§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. Maclay
Before we accept this Clause, again I would like to ask one or two questions of the Under-Secretary. The important one is whether it would be possible at this stage to give us any indication of the extent of these amalgamations which he may have had in mind when he thought that he had better have this Clause in the Bill. I think before we can reasonably be expected to approve of this Clause, we ought to know how big a unit the Secretary of State has in mind in working towards amalgamation. We ought to know whether it is a question of a few very small forces being joined to other small forces. If it is a case of small burghs being amalgamated with counties, that may be all right. It may be all right for, say, the burgh of Arbroath to be amalgamated with the county of Angus. That is one thing, but is it likely to extend to Dundee as well? I think there should be some indication of the scale upon which the Secretary of State was thinking when he introduced this Clause.
§ Mr. T. Fraser
I must disappoint the hon. Member. We have not any plans up our sleeves ready to be pulled out when this Bill passes. It has for a long time been regarded as desirable that legislative power should be sought to bring about amalgamations compulsorily if, in the interests of the communities concerned, such amalgamations were considered desirable. I believe that, for many years now, some very eminent people have considered that we have too many police forces in Scotland, but it is not for me to say where we are to draw the line. I do not think that, in sparsely populated parts of the country, one could adhere to the same size of force, from the point of view of numbers, as one would consider to be desirable for the formation of a unit in a more heavily populated part of the country. I cannot be bound either by numbers or area in this matter.
We are merely seeking the power, first, to permit of voluntary schemes, and, secondly, where, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, a scheme is desirable although one has not been proposed by the authorities concerned, or where they refuse the invitation of the Secretary of State to bring forward a scheme, we should be able to carry forward a certain procedure with a view to bringing a scheme before this House. I can only say that that seems to be the time to argue whether or not we were doing the right thing in amalgamating the force of a small burgh with the force of a large burgh or that of the county authority. I do not think that any Minister standing at this Box would be entitled to give any indication as to the size of the force or the area over which that force should have jurisdiction before he would regard it as a reasonably-sized unit.
§ Mr. Henderson Stewart
I listened with great care and a good deal of sympathy to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I am not altogether satisfied with his reply. Surely, in the original approach to this problem, the Secretary of State must have had in mind, no doubt as a result of the best advice, some broad idea of the areas at which he was aiming. For example, the Boundary Commissioners at the present time have a sort of target at which they aim, and have an idea that a constituency should not be greater than a certain size. It is difficult for me to believe that the Scottish Office have no idea 1088 whatever of what size of scheme they have in mind, even for voluntary, much less for compulsory, schemes. The hon. Gentleman says it is only a case here of taking power, but it is power that is very clearly defined, with all the paraphernalia of laying Orders and the rest of it, and we cannot pass this Clause without getting from the Under-Secretary some idea of what is in his mind. If the hon. Gentleman again says that he has no idea, I must believe him, but I must submit to him that he is not seized of the point which my hon. Friend has in mind, and I invite him to say that there is some broad picture in the mind of the Scottish Office of the areas to which these schemes may be directed.
§ Mr. Scollan
I have been considering this matter, too, and I would like to know if the promoters of the scheme have not had something at the back of their minds about the areas to be covered. If we take one area, that of Clydebank, which embraces Lanarkshire, Renfrewshire, and reaches the borders of Ayrshire, it may be true that some advantage may accrue from having one police force operating right through Clydebank. I do not know what would happen if someone had the temerity to suggest that a coordinated police force should be set up, embracing Renfrewshire county police, Glasgow, Paisley, Greenock and so on, but I am afraid he would be letting himself in for some kind of trouble. I would like to know exactly what the Scottish Office had in mind when they decided on this scheme, because the scheme is of no use unless we know how it is going to operate, and I think we are entitled to some explanation on that point.
§ Mr. Stephen (Glasgow, Camlachie)
I have a little difference with my hon. Friend in this matter. As I understand it, the Government line in this connection is eminently reasonable. I understand that, in the interests of efficiency in the working of the police forces, it has been decided that there should be a certain number of amalgamations. The Government have decided on the general need for such amalgamations. They have not gone over the country and said, "We will join Arbroath and Forfar" and so on.
