms of the Standing Order were perfectly clear, and that after a clear intimation of its object, the House was satisfied and the Standing Order was agreed to.

I am far from admitting—and I repeat that I do not want to be interpreted as admitting—that the view of law which we took was erroneous. The only reason for the Bill is that doubt has been expressed as to whether it was erroneous or not. Upon that view of law, if it is right, it is a perfectly sound Standing Order and there is no reason to interfere with it. Is there much reason to go through the same process now upon the assumption that it is wrong? If that view of law was wrong, we are now putting it right by the declared will of this House. I hope the Committee will agree that this having been done and it being after all a Standing Order which is useful in its effect, and justifiable on its merits, there is no reason now to go through precisely the same process which we went through in November last year and make as one of our Standing Orders the exact equivalent of Standing Order 94. That is an unnecessary process. It serves no useful need.

I hope the Committee will agree that the first Amendment should not be adopted. This House agreed to the Standing Order. It is simple in its expression and its object was perfectly clear and was stated by me at that time. As to whether it was late or not, after all, we transact our business during long stretches of time and I have always noticed that the House is able to concentrate with remarkable assiduity on all sorts of problems at whatever time it may be during the day or night.

The second Amendment seeks to leave out the reference to the practice of either House. I am told that in the other place a great deal depends on practice or, at any rate, hitherto has depended on practice. I certainly do not purport to be in any way an expert in the procedure of the other place but, having refreshed myself with information on the point, I think that there was a disputed Standing Order which it was attempted unsuccessfully to introduce into the other place. It was a matter of constitutional practice as to what the other place treated as laying an instrument or a document or a report before itself. Not only was that a matter of practice, but it may arise in the future as it has arisen over the centuries in our Constitution. Indeed, that is its great strength. We do, in point of fact, proceed upon a basis of common accord and we do not always necessarily literally look at the spoken word when matters arise of internal domestic procedure in the conduct of either House of Parliament.

For those reasons, it would be useful to have these words. As the years go by, there may be a departure from the written word of an order by common accord, by constantly repeated and accepted custom. That would be within the scope of the Clause as drafted. It would not be within the scope of the Clause as it would stand if the Amendment was accepted. I hope that the Committee will agree that it would impair the effect of the Clause if this reference were left out, when one bears in mind that we are dealing with the procedure of our two Houses which, as history has shown, is apt to change and is flexible, to some extent, in its nature. Indeed, that is why it is so very efficacious.

I should be the last to try to divert the Solicitor-General from his most admirable attitude, as expressed this morning, of deep respect for the workings of our flexible Constitution. I hope that his wise and prescient words may be fully comprehended and acted upon by certain of his colleagues in his Government. I rise to invite his attention to the extraordinarily unsatisfactory nature of the Bill as it now stands. We seek in this Bill to define in what shall consist the laying of a statutory instrument. We seek to define it by starting off by providing that it shall be anything which complies with any Standing Order which happens to be in effect at the material time. It is a piece of legislation not only by reference to existing Standing Orders, but by reference also to the future. Then, as if that were not imprecise and uncertain enough, we call in aid the practice. That is to say, that we are really calling in aid future, and at present unwritten, editions of Erskine May.

The whole object as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, is to define the practice because doubts have arisen. If we are seeking to define it, surely it is much more satisfactory to define it directly, and not indirectly by reference. I should like to see the matter go even further. I should like to see a Standing Order, when it is referred to, in a Schedule to the Bill. If that cannot be, at least we should now have the opportunity of debating the Standing Order in view in this Bill.

I fully accept what the Solicitor-General says that, under this Government, Measures of even greater importance than that Standing Order have to be debated in the middle of the night. Their flexible system apparently has become a constitutional practice. I feel, however, that now that this Bill has been brought forward and we are seeking to give the force of statute to our Standing Order, we should have the chance to reconsider that Standing Order in the light of these new circumstances. That is the case for the first Amendment.

The case for the second is the imprecision of practice—the fact that some idea or theory which may come into the agile brain of future authors of Erskine May shall indirectly alter what we are here trying to legislate today. It seems to me that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has woven himself into a most wonderfully complicated cat's cradle of ingenious skeins and that what the hon. Baronet is trying to do is to let him out.

Amendment negatived.

12.45 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 12, to leave out Subsection (2).

This Amendment is mainly interrogatory. In the limited time since this Bill has been available to hon. Members—and the Solicitor-General will recollect that complaint has already been made about that—the hon. Baronet and I have tried to study the matter as carefully as possible. I am far from clear about the effect of Subsection (2) and why it is needed. It would seem, on first consideration at any rate, that Subsection (1) is sufficient and that Subsection (2) is surplusage. It may well be in view of the limited time we have had, that we are wrong in that view. Therefore, I do not put forward this Amendment in a particularly hostile manner, but rather with a view to discovering exactly what in the view of the Government, Subsection (2) adds to Subsection (1).

I willingly respond to that invitation to give the reason why we have put in Subsection (2). It is a question of drafting. Subsection (1) is subject to the words:

" —. unless the contrary intention appears."

As I indicated in winding up the Second Reading Debate, we want to make clear the meaning of the word "laying" both in the Act of 1946, and in other Acts. Therefore, we say in Subsection (1) that laying under an Act, unless the contrary intention appears, means what Subsection (1) provides. It is a necessary corollary to that, as we want to make certain that in this Act the contrary intention shall not be read into it, that we should provide by Subsection (2) that in this Act nothing in Section 4—which is what gave rise to the doubt—should be construed as indicating a contrary intent.

