CATERING WAGES (Hansard, 12 February 1946)

§ Lord William Scott
I beg to move, That the Order, dated 3rd December 1945, entitled the Wages Board (Unlicensed Residential Establishment) Order, 1945 (S.R.&; O., 1945, No. 1510), a copy of which was presented on 17th December, be annulled. I will also refer to the two following Motions, namely: That the Order dated 13th December 1945, entitled the Control of Engagement (Amendment) Order. 1945 (S.R.& O., 1945.No. 1557) a copy of which was presented on 22nd January, be annulled." and " That the Order, dated 13th December 1945, entitled the Disabled Persons (Standard Percentage) Order, 1945 (S.R.& O., 1945, "No. 1570), a copy of which was presented on 22nd January, be annulled. 329 These three Prayers come under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Labour and National Service, and my remarks about them will be very similar to those which we have just addressed to the President of the Board of Trade. In this case, we again have the explanation given in the White Paper issued yesterday or today giving an explanation of the delay which was caused by these Orders being placed on the Table, and I notice in this White Paper, that a paragraph deals with No. 180 and subsequent Orders. The second Order, which is the Control of Engagement Order, is described as S.R. and O. No. 1577. The Control of Engagement Order was No 1557 I assume that this is a misprint, because it would appear to be Order No. 1557. Perhaps the Minister will explain who is responsible for this particular misprint, whether it is all part of the same hurry and whether the misprint was due to anything in his Ministry or how it occurred. It does seem there is a certain amount of slackness creeping into the production of these papers. I have no desire to take up the time of the House in reiteration because there are more Orders on the Paper, and Members have to show that they are doing their duties properly to the country. I do not think it would be right, merely because we want to get to bed early, that we should cut out necessary observations. I drew the Minister's attention to what may be just a small slip, but we do not like seeing these small slips in important documents.

§ Mr. C. S. Taylor
I beg to second the Motion.
There is one small point which I would like to add to the points that my hon. Friend has made and also the points made to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, and it refers to the Catering Wages Order. I would like to know whether there is any explanation forthcoming why this Order was laid on the Table in another place on 12th December and it was not laid on the Table in this House until 17th December? It was reported in the explanation given by the Ministry of Labour and National Service that, up to the date of the publication of the White Paper, they had not been able to find out why it was laid in another place before it was laid here. I do hope that 330 really serious efforts have been made to find out why it was that it was laid there before it was laid here.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards)
May I say, in the first place, that no objection can be taken at all to Members of this House performing their proper functions in drawing to the attention of the House any mistakes or slips made by the Administration. It is a proper function of the House, and I say merely, as a Parliamentary Secretary, that I am glad that our attention is being drawn to mistakes of this sort. It keeps our machine up to pitch, and it certainly puts Ministers and Junior Ministers on their mettle in seeing to it that the House is properly informed of these regulations not only as quickly as may be, but, to use a new phrase, immediately they are agreed to. In the first place, on the question of the Wages Order of 1945, I think the position is quite clear. The printed proofs of this Order were signed by the Secretary on 3rd December and signed proofs were returned to the Stationery Office on 4th December for final printing. Prints of the Order were received from the Stationery Office on 12th December, and 15 copies were sent to the Clerk to the Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders on that date. Up to that point, there is no delay and the whole thing has gone through properly.

§ Mr. C. S. Taylor
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not listen to the arguments we put forward so carefully to the Minister representing the Board of Trade. We suggested that, with a little vision, the time between the signing of the Order and the tabling of the Order could be cut down by getting the Order in print and various other devices which the hon. Member will be able to read in HANSARD tomorrow, if he has the time to do so. There are various suggestions put forward for reducing the time.

§ Mr. Ness Edwards
I am very much obliged to the hon. Member, but I would remind him that the manner in which this procedure has to be carried out is provided for by Statute. May I remind him that there is now before Parliament the Statutory Instruments Bill which carries forward the procedure. It says that they 331 must be printed, and in dealing with this Order, we have gone through the usual motions provided for by the custom and procedure of this House. As I am advised, however—

§ Mr. Lennox-Boyd
I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, who is giving a very good explanation of this Order. Can we take it from him that the recent Statutory Instruments Bill has in fact held up Parliamentary scrutiny of those Orders?

§ Mr. Ness Edwards
I do not think that interpretation can be placed upon what I. have said. Here is the position. We have gone through the procedure provided for up to that point. It may well be said— and I have sympathy with the suggestion—that the amount of time should be decreased, and that the House should know as quickly as possible. It may well be that at the Stationery Office we might expect much more expedition than perhaps we are getting.

§ Mr. C. S. Taylor
That is not the point.

§ Mr. Ness Edwards
With all due respect, it is the point. As I understand it has to be printed and signed, and has to be reprinted, and it cannot be reprinted until the draft has been signed by the authorised person in the Department.

§ Mr. Taylor
I do not want to interrupt again, but I would ask the hon. Gentleman to read the arguments which we put forward. He can read them in the Official Report tomorrow, and he will see exactly where his argument—with the greatest respect—falls to the ground. We suggested that the Order should be set up in type ready to be run off. There is no need to wait until the Order is signed before the printing process is set up in type. There are all sort of ways of cutting down time and still being within the regulations as provided by Statute.

