CLAUSE 18.—(Provisions as to offences.) (Hansard, 27 January 1944)

§ Mr. Pickthorn
I beg to move, in page 14, line 14, to leave out from "commenced" to "within", in line 17.
I hope the Committee will forgive me if I begin by explaining what I believe is the normal law on this kind of point, and my right hon. and learned Friend will correct me and put the argument on a right basis if I am wrong. I believe that in indictable offences a person may be 973 accused at any length of time after the commission of an offence, but that with summary offences there is, normally, a limit. I am told that the limit is usually six months, and I am not sure that it is not sometimes rather more. I do not know whether it is wholly unprecedented, but, with submission to the technically learned, I think it must be very rare that a man is put at the risk of committing a summary offence for which he may be tried at any time during his continued existence. If the Minister certifies that it is only on such-and-such a date that the evidence became available, then, however old the offence may be, it will still be possible to prosecute under the Bill. I would not want to do anything to make it difficult to impose proper penalties on persons who are in contravention of the Act, but on the face of it, it does seem to be a loose power to give the Minister. It is a power about which, from the general constitutional point of view, we should be extremely suspicious, and, from a practical point of view, it does not look as if it would always be useful. Corporate employers may change, firms may amalgamate and go out of business, and all sorts of difficulties of that sort may arise. I submit that the Committee ought not to accept the extreme length of time in which there can be a possible prosecution, without a good deal more explanation than appears on the surface of the Bill.

§ The Attorney-General
Everybody must agree that if the evidence is available proceedings should be taken as promptly as possible. Indeed, the part of this Clause which my hon. Friend attacks puts a three months' limit from the time when the evidence becomes available. There is a 12 months' limit or, alternatively, three months from the time the evidence becomes available. I agree there is a type of offence which can be dealt with summarily for which it might be inappropriate and unjustified to have a provision of this kind. There are precedents for it in the Unemployment Insurance Act and in one other Act. The reason is one which, I think, will commend itself to the Committee. The evidence that a man has carried out his obligations under this Bill will depend on records. If he fabricates his records, a period of longer than 12 months may well go by during which he remains undetected, because he has put before the inspecting officials false records. I do 974 not think the Committee would desire that, provided he can keep that game up for 12 months, he should be able to go scot free. This is a case in which it is desirable that there should be this power, but I think it right that the limit after the evidence is disclosed should be the short one of three months. As my hon. Friend said, there is normally a time limit for summary proceedings, but here a case is established for giving an extension. It would be repugnant to us if a man who had remained undetected through keeping false records was able to snap his fingers at us because 12 months had elapsed.

§ Sir A. Southby
I do not think the Attorney-General has entirely answered the point of my hon. Friend. Everybody will agree that if somebody has falsified the records, even if he was found out a considerable period afterwards, he ought to be dealt with. The difficulty, however, will come in when there is an amalgamation of businesses or when somebody goes out of business. When a man has wound up his affairs, and, as a result of later investigation, he is put on trial for an offence which is alleged to have taken place when he was in business, it will be difficult for him to get adequate evidence for his defence. I urge the Government to reconsider the point and to see whether the sensible point put by my hon. Friend cannot be met.

§ Sir R. Glyn
May I ask why in one part of the Clause "in England" is used and in another part "in Great Britain"? Is there any reason why England should be mentioned and not Wales?

§ The Attorney-General
England includes Wales, but does not include Scotland.

§ Mr. Rhys Davies
Is it not a fact that in most Acts "England and Wales" occurs?

§ The Attorney-General
In some; not all.

§ Mr. Davies
Why are not the two words included here?

§ The Attorney-General
A saving of paper.

§ Sir D. Thomson
May I ask the Attorney-General to consider this Amendment again? Surely if an employer falsifies his records he can be had up for the 975 offence of fraud or falsification. In these days, when all possible paper is salvaged, it becomes difficult to keep records and papers for long periods. Under this Clause there appears to be no limit of time during which it will be necessary to keep records. Is it not possible in some other way to get a man who commits an offence?

§ The Attorney-General
I do not think so. I will consider it, but I cannot hold out any hope of an Amendment. I think the difficulty suggested is an unreal one. If a man has employed his quota and kept his records, and if it is clear that he has carried out the Act in the spirit and the letter and perhaps had two or three people over his number, and a reasonable time has elapsed, he will put his records in the fire with his other correspondence.