That seems to be a wholly satisfactory explanation. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

I should like a little explanation about this Clause. The Bill has been amended in another place and the words "or subordinate legislation" have been introduced. I should like to know whether those words refer to Church Assembly Measures which get the Royal Assent and have the force and effect of Acts of Parliament. The Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act, 1919, says that they are not subordinate to Parliamentary statutes. Are the words "subordinate legislation" right, or would it not be more straightforward and honest to say "Church Assembly Measures" in the two places, if that is intended, as I imagine it must be?

The hon. and gallant Member for North Ayr and Bute (Sir C. MacAndrew) is quite correct What we have in mind here by the use of the phrase "subordinate legislation" is Church Assembly Measures. We know of no other subordinate document which would be caught up by these words, but one can never be sure, and if we inserted the words "Church Assembly Measures" it would mean that those documents, and no others, were referred to. We use the more general phrase although we have that in mind. This was inserted at the instigation of the Lord Primate of All England and we thought it satisfactory.

I am no lawyer, but I understand that under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act it is particularly stated that their Measures are not subordinate, but parallel Statutes. If so, why should they be called "subordinate"? Does that not mean that they are not on the same level? I should think it necessary to put in the words "Church Assembly Measures" if that is what they are meant to cover.

I speak under correction. I have read the Debates which took place in another place and I think that if there was any doubt arising there it would have been referred to by those responsible for the insertion of these words in the Bill. I think the Committee can take it that the phrase used here is the correct one and that it covers Church Assembly Measures of the kind we have in mind which have to be laid, although not strictly laid, under an Act of Parliament.

Is not this just one of the points which the Government may well desire later on to amend by another Bill? I have already protested against this rushing. This is the sort of point that in ordinary circumstances the Government would want to consider with a view to an Amendment in Committee, but now they cannot do so.

Nonsense. I was only being kind to the hon. and gallant Member for North Ayr and Bute. In my mind, I am quite positive that this is the correct phrase. The Church authorities, in consultation with the Parliamentary draftsmen, achieved what in their view and in everyone's view was the correct phrase to use. I give the assurance to the Committee that the words used here are the correct words.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2 (Notification under 9 & 10 Geo. 6. c. 36, s. 4. during vacancy of office of Lord Chancellor or of Speaker.)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, to leave out from "Speaker," to the end of the Clause, and to add:

He went on to say that if it were provided, as this Amendment seeks to provide, that in this House notification in the event of there being no Speaker should be given to the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chairman of Ways and Means would have no alternative but to put the notification in his pocket. I think he excluded the possibility of the Chairman of Ways and Means having an office and a filing system, but, even if the Solicitor-General is right, that does not conclude the matter. Accepting for a moment the hypothesis that the Chairman of Ways and Means could do nothing about the notification if he got it, the very fact of having to give notification is in itself something of a safeguard. If Departments are uncertain whether an order is urgent they are much more likely to decide that it is not urgent if they are put to the trouble of finding reasons for its urgency and having to report to someone, than if they are free to make the order without let or hindrance. Even accepting the hypothesis, there would be some value in insisting upon notification in those circumstances to the Chairman of Ways and Means.

I am not sure that the Solicitor-General is quite right in what he says. If notification has to be given to the Chairman of Ways and Means it would be available to be acted upon as soon as the Speaker was elected if this Amendment were accepted. If our Amendment is not accepted, there will be no notification at all until the Speaker is elected and there will be a time lag flowing from waiting for the election of a Speaker, as compared with the procedure of notification being there ready to be acted upon and, quite possibly, printed as soon as the Speaker is elected. There seems some advantage from that point of view in insisting that notification should be given. In regard to another place, I must confess there is some force in what the Solicitor-General said. If another place does not want the Lord Chairman to be informed, perhaps we should be wrong to insist upon that being done. I hope that such feelings for the composition and sensitiveness of another place will be shown by the Solicitor-General in other contexts next Session.

I do not think we should lose the value of this safeguard in the regrettable event of there being a vacancy in the office of Mr. Speaker. I cannot see what objection there would be to this course. It is true we should not be in quite as good a position in this matter as, of course, in many others, if the office had not been filled, but I think we should get some advantage if the Chairman of Ways and Means were informed. I do not think that an unreasonable attitude. We all know how fail, fragile and tenuous is our control over delegated legislation, and we are very anxious when we see even a small section of our control over delegated legislation being taken away. This is only removing control in certain unlikely circumstances, but it is reducing it in those unlikely circumstances and I do not think we should be prepared to consent even to that.

1.0 p.m.

For the reasons which the Solicitor-General gave in his Second Reading speech, I do not support this Amendment. There is really no need to vary the provisions of Clause 2 in this respect. We have precisely the same safeguard if the notification of urgency has to be given to the Speaker immediately on the vacancy being filled as we should have if the notification of urgency were given to the Chairman of Ways and Means in circumstances in which there was nothing he could do about it.

I ask my right hon. Friend to clarify for me what the precise position would be in the event of a Dissolution. Am I right in thinking that upon a Dissolution of Parliament, if a statutory instrument had to be made, notification would be sent to the Lord Chancellor, because there would presumably be no vacancy in that office, but, on the other hand, no notification would be sent to Mr. Speaker on the assumption that the Dissolution would create a vacancy in the office of Mr. Speaker? Is it the case that for certain purposes a Dissolution of Parliament does not create a vacancy in the office of Mr. Speaker? Is it or it is not intended that for the purpose of complying with the provisions of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, any notification of urgency should be sent to Mr. Speaker in the interval between the Dissolution of one Parliament and the election of another?

This Amendment is a narrow one, but I will, if I may, also deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher). The Amendment seeks to make a change should a vacancy occur in the office of Speakership, and the hon. Members' suggestion is that during the interregnum notification should be made to the Chairman of Ways and Means. As my right hon. and learned Friend indicated on an earlier Amendment, the Chairman of Ways and Means is in no sense the general deputy of Mr. Speaker, and if we inserted in this Bill words which would make him so in this particular direction at all events, it would be something of a constitutional innovation.

