§ Sir J. D. REESI desire, Mr. Speaker, to ask your ruling on a point of procedure, in view of the fact that National Health Insurance (Married Women Outworkers) Order, 1912, dated 18th February, 1914, made by the National Health Insurance Joint Committee, under Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the National Insurance, 1911 (1 and 2 Geo. 5, c. 55), as to outworkers who are married women, was entered in the list of Rules, Orders, etc. (which have been presented during the Session and are required by Statute to lie for an appointed number of days on the Table of the House), dated 21st March, 1914, as required to lie for "thirty sitting days" from 18th February, whereas in the list of such Rules, Orders, etc., dated 28th March, 1914, the said Order is required to lie for "thirty days from the 18th February during which the House is sitting," the latter Order thus including non-working days in the computation of the period, such days being apparently or inferentially included in, or capable of inclusion in, the period stated in the earlier Order, that the periods mentioned in the second column of the aforesaid lists consist in some cases of "sitting days," in other cases of "days during which the House is sitting," or, again, in certain instances of a period described as "a given number of weeks," that such diversity of description obtaining even in respect of one and the same Order in the above-mentioned lists, is productive of doubt and uncertainty, and I wish to ask you, Sir, whether some uniformity of practice, at any rate, so far as relates to Orders referring to one and the same Statute, cannot be introduced?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThese Orders, which are to be laid on the Table of the House, are so laid by Statute. Different Statutes allot different times during which objection can be taken. In some Statutes there are so many "sitting days," and in other cases so many "days during which the House is sitting." Different phraseology is used with regard to different Orders. It does not rest with me or any other authority to put on one side what the Statute states to be the proper time. It is very desirable that all these matters should be unified and all be allowed a certain time, but the House has decided otherwise in passing Bills which allot these different times. The hon. Member has pointed out an error which I regret, 1818 and for which I must apologise, that the Papers and list of Rules and Orders circulated on the 21st of March described the period of objection to a particular Order in which the hon. Member was interested, as thirty sitting days from the 18th of February. It should really have been thirty days during which the House is sitting. There is a great distinction, and I regret that the mistake was made. If the hon. Member was inconvenienced, I am extremely sorry, although I believe, as a matter of fact, he did not suffer in consequence.
§ Sir J. D. REESMay not the hon. Member for East Nottingham, who lost the privilege of treating it as exempted business, be allowed the chance of a discussion?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI should be glad to give him every indulgence, but I cannot override the Statute.