§ Mr. Stephen
No. If only the hon. Member will listen to me a little longer, I will possibly make clear to him what I understand to be the position with regard to this Clause. The need for amalgamation is taken by the Government as a blueprint. There is general agreement that there should be amalgamations in various parts of the country. Therefore, the Government come to the House and ask for powers to carry through these amalgamations. If voluntary amalgamations can take place, and this appears to the Government to provide an efficient police force in these various areas, that finishes it. But various local police authorities may not want to amalgamate and the amalgamations may not take place on a voluntary basis. Clause 2 gives to the Government the power in those instances to insist on amalgamation in order to secure police efficiency in the various areas. Consequently, I cannot see that the Government are in any need here to say, "Well, here is our plan for the policing of Scotland in the future. We are going to have Orkney and Shetland and Dumfries all joined together in a police force," and so on.
I do not like the police. My attitude to life is that I do not believe in police forces, in armies or in any of those things at all, but, looking at this from a sensible point of view, I think that the Government are acting soundly. Seeing that there is general agreement that a certain amount of amalgamation would make for efficiency, that power should be taken so that local police forces may, by voluntary means, propose schemes for such amalgamation, but where they are not willing to do that in the interest of efficiency, the Scottish Office should have the right to insist on a scheme. That is all, as I see it, and I hope I have satisfied the hon. Member for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan).
§ 5.0 p.m
§ Mr. McKinlay (Dumbartonshire)
I am sure that the Committee will be pleased to note that the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) has at least found some virtue in the Government Front Bench. I am also sure it is news to us to know that he is not so much concerned with efficiency as with innocence. He, himself, is so innocent that he does not believe in police forces at all. If hon. Members of this Committee, let alone the people outside, 1090 were as innocent as the hon. Member for Camlachie, that desirable object might be achieved. There are two points which I should like the Joint Under-Secretary to clear up. This Clause gives power to the Secretary of State to make an amalgamation scheme. It says:Subject to the provisions of this Section, if it appears to the Secretary of State that the expediency in the interests of efficiency …Who is going to be the judge here? Let us assume for a moment that the Hamilton police force is in question. I cannot use my own constituency for the purpose of the argument because we have not the same conglomeration as Lanarkshire. Hamilton is part of the area from which my hon. Friend comes, and he could not be accused of taking any mean advantage. The Hamilton town council may say that they are satisfied with their police force and that it is an eminently efficient one. If Motherwell were accused of having an inefficient police force they would say, "No, we are the democratically elected town council and we say that our police force is quite efficient." Who is to judge whether a force is inefficient? Is the Inspector-General of Police to judge this thing? Who is he, and who controls him? He is the servant of the Scottish Office. I want to give all the credit in the world to my right hon. Friend, but, frankly, I do not think he is an efficient policeman, or that he knows all the answers of police administration. Therefore, I want to know who is going to be responsible for determining when there is an efficient police force.
The other point to which I wish to get an answer is in connection with Clause 2 (2). It says:… shall cause a local inquiry to be held by a person appointed by him"—meaning, of course, that the Secretary of State is going to make the inquiry—(not being an officer of police or of any Government department) ….What constitutes a "Government Department" for the purpose of this Subsection? I would ask my hon. Friend whether it is intended that this work shall be delegated to a sheriff or a sheriff substitute. I am doing this deliberately because my experience of sheriffs holding inquiries is most unconvincing. If it is a question, not of determining law but of fact, I think that, in the main, somebody other than a sheriff 1091 ought to take the chair. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to give us a little insight into what is behind the mind of the Secretary of State when he puts these words into this Clause. He may be in a difficulty. It is not a Scottish Bill at all it is a pocket edition of the English Bill. The gestation period of the English Bill was two months, but for this one it may well be 12 or 13 months. If the Scottish Office are in a difficulty, I will not press them, but I do feel that we are entitled to know, first, who is going to be the judge of efficiency and, secondly, what type of person the Secretary of State has in mind for conducting an inquiry into a submission made by the Secretary of State himself that police forces A, B, C or D in given areas are inefficient. It is rather a complicated business and I can visualise some people doing pretty well out of it before it is finished. In any case, I think that I am entitled to an answer and I hope the Under-Secretary will give it.