I do not think that the difficulty which the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) envisages is as serious as one might suppose. Most of us were here when a vacancy did occur in the Speakership during the war, when Mr. Speaker Fitzroy died during his term of office. Those of us who were here then will remember that nothing could be done until a new Speaker was elected. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, if we did in some way give these powers to the Chairman of Ways and Means to receive notification, he could do nothing with it and nothing could be done until a new Speaker had beeen elected. In those circumstances the House proceeds with the utmost celerity to the choosing of a new Speaker. Therefore, the interregnum, the period which would elapse between the death of a Speaker and the election of his successor by this House, would be very narrow indeed.

If that most regrettable contingency took place in the middle of a Recess, does the right hon. Gentleman think that that would also be the case?

The hon. Member has me there. I do not know what would happen in such circumstances. I take it that the House would have to be called together quite early in order that a new Speaker should be elected. But during a Recess the other considerations will apply.

It is obvious that the work of the Government must go on, and when statutory instruments have to be made during a Recess, they would have to be laid under the Standing Orders and the Act of 1946, and the proviso to Section 4 of that Act. So far as Mr. Speaker is concerned, the position is as I have indicated. I take it that it is not for us, even if we could, to interfere or attempt to interfere with the domestic arrangements of another place. Although the situation and the position of the Chairman of Ways and Means in his relationship to Mr. Speaker is as I have indicated, the relationship between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chairman is, I believe, rather different. There, the Lord Chairman can and does function, and in the absence of the Lord Chancellor can recall the other place if that should be necessary.

Therefore, it would perhaps be possible for a procedure to be followed there different from the one envisaged for this House in this Bill. But, as I say, it is a matter for the House of Lords itself to decide. I do not think that we should attempt to lay down what procedure it should adopt. The only comment I can make in that direction is that this Bill did originate in another place, and the procedure laid down was accepted by that House as reasonable and one which they desired.

My right hon. Friend said that he would deal with the point which I raised.

During a Dissolution, of course, Mr. Speaker vacates his seat like any other Member of this House. That being so, he does not function during a Dissolution.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

This Bill marks a stage in a concerted endeavour by both sides of the House to get the situation with regard to delegated legislation into ship shape form. I would not desire to say more on Third Reading than that I am grateful to the House for the reception which this declaratory Bill has received. We have discussed it, and I believe that both sides of the House were in agreement that it improved the existing Act and gave improved security. I should like to thank the House for assisting the passage of the Bill in the way it has been assisted.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill reproduces without amendment the law contained in the National Service Acts, 1939 to 1947, and so much of the law contained in the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, 1944, as relates to persons called up for service under the National Service Acts after 31st December, 1948. Therefore, it is merely a consolidation of the several Acts in the one Measure for the convenience of those who have to handle this legislation. Two or more minor Amendments were inserted in another place, which were purely drafting for purposes of clarity.

1.10 p.m.

I want to thank the right hon. Gentleman for introducing yet another consolidation Measure, which we always like to have, but I should also like to ask some questions. Arising out of what was said in another place, I would ask the Minister if he would be prepared to publish a pamphlet to make all His Majesty's subjects who are eligible for call-up under the Bill fully aware of their obligations, and also if he would bear in mind the possibility of including in that pamphlet instructions regarding those men, and there are nearly six millions of them, in Class Z Reserve, and their position under the Defence Regulations and the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act.

1. 11 p.m.

I want strongly to oppose this Bill, and I am not at all satisfied with the very brief explanation which has been given by the Minister of Labour. He referred to it as a consolidation Bill in which we are to accept the consolidation of all these National Service Acts into one Bill. I do not want to consolidate this legislation at all; I want to liquidate it, and I want to argue that it should not be called the National Service Bill, which is a complete misnomer, but should be called the Waste of Manpower Bill.

If the hon. Member continues, he will be out of Order.

Further to that Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker; is it not open to an hon. Member on Second Reading to criticise the title of a Bill and to suggest that, in this case, the title National Service Bill is a misnomer and that—although the hon. Member may be wrong in this—it would more appropriately be entitled the Waste of Manpower Bill.

We can only amend the title of a Bill if Amendments to the Bill have made that necessary.

Is it not open to us on Second Reading to indicate a point of view in relation to the title of a Bill without prejudice to the contents?

The answer is that we cannot amend the Bill; it would be out of Order to do so. We cannot deal with the contents of a Bill which is simply one of consolidation.

Am I not entitled to move the rejection of the Bill at this stage?

The hon. Member has his opportunity, when the Question "That the Bill be now read a Second time," is put, to vote against it.

Am I not in Order now in advancing reasons why we should not proceed further with this Bill? I fail to understand why this Bill should be presented. This is a place for democratic discussion, and I do not understand why it cannot be discussed.

If that is the argument which the hon. Member is putting, it will be possible for him to continue, but we are only dealing with consolidation and not with the contents of the Bill itself.

I want to argue that, in the consolidation process, Part I should be deleted. I submit for your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I am entitled to put that argument.

No, that would not be in Order, because it would be removing legislation that has already been passed.

May I ask if I would be in Order in arguing that the manpower situation in this country is so serious that we should not divert further manpower into the Armed Forces?

No, it certainly would not be in Order.

1.15 p.m.

I want to raise objection to the Second Reading of this Bill. I know what is the purpose of the Government in presenting it. I know that they have already presented a number of Bills for two reasons, first, in certain cases, to consolidate, and, second, in other cases, to repeal, or, in other words, to get rid of dead enactments. I notice that the Memorandum to the Statute Law Revision Bill indicates their attitude on the second point, because it states:

"to eliminate dead enactments which have not yet been formally repealed and thus to make possible the publication of official volumes of a revised edition of the statutes containing only what is living law."

