HC Deb 12 November 1948 vol 457 cc1935-9

3.7 p.m.

Mr. Manningham-Buller (Daventry)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 17, to leave out "as from," and to insert "at."

As the Committee will see, line 17 contains this sentence. … for the period beginning with the time as from which he is so recalled.… That is a very curious conjunction of words on the part of the Parliamentary draftsmen and it occurred to me that it might be shorter and clearer if the words, "as from" were taken out and the word "at" inserted, so that the sentence read, …for the period beginning with the time at which he is so recalled.… It appears to me to make no difference to the sense of the sentence, but it makes it clearer and is in better English.

The Under-Secretary of State for War: (Mr. Michael Stewart)

I should have been very happy to accept this Amendment in the interests of simplicity and clarity but, unfortunately, I am advised that if we were to accept it we should sacrifice the one thing we need in an Act of Parliament, and that is certainty. I am advised that to use the phrase "at which" in this context might create ambiguity as to exactly what time is referred to. It would appear to laymen and to many hon. Members that the ambiguity would be resolved by referring to Clause 3 (1), where the nature and time of recall is discussed; but the Committee will notice that in Clause 3 (1) the phrase "as from" is used, and even if the Committee were to accept certain later Amendments in the name of hon. Members opposite the phrase "as from" would still remain in Clause 3. It is, I believe, a general rule of construction that if one wishes to express the same meaning it is desirable to use the same phrase. If, therefore, we had in Clause 3 the phrase "time as from which" and in this Clause the phrase "time at which" we should raise possible doubt as to whether the same time was referred to. I earnestly hope, therefore, that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not press this Amendment, and will accept my contention that in an Act of Parliament we must reluctantly sacrifice purity of diction to certainty of meaning.

Mr. Manningham-Buller

While agreeing with the hon. Gentleman that we must try to get certainty of meaning, I thought it would really be casting too much odium on this Measure were we to put down for him two corrections of the phrase "as from which." I must say that I thought that, having pointed this defect out by this Amendment in Clause 2, the hon. Gentleman would seek to remedy the defect in Clause 3. He could make it a certainty by making the consequent alteration to Clause 3. I agree that if we leave Clause 2 in one form and Clause 3 in another on this particular point, we may be said to be creating uncertainty, but I do not agree that we could not make the consequent Amendment to Clause 3, which gives the clarity and certainty which is required in an Act of Parliament, and the clarity which is so sadly lacking in Clause 2 as it now stands. Indeed, I think one may say that in Clause 2 we have departed from Parliamentary language and adopted an ordinary, common military phrase. I do not want to press the matter or to take time on it today, but I think there is something to he said for trying to make the English of these Bills better, and I think that the hon. Gentleman's argument, that he would not accept the Amendment because it would mean alteration of Clause 3, is not a very strong one. Perhaps he will have a further look at it?

Mr. M. Stewart

I think I should be misleading the hon. and learned Gentleman if I gave an undertaking to look at it again. It would have been very easy for the hon. and learned Gentleman, since he proposes also an Amendment to Clause 3, to have proposed inserting this alteration in his subsequent Amendment. I notice with interest that he has not done that. If he had done so, I should have been happy to have produced arguments against altering the phrase "as from" in Clause 3, more formidable than those which I have already advanced. There is a real objection to it. Therefore, I earnestly hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames)

I do not think that that argument can pass. What the Under-Secretary has said is that it is the duty of the Opposition to go through all the Government's Bills and put them all right. In view of the sloppy draftsmanship with which so many of these mass-produced Measures are crammed, this would be imposing far too heavy a task upon even the zeal of the Opposition. I want to take exception also to the Under-Secretary's second point, that is to say, that he has got a better argument—I believe he said, a "conclusive argument"—which he has not so far disclosed to the Committee, and that if we had had another Amendment down he would have been gracious enough to have condescended to tell the Committee what it was. That is not the way to treat any Committee of the House of Commons. If a Minister of the Crown has an argument, then he should deploy that argument so that it can be considered on its merits.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton (Brixton)

It would have been out of Order.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The hon. and gallant Member for Brixton, in attempting, in my view superfluously, to assist the Chair, clearly shows by that observation that he has not followed the argument at all. If he had followed the Under-Secretary he would have realised that the Under-Secretary said that if both the Amendments had been down he would have had arguments against both of them. It would, therefore, presumably follow logically that, there being one down, he has got an argument against that one which he has himself said he is not going to bother to give to the Committee because the other Amendment is not down.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton

I understood the Under-Secretary to say that the argument which he had at the back of his mind would be particularly appropriate, perhaps more relevant, to an Amendment to the Clause after this one, and that, therefore, it was not relevant to this one.

3.15 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

Oh, no. He said he had an argument against both. It just is not good enough for a Minister to say that although he has an argument he will not condescend to use it. If the Under-Secretary wants to get co-operation in the discussion of this Bill, he will really have to be a little more conciliatory and helpful himself, and not just sit back complacently with an argument which he says he has got in his pocket, but which apparently is not to be given to the House of Commons.

Major Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely)

I wonder whether, by making a constructive suggestion, I could persuade the Under-Secretary to reconsider his decision not to reconsider this Amendment? He will recall that when a man goes absent without leave, the period of his absence is calculated to the nearest day, and that day is calculated to the nearest six hours. Would it assist if we inserted the words "as from the day" or "on the day," and similarly amended Clause 3 by substituting "said day" instead of "said time"? I would ask him to consider whether that would not perhaps meet both sides.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.