HC Deb 21 May 1935 vol 302 cc1000-2

5.51 p.m.

Sir S. HOARE

I beg to move, in page 129, line 27, to leave out "a majority of."

This is a, drafting Amendment which does not alter the sense of the Clause. In Sub-section (7) of Clause 274 it will be seen that concurrence means a majority of the council, and, that being so, it is unnecessary to speak of a majority in connection with the word "concurrence" in this Clause.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX

Would the Secretary of State be good enough to tell me, if it is in order to do so, who would be his adviser under the new Constitution on a military matter such as this?

Sir S. HOARE

It certainly would not be in order on this Amendment. I can give my hon. and gallant Friend an answer on some other occasion, but I could not do so now without transgressing the rules of order.

Mr. COCKS

The only point that arises from the speech of the Secretary of State is that Sub-section (7) of Clause 274, to which he has referred, does not speak of a majority, but of "at least one-half." Fifty per cent. is not a majority, and, therefore, I suggest that, in omitting the words "a majority of" from Clause 232, we are altering the sense of the Bill.

5-.52 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

I think it might be well if we looked into this point a little more carefully. The Secretary of State says that there is no reason for the word "majority" here, and he refers us to another Clause of the Bill where the expression used is "at least one-half." I think that probably my right hon. Friend has not got quite the right brief yet. It may come, but, while we are coming to the right brief, may I ask him why in the world these words were ever put in? After all, the concurrence of the majority is the main principle at the back of the Clause, and draftsmen do not do this kind of thing indiscriminately and then allow words like "a majority of" to be taken out. While we wish to do everything in our power to help the Secretary of State in his difficulty, I hope he is really quite certain that he can take out the words "a majority of" and be sure that the point, is covered by another Clause of the Bill. It seems clear that it is not covered by Sub-section (7) of Clause 274, unless, of course, the Secretary of State can pro duce some new definition of "one-half." If that were so, it might possibly be all right to delete the words "a majority of." I raise The point purely to explain to the House a difficulty which was not apparent when the right hon. Gentleman made his original statement.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. EMMOTT

I must call attention to the fact that there is another point of divergence. Clause 232 says: The Secretary of State may, acting with the concurrence of a majority of his advisers And so on. Sub-section(7) of Clause 274, however, says: Any provision of this Act which requires that the Secretary of State shall obtain the concurrence of his advisers shall be deemed to be satisfied if at a meeting of his adviser she obtains the concurrence of at least one-half of those present at the meeting.? That is quite a different thing. Will not the Government look into this matter?

5.57 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler)

The reason why we have been obliged to amend Clause 232 in this way is that, when a previous Amendment to Clause 232was accepted, there was no opportunity to look very closely into the drafting, but when the drafting was looked into closely it was found that it did not exactly tally with the terms of Sub-section (7) of Clause 274, which lays down the procedure which shall in future rule the Secretary of State in deciding those questions which he has to decide with the concurrence of at least one-half of those present at the meeting. That is the procedure which will rule the Secretary of State in matters on which the concurrence of his advisers is necessary; and, therefore, in order to bring Clause 232 into line with the procedure which we envisage, it has been necessary to omit the words "a majority of" Naturally, we shall take note of the words that have been so usefully used on this occasion, but I am advised that the omission of these words at the present stage makes the procedure under which the Secretary of State will be governed perfectly clear in relation to Clause 274.

Amendment agreed to.