§ Colonel Gomme-Duncan (Perth and Kinross, Perth)
I would like to press the particular point of the purpose behind the Government's having introduced this Clause giving powers for compulsory amalgamation. I dislike too great powers being given to the Secretary of State over a thing like this. Do the Government anticipate that they are going to use these powers? If they do not—and I rather gather that they do not—why are they being put into the Bill? Are we going to get to the stage where two or three police forces are amalgamated and then proceed to a bigger amalgamation on an area basis until we have one police force which, in due course, will be transferred to London? Is that the idea at the back of the Government's mind? These things have happened in other directions and are happening every day. I should like to be assured that that is not the intention and to know the reason for the introduction of this compulsory Clause.
§ Mr. Thornton-Kemsley (Aberdeen and Kincardine, Western)
With due deference to the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) I think that the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) and the hon Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) were well within their rights in asking what the Secretary of 1092 State had in mind in putting this Clause into the Bill and that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) was equally justified in pressing the point, I shall ask one question only. The Secretary of State is mentioned six times in this Clause. He is mentioned considerably more than six times in the Bill, and in the three Scottish Bills on the Order Paper his name is mentioned over and over again. My question is: Where is the Secretary of State? When the Secretary of State seeks to obtain these compulsory powers for the amalgamation of police forces, he ought to be present to explain to the Committee what sort of ideas he has in mind. After all, it is not so often that Scotland has a whole day to itself and three Bills to discuss. I hope the Joint Under-Secretary of State will not think I am suggesting that we are not pleased to see him and that we are not delighted to hear his answers to the questions, but, as regards this Clause, I submit that as the Secretary of State is mentioned six times and is asking for these considerable powers, he ought to be present in person to explain what exactly he has in mind.
§ Mr. Maclay
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) was present at the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. I would not like to detract from his admiration of the Government because it seemed to be welcomed by hon. Members opposite, but he may remember that in that Debate I asked the Parliamentary Secretary a question about efficiency, a subject which was dealt with so admirably by the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan), and I was told that it was not possible to discuss the grounds of efficiency because it was difficult to define. Now, when we ask about the intentions of the Government, we are told "We have no idea. We just want some very nice powers." Most of us agree that some sort of amalgamations may be necessary, but I think it is inconceivable that we should be asked to sign a blank cheque. We have no idea what are the grounds of efficiency. I think the Under-Secretary should give some explanation.
§ Mr. T. Fraser
The hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) has just said, "Most of us agree that amalgamations may be necessary."
Mr. McKie (Galloway)
He said "some."
§ Mr. Fraser
Very well, "Most of us agree that some amalgamations may be necessary." But he objects to power being given to the Secretary of State to make amalgamation schemes, while recognising that although an amalgamation scheme may be necessary, if we do not have such a power a very small authority—I have no doubt, very well meaning—may make the amalgamation impossible because of a disinclination to agree to a voluntary scheme. He says "Amalgamation may be necessary but you must not take power to bring about the amalgamation."
§ Mr. Maclay
My statement must have been very "cockeyed" if the Undersecretary got that impression from what I said. I am sorry if I gave that impression. I say it may be necessary to have powers, but I think it is incredible that no indication should be given as to how those powers are to be used, except to say vaguely, "We will use them on some kind of amalgamation on some scale." That is my complaint. I am not really contesting the right of people to do it voluntarily, or even of the Secretary of State to do it if it is necessary, but I think we ought to know what he has in mind.
§ 5.15 p.m.
