FOOD (POINTS RATIONING) ORDER (Hansard, 10 July 1946)

§ Sir John Mellor (Sutton Coldfield)
I beg to move, That the Order, dated 18th June, 1946, amending the Food (Points Rationing) Order, 1945 (S.R. & 0., 1946, No. 866), a copy of which amending Order was presented on 24th June, be annulled. I do so in order to call attention to the complications of this Order. As the explanatory note states, the Order itself deals with the fixing of points values for imported potted meats and other foodstuffs, and it substitutes a certain description for another. As I am not proposing to discuss the merits of the Order tonight, I shall not deal further with its effects. I want to deal with its intelligibility, because this Order is the 13th amending Order to the principal Order, which was No. 891 of 1945. Altogether there were six amending Orders in 1945, and this is the seventh in 1946. I submit that it is intolerable that anyone who desires to understand the effect of this Order should have to work backwards through no less than 13 Orders, and then back to the principal Order, before being sure of the implications of this Order.
I am all the more inclined to move this Motion in protest against the large number of amending Orders because of the observations made by the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food, in a previous Debate, 530 when I moved to annul Order No. 733. This is the second amending Order we have had since then. When I made a rather similar complaint then, the line taken by the hon. Lady can best be indicated by a quotation. I put this question to her: Surely the ordinary purchasing members of the public are entitled to understand these Orders as well as the traders? to which she replied: I would remind the hon, Member that the traders are the people chiefly concerned. The housewife does not go to the Stationery Office to get one of these Orders when she wants to find out—"[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June, 1946; Vol. 423, c. 2298.]

§ Mr. Speaker
We cannot revive a Debate on a question on which the House has come to a decision this Session. I must rule that to be out of Order

§ Sir J. Mellor
With great respect, Mr. Speaker, Order No. 733 was not annulled. I am moving that Order 866 shall be annulled, and I submit that the question is entirely different.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member can deal with Order No. 866, but he cannot now deal with Order No. 733

§ Sir J. Mellor
I was not referring to it, except for the purpose of quoting what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food said on that occasion. It indicated the attitude of the Ministry towards the very question which I am 531 now raising. If I may continue with what the hon. Lady said to the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]

§ Mr. Speaker
It is completely out of Order to quote or debate a separate subject. The hon. Baronet cannot quote the Debate on a previous Order. He can deal only with the Order which is the subject of this Motion.

§ Sir J. Mellor
Then I must approach the matter along a different line. The attitude of the Government on all occasions when we have objected to an Order has been that it does not really matter, because the people mainly concerned receive the information through their trade journals and so far as the customer is concerned, he can get his information from the tradesman. I submit that that is an entirely improper attitude. All these Orders create offences. If anyone commits an offence against any one of these Orders, he is, under these overriding powers, liable certainly to a fine and often to prison. None of these people ought to be placed in jeopardy by the operation of one of these Orders unless those Orders can be clearly understood. We in this House ought to be able clearly to understand all we are asked to pass. It is provided that these Orders shall lie on the Table for a period of 40 days, during which any hon. Member of this House has the right to move their annulment. The purpose of allowing these Orders to lie on the Table——

§ Mr. Speaker
The purpose of the laying of Orders is not the question now before the House. What is before the House is Order 866, to which I invite the hon. Baronet to address himself.

§ Sir J. Mellor
The purpose of laying Order 866 upon the Table where it has to lie 4o days is to enable hon. Members to understand its implications. My protest is that in order to understand the implications of Order 866 one has to look at Orders 804, 733, 601, 449, 280 and 158, which are in 1946. But that does not end the matter. We have then to proceed to examine Orders 682, 1514, 1407, 1261, 1138, 1048 and 891, all of 1945. We have to trail back through all those Orders in order to discover the true implications of Order 866. It might be arguable that we have to take it on its own. It deals with quite simple, well 532 known commodities, such as imported potted meats,paté foie, and a new cereal breakfast food, but it also wants to do something which I do not understand. It proposes to substitute the description of "pork sausage meat or pork sausage bulk," for "canned pork sausage meat or pork sausage bulk." I imagine this would not be so stated in the Order unless it was a matter of some substance, and I hope the Minister has come to the House ready to explain the importance of that change; we shall no doubt benefit by his clarification. I desire that explanation, and I think the House ought to have it. These matters are of importance to every household and therefore it is the Minister's duty and that of every hon. Member of this House to make sure that this Order 866 is properly understood before it is laid before the House I make no apology for having moved this Motion. The Closure was most disgracefully moved—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order"].

§ Mr. Speaker
Did I understand the hon. Baronet to say the Closure was most disgracefully moved, and therefore accepted by the Chair? If so, I order him at once to withdraw it.