§ Sir D. Thomson
That would be committing an offence straight away.

§ The Attorney-General
I do not think so, but I will look into that point. Records have in any case to be kept for a time. It is a problem of which this requirement will be a very minor part. There is always the problem of the length of time for which records should be kept. Sometimes, after a business has been wound up, there have been complaints about something that was done, and the records have been wanted, to throw some light upon it. It must be a matter of commonsense. We must keep the power to have the prosecution for the 12 months, if anything comes to our knowledge. I do not think it is possible to cut it down to one particular class of case.

§ Sir H. Williams
Can the Attorney-General tell us of any other Acts of Parliament where an offence is dealt with in this way?

§ The Attorney-General
Yes, the Unemployment Insurance Act. There is another Act also.

§ Mr. Pickthorn
I do not think the Attorney-General has made the case very much stronger. The general part of his argument seemed rather to rest upon the not uncommon assumption that nobody is prosecuted unless he is guilty, while the particular part of his argument was that people have to keep records anyway and it is an awful nuisance. This Clause is, however, introducing a new problem. We have heard that there are already two 976 Acts, one named and the other unnamed, which impose summary penalties after this indefinite delay, so that, besides being a nuisance, the keeping of records is for the first time capable of involving a summary offence for which a person may be prosecuted as long as he lives. This seems to be a new principle which I do not think the Committee ought to swallow without consideration.

§ Commander Galbraith
I beg to move, to leave out Sub-section (3).
I move this Amendment for the purpose of getting an explanation from my right hon. and learned Friend. It seems extraordinary that a body corporate should be required to pay a fine up to a maximum of £500, whereas any other person has to pay a fine only up to a maximum of £100. I cannot understand why that should be, unless it is on the assumption that bodies corporate are wealthier than individuals. Surely there are many cases where individual employers are much wealthier than some of the small limited liability companies. Is this not introducing a new principle in law? Is it usual, or does it ever happen, that there are two different penalties laid down in respect of the same offence? I should like to have an explanation.

§ Sir H. Williams
Before this Amendment is dealt with on the question raised, there is another question. Because of business in another part of the building I have not been able to be present, but I understand that an undertaking has been given that Government Departments are to come into this scheme. If a Government Department is a body corporate, as I think it is, and even the Minister may be, because he is usually seen with a corporation, what is to be the position if a Government Department fails, as Government Departments sometimes do, to carry out a decision under the Bill? Is any penalty to be imposed on someone in the service of the Crown?

§ The Attorney-General
We discussed this matter upon an earlier Amendment.

§ Sir H. Williams
Not about penalties.

§ The Attorney-General
Yes, Sir.

§ Sir A. Southby
I want to support what has just been said by my hon. Friend. It appears that in this case heavy penal- 977 ties are being exacted from individuals or bodies corporate, but that Government Departments are put into a privileged position.

§ Major Manningham-Buller
I beg to move, in page 14, line 3s, after "capacity" to insert: and whose duty it was either to engage or dismiss staff or to give directions with regard thereto, or to keep records of the persons employed. This Sub-section is extremely widely drawn. Apparently it puts the onus upon every director of a company, and I imagine upon the head of a trade union or a co-operative society, of proving to the satisfaction of the court, when a branch has taken on a fit man when it ought to have taken on a disabled person, that he was exercising all such diligence to prevent the commission of the offence as he ought to have exercised having regard to the nature of his functions in that capacity and to all the circumstances. The effect of the Clause seems to be to cause a great waste of time. I do not want to cut it down so that it lets anyone through who ought to be brought before the court, but the Amendment is intended to effect that the person to be brought before the court shall have had something to do with the engagement or dismissal of staff or keeping of records, and other matters which are made offences under the Bill.