What do we understand the Government intend to do? To get rid of legislation or enactments which, to all intents and purposes, are dead. That intention is indicated in another Measure which is coming before us today, but we should note that that Bill deals with other Measures relating to a period from very early in the 13th century up to the beginning of the 19th century.

It seems to me that the hon. Member is talking about a Bill which we are to discuss at a later stage in our proceedings.

With all due respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the point I was trying to make—and I used this merely as an illustration which I was not going to develop—was that the purpose behind that Bill is that of tidying up. It may well be said that the Government—and quite rightly—during the last few days of this Parliamentary Session, are engaged in a process of tidying up, and one would admit that they introduced the National Service Bil also for the purpose of consolidating and tidying up all the Acts associated with national service.

The point is that, while there may be justification for getting rid of Acts that are dead and which operated in the thirteenth century, and while it may be wise even to omit Acts introduced a very long time ago, surely we are rather rapid in attempting at this stage to consolidate Measures the life of which has been only 10 years or even less, and of which the latest one of all has had a life of less than one year? Surely, one sound purpose of consolidation is to consolidate because we are satisfied that there is something like permanence associated with Measures that have already been passed? Are we now satisfied that that stage has been reached concerning Acts belonging to the period 1939–47, and that there is any kind of permanence associated with these Acts? I use the word "permanence" in the knowledge that certain Acts will be scrapped, as we shall be doing later on today.

Are we satisfied that the National Service Acts are now so permanently associated with our national life that it is necessary to consolidate them and put them into this consolidation Bill which we now have before us? That is the question, and I plead for your consideration of this point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I think we should have some advice from the Government on this matter. Are we satisfied, and are the Government satisfied, that it is necessary to consolidate in this case, because it will be permanent? Is there no other way of raising our Armed Forces than by this method? It may be that we can consolidate all these Acts in this Measure without taking into account the economic needs of the people and the resources of the country. I am not arguing the case at this stage; I am merely asking the question whether it is wise to consolidate the law as it now exists?

The hon. Member is now out of Order.

Further to that Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker; as your ruling affects not only the hon. Member who was speaking but also those hon. Members who may be able to catch your eye after he has finished, surely it is completely in order to suggest that this is not the apposite time for an enactment of this character? In other words—

Is the hon. Member asking a question or making a speech?

I am asking for your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and giving an illustration, namely, that it might be possible for an hon. Member to say, "I think we ought to have consolidation in six months' time and that is why I want to propose it on Second Reading," and he would then give his reason for it. Surely, that is in Order?

I have not ruled that out of Order. What I have ruled out of Order are the references which the hon. Member was making.

The exchanges between you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Solley) were so long that I have forgotten the point on which the Ruling was given.

That being so, there will be no danger of the hon. Member repeating it.

Let me put my case from another angle. The Minister of Labour is presenting a Bill to this House today. Obviously, for his own personal reasons, he was brief in presenting it. But surely, if he had desired, he could have told us why the various parts of the Acts concerned are being consolidated, as is done regularly in this House. He could have indicated that consolidation had reference to the National Service Acts which conscript certain people into the Armed Forces and by which certain people have certain responsibilities delegated to them. Surely, he would have been in Order to have mentioned those matters. There can be no purpose in consolidating Acts unless the Minister is satisfied that those Acts fulfil a certain purpose. What is the purpose? It is to conscript certain people into the Army and to take certain precautions for people who may be called into the Army.

The hon. Gentleman is again out of Order. He cannot discuss the purpose of these Acts. He can only discuss whether or no they should be consolidated.

I accept your Ruling, as I am bound to do, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but let me put this to you: Surely, if we decide to consolidate Acts, we do so because we are satisfied that the purpose of those Acts is still necessary. If the purpose of those Acts is still necessary, surely, I am entitled to ask the responsible Minister why they are necessary. I will not develop the point, but I will leave it there.

The hon. Gentleman cannot develop that point, because he would be again out of Order.

I am not developing the point. All I say is—and I do this by way of protest—that it seems to me unreasonable that a Minister of the Government can present a Measure for Second Reading, and merely because he thinks it wise to be brief in its presentation—I am not quarrelling with that—we ourselves are restricted because of his brevity. While the Government may be satisfied that it is necessary to consolidate these Acts, we are not satisfied, and feel that the consolidation should be challenged. I do not know that I can go beyond that point at this stage. All I do say—and I think I have a right to say it—is that it is unwise for the Government in view of the commitments of this country, to co-ordinate or consolidate those Acts at this time without giving the House ample opportunity to discuss the whole subject in all its ramifications

That also would be out of Order, and the Minister himself would not be allowed to do so.

1.24 p.m.

I am glad that I shall not run into conflict with the Chair on the first point which I wish to raise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as you have already permitted an hon. Member on the other side of the House to refer to the matter. When this consolidation Bill was discussed in another place the question was asked by Lord Balfour whether the Government would prepare adequate information about these consolidated Acts—

On a point of Order. Can one discuss what was said in another place by a noble Lord who is not a Member of the Government?

It would be out of Order. Can one discuss what was other place which can be mentioned in this House are Ministerial statements.

I am still glad to be able to pursue that matter, because after the question was asked in another place—perhaps I was not wise to mention who asked it—a reply was given, and I understand that in the reply the Government indicated that they were considering what they would do in this matter. I am at least in Order, am I not, in asking whether there will be a full statement so that the people involved under this consolidation may know what has taken place? I am pressing the point because it is not only a question of uncertainty among those who were conscripted.

The hon. Member must understand that there is no alteration in the law at all by the consolidation. Therefore, there is no such ignorance or uncertainty.

