HC Deb 20 July 1950 vol 477 cc2550-66

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

"Mr. H. Hynd (Accrington)

I think it will be for the convenience of the House if I reserve what I want to say on this subject until the Motion standing in my name is moved, as I have no desire to hold up the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

That is what I understood.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. H. Hynd

I beg to move, "That the Bill be referred to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."

The House will know that petitions have been lodged against this Bill by certain bodies, particularly by the bodies that have circulated statements to hon. Members, namely the Boy Scouts Association, the Girl Guides Association and the Salvation Army. The Scouts and the Guides are bodies incorporated by Royal Charter, and the House may be aware that the Salvation Army are involved because they happen to have Scouts and other youth organisations which are allied to the other bodies. That may explain what has been a little bit of a mystery to certain hon. Members as to where the Salvation Army come in, in regard to camping.

perhaps I might also explain that under Section of the Private Legislation Procedure Act procedure is laid sown Perhaps I might also explain that under Section 9 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, procedure is laid down for referring petitions of that kind to a Joint Committee, as I am now proposing in this Motion. The plea I want to make is on behalf of the bodies which I have mentioned. It is a plea to ventilate what they consider is an injustice inflicted by Cause 26 of this Bill, and that is the only Clause to which objection is taken. Clause 26 proposes to repeal previous legislation and to substitute therefore the legislation proposed in Clause 26 of this new Bill. That, in my submission, is a retrograde step which should not be accepted without further examination by the House.

A very considerable number of people are affected by this proposal. In Scotland there are 59,000 Scouts, 75,000 Guides and 25,000 members of the Salvation Army.

Mr. Manuel (Ayrshire, Central)

All camping in Edinburgh?

Mr. Hynd

The national headquarters of those bodies are in Edinburgh, and they contend that their work will be seriously hampered if these new powers are taken by the Corporation. What they ask, in brief, is no more than that they should be given the same exemption as that provided at the end of Clause 26 for circus proprietors, roundabout proprietors and travelling showmen. I suggest that is a very modest request. It so happens that I did my own scouting in Scotland. Incidentally, if I mention Scouts, I refer to other bodies as well. It is not only Scottish Scouts who are interested in this matter, because despite the interjection by my hon. Friend as to whether they all camp in Edinburgh, he knows as well as I do that there are many Scouts who go to Edinburgh from all parts of the world, and if they want to camp in that district they also will be affected by this proposed new legislation. So they, too, are affected by this Bill.

I would remark, in passing, that it is a singularly unfortunate time at which to clamp down any new restrictions, when we are trying to attract people from all over the world to this country. Furthermore, there are at least three other Orders waiting for a decision on this Order; those Orders relate to Kirkcaldy, Falkirk and Airdrie. They are affected by similar provisions, and this case is regarded as a test case for those other Orders. That adds to the importance which we ought to attach to our decision this evening.

It is only by watching these incursions that we can prevent their extension to 1346 other Orders. We have long learned in this House that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and that is the principle which I am exercising at the moment. I regret, as a Scot, to say that there is more freedom for the people of whom I am speaking in England than in Scotland. Under the English legislation at the moment the Boy Scouts' Association has a general certificate of exemption under Section 269 of the Public Health Act, 1936, so that they do not have to apply for camping permission as they otherwise would have to do under that Act. Under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, there is special exemption under what is called the Town and Country Planning (General Development) Order, 1948, and also under the Town and Country Planning (Development Charge Exemptions) Regulations, 1948, which briefly say that it is unnecessary to get the consent of the planning authority before camping takes place and that any landowner who permits camping on his land will not thereby render himself liable for a development charge.

In Scotland, on the other hand, it has been the custom to give this exemption in the form of a special exemption under Provisional Order Bills. We have, for example, the list which has been circulated in the statement by the Boy Scouts Association—a list of about a dozen local authorities in Scotland who have put through Orders ranging from 1933 to 1946, and in all of those Orders there is this exemption which is being sought under the Edinburgh Bill. I think it is fair to say that the recognition of those movements as worthy of special exemption has been well established by all that legislation.

The Edinburgh Corporation have at the moment all the necessary powers under Section 161 of the Edinburgh Corporation Order, 1933. Under that Order there is special exemption for duly constituted religious or charitable societies or bodies to the main objects of which the provision, ownership or use of tents, vans, sheds, etc., is merely subsidiary, or any association incorporated by Royal Charter or any organisation constituted by any such mentioned association in pursuance of their Charter. In other words, the bodies of which I have spoken are specially exempted under the Edinburgh Corporation Order, 1933, and it is difficult to understand why since that time the Corporation have felt it necessary to repeal that and to seek to include those bodies under the Bill that is now before the House.

