§ 12.30 a.m.
§ Mr. C. S. TaylorI beg to move
That the Order dated 17th December, 1945, entitled the Bakehouses (Employment on the Sunday before Christmas) Order, 1945 (S.R.& O., 1945, No. 1580), a copy of which was presented on 22nd January, be annulled.I would like to make it clear that the moving of these Prayers is not a new matter, but that several hon. Members have been watching these Orders for some ten years. We have, perhaps informally, made it our special duty to watch them.348 During the last Parliament, there were times when we moved Prayers against the Government, and got the Government of the day either to withdraw certain Orders, or to withdraw them and reintroduce them in a new form. I would point out that the only Parliamentary method of raising the matters concerning these Orders is by a Prayer or a Resolution.
§ Mr. E. FletcherIs the hon. Gentleman saying that in the last Parliament these Prayers were always moved on the merits of the Orders?
§ Mr. TaylorCertainly. If the hon. Member will look at the volumes of HANSARD, under the names of people such as Sir Herbert Williams and other hon. Members, including myself, he will see that we moved many of these Prayers. I make no apology for doing so tonight. I feel it is the duty of every hon. Member to study every one of these Orders. My hon. Friends and I, of our own free will and volition—out of the kindness of our hearts—have been doing this job which hon. Members opposite ought to have been doing for themselves. Hon. Members opposite should be extremely grateful that we have set ourselves the task of reviewing a great many. Of these Orders. After all, the attention of the House was drawn to the Orders we have discussed tonight by the Select Committee.
The Order to which this Prayer relates is somewhat different from the other Orders in that it was signed on 17th December and was laid on 22nd January, but the effectiveness of the Order ceased after the Sunday before Christmas. The Order related to the employment of bakers, under the Factories Act, on the Sunday before Christmas. Surely, the Ministry of Food must have known for some time before that bakers were to be employed on the Sunday before Christmas. I am certain that, if I had been at the Ministry of Food, I should have said, "We must have bread over Christmas, we must have bakers at work on the Sunday before Christmas, and therefore, the Order must be made." I should have had it ready weeks before. There is no excuse whatever for producing an Order signed on 17th December and laying it before the House long after its effectiveness has ceased. I hope that in this instance we shall have a very special explanation from the Minister.
§ 12.34 a.m.
§ Major Guy LloydI beg to second the Motion.
Having listened to the various discussions on these Orders, I must say that the blunder with regard to this Order seems to be more glaring than in the case of the others. I have followed with great interest the difference of opinion which apparently exists between the Front Bench opposite and their supporters I would like to congratulate very sincerely the Minister who have come here tonight and treated us, in my opinion, with great courtesy, and have been perfectly frank. We very much appreciate it, but that is in striking contrast to the attitude of many of their supporters behind, who somehow or other appear to have resented that these matters have been brought forward at all and have assumed this has been done in a Party spirit. The answer to that has been given by their own Ministers, and I thank those Ministers. I assume that the hon. Lady who will reply will take the same white sheet as other Ministers have done and apologise for the mistake that has been made here again.
§ 12.36 a.m.
§ Mr. Ness EdwardsI have some sym pathy with hon. Members opposite in praying—
§ Mr. Tiffany (Peterborough)I was under the impression from the mover of the Motion that he was dealing with the Minister of Food. I thought the hon. Member had studied the matters under discussion and I understood the. Minister of Food was to reply.
§ Mr. Ness EdwardsTo resume the sentence where I left off—because I myself have been connected with some Pravers when I sat on the opposite side of the House. I do not resent what is a legitimate Parliamentary function. On this occasion I do not appear in a white sheet. I was asked to come here in a white sheet and apologise, and all the rest of it, for some great sin of commission or omission.
In this case I think we have a perfectly reasonable reply. In the first place, this Order does not apply to the bakers who are normally engaged in the baking industry at all. It applies merely to the 350 employment of women on a Sunday and, under this Order, permission is given for the employment of women on the Sunday before Christmas for a fairly obvious reason. Everybody wanted their Christmas cake to be cooked, and their Christmas confectionary made ready. It was for that purpose, and that purpose alone, that this Order was made so that in respect of the Sunday before Christmas women should be employed in the bakehouses of this country. That is the extent of this Order. In order to get agreement about this matter, it will be appreciated on all sides of the House, there were a number of interested parties whose acquiescence, if not agreement, was essential if we were to get the maximum result from the Order. These negotiations were carried on and the results of the negotiations were not arrived at until a very late date.
§ Mr. C. S. TaylorWould the hon. Member say when they started?
§ Mr. Ness EdwardsThey started, as I understand it, by the receipt of an application from the employers, in the Ministry of Labour. I am speaking from memory—I think it was on 1st December. Then discussions took place, feelings, soundings, were made and so on, and it was not until, as I am informed, the week before Christmas that it was agreed on both sides that the exemption should be made for the Sunday before Christmas, and that the special Order should be made by the Minister. That was done on 17th December. The Order was agreed, to by all the parties concerned. The matter was sent to the printers but the printed notice of the Order did not arrive at the House before the House departed for the Recess. It is a very short period— from 17th December—and it will be recalled that the House rose on the 20th. I am told that there was a reason that forced us to get the Orders as quickly as possible. The Stationery Office were informed, but, owing to the pressure on printing at the time, the House rose before the Orders arrived.
Under this Order, again, no penalties were imposed on anyone. What was done was done for a good purpose, of which the House will approve. On the other hand, one must say that there is weight in the contention that Orders must be produced and laid before the House as quickly as possible. There was this 351 delay of three days in getting the Orders printed and brought back to the House: because it took four days, they could not be placed before the House until the 22nd. There is the further point that, if the Motion is accepted, it will be a nullity, because the thing has already taken place, and, in view of the circumstances and the explanation I have given, I hope the hon. Member will withdraw his Motion.
§ Sir W. DarlingDoes this Order apply to Scotland?
§ Mr. C. S. TaylorI would again refer the hon. Gentleman to the argument made on the first Motion tonight. I wish he would study this. The Order could have been set up in type on the 17th all ready for circulating. The necessity was known long before, and it could have been ready to be run off and we could have had notice of it before the House rose. [Hon. Members: "Private printers would have done it."] However, in view of the ex- 352 planation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
§ Mr. MikardoOn a point of Order. In the sense in which the words -are normally used, it is nonsense to suggest that anything is being annulled if it is valid, and, if what the Parliamentary Secretary says is the case, it is out of Order and the request for leave that the Motion should be withdrawn is also out of Order.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.