Clause 1.—(POWER OF MINISTERS TO REVISE CONSTITUTIONS OF CENTRAL MIDWIVES BOARD AND CENTRAL MIDWIVES BOARD FOR SCOTLAND.) (Hansard, 15 May 1950)

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Blenkinsop)
I beg to move, in page 1, line 12, at the end, to insert: (2) An order under the foregoing subsection may provide for any incidental or supplementary matters for which it appears to the Minister requisite or expedient for the purposes of the order to provide and in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of this subsection, may (so far as provision in that behalf appears to the Minister to be requisite or expedient for the purpose of giving full effect to the order) provide that the power of the Central Midwives Board under section three of the Midwives Act, 1902, to frame rules shall include power to frame rules with respect to such matters as may be specified in the order. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the original wording in the Clause should not be unnecessarily restricted. It might be that the Minister, after discussion with the Central Mid-wives Board and other interested bodies, would desire to put before the House an Order requiring steps to be taken, for example, in connection with elections to be carried out to the Central Midwives Board. I am not saying that this is likely to happen, but it is possible that at some time in the future it might be considered. Accordingly, we have been advised that if the Minister wished to do that he probably could not do so, because it could not be done under the wording of the Bill as it stands.
Further, if it were desired at any time to secure elections to the Central Mid-wives Board, it would be necessary for 892 the Board to be empowered to make the necessary rules to carry out the Order. For these reasons we have felt it necessary to have the rather wider powers that are included under the Amendment and I hope that hon. Members will be prepared to give their support to the Amendment.

The Chairman
Perhaps it might be for the convenience of the Committee also to discuss the two Amendments following on the Order Paper, in page 2, line 4, after "Scotland," to insert: with the substitution, for the reference to section three of the Midwives Act, 1902, of a reference to section five of the Midwives (Scotland) Act, 1915, and in page 2, line 6, to leave out "Mid-wives (Scotland) Act," and to insert "said Act of."

§ Mr. Blenkinsop
Yes, Major Milner, they are consequential.

§ Sir Herbert Williams (Croydon, East)
I am not quite clear what the proposed Amendment really does. I have spent a little time in the Library studying the Act of 1902 and I find that under that Act the Central Midwives Board had a specific constitution. It was made clear who was on it—so many doctors elected in certain ways, so many nurses, so many representatives of obstetric institutions, so many representatives of county councils, and so on. All the appropriate people appeared to be represented. Under the Clause to which the proposed Amendment relates, all that is thrown overboard. Nobody knows what the constitution of the Central Midwives Board is to be in future, until the Minister has made up and revealed his mind. Then he can change his mind as often as he likes. The whole thing is rather totalitarian in this aspect, and it surprises me, having regard to the stable out of which it has come.
The Act of 1902 sets out in Section 3 who are to be the members of the Board. Then, in the next Section, it states the power of the Board to frame rules as to who are to conduct their business. The rules that we are authorising today do not seem to have anything to do with the method of appointment of the Board, as I understand them. The Parliamentary Secretary has said that he wanted the Amendment so that if it were decided to have elections, the Board could draw 893 up the rules, but the rules which the Board had the power to make were not those to regulate the procedure by which they were appointed. That matter comes into an earlier part of the Act of 1902.
Therefore, I do not quite see what relationship there was between the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary and the Amendment. I read this Amendment over the week-end and I was rather surprised. I tried for a time to turn the many words in it into fewer words, but I did not quite succeed because I had not in front of me the Act of 1902. When I read the Amendment in conjunction with the Act, I got some sort of idea what the Amendment was supposed to do. It does not appear to be intended to do what the Parliamentary Secretary said. I hope that he will try to clear up my mind and his own, and the minds of the rest of the Committee on this point, before we pass to the next Amendment.

§ Mr. Blenkinsop
I think it is obvious that the doubts which arise in the mind of the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) do not arise in the minds of others. The Amendment is purely for the kind of purpose which I have already explained. It can be argued that there might be certain right and proper changes desired, by my right hon. Friend after consultation with interested bodies, but they might not come strictly within the wording of Clause 1. In view of the possibility of some doubt on the matter, and rather than allow it to be open to question after the Order had been laid before the House, it seemed desirable that the powers of the Board should be fully adequate. The particular point we had in mind was the possibility that at some time it might be desired that elections should take place. It is quite clear that rules would be required for such elections, but at the moment they are not provided for in Section 3 or any other Section as the Act now stands. I would further point out that any Order will be placed before the House and will not become operative until there has been a full opportunity for the House to consider it and to raise matters on the Floor, if it is so desired.

§ Sir H. Williams
I would press the matter a little further. As a rule, when 894 we pass an Act which creates a body we provide precisely how the body is set up. Now we are abolishing the existing constitution of the Central Midwives Board and we are saying that the constitution shall, in future, be such as the Minister, not Parliament, may desire.

§ Mr. Blenkinsop
That is quite beside the point. Parliament has full control. It is quite wrong for the hon. Member to try to pretend that Parliament no longer has control of the situation. It has, because, as I say, the Orders are placed before the House and there is full opportunity for discussion before they become operative.

§ Sir H. Williams
If the Parliamentary Secretary had not been so impatient he need not have made that last little speech. I was about to point out that when an Order is brought before us we cannot amend it but can only say "Yes" or "No," which is entirely different from setting up a constitution by an Act of Parliament the terms of which can be discussed in the House and amended if we think fit. If we leave the constitution to be created by the Minister the only power which the House will have will be to say "We will not have it. Go back and think out a new one," and we are reluctant to do that.
The constitution should be the result of long discussion and negotiations. The Clause and the Amendment take very autocratic powers, and it is no good saying that Parliament will have control because we know quite well that we cannot amend Orders when we discuss them. Of the 2,000 or 3,000 statutory instruments that are published each year—a number of them are discussed, but many are not because they are of trifling importance—those which we do discuss we cannot amend. To object to part of an Order we have to vote against the whole thing. The Parliamentary Secretary said that Parliament has complete control, but that is not true and never has been true in regard to delegated legislation.