In support of their case the Corporation have circulated a statement which hon. Members will have in their hands, and I should like to call attention to one or two of the remarks in that statement. Following what I have said, in the first place they say at the top of page 2 that they are merely re-enacting some of their previous powers. That, I suggest, is not the case, because they are more than reenacting the powers they possess at the present time; they are seeking fresh powers and, particularly, bringing in those bodies which were previously exempted. If, as they say, re-enactment of the existing powers is proposed merely for convenience, then it is very difficult to understand why, in re-enacting those powers, they should not have included at the same time the exemptions which were previously given.

Mr. Niall Macpherson (Dumfries)

I am sure the hon. Member does not wish to mislead the House. At the top of page 2 it is specifically stated that the only additional powers proposed "are in respect of"—and then it gives a list.

Mr. Hynd

I fully accept that. I was referring to the previous words, and I would point out that under the present powers there is provision for imposing any conditions the Corporation want.

A point which has been worrying my hon. Friends is why this procedure should be sought in connection with the Bill? Although it has been rarely used, it is a constitutional right that when an important principle is at stake the Joint Committee procedure should be sought, and that is why I am seeking the use of the procedure now. In the statement they say that they see no justification for departing from the normal practice. I would fully accept that it would only be justified if there is departure from what is known as the common form Clause, and I think it is quite clear that that is what is happening in this case.

I do not think there should be an objection to the use of the special procedure in this case. The criticism offered here is that the procedure has not been used for a considerable number of years. I would say that that is a very good reason why we should use it on a special occasion, when it is necessary. The fact that the procedure has not been used over that very long period shows that there is no question of its being abused. It is only used, and I would only use it, in a very special matter of principle. as in this case.

If there is any suggestion that reflection is intended on the Commissioners, who included two hon. Members of this House, I hope that suggestion will he removed from the minds of all hon. Members. After all, even High Court judges have their decisions upset sometimes by a court of appeal or by another place. The fact that something may be looked at again and afresh does not reflect in any way on what we might call the lower court. Some hon. Members may say, too, as the statement says, that no important question of policy or principle arises. I would dispute that. I say that there is a very important question of principle here. In my submission the issue at stake is to secure freedom from hampering and vexatious restrictions, and that is very important indeed.

The statement goes on to say that neither in the Act nor Order nor any by-law are the Corporation's powers fettered by exemptions in favour of the interests represented by the petitioners. I think there must be a mistake, because that is obviously a mis-statement, as will he seen from Section 161 of the Edinburgh Corporation Order, 1933, from which I have quoted. That Order shows that it is only to the limited by-law making powers that exemption does not apply.

There is another point of difficulty. The statement declares that it is most undesirable that there should be special exemptions, and this point was urged very strongly indeed by counsel before the Commissioners in Edinburgh. The strange thing is that, having said that it is most undesirable that there should be special exemptions, the fact then remains that the Bill gives special exemptions to circus proprietors, roundabout proprietors and showmen, and the only explanation is that there must be a criticism by the Corporation of the Commissioners for having given such a decision.

Mrs. Jean Mann (Coatbridge and Aidrie)

I think my hon. Friend is losing sight of the fact that, under the Burgh Police Act, the local authorities already have power to deal with the classes they have specially exempted, whereas they have not the power to deal with the classes which they wish to include.

Mr. Hynd

Not at all. Whatever powers they may or may not have, all I am saying is that under this Bill they are trying to alter the present procedure and to seek more powers than they possess now. That is surely the point at issue, and it is a very simple point. If the Corporation are criticising the Commissioners for having given those special exemptions then I can understand it; but it is no good their saying in the statement, that it is most undesirable that there should be special exemptions when, indeed, special exemptions are given for the showmen. I am not objecting for one moment to the fact that special exemptions have been given to showmen; there may be a perfectly good case for that. All I am suggesting is that the Scouts and the others allied with them have at least as good a case for a similar exemption.

The statement also says that no difficulty or complaint has been made as regards the operation of the existing bylaws. I put that forward as a very good argument for my case. The fact that, under the present procedure, there has been no complaint or difficulty since 1933 is, I suggest, the best argument for preserving the present arrangements.

