HC Deb 25 May 1944 vol 400 cc928-9
47. Sir H. Williams

asked the Lord President of the Council why the names of the Privy Counsellors present at the meeting of the Privy Council on 4th May, 1944, are not stated in Statutory. Rule and Order, No. 536, of 1944; and if he will now furnish the names

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Attlee)

It would have been contrary to established practice to state in the Order in Council to which my hon. Friend refers the names of those who attended the Council held on 4th May last, at which His Majesty approved the draft Proclamation under the National Service Acts, 1939 to 1942, the text of which is annexed to that Order. The Privy Counsellors who were present, however, were the Lord President of the Council, the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, Mr. Bruce and Mr. Curtin.

Sir H. Williams

If it was contrary to usual practice to include the names on this occasion, why was it the invariable practice to include them on the occasion of every other Privy Council?

Mr. Attlee

The hon. Member is incorrect. The names of those who attend the Councils appear only in Orders in Council approving Reports of the Judicial Committee, which form a class by themselves, and, as an historic survival, in a small and diminishing number of other Orders applying to the Colonies, the Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands. Inclusion or omission of the names is based on Departmental practice of long standing.

Sir H. Williams

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is the only Order, of all those I have perused in the last two years, which does not contain the names?

Mr. Attlee

I must presume that the conditions concerning those Orders are as I have said and I suggest that the hon. Member should peruse them a little further.

Sir H. Williams

Is my right hon. Friend aware that nine-tenths of them do not fall within the category described by him?

Forward to