Clause 20.—(ALIMONY IN CASE OF JUDICIAL SEPARATION.) (Hansard, 27 July 1950)

§ Lieut.-Colonel Lipton (Brixton)
I should like to put a question to the Minister in charge of the Bill at the moment. This Clause, I take it, imparts to the Statute Book what was previously—

The Deputy-Chairman
This is only a consolidation Measure, and no questions can be asked about the Clause.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Lipton
I am asking whether the effect of this Clause is to impart to the Statute Book—

The Deputy-Chairman
That is just what we cannot discuss.

§ Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)
Surely at some stage of this Bill we can discuss the importance of these proposals?

The Deputy-Chairman
No, that is what we cannot do. It is only a consolidation Bill.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Lipton
I am asking as a question of fact whether this Clause gives effect to one of the minor corrections, to which reference was made in the Memorandum.

The Deputy-Chairman
The only possibility is to vote against the Clause. There can be no discussion of its contents.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Lipton
The point I should like to submit is that the Report of the Joint Committee, which dealt with the Bill, points out that the Committee were of opinion that the Bill consolidated the existing law with such corrections and improvements as could properly be authorised under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949. The question I am seeking to put is: Does Clause 20 consolidate the existing law, or does it incorporate such correction and improvements as have been authorised and recommended by the Joint Committee of both Houses.

The Deputy-Chairman
These are minor corrections and they cannot be discussed.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Lipton
I am not asking that they should, but what I am asking is whether it is consolidation of the law or whether it includes the corrections and improvements authorised within the meaning of the terms of reference of the Joint Committee.

§ Mr. E. Fletcher
On a point of order. As the Bill is admittedly making certain changes in the law of the land, surely this House on Second Reading, in Committee or on Third Reading, in accordance with the assurances which the Attorney-General gave when this Bill was passed, will have an opportunity of considering the Amendments that are proposed.

The Deputy-Chairman
No. Hon. Members do not have an opportunity of doing that at any stage under the Act.

§ Mr. Eric Fletcher
I desire to address a few remarks to the House against the Motion for the Third Reading of this Bill.

§ Mr. Speaker
Of course, the only point the hon. Member can raise is whether or not the Bill shall be consolidated. Nothing else can be discussed. Anything else is out of order. I rule it out of order straight away, and will allow no further discussion on anything except that one point.

§ Mr. Fletcher
I assume from your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, for which, of course, I have the greatest respect, that one can adduce arguments against the Motion that this Bill be given a Third Reading.

§ Mr. Speaker
Without discussing anything that is in the Bill—which is rather difficult.

§ Mr. Fletcher
I shall do my best to address arguments to the House why, in my view, this Bill should not be passed as a consolidation Bill and, in deference to your Ruling Sir, I will endeavour, without indicating what are the changes of the law—

§ Mr. Speaker
The changes cannot be discussed. They have been certified, both by the Lord Chancellor and myself, as being minor amendments in accordance with the Consolidation Act. Therefore, they cannot be discussed.

§ Mr. Fletcher
I appreciate that, but I understand that it is the prerogative of this House, before any changes in the law of the land are made, whether in a Consolidation Bill or any other Bill, to address arguments to show why the Bill should not be consolidated.

§ Mr. Speaker
No. That was exactly the reason why we passed this procedure amending the old consolidation procedure. Amendments and changes of a minor character can be allowed and are not debatable if I have certified them and if the Lord Chancellor has certified them. Therefore, there can be no Debate on the Third Reading of this Bill.

§ Mr. Fletcher
I appreciate that Sir. I do not for one moment wish to challenge your Ruling and the certificate which you have given that amendments in the law should be made and consolidated in this Bill, but I assume that I am entitled to address arguments to the House in support of the proposition that this Bill should not be consolidated.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman must not discuss my Ruling. I have given a Ruling, and that is final.