In the same connection the statement says that it is not right that members of particular organisations should be at liberty to disregard proper standards laid down. Is it suggested for a moment that Scouts or Guides have disregarded proper standards of camping? As far as I know, there has been no such complaint; it has never been suggested that they have abused the privilege they have had. Indeed, those organisations take very great pride in the maintenance of very high standards of discipline, and camping is always done under the proper supervision of officers. Indeed, the whole case on that point is demolished by the Medical Officer of Health for Edinburgh who, before the Commissioners, was asked whether there had been any lack of standards by the Scouts, and who said: These are bodies I would use as my guinea pigs to keep my higher standards.

Mr. Woodburn (Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire)

The hon. Member has mentioned a point which puzzles me. I have been under the impression that Scouts behave themselves and observe these standards, but I gather now that the Scouts want permission not to observe good standards; they are not prepared to observe standards laid down by the local authorities. If they intend to observe good standards and live within the conditions of good living, I cannot see how the conditions imposed by the Edinburgh Corporation affect them at all. In raising this as a matter of principle, it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman wants Scouts to have the liberty to do as they like, although they have no intention of doing anything different from what they would have to do under the Act.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (Ayrshire, South)

Before my hon. Friend replies, may I ask whether it is not a reflection on the discipline of the Salvation Army?

Mr. Hynd

I do not think that last interjection was intended seriously. As to the interjection by my right hon. Friend, I would accept it at once as a very good debating society point, but I think he knows as well as I do that the fact that they do not want special by-laws and regulations and red tape applied to them does not in any degree mean that they would fail to maintain the present standards. The fact is that, having been recognised as maintaining exemplary camping discipline over all these years, I would go as far as to say that they resent special laws, rules and regulations being applied to them as something new.

Some hon. Members may make the point that the Clause in the Bill has already been enacted in the Dundee Order. I should like to deal with that for just a moment. The fact is, as I understand it, that when the Dundee Order was tabled it included a Clause in the form of the 1933 Edinburgh Order. In other words, it exempted Scouts, and so on. Then at a later stage, without any notification to the organisations concerned, a new Clause was introduced behind their backs, without their knowledge, without their having any opportunity at all of objecting. Therefore there is anything but a valid precedent in that for this particular case. I notice that the Edinburgh Corporation carefully omit to put that forward in their statement, but I have heard it urged, and that is why I think it better to deal with it at this stage. At the inquiry before the Commissioners, counsel for the promoters said: It is perfectly true, as my friends say, that they were not given an adequate opportunity of representing against the powers sought, and, therefore, I cannot say that they acquiesced in the Clause of the Dundee Act. So I hope that that will prevent any hon. Member trying to use the Dundee case as a precedent.

It is obviously undesirable to have varying by-laws in different parts of the country for voluntary bodies like the Scouts and the Guides. They are run by people who are busy people, and if they are to have to study separate by-laws in every district—well, they are going to have to occupy a great deal of time in administrative detail. However, it is not only for reasons of administrative inconvenience that this is objected to. There is really a practical difficulty to which I should like to draw the attention of the House, and it is that landowners who, quite generously on the whole, allow Scouts and Guides to camp on their land are going to be very hesitant in future if they know that camping is controlled by complicated rules and regulations, for they will fear they may be rendering themselves liable to penalties if they give the permission as generously as they have done.

Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)

Would the hon. Member regard as complicated regulations, those dealing with sanitary arrangements, water supplies, precautions against fire, and good and orderly conduct in camp? Are they not good and proper?

Mr. Hynd

Those are quite proper as headings, but we know from our experience that once a local authority starts framing by-laws—and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have supported me in this—the by-laws are liable to be very complicated indeed. A town clerk is not going to be satisfied with saying there should be proper precautions taken against fire. That heading would involve, perhaps, a dozen or 20 paragraphs in a by-law about the prevention of fire.

I want to refer again, in passing, to the question of the exemption of showmen, because I emphasise that I do not want to say or do anything that will prevent the showmen from getting their exemption; but it is significant that the Corporation were so insistent at the hearing before the Commissioners that there should not be a special exemption for showmen, and that, nevertheless, exemption was given. I suggest that that throws an entirely new light on the application of the Scouts and Guides, and helps to justify fresh examination of the matter by the Joint Committee.