§ Mr. Fraser
As I said earlier, it is impossible for me now to tell the Committee precisely all that will ever be done under Clause 2. That would be out of the question. I said that we did not have any plan ready to pull out of our sleeves the moment the Bill was passed. Of course, we have not. But, like the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs, we do appreciate that some amalgamations may be necessary and they may not be agreed voluntarily, so we have inserted in the Bill the power to bring about a scheme, even though it might be against the wishes of the local authority. But then we provide all sorts of safeguards, including the right to hold a local public inquiry to be carried out by an independent person. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) asked who would be the in-dependant person, and said that he could sec some people doing well out of this arrangement. I ask the Committee, how 1094 many amalgamations could we have in Scotland? How much could anyone make out of them? Nobody is going to make anything out of them whatsoever. My hon. Friend also asked if a sheriff would be a fit and proper person to be appointed. As I understand it a sheriff would be. He is not an officer of the Government, as I understand, and he is a person who might be appointed to conduct this inquiry. In any case, an inquiry will be conducted; a report will be published, and hon. Members will have an opportunity to read it. The scheme must be drawn up by the Secretary of State and submitted to Parliament far scrutiny, and hon. Members may turn down the scheme if they think fit.
The scope of particular amalgamations must be considered in the light of the local circumstances and, perhaps, even local views, but I cannot say what areas will be brought within the scheme. I cannot say that we shall not have in Scotland a police force smaller than the Glasgow city force, or the Lanark county police force or the Edinburgh police force. I did say that we have some more sparsely populated areas in Scotland, where clearly we could not impose the same population basis for an amalgamation as might be taken into account in a more populous area. Obviously, we cannot say that we will draw the line at a certain population level or at a certain size of police force. Scotland varies so much in character from place to place, that we must deal with these matters in the light of local requirements.
As to the question of efficiency, it was raised the other day on the Second Reading, and I have been asked again today who will judge as to the efficiency of a police force. The Secretary of State will not be the judge. If the Secretary of State, on all the advice that he is able to get, considers that an amalgamation is necessary—and apparently hon. Members in all quarters are at the moment convinced that amalgamations may be necessary in the interests of efficiency—he is empowered to ask the local authority concerned if they will agree to a scheme, and if they do not agree he is empowered to cause an inquiry to be made by an independent person, and to do the other things to which I have already referred. There will be an examination of the relative efficiency of the existing forces and of the proposed new amalgamated 1095 force. When the scheme comes before Parliament, it will again examine the relative efficiency of the existing forces and of any proposed amalgamation. Therefore, it is not for me to define at all in any particular terms what we mean by "efficiency." I have been asked about the absence of the Secretary of State from the Debate. It is not unusual for the Secretary of State to have very pressing business. He fully appreciates the desirability of being in the Committee when Scottish business is being discussed. Indeed, apart from his period of illness in the latter months of last year he has not been absent from the Committee very often when Scottish business has been under discussion. It docs so happen that today very important and pressing business is being discussed elsewhere, demanding his attendance elsewhere. I could not have deputised for him in the other work. I think he was perfectly in order in asking me to deputise for him in the handling of this Bill this afternoon.
Before the hon. Gentleman leave that point may I say this? Surely Scotland commands some voice in the councils of the Government? If it is not possible for the Secretary of State to be present in the Committee on the Front Bench when three important Scottish Bills are being discussed, surely it ought to be possible for him to go through the usual channels and say, "May we have another day for the discussion of these Scottish Bills?" Could not that have been done?
§ Mr. Fraser
I really think the hon. Gentleman is taking this too far. He has been in this House a very long time, and he has seen many Scottish Bills handled by the Joint Under-Secretary.
§ Mr. Fraser
He has seen more far-reaching Bills than this being handled by the Joint Under-Secretary of State. My right hon. Friend is attending to very pressing business elsewhere. He would liked to have been here, but he considered it appropriate on this occasion to allow me to handle these matters. Having expressed myself further on the provisions of Clause 2 I hope we will be able to pass on. Everybody's views have been expressed in this matter, and we all know 1096 where we stand. We all appreciate the desirability of having such a power in the Bill. I think I have made it perfectly clear that we have no plans, and could not state this afternoon which' authorities are proposed to be dealt with under this Bill. That would be a most unfair thing to do, and a most improper thing to do. Without naming authorities, without dealing with populations, without dealing with areas and so on, it is impossible for me to go further than I have done this afternoon.
