HC Deb 15 May 1950 vol 475 cc906-7
Mr. Blenkinsop

I beg to move, in page 7, line 41, to leave out subsection (5).

This Amendment is related to a new Clause appearing on the Order Paper introducing a new repeals Clause and adds to Part II of the Third Schedule. The intention is to extend the scope of the repeals to include some Acts so that they may be consolidated later, and I hope not too much later. These are set out in detail in Part II of the Third Schedule and entirely consist of provisions which become obsolete or unnecessary by the lapse of time.

Mr. L. Hale

Could we be told what is the important difference between subsection (5), which is being left out, and which appears to be clearly intelligible and clearly put and the words of the new Clause which is later to be moved. The first part of it is a sentence which appears to be tautological: The enactments mentioned in the first and second columns of Part I of the Third Schedule to this Act, being enactments which to the extent specified in the third column of that part of that Schedule should be repealed in view of the foregoing provisions of this Act, are hereby repealed to the extent so specified. What is the improvement which is sought to be made? Why is it necessary to make Acts of Parliament longer than they are? Is there any question of payment by results involved or not?

Mr. Blenkinsop

In the new Clause we are also referring to Part II of the Schedule, which we are inserting, and which was not included in the old Clause.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.