Now I think I have said enough to set out the general case, but I insist that this is more than just a question of whether or not Scouts and Guides are going to be brought under the same heading as other campers. Scouting and Guiding are conducted in this country as an adventure. The whole idea is to give Scouts and Guides scope for expending their surplus energy and using their imagination. Can we imagine Scouts and Guides setting out in future with the same spirit of adventure if they are to go to municipal camping grounds, and know, before they set out, that they will have to study long regulations of a sanitary inspector or a medical officer of health?

If there has been any abuse, if there has been anything wrong under the present regulations, let Edinburgh Corporation say so. I hope someone will say whether there has been. I submit, however, that no evidence at all along those lines has been adduced, and that, therefore, they have no right to clamp these new shackles on the Scouts. Unless this Motion is passed tonight, the Bill will go through formally, the old freedom will be taken away, and new regulations will be imposed, and will cause this hardship—as I think it will be—which these organisations fear. I am not now asking the House to make up its mind at the moment on the regulations, but I think there is a clear case for the matter to be submitted to a Joint Committee of both Houses as laid down in the statutory procedure.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Heathcoat Amory (Tiverton)

I beg to second the Motion.

I want briefly to support the case that has been very clearly put by the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) because I have a very high regard, as I am sure all the House has, for the work of the Boy Scouts and Girl Guides Associations and of the Salvation Army. I feel rather as Daniel must have felt in the lions' den, because I realise that the clans have risen.

Mr. Rankin (Glasgow, Tradeston)

Do not talk too long.

Mr. Amory

I have been enumerating the drops of Scottish blood that flow in my veins, and I think I just qualify. I believe I have a minimum of 12½ per cent. and a possible maximum of 25 per cent.

Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)

Who is the hon. Gentleman's father?

Mr. Amory

Some of us did think of sending out a three-line Whip on this matter—English Members are concerned about it—but we decided not to do so, as we did not want to convey the impression that we were trying to "gang up" against our Scottish friends. However, I should like to make a few general remarks. The Scout and Guide movement, as I understand it, are asking that they may get under this Order reasonably the same position as is already given them under the Public Health Act, 1933, and under 17 Scottish Orders and, I think, 12 English Local Acts. They are asking for exemption.

Why do they feel that it is sufficiently important to bring up in this way? First of all, they are convinced from past experience that it will, to some extent—I do not want to overstress it—handicap them in the work they are doing. Camping in the Scout and Guide movement occupies a very high place indeed; and, indeed, it is one of their main methods of teaching self-reliance, resource, and the principles of good health. There is no dispute anywhere, I think, that they do maintain very high standards indeed. Camping in the Scout and Guide movement is quite a different thing from going out to camp on ordinary camping fields. The Scouts camp in small numbers, and it is essentially a part of their practice that a patrol when it goes out, should be able to choose its own camping site—getting permission, of course to use it—and not simply go to a pre-arranged place with everything laid on.

Scouts at camp make their own arrangements, including those for sanitation, precautions against fire, and so on. I think the answer to the right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) and to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) is just that—that the type of Scout camping is different. There is no possible question that the Scout movement wants freedom not to have lower standards than would be insisted upon by a local authority. But the Scouts' standards are different; and it may be that officers of local authorities who have not had experience of the movement may insist on restrictions which would interfere very greatly with the principles of training in the movement.

The only other point I want to make is the importance that is attached to this by these Associations. Primarily Scottish Scouts are involved. There are 134,000 members of the Scout and Guide movement in Scotland, but periodically other Scouts, moved by a spirit of adventure and romance, cross the Border into Scotland. I may want to do so myself one day. When they do that, they want to be able to camp under the same conditions as they can elsewhere.

Sir W. Darling

Do they not want sanitary camps?

Mr. Amory

From this point of view, the question of exemption is important, and if this exemption which has been given in all these other cases, and is given in almost every case that arises nowadays, is denied to these associations, it will be, in their opinion, a dangerous precedent, and will make it very difficult for them in the future. It may be said that it really has not any importance; that anybody will allow Scouts to camp on their ground, in view of their known high standards. But it is found in practice that where there are restrictive by-laws, owners are just a little bit scared because they feel that by allowing the Scouts to go there they may involve themselves in some difficulty.

7.31 p.m.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley)

I intervene at this stage in the hope that by my intervention the time of the House on this matter may be shortened. In rising to offer these observations I want to make it clear that I am trying to approach the problem from a purely neutral attitude. First, I think I ought to disclose an interest, because I happen to represent one of the Edinburgh constituencies.

