MINISTERS OF THE CROWN (TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS) BILL (Hansard, 5 March 1946)

§ The Solicitor-General (Major Sir Frank Soskice)
I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I do not know whether the House would like a word of explanation as to the purport and effect of the Amendment; it is rather technical in nature, but I will endeavour to put it in a word. The Bill provided for the transfer of functions by Order in Council. Clause 3, Subsection (2) of the Bill subjected those Orders in Council to negative resolution procedure. Subsection (2) was drawn in the habitual form, and provided that the House could resolve to annul an Order in Council made by His Majesty for the purpose of the Bill. It was suggested during. the course of the Debate on the Report stage in this House that that form of wording was constitutionally improper and indecorous, in that 295 His Majesty himself should, when he made an Order in Council, be in a position to revoke or annul the Order, and that it was not proper that the House should resolve automatically ipso facto that an Order in Council made by His Majesty should be null and void. That was he first comment upon the form of words used.
The second comment made was that if an Order in Council was made, and if it was revoked by a Resolution of this House, there would not appear in the Statutory Rules and Orders volume any record of the revocation of the Order. There would be no subsequent Order by His Majesty in Council revoking the first Order, and it was pointed out that that would probably lead to considerable inconvenience, because the people concerned would not have any means of knowing that the first Order had been revoked unless they searched through the volumes of Hansard and discovered that a prayer had been accepted in the House to annul the Order. The Amendment which has been made in another place, and which I ask the House to agree to, is an Amendment which remedies both those criticisms. It provides that if the House desires that an Order in Council shall be annulled, it shall resolve that an Address to that effect shall be presented to His Majesty, and that no further proceedings shall be taken under the Order when that Address has gone from this House. I ask the House, in those circumstances, to say that the Amendment meets both the criticisms, and to accept it.

§ Captain Crookshank (Gainsborough)
I have no hesitation in saying that we on this side of the House will accept the Amendment, if for no other reason than that it covers exactly the same point as the one I moved in the House on 8th February. It is. a sad thing for the learned Solicitor-General to have to eat his own words, because on that occasion he not only said that the point had little substance, but that he was very sorry he could not possibly accept it in this Bill. I do not mind who eats what, so long as we get our way. A little reflection after the Bill left this House prompted the Government to put this Amendment down in another place, once more showing the utility of the revising Chamber. As we 296 now have the Bill in a form which, the learned Solicitor-General says, is constitutionally more decorous and makes it more easy for those who want to find out what the ultimate end of a particular Order in Council is, and whether it is or is not on the Statute Book, we shall be very glad to accept this Amendment. 1 hope that on future occasions our Amendments will be accepted in this House, instead of being moved by the Government and adopted by them elsewhere.

§ Mr. Bowles (Nuneaton)
I think I can say, following the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), that we on this side will accept the Amendment, too. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said he put down the Amendment. He did, of course; but if he looks at the speech I made on Second Reading I think he will agree 1 was the person who first raised this question. I had not the courage, and he had, to put down an Amendment. I said this, though, that 1 thought a certain amount of abrogation—not supplication—was not a bad thing in the House today. But I agree with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that this is a very good proposal on the part of the Government. I should like to know whether the learned Solicitor-General can give an undertaking that this form of reversing an Order in Council will appear in all future Bills; not only in this one, but in others as well, because, I think, we have established here a good case, and the Lord Chancellor in another place recently made a very strong case for it, too, with the assistance of other Noble Lords. I hope that the learned Solicitor-General will say that this will now be a precedent for the future.

§ Earl Winterton (Horsham)
As I was the third Member of the House who took the same view as that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) and of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), I want to say, as I said on a previous occasion, that we are very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. the Member for Nuneaton for his support in this matter. This is not really a party matter. It affects the House of Commons. I ask the Solicitor-General and the Leader of the House who, at this moment is engaged in an intimate conversation 297 with him—[Interruption.]—I did not catch what he was actually saying. We do not wish in this matter to be unduly triumphant over him or the Solicitor-General. We have been very merciful to the Government. We have pointed out that this is a volte face from their previous attitude. We do not wish to triumph over them because we hope they will be encouraged to take a more House of Commons view of their duty towards this House.

§ The Solicitor-General
May I reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles)? It would be out of Order to refer to future legislation, but, obviously the Amendment that has been made will have its repercussions outside the terms of this Bill. I am grateful for the dainty meal I am offered, because the Amendment put down by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gateshead— [Laughter.]

§ Captain Crookshank
Not Gateshead, please.

§ The Solicitor-General
I apologise to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and also to the-hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus). But the Amendment which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman put down was in a wholly impossible form, and could not have been accepted in the form in which it was put down on the Order Paper. But subject to that I am glad to accept the dainty meal he has put before me, and I approach it with a good appetite.