EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL. (Hansard, 9 November 1936)

§ Viscount WOLMER
May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury whether he can tell the House why the Government have included the Special Areas (Development and Improvement) Act, 1934, in the Bill? I understand that there is to be a report on this question in a few days, and I would ask the Government whether it is treating the House with proper respect in taking this Bill on Second Reading before that report is published. I would like to ask the Government whether it is a fact that the Special Commissioner has presented a report, whether the House is to be supplied with that report, and if so, why the consideration of the Second Reading of this Bill could not have been postponed until such time as hon. Members have had an opportunity of considering the report?

§ Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE
The point raised by the Noble Lord was explained at Question time by the Prime Minister. The report will be received very shortly—I think to-morrow or the next day—and on the Committee stage of this Bill there will be an opportunity to discuss the Special Areas Act and its inclusion or otherwise in this Bill. The House will have before it the report to which the Noble Lord referred before that discussion takes place.

§ Viscount WOLMER
Will the Government make a full statement of policy on the Committee stage?

§ Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE
Yes, that was said by the Prime Minister at Question Time.

§ Mr. STEPHEN
Before the House agrees to the Second Reading, would the Financial Secretary inform us whether it is the purpose of the Government to go on with the Special Areas Act under this Bill, or whether the Government intend to move an Amendment on the Committee stage to take the Act out of this Bill and submit separate legislation? The House might wish to divide on the Second Reading of this Bill, and in the event of a. proper answer not being given, I hope the Opposition will ask for a Division.

§ Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE
I can only speak again by leave of the House. The position is that we are now moving the Second Reading of this Bill, which contains a Schedule in which there are certain Measures. It is perfectly competent for hon. Members to move, on the Committee stage, that any of these Measures be omitted. That will be the time for the discussion. The Government are now moving the Sceond Reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The policy of the Government in relation to the particular Act in which hon. Members are interested—the Special Areas Act—will be fully explained by the Minister concerned at the proper time, when it comes up for discussion on Committee stage.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
The Bill before us is the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, which was meant to include Measures agreed to by the Whole House. I do not intend to argue on the merits of the Bill, but it ought to include such Measures as Shops Hours Acts, on which there is general agreement. It is true that when the Second Reading has been taken, hon. Members may move the deletion of any Bill. But there is this vital difference. If this Act were not included in the Expiring Laws Bill it would have to be taken separately with 659 a Debate on Second Reading. Another point is that we would then proceed in the ordinary way to examine the Bill in detail in the Committee stage. On the other Measure included in the Expiring Laws Bill thee is usually a general agreement. There is, in the main, acceptance of them by the House, but here we have the case of an Act involving more concern to large masses of the people than almost anything else: If we give a Second Reading to the Expiring Laws Bill to-day, it means that all that is left to us in effect is that we can have a Debate on the merits of whether it ought to be in or out of the Expiring Laws Bill, but we can have no real Committee stage discussion on the Act itself and no opportunity of re-examining the position. That point has never been answered. I heard every word of the Prime Minister to-day, and he did not answer it.
I ask those who are in charge on the Treasury Bench to meet that position. I would also remind them that this Act was experimental. When it was introduced, we were given a guarantee that it would be experimental, and that the House of Commons would be given an opportunity of examining every aspect of it when the time was up. That guarantee has not been fulfilled. We only get a chance to examine the general principle, but we cannot examine the details. That is the issue, and while I know we cannot on this occasion debate the merits of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill I submit that we can take exception to the inclusion of this Measure in it. The people in those areas and many of the people who live outside them are entitled to receive consideration and I claim that the House would be within its rights in rejecting this Expiring Laws Continuance Bill on Second Reading because it is a deliberate breach of faith on the part of the Government with the House of Commons. For 660 my own part if I can get Members to divide against it with me I will oppose it, not only on the merits of the Measure itself but because of the Government's action in the matter.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
It is not necessary for the hon. Member to divide against the Bill. He can object to the Motion being taken now because it is after Eleven o'Clock.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
In that case may I be taken as objecting?