Very well. As there is no alteration in the law, there is an added complexity in the law, in that two Acts of Parliament are being brought into juxtaposition which do not deal with the same issues, one dealing with civil employment and the other dealing with service in the Armed Forces. That, in itself, creates a series of difficulties regarding which an explanation should be called for.

I understand that the purpose of consolidation is to remove such complexities.

I am arguing that the Government fail on that point. I hope to show that there is a point with which this House is very much concerned, namely, that when people have left their industrial employment and have gone into the Armed Forces there is a question of their reinstatement.

The hon. Member is now discussing the content of the Bill, which it is not in Order to do.

If I am not in Order in saying that the contents of the Bill are now more unsatisfactory because of the consolidation which puts side by side two forms of service which are of a very different character, what can I say?

The answer to that question is, "Very little."

I understand then that you have ruled that I cannot say anything at all upon that point. I therefore proceed to another point, which relates to the timing of this consolidation. There, again, there was no need to consolidate any of these Measures. There were clear statements within them, as indeed you have been telling me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as to what was involved.

I want to know from the Government why, in this time of uncertainty in the matter of military service, when everybody is in a state of great anxiety particularly with regard to the part of this legislation dealing with military service, the Government have thought fit to consolidate these various Measures. I expect you will let me go a very little way on this point, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am expecting the worst, but in view of the anxiety which is felt in the country, and for the protection of the right of hon. Members to express in this House that sense of anxiety, I beg of you to let me say this one word: the Government have added to that the suspicions with which they are being watched today, in their yielding, stage by stage, to the Opposition on these issues, by bringing in a consolidation Bill at a time when the difficulties are so great and when the anxieties of the country are so complete. I wish, Sir, you had allowed me to go further—

The hon. Member should be thankful for small mercies.

On a point of Order. I should like this cleared up. It is probably due to my lack of knowledge of procedure. Can you inform me, Sir, whether, in all these Clauses in these Bills which we are called upon to approve for consolidation, it is your Ruling that none of them may be discussed in principle? If that is so, can you tell us what we may discuss?

In answer to the first question, hon. Members may not discuss the contents of the Bills. We are only discussing the purpose of consolidation.

Further to that point of Order. Is it not the case that for practical purposes all that can happen in this Bill is that those who object to the Bill can vote against it? That is to say, they would be voting against the National Service Act and also the reinstatement of soldiers and others in civil employment. If one votes against the consolidation Bill, one is voting against the reinstatement of soldiers in civil employment as well as against national service.

I have already ruled that we are now discussing an Act of consolidation. We therefore cannot discuss the content of the Acts; we can only discuss the advisability of consolidation.

Making a dying effort, I want to submit this to the House—only this one word. I hope that the Government—especially because they are bound and because the Chair has bound the House to the fact that the items of the various legislation stand and cannot be discussed in this Debate—will take into account that they have raised with those of us who are keen about this matter a sense of objection because they have chosen this time for doing it—a particularly dangerous time. Secondly, I think by the consolidation they will make it more difficult for us to secure Amendments to the particular Acts which come under the terms of this Consolidation Bill. The times during which the different Acts run are not co-terminous and, as all these have been lumped together, it will be difficult, especially for those of us who have in mind the problem of civil employment, to raise what we are always desirous of raising—the objections that we have to other parts of the legislation. I will leave my protest at that point.

1.33 p.m.

As one of the hon. Members with the proud privilege of having voted against the Conscription Bill on Second reading—it is a privilege, because the objections we then raised have now become clear to everyone to observe, namely the onward trend of war—

That reference is quite out of Order. The Question I have to put—

With great respect, I know it is desirable from the Government point of view that the Bill should be expedited in its passage through this House. I have no doubt—

I do not know what the hon. Member means by that. It has been ruled previously that this is a consolidation Measure and that the merits of the items included therein cannot be discussed. The only question which can be discussed is the desirability or otherwise of consolidating the various Measures relating to National Service. If the hon. Gentleman will address himself to that point and to that point alone he will be in Order, but not otherwise.

With the greatest respect to you, Mr. Deputy—Speaker-and no one has a greater respect for the Chair than I have—I do not think I was wrong, and if you had permitted me to continue you would have seen that I have not yet come to the reasons for my objections to the Bill. I was making clear my personal position, which, with great respect, I think I should be allowed to do, namely that I am not a conscientious objector. Having made that clear, I do not desire in any way to trespass on the authority of the Chair and I will come to my con- sidered reasons for suggesting that we ought not to accept this Bill.

I am conscious of the difficulties which I must encounter, having regard to the very strict rules of procedure in connection with consolidation Bills, and it may well be that hon. Members will be able to appreciate some of the implications which might arise from what I say and which I am, by rules of procedure, quite properly prevented from saying in direct terms. As I understand it, one of the objects of consolidation must surely be to facilitate the operation of the statutes which it is desired to consolidate. If consolidation has not as its primary purpose, if not its entire purpose, the facilitation of the operation of the statutes concerned, I ask this question—why are we wasting our time? The very object of this consolidation is, and in my submission must necessarily be, the facilitation of—

I must point out that the primary object of consolidation is not the facilitation of the items included therein. The object is to make it easier to refer to the appropriate statutes. The hon. Member will not, therefore, be in Order in discussing the facilitation, as he puts it, of the items included in the Bill.

I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for your Ruling on what is a difficult point of procedural law. I am much obliged and I accept your point—namely, that one of the functions—you did not put it in that way, but perhaps I shall be permitted to say it—is to make it easier for persons who have to refer to these statutes. I ask myself this question: I am opposed to war at the present moment, and why, therefore, should I make it easier for people to go to war? That is the question I ask myself.

The hon. Member has put that argument more than once, but he is not entitled to do so. He is thereby discussing the merits of the contents of the Acts it is proposed to consolidate, or what he conceives their demerits to be. He is not entitled to do so.