§ Sir J. Mellor
Mr. Speaker, I made no reflection upon the Chair. I said it was a disgrace to move—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I referred to the moving of the Closure by the Government Chief Whip, and I say I think it was disgraceful, on a subject of such importance, to move the Closure when only two and a half hours' Debate had taken place.

§ Mr. Speaker
I cannot accept that from the hon. Baronet. After all, I alone in this House have power to accept the Closure. If it was moved and if I accepted it, his remark is a reflection upon me. Therefore, I cannot allow that remark to pass and the hon. Baronet must withdraw it.

§ Sir J. Mellor
Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect, you could not have accepted the Closure unless it had been moved.

Hon. Members
Withdraw.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Baronet must not argue about this. I can accept the Closure or I need not accept the Closure. It is entirely within my province. That is the prerogative of the Speaker. There- 533 fore, to say that the Closure was disgracefully moved, means a reflection on the Speaker. I am serious about this and I direct the hon. Baronet to withdraw that remark at once.

§ Sir J. Mellor
Mr. Speaker, if you so order me, of course, I must withdraw it. But, Mr. Speaker, in withdrawing I ask your Ruling as to whether it was not a reflection upon the Chair when we divided against the Closure.

§ Mr. Speaker
No, certainly not. That always has been the custom. But it certainly a reflection on the Chair if you say the Closure was disgracefully moved and the Chair accepted it. After all, hon. Members are entitled always to divide against the Closure. Otherwise the position would be quite unreasonable and hon. Members would not have free expression of opinion. But if you say that the Chief Whip moved the Closure in a disgraceful manner, and the Speaker, by inference, accepts it, then there is a reflection on the Speaker.

§ Sir J. Mellor
In accordance——[Interruption.]

§ Earl Winterton (Horsham)
On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I desire to call your attention to the fact that when you are dealing with a serious matter and asking an hon. Gentleman to withdraw, there is constant disorderly interruption from the other side of the House.

§ Mrs. Florence Paton (Rushcliffe)
The noble Lord is the most disorderly person here.

§ Mr. Speaker
If the noble Lord will allow me to conduct the proceedings, we shall get on very much better.

§ Earl Winterton
On a point of Order. I desire to ask, Sir, whether your attention has been called to the fact that an hon. Gentleman opposite shouted, "Shut up." Is that in Order?

§ Mr. Speaker
Sometimes I am deaf and sometimes I am not; but I honestly think that if I am allowed to conduct the procedure we shall get on better.

§ Earl Winterton
Hear, hear. That is what we ask for.

§ Sir J. Mellor
In conclusion, may I say that I submit this Motion to annul this Order, in the hope that hon. Members will consider very carefully whether it is not 534 proper that this House should ensure the clarity of complicated legislation.

§ Mr. Baldwin (Leominster)
I beg to second the Motion.
I am sorry to rise in such a disturbed House, but I want to call the attention of the Minister to these Orders, which do require clarifying. It should be possible for the ordinary trader to know what these Orders are about, and I beg the Minister, in drawing them up, to make them as brief and intelligible as possible. It has been stated that 13 different Orders are referred to, and, unless he went into all of them fully, the ordinary trader would not know whether he was charging the right price for the goods or not. It is a waste of manpower, a waste of time and a waste of paper.

§ The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey)
I think that the three points raised by the hon. Baronet are quite simple. On the first point, what, I agree, at first sight may seem a somewhat pedantic change, merely signifies the change of words from "canned pork sausage meat" to "canned sausage meat", since some of the sausage meat which will be imported and on sale under the scheme in the coming period will have a little beef in it as well as pork. I think it is right, though it may be a bit pedantic, that our description of the goods should be accurate. The change, trivial as it may seem, is made for that purpose. I am assured that the sausage meat in question will be equally good.
On the main point which the hon. Baronet raised—a perfectly reasonable one—concerning the number of amending Orders which have to be made from time. to time owing to the very nature of a points rationing scheme, it is true that we are now on the thirteenth, but it is the thirteenth and last. The next time we have to make a change in cur points rationing we shall consolidate the Orders by a re-issue. There is nothing new in that. The hon. Baronet knows that it is done annually at the end of the year, which comes to an end, for this period, at the end of this month, when a new consolidating Order is issued. I think that is a reasonable arrangement, for, as the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) said——

§ Mr. C. S. Taylor (Eastbourne)
Was it done this time last year?

§ Mr. Strachey
I understand so. I think it is an annual event. The hon. Member for Leominster said very truly that we ought to try to economise manpower and paper in these matters, and I am, for example, advised that, if we issued new Orders each time and reprinted the Order with its Schedule each time instead of amending it, it would consume some two tons of paper extra, which, I think, would be a pity. Surely, the only practicable way is to make the required changes by a series of amending Orders, and when, as I quite agree must happen, It becomes too complex, issue a new consolidating Order, to take the place of the old one. That as I say is done annually; that practice I inherited from my illustrious line of predecessors in this office, and I assure the House that that is all there is in the whole matter.