§ The Attorney-General
Running the business of a limited liability company has certain advantages. On the whole, where you get provisions, as we have in the Bill, under which certain acts or omissions may involve penalties, it is right, broadly speaking, that the directors should be able to be made personally responsible. Responsibility should not fall on the main body of shareholders but on those who are responsible for the running of the business. The difficulty I feel about the Amendment is that if it was inserted it would put on the prosecution the onus of proving that the directors concerned had the duty of engaging or dismissing staff, or giving directions with regard thereto, or of keeping records of the persons employed, and that would, no doubt, be difficult for the prosecution to prove. It might be very easy for the director to say that he did not engage 978 staff. I believe that the Clause in its present form is right. There is no reason to suppose that prosecutions will be brought oppressively or foolishly against directors, but they must accept general responsibility. It is right also that there should be what is really a concession to them, namely, that if they can show that it happened without their knowledge, consent or connivance, and that they exercised all reasonable diligence to prevent its commission—I am not reading the actual words of the Bill—they should get off. I regard that as a concession to the directors.

§ Sir A. Southby
The Attorney-General said just now that the Amendment would put the onus upon the prosecution. It cannot have escaped the notice of any Member of this Committee that the modern tendency is to make the accused prove himself innocent and not to make the prosecutor prove him guilty. It seems to me desirable that the person actually responsible should be brought before the court. It is rather browning the covey to say that all the directors, who may have nothing to do with that side of the business, should be held responsible for the act of one of them. Indeed I am not clear as to what would be the effect, for example, on the Co-operative Society. Suppose some mistake is made by a branch of, the Co-operative Society. Is the whole organisation to be held responsible for what was done by some manager in some local branch? The same applies to the chain stores. I think we should be a little more careful to identify the real miscreant and not to involve other people, and not to hold that those people should have to prove they are innocent instead of it being necessary for the prosecution to prove that they are guilty.

§ Sir I. Fraser
I am glad my hon. and gallant Friend raised this point. I think some more assurance is needed. Some words are required, perhaps other than those of the Amendment, to achieve this purpose. I think that the directors should be held responsible but if they can show they gave proper instructions then the liability should fall upon the man who did not carry them out. But unless you make the directors responsible there is an opportunity for slackness.

§ Sir H. Williams
I am not quite clear on the position of municipal corporations 979 under this Clause. I take it that in that case every member of a town council would be liable to prosecution if I have read the Clause aright. I happen to be a member of the London County Council on which there are 140 of us. Would it be proposed to prosecute the lot of us? I remember a curious case when the House of Commons—if I may put it that way—prosecuted a company in conection with the King's National Roll. In 1926, I think it was, the County of London Electric Supply Co. promoted a Bill in this House and a Member of Parliament who was Chairman of the King's Roll National Council, moved the rejection of the Bill on the ground that the company had not joined the King's Roll. This is the same idea in extended and legislative form. That Bill was rejected on the ground that the company had failed to do its proper duty. The facts were that the secretary or the assistant-secretary had failed to bring before the directors a communication from the King's Roll National Council. So, the whole company and their potential consumers were prejudiced and for a year the whole enterprise was set back, because this House, by securing the rejection of that Bill, prosecuted the directors, the shareholders, and their prospective consumers, all because of the failure of an official who was never attacked at all. That case was analogous to what we are now discussing. In other words, is the man who has offended to be the man who is prosecuted?

§ Major Manningham-Buller
In view of what has been said by the Attorney-General, although it does not entirely satisfy me, as his argument seemed to me to be that because it was difficult to find the guilty man therefore every one of them would have to prove they were not guilty, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Lionel Berry
Before we leave this Clause I think the Committee is entitled to some explanation in regard to Subsection (3). The question was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith), and I hope we shall have an answer. Unfortunately on that Amendment the Com- 980 mittee got drawn aside to another question as to what was a body corporate and a Government Department, and no actual official reply was given. Before we leave the Clause I think we might have an explanation.

§ Mr. Bevin
With regard to the £500 and the £100 when we considered this problem we had regard to the fact that we were dealing with a very wide range of business down to the small shopkeeper or the small people employing 20 people, and that we also had to deal with large corporate bodies with multiple shops, big works and so on. I anticipated that if the penalty were made £500, I should have heard a cry in this Committee, "Are you going to lay on the person right at the bottom of this scale, the same penalty that you are providing to deal with the companies with a large number of shops, etc.?" In fact the matter came up on another Clause to-day. As regards the question of the Co-operative Society as to whether each shop was the offender, or whether it was the society, it is the society. The society might commit an offence at quite a number of shops or over the whole field. I feel that you have such a wide range of concerns with which to deal that the discretion of the Court should be such as to enable them to impose a heavier penalty on the larger body than on the single person employing 20 people. I think that is reasonable having regard to the different magnitudes of the offence.