There seems to me to be a constitutional question involved here, a question of the procedure to be followed by this House, and it is from that point of view that I wish to address my remarks. Hon. Members will know that under this procedure—which I think everyone will agree is a procedure that has been of great value to us in Scotland, and which we wish to encourage, and we do not wish to send from this House any feeling that it will not serve its purpose, or that it might become too expensive or cumbersome—if the Chairman of the Committee of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means of this House report that the Provisional Order which has been put forward to the Secretary of State may proceed upon due proof to the satisfaction of the examiner, in compliance with general orders for regulation of proceedings made by the Chairmen and the Secretary of State jointly, the Secretary of State may authorise an inquiry to be held.

Now there are great virtues in that inquiry. It is always held in Scotland; it is held locally and the Commissioners are drawn from this House and from the other place. Therefore, we have the Parliamentary connection maintained. Full evidence is adduced before the inquiry; counsel are briefed in the normal way for all parties, and a full legal argument takes place. Thereafter, the Commissioners recommead to the Secretary of State in the form of a report indicating that the Order should be passed, or should be rejected, or should be passed with modifications. If the Order is issued by the Secretary of State—as it has been in this case, because it has been confirmed by my right hon. Friend—it is then submitted to Parliament in the form of a Confirmation Bill, which is deemed to be a public Act.

My hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) is right in saying that under Section 9 of the 1936 Act, which governs this procedure, there is power to refer the matter to a Joint Committee of both Houses to go into the whole question again. That would involve once again the leading of witnesses, the employment of counsel and a rehearsal of the arguments that were previously adduced. It is quite competent, of course, for my hon. Friend to bring forward this Motion, but I think that, from the point of view of the procedure of the House, the House would be slow to give effect to any such Motion unless they were satisfied, prima facie, on the case presented that some large and important constitutional issue was raised, or that some material miscarriage of justice had been effected; and that they would not sanction the repetition of the previous procedure and a rehearing of the case unless conditions such as I have indicated were satisfied. It is for the House to decide whether, on the facts put forward by the mover and seconder of this Motion, these conditions have been satisfied.

I do not want to go into the merits of the case, but I do want to make two observations because I think, possibly unwittingly, my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington has rather misled the House with regard to the existing provisions and the existing exemptions in rela-to these organisations. Let me say parenthetically, that no one, whether they have a strong argument on the merits or a strong line on the constitutional question or the procedural question, depreciates the great work that these organisations carry on, and I do not think that any speech made on either side of the House should be construed, here or elsewhere, as in any way minimising the good work of these organisations.

My hon. Friend did indicate that in the Edinburgh Corporation Order (Confirmation) Act, 1933, exemption from the by-laws had been granted to these organisations. Well, if he looks again at Section 161 of that Act he will see that it is in two parts, subsection (1) and sub- section (2). Subsection (1) deals with the obtaining of consent by any person before he either lets or uses land within the city for occupation by any tent, van, etc., and also similar consent to place or keep on any land situate within the city any such tent, van, shed or similar structure.

It is from the necessity of obtaining such consent that these organisations have been excluded in the 1933 Act. They are not in any way exempted from the provisions of subsection (2), which extends Section 73 of the Public Health ((Scotland) Act, 1897 to enable the local authority to make by-laws in relation to the number of tents vans, sheds or similar structures. Accordingly, it would be wrong to suggest that these organisations have been excluded from the by-law making power under the 1933 Act. They have only been excluded from the necessity to obtain the consent of the Corporation to have tents, etc., within the city limits.

Mr. H. Hynd

I think the Lord Advocate will agree that subsection (4) which refers to Section 73 of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, gives power to make by-laws with respect to the number of tents, vans, etc., and the number to be permitted on any land or area to be allotted to such tents, etc. There is nothing about the other by-laws for sanitation, and all the other things to which reference has been made. It is a very partial power.

The Lord Advocate

I was not trying to enter into the merits of the case. I was merely pointing out that the exemption in Section 161 of the 1933 Act related not to exemption from by-laws but to exemption from obtaining consent from the corporation to structures of this nature within the city limits.

My second point—and with this I hope to conclude—is that, without in any way entering into the merits of this dispute, there is a principle which has been enunciated which I, as a Law Officer of the Crown, cannot hope to subscribe to; and that is that, merely because organisations which are well-organised, well-disciplined and well-controlled operate within the city it is not necessary to bring them within the jurisdiction of the by-laws.

