§ 50. Mr. N. Macleanasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that an Amendment to the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Act specifically dealing with the question of employers dismissing youths was not called owing to the operation of the Guillotine Motion, and that a similar provision has now had to be included in the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Prevention of Evasion) Regulations, 1939; and whether he will secure that in future, when a Guillotine Motion is considered necessary to facilitate progress with any Bill, it will be framed to take effect on Clauses that are relatively of least importance?
§ The Prime MinisterI am satisfied that adequate discussion took place on the reinstatement Section of the Military Training Act which was in identical terms with the similar Section in the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Act. It was the view of the Government that the appropriate way to deal with the question of restraining employers from terminating the employment of their employés by reason of any duties or liabilities under the Acts in question was by way of regulation.
§ Mr. MacleanIs not the Prime Minister aware that the Amendment was among the other Clauses which suffered from the Guillotine, and does he not think it is high time that a great deal of this legislation by reference was put an end to, and that Acts of Parliament should be the medium by which the people of this country realise the law of the country, without having to search through a hundred and one regulations?
§ The Prime MinisterNo doubt that is a matter of opinion, but I think that the general view is that the method of regulation is a useful supplement to other methods.
§ Mr. MacleanDoes the right hon. Gentleman not consider that the opera- 1300 tion of the Guillotine, as presently practised, means the cutting out of very important issues that should be discussed on the Floor of the House, and allows relatively unimportant Clauses to be debated; and would it not be better, if the Guillotine has to be used, to make the selection in a more selective way rather than to put together a number of Clauses as is now done?
§ The Prime MinisterThat is not a question for me, but I understand that the particular Amendment to which the hon. Member refers was not called because there was a Government Amendment upon the Paper dealing with the same matter.
Mr. Dingle FootsArising out of the last reply but one, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he realises that in recent Bills the method of government by regulation is being carried much further than before?