§ Sir H. Williams
May I have an answer about town councils? Who would be prosecuted in the case of an offence by the Amalgamated Engineering Union, which employs a lot of people, or the Transport and General Workers' Union, who employ many more?

§ Mr. Bevin
In the case of the Transport and General Workers' Union I can give the utmost assurance that it would be the Executive Council.

§ Sir H. Williams
They would be prosecuted although the general secretary might be responsible?

§ Mr. Bevin
The Bill says, "Or officer."

§ Sir H. Williams
I want to know who is the person to be prosecuted.

§ The Attorney-General
That depends on the decision of whoever is in charge of the prosecution on the facts before them. The hon. Member asks who would be prosecuted. I say that no one can say. It depends on the evidence, the facts and the inferences. You can prosecute a body corporate. You need not prosecute every officer or director. You must trust people to exercise a reasonable commonsense. Theoretically prosecutions on insufficient evidence can be launched to-day. They seldom are. Here the Bill says that directors or officers are all prima facie responsible, but if they took all reasonable steps in the exercise of their responsibility the prosecuting authority must have that in mind. Under the Bill proceedings are in order against a body corporate or any officer or any director of it.

§ Sir H. Williams
I want to know who is capable of being prosecuted in the case of a municipal authority.

§ The Attorney-General
I have not got the constitutions of various local authorities: borough councils, rural district councils and so on, in my head; but anybody who comes under the description of "officer" of a municipality may be prosecuted.

§ Sir H. Williams
The directors of the municipality are the council. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] By analogy. The people who are responsible for decisions and supervision of administration are the elected members of the council and the aldermen. The officers are the town clerk, the borough engineer, the sanitary inspector, the surveyor, and all the rest. If we pass this does it authorise the prosecution of every member of a local authority? Either it does or it does not. The Attorney-General presumably knows what he means, and he ought to tell us before we let this Clause go.

§ Sir I. Fraser
Is this House a body corporate, and what happens if we do not employ the right percentage ourselves?

§ Mr. Colegate (The Wrekin)
I sympathise with the contention that the magnitude of the offender should have some influence upon the punishment, but that is not the issue, because very often a body corporate is much smaller than a private employer or partnership. If it is the intention that a public body com- 982 mitting an offence should be fined substantially, that should be stated in the Bill. The right thing is to find a form of words which will give the necessary legal basis for fining a large body more heavily than the small employer, but to do it on the basis that £100 is to be the limit for the private employer and that only the corporate body is to be fined £500 is quite wrong.

§ Sir J. Lamb
The Attorney-General said that he did not know who would be liable. That is a matter that we want to clarify. With regard to the local authority, is the chairman of the roads committee, for instance, liable, because. I take it that he is to a certain extent an officer?

§ Captain Sir William Brass (Clitheroe)
Could the Minister cite any other Acts of Parliament where the penalties are different?

§ Mr. Bevin
No, Sir.

§ Sir W. Brass
It is a new principle.

§ Mr. Bevin
Yes, Sir.

§ Mr. Woodburn
Could not the difficulty be got over by making the maximum £500 for everybody? Nobody says that an offender must be fined £500—that is a maximum Why there should be this argument over the big body, I do not know.

§ Mr. Bevin
I am not taking the £500 to-day, anyway. I will look into the suggestion of making the figure £500 all round. My real anxiety is to protect the small man. But I will look into the matter between now and the Report stage.

§ The Attorney-General
With regard to the local authority, you can, of course, prosecute the council. They are a body corporate and can be prosecuted as such. You can also prosecute any officer of the council. The chairman and members are not officers. Without giving an exhaustive list, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir H. Williams) will know that in law there are men who are officers. They could be prosecuted, or the council could be prosecuted as a whole.

§ Sir J. Lamb
But the election of officers for the council includes the election, of chairman and vice-chairman.

§ The Attorney-General
In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), the House of Commons is not a body corporate.