§ The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley)
Is it not the position that under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, it is out of order to discuss anything contained in this Bill, and that the only matter for discussion can be consolidation or no consolidation. On the Motion for Third Reading, the only speech which my hon. Friend could make would be one in favour of the proposition that, in the circumstances, the law embraced in this Bill should not be consolidated.

§ Mr. Speaker
That does not mean discussing the law.

§ The Lord Advocate
No, Mr. Speaker—that the law which is embraced in the Bill should not be consolidated but should be left as it was.

§ Mr. Speaker
I think it is the same point as that which arises on Second Reading, and that is all that can be discussed.

§ Mr. Fletcher
I am grateful for your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. With your permission, I propose to address arguments to the House why, in my submission, this Bill should not be given a Third Reading. As this is an entirely novel procedure under the Act of 1949, I apprehend that I am entitled to say why the minor amendments of the law—

§ Mr. Speaker
No. The hon. Member is only entitled to say that the Bill should 820 not be consolidated. He cannot give any reasons for that. At least, I cannot think of any reason. He cannot discuss the Bill itself. Therefore, I do not see how he can debate it.

§ Mr. Fletcher
With great respect, what I desire to do is to indicate arguments why the law should not be consolidated.

§ Mr. Speaker
No. I have certified the Bill, and it is a Consolidation Bill. I do not see how any hon. Member can argue it.

§ Mr. Fletcher
With great respect, I apprehend that this House is entitled, on this Motion, to decide whether or not the Bill should have a Third Reading. Hitherto, we have had no opportunity in this House of considering the Bill, either on Second Reading or in Committee.

§ Mr. Speaker
On a Consolidation Bill, one cannot discuss any merits. This is a Consolidation Bill, and one can only say whether we should consolidate or not. I cannot think of any other reason there could be. One could say that we should leave this matter unconsolidated and that it should remain as it was, but that is the only argument of which I can think that might be used.

§ Mr. Fletcher
The last thing that I would wish to do, Mr. Speaker, would be to challenge, or to appear to challenge, your Ruling. Having regard to what you have just said, I would wish to indicate reasons why, in my opinion, the law on this subject should not be consolidated, and I apprehend that, having regard to your Ruling, I would be in order if I were to indicate to the House why it would be undesirable to consolidate the law on this subject.

§ Mr. Speaker
Without, of course, discussing any merits, or anything in the Bill.

§ Mr. Fletcher
I will do my best in deference to your Ruling.

§ Mr. Speaker
Is not this really rather childish? I have been authorised to certify a Bill which will pass under the ordinary procedure of consolidation, and this Bill must pass under the ordinary procedure of a Consolidation Bill. The hon. Member wants to say that there must be some extraordinary procedure, but, as this is a Consolidation Bill, it therefore passes by the usual rules of a 821 Consolidation Bill. The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss anything in the Bill; nothing at all in it can be argued, and the only question is whether there should be consolidation or not; that is to say, whether the Bill passes under the 1949 procedure or under the previous procedure. There can be no discussion on Third Reading.

§ Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas (The Wrekin)
On a point of order. Does your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, mean that, on a Bill coming before this House either on Second or Third Reading, nothing can be said about the contents of the Bill?

§ Mr. Speaker
One can only object to the consolidation, but, of course, it has been the rule for quite a long period that Consolidation Bills cannot be discussed. This is nothing new, and we are involved in no new principles at all.

§ Mr. Thomas
If it is revealed later that an error of some kind has crept into this Consolidation Bill—

§ Mr. Speaker
I can answer that quite well. I have to certify the Bill, which has been to a Joint Select Committee. It started with a memorandum from the Lord Chancellor, and the minor amendments which are made in consolidating the Bill have to be certified by the Lord Chancellor, with all his legal advisers, and then certified by me, with all my legal advisers. Therefore, both he and I have to assure ourselves that nothing but improvements, and minor improvements, have been made and that the law has not been altered in any respect. That is what has been done with this Bill, and, therefore, it consolidates the existing law as it stood before this Bill was introduced.