With great respect, I am opposing making it easier to administer the statutes, for political reasons; I oppose that at this time. I oppose it for reasons well-known to the House and which I am forbidden to express today.

There is another ground, in my view a substantial ground, why we should oppose this Bill, because I put it frankly and bluntly that it is a scandalous waste of time. I take it I am in Order in stating that opinion. [ Interruption. ] It may be that certain people who would like us to go to war tomorrow think this Debate is a waste of time—

The hon. Member must resume his seat. The Question I have to put—

I have not finished my speech.

I have requested the hon. Member to keep in Order more than once, but he repeatedly transgresses my Ruling, and I must take other action in the event of his transgressing again.

I made that remark as a result of an intervention from the House and, in my respectful submission, if I am being heckled in a Parliamentary way by an hon. Member, surely I am entitled to reply—otherwise it is a façade of democracy and we are indeed wasting our time. I said this Bill was a waste of Parliamentary time. I have no doubt that the learned Parliamentary draftsmen spent many hours going through this Bill in order to put it in appropriate form. It is a pity that their time was not more appropriately used in preparing the consolidation of the Rent Restriction Acts. The civil servants whose expert advice the Government rely upon have been, in my submission, wasting precious days and precious weeks—doing what?—making it easier for lads to get into the Services by virtue of conscription.

The hon. Gentleman is again out of Order, by discussing merits, and I must request him to resume his seat.

rose —

Order. I shall have to take other action if the hon. Gentleman persists in disregarding my Ruling. On every occasion after I call him to Order he transgresses the Rule regarding a Bill of this description. I cannot allow him to go on doing that.

Perhaps I may reply to a few points.

On a point of Order. Since Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you have, as, in fact, it is your privilege to do, and if I may put it in this way, made a criticism of my method of debate, would you permit me to say this? I have not the slightest intention of transgressing either the authority of the Chair or the Rules of Procedure. Nor had I that intention, and I was not conscious of doing so. I was on the point—

I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman either to contradict or to criticise my Ruling. He has persisted in irrelevancies. He has made more than one reference to the subject of war, and to the merits of the contents included in the consolidation Measure, and he is not entitled so to do He must resume his seat.

1.41 p.m.

I consider that in examining this consolidation Measure this House has a very important duty to perform. The way some hon. Members are inclined to treat the Bill will not in my opinion, redound to the credit of this House. What is it we are asked to consolidate? I will read it out so that there can be no doubt in anybody's mind. The Memorandum to the Bill says:

"This Bill reproduces, without amendment, the law contained in the National Service Acts, 1939 to 1947, and so much of the law contained in the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, 1944, as relates to persons called up for service after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and forty-eight"

These lads are to be called up. Has this House no responsibility for them? No responsibility? Who is deciding—

The hon. Gentleman is now transgressing. He is now discussing the contents or the merits of the Acts of Parliament it is proposed to consolidate by this Bill. He is not entitled to do that. I have already indicated that the only question is, whether or not these particular Acts should be consolidated without amendment, and that is the only question. The merits or objects of the Acts themselves do not enter into the argument.

rose

rose

No, let my hon. Friend the Member for Mile End sit down.

Veto.

I have not vetoed anything. I have not turned the first page of the Bill. I have not looked at any of the Clauses in the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] All right, but I have not. I am reading from the Memorandum to the Bill, and that Memorandum refers to persons called up for service after 31st December, 1948. They are called up on the basis of so much of the law contained in the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act. "So much of the law." Who is deciding the amount of the law under which these young people are to be taken? Is it this House that is deciding it? Or has this House no right to discuss or criticise it?

This is not the consolidation of Acts without amendment. This is consolidation of the principal Act and a part of another Act. Are we entitled to express an opinion as to whether that part of another Act is the correct part so far as it applies to the fate of these young men who are to be called up after 31st December? I say here that this part of the Act that is being consolidated with the National Service Acts is not going to protect the interests of the young people who are referred to. Let not the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) look at Mr. Deputy-Speaker like that.

The hon. Member is again discussing the merits of particular items.

indicated dissent.

Certainly. That is precisely what the hon. Gentleman is doing.

I am sure, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you appreciate the fact that there is nobody in this House who has a greater respect for the Chair than I, although sometimes I do not have a very good manner of showing it. It is the Memorandum with which I am dealing. I refuse to open the pages of the Bill which I hold in my hand until we get an understanding of the Memorandum. I want the Minister to explain why certain parts of the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act, in his opinion, are the parts which relate to persons to be called up. If they do not relate to persons who are to be called up, then they should not be consolidated with the National Service Acts.

Is it not clear that Members of the House should be in a position to say, "Yes, those parts that are taken from the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act are the right parts to be consolidated with the National Service Acts." Hon. Members should also have the right to say, "No, those are the wrong parts to take from the Reinstatement in Civil Employment Act to be consolidated with the National Service Acts." This is the business of the House. The Father of the House is only concerned with getting Members ruled out of Order. What sort of paternalism is that?

Flattered as I am by the hon. Member's reference to me, I should like to know whether what is assumed to be my attitude to this Bill, has anything to do with the question under discussion.

I think the hon. Member's remark was of a rather offensive character, as I understood it. I think he should withdraw it, and that he should confine himself to the question whether consolidation is desirable or not. If he can point out some Act appertaining to National Service that is not included, then he may be in Order.

I withdraw my reference to the noble Lord as the Father of the House, if he does not like it, and if he does not I am quite prepared with other Members to cast him out. But he is the Father of the House. However, there is something here in this Bill which calls for a decision which has to be made by the Members of this House. That is why we have the Second Reading of this Bill. What is it that we are asked to decide? We are asked to decide that a certain Act and part of another Act be consolidated. I say that before we can decide on that, we must have a full explanation on why one part of the Act is taken and not the other part, so that we shall be able to judge on this matter. We have the responsibility for things referred to in this Memorandum and we are not in a position to judge whether the consolidation is right or not.