§ Earl Winterton (Horsham and Worthing)
I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
I do so not out of hostility to the Government, but because I think it is necessary that an unwritten rule of our procedure should be supported even in war-time. That unwritten rule is that when the Government suspend on an important Bill they announce at some time or other whether they intend to take the whole of the Bill, and how long it is proposed to sit. We are about to enter upon a very important discussion, if we go on upon Clause 19, in which there is a great deal of interest, at a somewhat late hour, and, secondly, as the Committee will be aware, if they make a simple calculation, we have been sitting on the Committee stage of this Bill longer than in peace-time we normally sit in any day. I have no party interest in the matter, but I do not think it desirable that, even in war-time, the Committee, or the House, should continue to sit on an important Bill without some statement from the Government of the reasons for sitting late, and how long it is proposed to sit.

§ Mr. A. Bevan (Ebbw Vale)
I hope that the Government will not surrender to the request which has been made. If we are going, in the next three or four months, to report Progress and end our Sittings seven and a half hours after the meeting of the House, we shall never get through the volume of business that we shall have before us. I consider that the Motion has been moved too early in the proceedings. [Interruption.] I know that you can have Committees upstairs, but Committees upstairs have not yet been appointed. As has been pointed out, we are not having Committees upstairs yet because we are waiting for the days to draw out in order to get that done. Secondly, there is an obvious reason why the Motion should not be accepted. A long series of discussions has taken place in Committee to-day on a number of Amendments, not one of which has been pressed to a Division. A very large num- 984 ber of Amendments has been moved for the purpose of building a background atmosphere for the next Debate rather than because of the merits of the Amendments themselves.

§ Sir H. Williams
Is it in Order for an hon. Member to impute motives?

§ Mr. Bevan
I have not imputed motives.

§ The Chairman (Major Milner)
It is in Order if the motives so imputed are bona fide, not mala fide.

§ Mr. Bevan
No one for a moment suggests that I have been imputing personal motives. They are motives of Parliamentary strategy, which are an entirely different matter. It seems to me that, in such circumstances, we are going to find ourselves trapped over and over again. It will be quite easy for hon. Members wanting to do it to fill up the Order Paper with Amendments, each of which will have to be debated, about none of which they will feel earnest enough to go to a division, and then, when the dinner hour is approaching, they will move to report Progress. I earnestly suggest that if the Government are serious in their wishes to get through the volume of business indicated, they should not accept this or any similar Motion.

§ Mr. Pickthorn
It is a matter of indifference to me whether we report Progress now or go on. If I had to decide, I do not know whether I should stop or go on, so it cannot be said that I am prejudiced in this matter, but the observations of the hon. Gentleman should not pass wholly without comment. If it is to be said that Amendments which are put down are put down for merely factious purposes unless they are always pressed to a Division, then hon. Members who put down Amendments would be compelled always to divide and a great deal of time would be wasted. I was very much tempted to-day on one occasion to divide the Committee and would have liked to have done so. I would not mind being voted down at all. But I do not think that that would be very agreeable to the Front Bench, whom I do not mind very much, or to hon. Members opposite whom I mind more, nor is it fair to suggest that all these Amendments have been factious because we have not pressed them to a Division.

§ Mr. Bevan
I did not say that.

§ Mr. Pickthorn
On more than one of these Amendments we have had promises of consideration and on more than one we have actually had promises of amendment between now and a later stage, and some have even been accepted. If this kind of argument is to be used, it will make it very necessary for Committee stages on the Floor of the House to be very much slower. Everybody has been as quick as possible, and it cannot be suggested that there has been anything factious or obstructionist.

§ Mr. Bevin
I have no complaint to make either of the work of the Committee to-day or on the previous day's Sitting, but I would remind the noble Lord who moved to report Progress that, apart from the next Clause, there is practically little or nothing needing discussion on the Bill. The next Clause is the vital Clause. I cannot see much controversy over the rest of the Bill, but there is controversy over the next Clause. The Government are asking to-day for the completion of the Committee stage of this Bill. They are working out their timetable having regard to the large amount of legislation and other matters which the House is waiting to Debate.

§ Earl Winterton
Do I understand that there has been any announcement that we are to complete the Committee stage of the Bill?

§ Mr. Bevin
When the Leader of the House announced the Business he not only announced the completion of the Committee stage of this Bill but other Business to follow, if time permitted. Therefore, the idea in the mind of the Government was that this was a Bill the Committee stage of which could be completed to-day. I would ask the House to get to grips with the next Clause and let us complete the Committee stage, especially having regard to all the other things the Government have on hand in addition to war problems.