If we were to carry that to its logical conclusion it would be equally right for various ecclesiastical bodies to come to this House and say to the Government of the day: "We have a well-disciplined congregation; we teach them not to commit sin; we teach them not to commit offences. Therefore they should be excluded from the operation of all your Criminal Justice Acts." It seems to me to be exactly the same reasoning, and if the House were to approve of this Motion, I trust that they would not approve it for a reason such as that.

I think that it is a matter for the House, and I trust that, with these observations, the issue will become clearer. As I see it, the real issue is whether, on the facts presented by the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, the House should approve of sending this case to a Joint Committee of both Houses, going through the whole procedure again, incurring expense and delay, merely because unsuccessful objectors have thought fit to come here and table such a Motion.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. James Stuart (Moray and Nairn)

I only wish to say that certainly Scottish Members present will agree with the views expressed by the Lord Advocate. This Private Bill procedure. which has operated for the last 50 years, is well-liked in Scotland, and it suits our needs. I believe that I am correct in saying that Scottish Members in general support it. I hope, therefore, that nothing will be done to interfere with it. I must also add that we have no desire to interfere with the right of appeal to a Joint Committee of both houses. The hon. Members who moved and seconded this Motion are perfectly justified in doing so.

What we have to consider is whether the points that they have brought before the House really necessitate this additional procedure and this expense. I hope that they will agree, having heard the Lord Advocate, that it is not necessary to persist in their objection. As I have said, this procedure has operated well, and, as we have been told and as we know, the case of the Boy Scouts' Association and the Salvation Army was heard before the Commissions in Edinburgh for four days. Their case was presented, the Commissioners reported in favour of the Edinburgh Corporation's Bill, and, therefore, under this procedure, we hope that the views and decisions of our Commissioners will be supported by this House.

We on this side naturally agree with the views that have been expressed, in that we bear no ill-will to such admirable organisations as the Boy Scouts, the Girl Guides or the Salvation Army. I am sure that in practice they will find that they will not suffer. Nobody, obviously not the Edinburgh Corporation or anyone else, wishes to interfere with any organisation which conducts its affairs in a proper and orderly manner. I am quite satisfied that they will not suffer, and I hope that, in the circumstances, the mover and seconder of this Motion will agree to its withdrawal.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. H. Hynd

With the leave of the House, may I say that I very much regret that this matter has been discussed from the point of view of the Motion having been an attack on the principle of Scottish private legislation procedure? Nothing was further from the mind of any one who wanted to be associated with this Motion. The Lord Advocate dealt almost exclusively with that, and said nothing, so far as I could gather, about the merits of the case. It is because the merits of the case ought to be looked at again by another body, as provided for by legislation, that I moved the Motion.

It has been indicated, and I think that both Front Benches agree, that this procedure is perfectly in order, and every one agrees that it should only be resorted to where there is an important principle at stake. The vital question has not been answered. That is: why does the Edinburgh Corporation want to take away the exemption that was previously given? That is the vital question which no one has faced up to. That is the question, I suggest, which ought to be further looked at by the Joint Committee, which is the only procedure open to us, and that is why I regret very much that I cannot see my way to withdraw the Motion.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Mathers (West Lothian)

Leaving the arguments that have been made from the two Front Benches to stand on what I would say were procedural questions, I wish only to say a brief word about the merits of the case. It seems to me that there is only one valid point to answer in the case which was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Accring- ton (Mr. H. Hynd). The question is a simple one and the answer is equally simple. The question is: Why should the complaining bodies not have the same privileges as are accorded to the members of the Showmen's Guild who camp out in the course of their professional work? The answer, I am advised, is that these showmen are a very carefully organised body of people whose controlling authority insists on very high standards being maintained and they therefore meet the conditions that would be laid down by the by-laws.

I am quite sure that so far as the complainants are concerned, none would wish to hamper them in their work. But I believe that they are entitled to stand up to the standards laid down by the Corporation. I think that I can sum up my attitude to this matter by saying that I am not prepared to encourage non-compliance with normal Scottish procedure in this matter by re-opening a case which has already received full consideration. I am not prepared to pass a vote of lack of confidence in the Commissioners who examined the Provisional Order and the objections to it. I am not prepared to express a lack of confidence in the Edinburgh Corporation to draft satisfactory by-laws nor in the ability of those who will have to administer these by-laws once they are drawn up.

I think the case that has been put forward is one that never should have been brought here, and I hope that the House will come to a decision to reject this Motion, and allow us to get on with the business that should not have been interrupted for a purpose of this kind.

Question put, and negatived.

Bill to be considered Tomorrow.

Forward to