Here we have a Bill for Second Reading, and I should like to ask whether there is to be a Committee stage on this Bill. If there is, will you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, accept a manuscript Amendment, because I should like to make an Amendment that that part of the Memorandum referring to reinstatement in civil employment be deleted, or something to that effect. I might suggest that the part referred to in the National Service Acts and the other part be consolidated: I should like the House seriously to consider what is taking place in connection with consolidation, and to ask your advice, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as to what we can do on the Committee stage of the Bill.

There must of necessity be a Committee stage to every Bill. I cannot, of course, now say what Amendments to the Bill would or would not be in order, or would or would not be selected, but clearly the Memorandum to which the hon. Gentleman has referred is not a part of the Bill, and it would be necessary, if he desired to put Amendments down, to put them down to the Bill itself. There will be a Committee stage, and he will have the opportunity of doing that.

1.55 p.m.

I should like to have your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, on the point about the Committee stage of this Bill, because in yesterday's proceedings, the Leader of the House said that the Committee and remaining stages of the National Service Bill [ Lords ] would be taken after 9.30 on Tuesday. Owing to the week-end, it makes it a difficult procedure to frame Amendments and put them on the Order Paper. I should like to know, if there is to be a Committee stage whether Amendments will be in Order for the deletion of certain Clauses in the Bill.

I am afraid that is a question which cannot be argued now There is only one question before the House, namely, whether this Bill shall or shall not be read a Second time in its present form. The procedure with regard to putting down Amendments is well known, and I have no doubt that hon. Members will have the usual opportunity of doing so. As to the matter of time, that is a matter for the Government and not for the Chair.

The Minister was going to answer a question of mine.

A question was asked by two Members as to whether leaflets explaining this Bill would be published. Leaflets will be published about the information which we give to a man when he is called up—

We cannot go into those details at this stage. They do not appear to me to deal solely with the question of consolidation.

Now that the atmosphere appears more friendly, will you permit me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to continue the speech which I was making.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[ Mr. Simmons. ]

I wish to say a few words on the First Schedule. I do not propose to oppose it. I would like to see added to the First Schedule some laws for repeal or partial repeal, as the case may be. I have put down a number of Amendments which, of course, have not been accepted. I say "of course" in view of the kind of Debate which we had last week on the Second Reading of the Bill, and I did not expect them to be accepted. Had they beer accepted, I think we would have made a precedent here today which would have been valuable for the future.

I therefore pose these questions on the Committee stage of the Bill: There an many old laws which are completely out of date and which require repealing When I had a discussion on this matter with the Solicitor-General the other day he suggested to me that the only way in which these laws could be repealed was by a special repeal Act, and it seems that it is not the Government's intention to bring in such an Act. May I ask whether we may have some statement from the Solicitor-General that, at an early stage, he will indicate the possibilities of how we can repeal laws other than those which are contained in this particular Schedule? I believe that there are many laws overdue for repeal. For instance, there are many laws relating to Sunday observance which are completely antiquated—

rose

I am only giving an illustration.

I do not think that the hon. Member is in Order in giving such an illustration. The Sunday Observance Act is certainly one of those Acts which, to the knowledge of the Committee, is in force, and clearly cannot therefore be included in a Statute Law Revision Bill.

While acknowledging that that Act may be in force, I would, with respect, point out that the Sunday observance laws date back to the 17th and 18th centuries and are far from being in force, because they cannot be enforced in these days, for they relate to matters which do not exist in the 20th century. From a slight scrutiny of those laws it will be found that what I say is true. We have on the Statute Book a number of laws which are completely dead. All I ask is that they should be declared dead and given a decent burial. Surely, on this occasion, in the week before we are about to go into Recess for what we hope will be a very pleasant holiday, we should clear the decks for action, at this time of crisis, and take off the Statute Book all laws which impede our advancement towards that better civilisation of which we have been advised from time to time by the Government Front Bench.

The hon. Member now appears to be discussing matters which are not in the Schedule. The only question before the Committee is whether this Schedule, as set out in the Bill, should be the First Schedule to the Bill, not what might or might not, in some other circumstances, be put into the Schedule.

In that case, I will repeat the question I put to the Solicitor-General. Could he look at this matter to see that as soon as possible we remove from the Statute Book—or add to the First Schedule which is now before us—such laws as make us the laughing stock of the nations of the world in the 20th century.

The purpose of a Statute Law Revision Bill is simply to weed out those statutes which are entirely obsolete, and it is not within the purpose of such a Bill, or at any rate this particular Bill, to discuss the merits of particular statutes. We have selected for whole or partial repeal statutes which we, after close scrutiny, think conform to that description. I do not think, therefore, that I can be called upon to make any general pronouncement on how hon. Members should proceed to procure the repeal of other statutes. But if, and in so far as repeal would involve a discussion of the merits or demerits of any particular statute, all I can say is that that is not within the purpose of the Bill we are now asking the House to approve.

Question put, and agreed to.

Second Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

I think we must have some explanation of this matter. I do not complain that the Parliamentary Secretary did not give that explanation first, because no doubt she would wish to know before speaking what points were in the minds of hon. Members. From the third and fourth paragraphs of the Preamble it appears that there was another Cold Storage Order introduced in May, and that that order has ceased to have effect. Accordingly, it is necessary to discuss this order in the light of the other order, to discover just what may he the effect on the persons concerned.

It is very unusual that a Treasury order which imposes a charge should not be submitted to this House for its approval, but should be allowed to cease to have effect; because I understand it does have effect during that four weeks, and in considering whether this order should be passed we must have regard to what was the position during those four weeks and what has been the position since the first order ran out and before this order was introduced. It is not possible to get a proper picture of the circumstances and the effect of the new order on the trade unless one has that in mind.

