HC Deb 11 April 1933 vol 276 cc2552-4

1.55 a.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Douglas Hacking)

I beg to move, in page 11, line 35, to leave out from the second word "to" to the end of line 36, and to insert instead thereof the words "those offences."

The object of this Amendment is to put right an error in drafting which has only been discovered since the Bill reached this House. As the Clause is at present drafted, it does not re-enact the existing law. The Amendment is necessary in order to preserve the present position and to make it clear that the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898, aplies to proceedings in respect of all offences mentioned in the First Schedule of the Bill, whether taken under existing enactments or under the common law.

Amendment agreed to.

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

1.56 a.m.

Mr. ATKINSON

The point is not quite as simple and easily disposed of as the Under-Secretary seems to think. It may well be that the Amendment is necessary to make the Clause into a consolidating Clause, but I do not see why we should be asked to accept a consolidating Clause which consolidates the law in a way in which the law was never intended to operate. It must be open to the Committee to refuse to pass the Clause if satisfied that it is not what the Committee desires.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. and learned Member thinks this Clause ought to be omitted to correct and improve the law.

Mr. ATKINSON

I say it ought to be omitted, because it is bad law. It must be open to the Committee to reject the Clause if there is good reason to reject it.

The CHAIRMAN

It is quite in order for the hon. and learned Member to vote against the Clause, but not in order to argue that the Clause should not be passed in order to make some alteration, whether good or bad, in the existing law.

Mr. ATKINSON

I quite recognise that one has only the right to object to the Clause in toto. I am objecting to the Clause in toto.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. and learned Member, I think, does not follow me. Although he can vote against the Clause, he cannot make a speech against the Clause if that speech is arguing, or intended to argue, in favour of making an alteration of the law as it exists at this moment.

Mr. ATKINSON

I accept your Ruling, but I want to understand it. Is it ruled that one is not entitled to say that the effect of the Clause is such that it ought not to be incorporated in the Bill?

The CHAIRMAN

That is my Ruling if omitting the Clause would alter the law.

Mr. THORP

As I understand it, the Select Committee has certified this as being a consolidating Act which effects no alteration in the law at all. If that be the case, how is it that this Amendmen is being moved?

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. and learned Member is too late. The Amendment has been dealt with. As a matter of courtesy, I made an explanation. I said that the Amendment was permitted because it was found that there was an error in the drafting and that the law had not been correctly reproduced. The Select Committee had not seen the error.

Mr. THORP

My hon. and learned Friend was on his feet at the time the Question was put.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. and learned Member is wrong. I had put the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill." His hon. Friend was talking on that, and not on the Amendment.

Remaining Clauses ordered to stand part of the Bill.