§ Mr. J. S. C. Reid
May I congratulate the Joint Under-Secretary on a most admirable piece of stonewalling? I think he has done all he possibly could, looking to his own position, not being ultimately responsible in this matter. However, I do think it is a pity that the" time of the Committee should have to be taken up with a display of that character. I would agree at once if the Secretary of State has been summoned to an urgent Cabinet meeting to defend the interests of Scotland. That would be a perfect answer. If the hon. Gentleman can tell me that that is the urgent business on which the Secretary of State is now engaged, of course I shall understand. If it is something else, if it is only some discussion, or committee, or conference, then I think the Secretary of State has misconceived the necessity for his attendance in this Committee. I hope, therefore, that that matter may be cleared up, as to the nature of this urgent business, because I think we are entitled to know.
Passing from that, I should have thought if the Secretary of State could not turn up, he could at least have informed the Joint Under-Secretary in some more detail what his intentions were. The point was raised in the Second Reading Debate. Nobody asks him to name authorities. Nobody asks him to lay down precise limits or sizes of police forces or populations. What we do want to know is whether this power will only be used in exceptional cases—of which we all agree there are some—or whether it will be used over a great part of Scotland. Surely that is a very simple question to answer—or would be if the Secretary of State himself were here. Is this power only going to be used in exceptional cases?—in which case we would all agree. Or, is it going to be used over a considerable part of Scotland—in which case many of us would disagree? That seems to me a very simple 1097 question, and if the Joint Under-Secretary has been briefed properly it is one which is susceptible of an equally simple answer.
§ Mr. Scollan
; I would like to ask a. question on the same lines. Evidently the initiative is being left to the Secretary of State for Scotland. When we pass this Bill he may take no action at all. On the other hand, we are not being told what would prompt him to take action, other than that power is being given to him. We cannot be told whether a county will be the area that will determine it. We cannot be told whether a city and the environs of the city will be brought in, with parts of the county. This is the most important Bill I have ever read about or heard about for the things we cannot be told. I do not exactly understand that. I can quite understand Clause I, the voluntary Clause. In the voluntary Clause the people themselves realise that their police force is totally inadequate and they can get together, in which they are encouraged by the Secretary of State. That is an invaluable provision, and it should have been done long ago. When it comes to the Secretary of State taking the initiative we are not told what determines where he will take it, when he will take it, or why it should be taken. All we are told is that he is simply given the power, and that we have sufficient safeguard in the fact that when he does decide to take it he will bring the matter back to this Committee. That is all we are told. That is not good enough. To the Joint Under-Secretary I say I am very pleased with the manner in which he has acquitted himself in carrying out his duties. He has done so in a very excellent manner. I am not concerned about who is carrying out the duties. What I am concerned about is the power we are giving to somebody today, and what that power will lead to. Quite frankly, I do not see any justification for handing out this power until we know exactly what is in the minds of the people who will exercise it.
§ Mr. Hoy (Leith)
I did not intend to take part in this discussion, but I think there is a great deal of undue suspicion in the minds of hon. Members. It is rather significant that no protest was raised, even by hon. Members of His Majesty's official Opposition, to the Clause other than the first protest from one hon. and gallant Gentleman nor was there any protest from the leaders 1098 of the Opposition regarding the absence of the Secretary of State until one of their back benchers decided to make some protest. He appeared to have nothing to say on this Clause other than to make this protest, which I considered grossly unfair and rather cheap. Within this Clause we have certain provisions. I think there would have been reason for a row in the Committee if the Secretary of State for Scotland had come along here today and said, "Within these certain areas amalgamations will take place, which I will direct." If he had said that I think we would have had a real reason on which to get at loggerheads with the Secretary of State on this issue. All this Clause does is to make it possible for amalgamations to take place. It gives power to the local authorities to take part in the discussions or inquiries which are to be held. In Clause 2 (3) ultimately Parliament will be the deciding voice. I think the Secretary of State has made full provision to enable us to deal with these amalgamations democratically, and it is a little unfortunate that this undue suspicion should have been raised at this time.
§ 5.30 p.m.