§ Mr. Thomas
The House must accept it, then?

§ Mr. Speaker
The House always has accepted Consolidation Bills before, and this is nothing new. Supposing there should be any error, the responsibility is a joint one between myself and the Lord Chancellor, and we have had pretty good advice.

§ Mr. E. Fletcher
I desire, on this Motion, to oppose consolidation on the ground, among others, that Clause 18—

§ Mr. Speaker
One cannot discuss a single Clause. This is really quite ridiculous. One knows perfectly well what the 822 law is, and any lawyer ought to know it too.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Lipton
I desire to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill. It was made clear by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on the Second Reading of the Consolidation of Enactments Bill, 1949, by virtue of which this particular consolidation Measure is now before the House, that, and I quote his exact words: In this matter, as in every matter, Parliament would have complete control and would have the final word in regard to it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1949; Vol. 464, c. 1367.] He went on to say that it was the function of this House to decide, first, whether or not consolidation of a particular field of Statute law is desirable, and, second, whether Amendments are minor corrections and improvements. You have ruled, Mr. Speaker—and there is, of course, no appeal against your Ruling—that such Amendments as may be contained in the Bill—I express no opinion on that, because it would be out of order for me to do so—have been certified in accordance with the procedure laid down, and you, Sir, have given your Ruling to that effect. Nevertheless, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General pointed out, there remains in this House the power to decide whether or not consolidation of a particular field of Statute law is desirable or not, and that, Mr. Speaker, if I understand correctly the various Rulings you have given, is the only point to which any argument can be adduced—whether or not consolidation of a particular field of Statute law—in this case the Matrimonial Causes Bill—is desirable or not.
If, so far, I am in order, I would like to develop the argument within the narrow confines that you have laid down, Mr. Speaker, and which I and, I hope my hon. Friend, accept. I wish just to say that I do not dispute for one moment that the correct procedure has been followed except for an unfortunate little omission to which you referred in the Ruling which you gave the other night, and which does not invalidate the Bill, but which, nevertheless, did inconvenience hon. Members. The omission was due to the fact to which you referred—

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not in this Bill and has nothing to do with it at all. Perhaps I might answer the hon. and gallant 823 Gentleman. He has quoted something which the right hon. and learned Attorney-General said. I am bound purely by the Rules of the House concerning Consolidation Bills. Whatever the Attorney-General may have said, it is not my business to take any notice of it at all. I have to obey the Rules of the House and see that nothing is discussed except the one principle, whether or not the law should be consolidated, and whether any arguments relating to any Amendments in the Bill are in order.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Lipton
I was just about to say that in view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, which, if I may say so, you have very clearly re-expressed, I find it difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile what my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said on Second Reading, which, of course now goes by the board in view of what you have said. That position I accept, and I now approach the more dangerous part of the argument that I wish to submit, and so that there should be no dubiety about it, I say quite clearly that I now approach the tightrope along which it is necessary for me to walk if I am to reach the next stage of my argument.
It has been made quite clear that it is within the right of the House to say whether or not consolidation of a particular field of law is desirable or not. This particular Bill, which I do not query, establishes as you, Sir, have indicated in the course of your Rulings, or as can be implied from your Rulings, an important precedent because it indicates that in the course of consolidation it is possible—and it cannot be challenged—that by following the procedure laid down it is possible to connect up with consolidation some degree of codification which, according to the memorandum submitted by the joint committee, is described as—

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. and gallant Member is now discussing an Act of Parliament which we passed, under which I have acted, and which, therefore we cannot discuss. Might I suggest to hon. Gentlemen who wish to oppose the Third Reading of a Consolidation Bill that it is quite simple. They can vote against it; that will save a lot of time.

§ Sir Herbert Williams (Croydon, East)
As an engineer not as a lawyer, I have 824 always been more than convinced that the more consolidation we have the better. I am a little surprised that two lawyers do not want the law consolidated because—

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman must not discuss the principle of consolidation.