§ Mr. Ness Edwards
Coming back to the point, my information is they must be printed, they cannot be roneoed, and "printed" we understand to mean printed in the proper manner. I shall certainly look with interest at HANSARD tomorrow, and if it does give us some ways and means of letting the House know more quickly—as it is entitled to 332 know—than at present, we will see what can be done on that point.
The next point was that on 12th December these copies were sent to the House. It is very peculiar that the Order is recorded as having been laid in the House of Lords on the 12th December, but for some reason which our Department is unable to explain the House of Commons did not record the laying of the Order until 17th December. Now perhaps the hon. Gentleman would give me his attention. So far, we are unable to satisfy ourselves that our Department is not without some responsibility in this matter. We cannot say that the Department [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentlemen will listen they will see the point. We cannot rightly blame the officers of the House, because we cannot be sure ourselves, and the envelope in which these Orders were addressed in the House is missing. On the one hand, it may have been delay in passing the Orders from one section of the House to another. On the other hand, if the Orders went to the wrong place we cannot say that the responsibility was with our Department because we do not know to whom they were addressed, except that they were addressed to the House of Commons. I can assure hon. Members that such a mistake, if a mistake of that sort was made, is not likely to occur again.
I take it it is only on the question of the machinery that the matter is being raised, and I now come to the other point, raised by the Noble Lord, the Disabled Persons (Standard Percentage) Order, 1945. Here is the position with regard to the time-table of this Order. The Order was signed on the proof print on the 13th December and sent by the stationery section to the printers on the 17th December asking for delivery very urgently. Copies were received from the Stationery Office late on 21st December and sent immediately to the House of Commons, but the House had risen. Therefore, it is possible that if the Stationery Office had been informed that the Order must be printed, or should have been printed by 20th December, we could have got the Order here to the House in time for Members to take copies away with them at the Christmas Recess. I appreciate that point, but it is immaterial. This Order does not come into force until 1st March this year. In view of that, and the fact that such long 333 notice was given, there is not really much substance in the charge of undue delay in connection with this Order. On the other hand, I agree that as soon as the Minister signs the Order it should be laid on the Table of the House as quickly as possible.
Now I come to the third point, namely, the Control of Engagement Order, 1945. With all due respect to the noble Lord who raised it, I did not quite follow what he said about a misprint—

§ Lord William Scott
The White Paper which was printed and sent to this House, either yesterday or to-day, gives reasons, in writing, for the sundry delays and other matters which affected the Select Committee dealing with Statutory Rules and Orders, has, on page 5, the four Orders which affect the Minister of Labour and National Insurance. The first Order deals with bakehouses and the second the Control of Engagement (Amendment) Order, 1945 (S.R.& O., 1945, No. 1577). The figure of 1577 should be 1557. The Parliamentary Secretary may say that this "is a trivial point, but he does not know the time I wasted in trying to find out what 1577 was, only to discover. eventually, that is was a misprint. I thought it was most unusual to find a misprint in a White Paper of this description, and I wondered whether this was part of the brave new world.

§ Mr. Ness Edwards
The noble Lord has certainly made a brave speech, but I would draw his attention to the fact that the misprint occurs in the Select Committee's Report, that Committee being comprised of Members in all parts of the House.

§ Mr. C. S. Taylor
The Stationery Office.

§ Mr. Ness Edwards
I do not want to put the fault on the Stationery Office. I will leave it to posterity to decide who is responsible, but at any rate the Ministry of Labour is not responsible, although I am sorry that the noble Lord had such difficulty.

§ Lord William Scott
rose—

§ Mr. Ness Edwards
I am sorry. I have no wish to be discourteous, but I cannot give way again.
Now I come to the Order in which the figure 1577 occurs. This Order was made by the Minister on 13th December, 334 1945, under Regulation 58A of the Defence Regulations, 1939. Prior to the passing of the Supplies and Services Act, 1945, on 10th December last, Orders made under the Defence (General) Regulations were not required to be laid before Parliament or submitted to the Select Committee on Statutory Rules and Orders. Unfortunately, it was overlooked in the Department that under Section 4 Subsection (1) of that Act the Order should have been laid before Parliament, and copies sent to the Select Committee. Immediately the Department discovered this, steps were taken to remedy the omission. The Order was laid before both Houses, and copies were sent to the Select Committee, on 10th January of this year. This was an order which freed a large number of people from control. It did not impose penalties upon anybody. It was to decrease the area to which penalties applied. In that sense, no serious damage has been done. But the Department was quite wrong. It had not taken the steps provided for in the new Act, and perhaps it was because it was a new Act that the misunderstanding is understandable. I have to stand here in sackcloth and ashes and say that the Department was wrong, and to give the House an assurance that the Department will see to it that in this matter it will not be wrong again. In those circumstances, I hope hon. Members in all parts of the House will be satisfied with the explanation.

§ Mr. C. S. Taylor
I am very satisfied with the explanation, but is it not a pity—

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is not entitled to speak again on this Order.

§ Mr. Taylor
I wished to ask a question, Mr. Speaker. Why was not the explanation, obviously sincere and satisfactory, which we have now heard, put in the explanations delivered to the House either yesterday or today? If it had been, it might have been unnecessary to. move the Prayer.

§ Mr. Ness Edwards
I can only say that the views I have expressed were submitted to the Select Committee, and as far as I am aware, I am not telling the House anything other than what was told the Select Committee.

§ Lord William Scott
In view of the explanation which the Minister has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.