Mr. McKie (Galloway)
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) has done his very best to support the Joint Under Secretary in his defence in the Committee this afternoon in regard to Clause 2 as it now stands. Although I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having the courage to be the only hon. Member on those benches to rise and support his Government, I am afraid I cannot congratulate him on the defence he has made. I will go so far, in my generosity, as to say he did his best with exceedingly bad material. He, indeed, showed, in the words of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hill-head (Mr. Reid), that he had been very badly briefed. It was quite evident, from the speech which the hon. Gentleman has just delivered, that there was no liaison, no forethought, on this very important matter between him and the Secretary of State. I hope the Under-Secretary will make a further reply, because we are entitled to a further reply. Obviously, this is not a party matter. I hope that hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies, too—perhaps we shall have a speech from the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Jean Mann)—will show that they 1099 entertain great apprehension about the wording of this Clause as it now stands. I hope the Under-Secretary will proceed to make a further reply, and that in the course of his remarks he will reply to the request—indeed, the demand—of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead for a real reason why the Secretary of State for Scotland is not present tonight to defend these Bills—and, especially, this Bill—which are of such great magnitude and importance to the people of Scotland.
I hear murmurs of dissent from my hon. Friend the Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen). But in conversation a few moments ago he expressed himself to me as being in agreement with me, on this point at all events, that the members of the police forces in Scotland are a very fine lot of men, and take a great interest in this subject. He went so far as to say that, although he entertained us, in the course of his remarks, with his insistence on the anarchy that he would like to see prevailing in Scotland, and in all of Great Britain, and, indeed, in Europe. There is great fear, particularly in some of the rural areas of Scotland, on this point, and I was very glad to hear the strong speech that was made by the hon. Member for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) who showed us that, at all events on this matter, he is quite prepared to take upon himself the responsibility of going into the Division Lobby, and of voting for the deletion of this Clause, against the Government which he was elected to this House to support, if no proper explanation of this Clause, as it stands, is forthcoming.
I felt I had to make these remarks, feeling, as I do, so strongly that the hon. Gentleman has not made his case. It was not through any fault of his own. He was not properly briefed, and was not able to make a proper defence. I hope he has sent away to the prompters' box. If he has not done so, I hope he will, in the course of the speeches that follow, and at the appropriate moment, rise and tell us why the Secretary of State is not here, and the nature of his business today. I hope also that he will do something to throw light on the wording of this obscure Clause, and show us whether the Government have any scheme in view. He said they had not. Is the mind of the Scottish Office on this matter, are the 1100 plans of the Scottish Office on this matter, just as vague and nebulous as the mind of the Government is on the closed shop issue? I think we have a right to know.
§ Mr. T. Fraser
Quite clearly, I said that we had not a cut and dried plan. It is clear this Bill had to be brought forward in the first place to allow voluntary amalgamations. There may be police forces in the country just now that would amalgamate if they were free to do so. They are not free to do so. There is no pledge to bring about amalgamations. In Clause i we allow them to bring about voluntary amalgamations. After that, after we have seen what use is made of Clause 1, it will be seen whether it is necessary to implement the provisions of Clause 2. There we must leave it. We must leave it to the Secretary of State to decide, in the light of what happens under Clause 1, whether he will exercise his powers under Clause 2. I can, therefore, give the assurance readily that we do not intend to embark on any wholesale amalgamations. Some considerable time must elapse before we embark on any one amalgamation. I think we all of us know where we stand in this matter, and there is no point in continuing the discussion.
§ The Temporary Chairman
I was hoping the Committee might now come to a decision. I think the Committee has very fully discussed the Clause.
§ Mr. Maclay
I should like to state one point briefly. On the face of the discussion, it may seem as though we should divide the Committee on this Clause. That was hinted at by the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie). I do not think that that is actually necessary, because, as a matter of fact, in the course of his remarks the Under-Secretary of State has given us some idea of what is in the Government's mind—or, more important, what is not in the Government's mind. But I end with a final protest at this blank cheque legislation—that we should wait to see what happens under Clause 1, and that then we shall know about Clause 2. Why take Clause 2 at all now? There is too much of this type of delegated legislation in this country, and this is a new manifestation of it.
§ Question put, and agreed to.1101
§ Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
§ Clauses 3 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.