§ Mr. Godfrey Nicholson (Farnham)
Is the issue of this consolidating Order made because a certain period of time has elapsed, or because a certain number of Orders have been issued and the situation has become unbearably complicated? Surely it is a reasonable suggestion that a consolidating Order should be made for so many Orders, rather than so many months.

§ Mr. Strachey
It sounds a perfectly the issue of this consolidating Order it has been an annual event, but if there were so many amending Orders that the position was obviously becoming unmanageable it would be reasonable to issue a consolidating Order in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Harold Roberts (Birmingham, Handsworth)
If this is an annual event perhaps the Minister would tell us, when the Order ends for this purpose?

§ Mr. Strachey
On 21st July.

§ Mr. Osborne (Louth)
Since my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) was challenged on his interest in the matter under discussion in the previous Debate, I will declare my interest in this matter. I am chairman of a small provincial household grocery company, and I speak with some experience on this question. What I would like to ask is this. Would the 536 Minister please help the trade and the small shop keeper by making a declaration that it is his hope that as soon as possible all these regulations will be abolished? [Laughter.] I am very serious, It is not a laughing matter. We in the provinces who serve small shops in rural areas, find that much of our travellers' time is taken up by trying to explain to shopkeepers the meaning of various regulations. Indeed, many of the travellers actually fill up the forms for women in the shops, because these women cannot understand the forms. It would do the trade a lot of good, and would help us if the Minister could say that it is the intention of his Department one day to abolish all these forms—and the sooner the better.

§ Mr. Strachey
I can give the hon. Gentleman an answer straight away. Of course, when the end of food stringency and shortages has come, it is certainly the intention and the wish of His Majesty's Government to abolish the points rationing scheme, and every other rationing scheme.

§ Mr. Osborne
The trade and the country will be grateful for that assurance. In this case, as has been said, 13 references back are involved and these small shopkeepers, who are doing their best in very difficult circumstances, are liable to commit all sorts of offences under these regulations, which many of them have never seen and could not understand even if a lawyer tried to explain them. The Minister said that he thought it important that the description of the goods should be accurate. The shopkeepers and the people generally think it is more important to get more goods.

§ Mr. Challen (Hampstead)
I do not wish to say now what I would have said on the previous Prayer, and I do not wish to add much to what has been said up to now on this Prayer. But I would like to make a point which I do not think has been made tonight, and that is on this matter of the explanatory note. In the case of the last Prayer we had a very long dissertation from the Minister as to what the Order meant. We have not had such a dissertation on this Prayer, and we have been constantly told that the matter is made clear by the explanatory note. I wish to point out to the House, as I endeavoured to do once before, that the 537 object of the explanatory notes on these Orders is to explain them, and it should not be necessary for hon. Members to put down Prayers and to get the Minister to come along here to explain them. That should be done on the explanatory notes. Some years ago, under some pressure on the Government of that day, this method of inserting explanatory notes upon Government Orders was introduced. What do we find? We find Orders produced by the Minister which simply say that the purpose of the amending Order is (a) to fix points for imported potted meats, and (b) to substitute one description for another description. That explains nothing at all. Therefore, these Prayers have to be put down in order to get the Minister to explain.
If I may stress this point and rub it in, I suggest that our Government Departments had better wake up and be alive to the fact that these Prayers will continue to be put down day after day, until the Orders begin to explain something. These explanatory notes are supposed to tell us what the Orders mean. They are supposed to tell Members of Parliament what they are dealing with; they are supposed to tell tradesmen what they have to do. Anybody reading this Order does not have to look on the back at all; he knows perfectly well what the Order is about. He knows the Order is to fix certain points values for potted meats, and to substitute one phrase for another. Therefore, it tells him nothing. What we wish to know is the basis of these Orders. Just as in the case with which we have just dealt, we wish to know the facts. If the Ministry or the Minister would condescend to give only half a page of real explanation of what the Orders mean, it would not be necessary to put down these Prayers.

§ Captain John Crowder (Finchley)
As a Member of the Statutory Rules and Orders Committee, I make one appeal to the Government. I ask them to try to consolidate these Orders. It really does make a tremendous amount of work for people to have to go through 13 and 14 Orders. These all have to be circulated to the Members of the Committee; all have to be gone into; and it has been pointed out to us that it is very difficult for ordinary traders to decide what the final Order means. When they issue Order after Order, and when the Orders get 538 into double figures, the Government might see their way to consolidating them. It would be helpful to the Committee, to the public, and to everybody concerned.

§ Sir J. Mellor
I welcome the statement of the Minister that the next Order will be a consolidating Order. I assure him that we on this side of the House will watch very carefully when the next chain begins, in order to prevent it getting too long. I recognise that the Minister has seen our point of view tonight. That being so, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.