Now, the dates are material. The first order came into effect on 29th May; it, therefore, ran out on approximately 26th June, and this order has only come into operation on 17th July. I presume that the hon. Lady must have discovered at some time between 29th May and 26th June that there was something wrong with the first order. I am not clear what that was, but let us assume there was a flaw. We are becoming rather accustomed to flaws. I should have thought that by this time to bring forward an order on a comparatively simple matter like this was not beyond the powers of an ordinary draftsman and an ordinary Ministry but, apparently, there was something wrong. I should have expected that the new order would overlap with the old one and would have come into operation without this three weeks' gap. We ought to have some explanation of why the thing was allowed to run on for so long and leave this awkward gap.

Under the original order, a charge was introduced and the old control order was revoked; then, when the first abortive order ran out, that charge came to an end and, I suppose, the old revoked order came into force again. I suppose that it must be revoked again under this order. If one Act of Parliament revokes another and then the revoking Act is itself revoked, that does not revive the first Act. But I apprehend the position here to be—and I would like to be assured of this—that as the first order was not revoked, but ceased to have effect, one of the effects which it ceased to have was the revocation of the old order. That is a somewhat technical question on which the hon. Lady no doubt has the answer. It will be interesting if she will tell us what it is.

What is perhaps more important—and I am glad to see the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in his place—is the question of the charges which accrued during the four weeks when the first Order was in operation. The House is aware that this type of order is made by the Treasury because an ordinary Department cannot make an order imposing a charge. A special Section in the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, deals with orders which impose charges. I do not know whether this has happened before—I doubt it—and must ask what happens to the charges which have accrued during the period when the abortive order was in force? Two things may have happened. The charge may have been paid—and I am quite sure that once the Financial Secretary got his hands on the money he would never give it back because the order ceased to have effect.

I think it is clearly established in legal cases that money which once accrues to the Treasury remains there.

I wonder whether that would be so if the provision was that the order should be deemed never to have had any effect, in which case the right hon. Gentleman would have had to pay it back? What happens if money had become due to the Treasury but had not been paid? Supposing the right hon. Gentleman has an account against a trader for the charge that accrued during the four weeks when the first abortive order was in operation; if it was not paid during that time does the right hon. Gentleman now propose to collect the money after the first order has disappeared? That is a novel situation. I doubt whether it has occurred before and it would be most interesting for the right hon. Gentleman to tell us his rights in that respect. I doubt whether he is entitled to recover money which has become due but which has not yet come into the Treasury coffers.

I would like to know what is the effect of this order. I understand that the first order, if not agreed to, was at least assented to by those who were affected by it as being a reasonable settlement of whatever points were in dispute. As far as I am aware I do not think there was any objection to its terms. Is the whole thing revived exactly as it was, or is there any difference? The only difference I can see is one of the beginning of the accounting period. The original accounting period ran from the date on which the first order came into operation—29th May—and the new one from the date this order was to come into operation—17th July. There appears to have been an accounting period under the abortive order from 29th May to 26th June, then a period when nobody, apparently, is doing anything at all and no charges of any kind are recoverable—unless, perhaps, under the old revived order—and then a new accounting period from 17th July. Is that a true picture of the position?

The only other difference I can see between the two orders is contained in Article X. The original order revoked the old one but provided for a period of grace of three months for certain persons; I have difficulty in determining who they were. The new order provides no period of grace whatever. Therefore, a part of the period of grace—whatever its purpose and whoever it affected—contemplated under the original order of 29th May has now been cut off by the new order. I ask the hon. Lady whether that amounts to anything, and, if it does, whether that alteration has been agreed to or has received the assent of those immediately concerned. The position is obviously one of some complexity and we ought to have an explanation on the points I have raised about the effect of this strange procedure. I hope that the hon. Lady is in a position to give it to us.

On the whole matter, I think that for the Treasury to play fast and loose in this way—it is their order—with taxing or charging orders is really not good enough. The Treasury ought to make up its mind what it is going to do about imposing a charge. That is why the duty is imposed on the Treasury and not on the Department under the original Act. The Treasury cannot say that they are merely in the hands of the Department—it is their responsibility. It is most unfortunate that the Treasury should assent to a state of affairs under which they impose a charge for a month, take it off for three weeks and then put it on again. It may be that in this particular matter, circumstances are such that no serious embarrassment will be caused to anybody but if this sort of thing happens again it might create the most serious embarrassment. It can only have happened—although I do not want to say too much until I hear the explanation—because of some serious oversight on somebody's part and I hope that in future, before these orders are brought in, there will be some closer examination so that we do not have this backwards and forwards business which we have had in this particular case.

I would not like to say more until I have heard the explanation which I have no doubt will be forthcoming. I hope that it is based on something that really could not have been foreseen. Otherwise it does not throw a very good fight on the way in which these affairs are conducted.

2.19 p.m.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) is quite right in raising this point. I anticipated that somebody from the opposite side would inquire into this matter. An order was made on 20th May and came into operation on 29th May. It lapsed on, I think, 22nd June. That is the order which the right hon. and learned Gentleman calls the "abortive order." During that period an affirmative Resolution should have been moved but was not moved; that is the answer. There is no change at all in the order. The financial provisions in the new order of 13th July are precisely similar to those in the order which was made on 20th May.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman quite rightly asks how, then, we propose to integrate the arrangements which should have come into force with the abortive order, as he calls it, and this order. We have made the necessary arrangements. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree on reading the order through, that every proposal it makes deals with the financial arrangements of the industry, for the most part. We have arranged with the industry that the new order shall commence on 29th May. This is an administrative arrangement.