§ Sir A. Southby
I would like to reinforce the plea of my Noble Friend the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton), who has moved to report Progress at a convenient time in the proceedings in Committee, when the business has been swept up to a considerable extent and before we embark on what is probably the most contentious part of the 986 Bill. The Government have suspended the Rule, but we have had Debates in this House in which many Members wished to take part where the Rule, instead of being suspended for an unlimited period, has, contrary to the wishes of many people in the House, been suspended for only a limited period. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) would agree with me that there have been many occasions when he and I would have liked to see the Debate going on. I do not at all mind going on sitting to discuss the Clause. I share with the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale a secret pleasure in an all-night Sitting, if it comes to that, but we have been in the habit of finishing Business somewhere about this time in existing circumstances.
The Minister himself says that the business to be done after Clause 19 has been got out of the way is small, and I suggest that it is for the convenience of Members that we should report Progress now and meet to conclude the Committee stage of the Bill at an hour more convenient to Members of the Committee. Business is not so pressing that we could not get rid of the rest of the Committee stage of the Bill within a short time. The passage of the Bill through Committee has been marked by the way in which there has been good will over the discussion of it. It was a little ungenerous of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale to suggest that because time was not spent in hopeless Divisions in the Lobby, therefore, in some way Members who moved Amendments were to blame. There has been free discussion on many of the important points, and I appeal to the Government Front Bench to let us have this other rather contentious discussion on Clause 19 at a fresh Sitting of the Committee and to report Progress now.

§ Mr. Bowles
In support of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) and in contradiction of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn), I wish to say that I have sat through this Debate and have heard hon. Member after hon. Member from the opposite side of the Committee agreeing to withdraw his Amendment and saying at the same time that he did not understand the explanation given by the Attorney-General.

§ The Attorney-General
The only hon. Member who said he did not understand an explanation was an hon. Member opposite.

§ Sir I. Fraser
I suggest to the Committee that we finish the job. It has been stated even by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby), who wants us to get up, that it would not take long when we met again, and that is surely a powerful argument for doing it now. It is a controversial matter that interests the minds of some Members and some parts of the mind of all Members, no doubt, but there are other Members who are particularly interested in the disabled man and they want to see the new Clause, which the Government have put on the Paper and which goes a long way towards meeting the matters raised in the last Debate, through the Committee stage. While it might be inconvenient for some to stay, it is convenient to those who are interested in the disabled people, and who came prepared to stay, and I suggest, therefore, that we now finish the job.

§ Mr. Bellenger
I suggest to hon. Members opposite that they are going to keep the Committee debating for a long time a principle that ought not to be debated on this Bill. The question of regulations and how we use that procedure has long been before this House, and why should we not take a better opportunity to debate a very vital principle? Why should this Bill be singled out as one on which to stay late in discussing a principle which is not really germane to this Bill?

§ Sir H. Williams
I do not think that it is unreasonable, when an important issue arises, to expect the Chamber to be fairly full. We know that a number of Members are away for various reasons. A large number of Members do not live near. When you have something which raises a major issue people say, "Why on this Bill?" You have to do it on every Bill.
The issue is this: Shall Parliament remain effectively in control of reconstruction legislation after it has been passed as an Act? It is only by chance that this happens to be virtually the first of the reconstruction Bills. If we are to be successful in this country after the war, Parliament must be effectively in control of the situation and the issue is whether or not delegated legislation is to remain 988 effectively under the control of this House. It is because I want to see that issue debated on this Bill, when the House is fully represented and not partially represented, that I make this plea: If we have a Division later one quarter of the House will be present, but some 450 Members will be missing, including the larger proportion of His Majesty's Ministers, although the Front Bench is at this moment well decorated in more senses than one. However, that does not alter the fact that when a major issue of principle is at stake the generality of Members ought to have an opportunity of taking part.

§ Mr. A. Bevan
May I ask for your guidance, Major Milner? It is perfectly true that a principle of great importance is about to be discussed. I want to go on discussing it but are we to be allowed to discuss it? I would prefer to see this principle discussed in isolation, on its own merits. I think it is necessary that that should be done. Are we to be able to discuss the merits of legislation by Order, in general, separated from the particular merits of the proposals in this Bill; or when we come to the discussion on the Bill, shall we be confined to discussing whether this particular power in these particular circumstances, ought to be given to this particular Government?
I made a proposal concerning this matter in the House some weeks ago—a proposal, I think, of some substance—which would enable us to discuss this whole matter and I would prefer, if my hon. Friends opposite would forgo this occasion, that assurances should be given, and facilities provided, by the Government so that the whole House should have an opportunity of deciding what modifications in our procedure should be made in view of the body of legislation which will come before us in the next few months. I submit that this is a matter on which you, Major Milner, might advise us.

