HC Deb 30 January 1945 vol 407 cc1271-2
47. Sir Herbert Williams

asked the Lord President of the Council why the three Orders in Council (S.R. & O. Nos. 1311, 1312 and 1313) which were originally Tabled in the last Session were not Tabled in the present Session having regard to the provisions of Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Emergency Powers Act, 1939.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Attlee)

The three Orders in Council to which the question refers were re-laid on 5th December last. The practice as regards re-laying is that Orders in Council approving Defence Regulations are re-laid when the new Session opens for the balance of the period to be completed.

48. Sir H. Williams

asked the Lord President of the Council why the Order in Council made under the Diplomatic Privilege (Extensions) Act, was not numbered in the series of Statutory Rules and Orders.

Mr. Attlee

I have no doubt that the hon. Member is referring to the copy of the Order which was laid and which did not bear its heading in the Statutory Rule and Order series in accordance with the usual practice of laying unnumbered copies of the order before numbered copies become available.

81. Sir W. Wakefield

asked the Minister of Works why no explanatory memorandum was attached to the Emergency Powers (Defence) Control of Building and Civil Engineering Undertakings (S.R. & O. No. 36 of 1945), having regard to the fact that the Regulation is not intelligible without reference to Defence Regulation 56AB.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks)

This Order is in similar terms to previous Orders made under Defence Regulation 56AB, requiring information to be supplied by registered builders as to persons employed. No explanatory note was included as it was considered that the purport of the Order was quite clear; the more so since the persons affected by the Order, who are in every case registered builders or contractors, are only required to furnish the information on request being made to them individually by the Ministry.

Mr. De la Bère

Does this not indicate the vital necessity of issuing an explanatory statement when these Orders are produced? Is not the Minister aware that I have previously asked for such statements to be made when Orders which are not intelligible are introduced, and that no explanation has come from the Minister at all? It is quite wrong.

Forward to