§ The Chairman
It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say at once that it is, clearly, not possible to discuss the general principle involved now. It is only possible to discuss the question, in so far as it relates to this Bill.

§ Mr. Bevan
Then may I put this to the Government? I think the Minister of Labour has a grievance that he should be penalised on the grounds of general principle. I think my hon. Friends opposite 989 would desire that this principle should be considered by the House of Commons, not in relation to a Minister who has already been subjected to opposition from the benches opposite. I submit that their position in our eyes and in the eyes of the public will be prejudiced if they intend to impale the Minister of Labour on a general principle of that sort. It is no use hon. Members opposite shaking their heads, because they have expressed that view to me outside this House. The Government should give us an early opportunity of discussing this principle, in isolation.

§ Mr. Erskine-Hill (Edinburgh, North)
I do not know what the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has in mind, but if he meant that I and my hon. Friends should not proceed with our Amendment to Clause 19 because of some general discussion, it would be a belated discussion and would not satisfy me at all. The issue for the Committee to decide is whether they intend to delegate their powers in a certain way or not. I do not want to discuss what I am about to say later, if it is so decided, but I think it would be unfortunate for the Committee, which has had a great deal of work to do, if the Minister were not willing to give way on what a large number of Members consider a matter of importance. There is no question of a personal attack upon the Ministed. Such an idea is absolutely without foundation, [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I do not think it has ever been in the head of anybody on this side of the House that there has been a personal attack. This is the first Bill of reconstruction and the matter is raised in the form in which a great many Members of this Committee think it ought to be discussed.

§ Mr. Woodburn
I would call the attention of the Committee to the misapprehension that exists that this is the first Bill on which this question has arisen. The same principle existed in the Hydro-Electric Bill, which was also a Reconstruction Bill.

§ Mr. Molson (The High Peak)
Is it in Order, Major Milner, to discuss this on the Motion to report Progress?

§ The Chairman
I think the hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) is getting a little wide but I understand he is giving an instance of the question we are 990 discussing. It depends on how far he intends to go.

§ Mr. Woodburn
I was about to suggest to hon. Members opposite that they give the impression that their insistence on discussing this principle in relation to this Bill is rather an opposition to the Bill itself—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—which cannot be stated frankly and openly and that their action is liable to be misinterpreted in that way. It would be much wiser if this matter were discussed, in principle, in regard to all Bills that are coming along. If it is wrong in regard to this Bill, it is wrong in regard to all Bills. If it was right in regard to the Hydro-Electric Bill, it is right in regard to this Bill. There is no reason why this Bill, at this time of the day, should be used as a peg on which to hang a first-class discussion on the question of the presentation of Regulations. I suggest, further, that it would have another advantage because a great deal of legislation will be coming forward in regard to reconstruction and many people would be willing to discuss the matter with an open mind if it was not in connection with this Bill.

§ Mr. Ivor Thomas (Keighley)
Many of us on this side of the Committee feel a great deal of sympathy with the principle put forward by hon. Members opposite. If it came forward in isolation, we should probably support them, but we shall not do so on this Bill.

§ Earl Winterton
I have endeavoured to catch your eye several times, Major Milner, in order to ask leave to withdraw the Motion. But before doing so I want to say that I, personally, am satisfied with what the Minister of Labour gave as his reason for finishing the Committee stage of the Bill to-day. All I asked him—as I was entitled to do, and I thank him for his courteous reply—was what were his intentions? I do not think it is sufficient under our procedure for the Deputy Prime Minister, or anybody else, to announce at Question Time that it is hoped to take a certain amount of Business. I think it should be definitely stated. I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). I hope that if the Committee decide to finish this Bill now, when my hon. Friend, or any other Member with an independent point of view, asks that the 991 Rule be suspended to discuss some other matter we shall not be told by the Government, "All right, we are willing to suspend the Rule for one hour." It is a matter of equal importance to all parties in the House.