HC Deb 04 April 1951 vol 486 cc205-6
Sir John Mellor

Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask you a Question of which I have given you Private Notice: Whether, in view of the fact that copies of disputed Schedules 91 to 95, inclusive, of The Iron and Steel Prices Order, Statutory Instrument, 1951, No. 252, laid before the House on 20th February, were absent, incomplete or incorrect, you will rule that the said Order has been improperly laid and shall be withdrawn?

Mr. Speaker

I thank the hon. Baronet for giving me notice of this Question, and, in reply, I must inform him that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply did, as he had promised to do, seek the advice of the authorities of the House, and that in the view of my advisers Statutory Instrument No. 252 of the Iron and Steel Prices Order, 1951, was not properly laid in the circumstances which have been described. I am informed that the Ministry, on 2nd April, sent the necessary documents to complete those which had been laid in dummy. The Statutory Instrument is now properly laid, and the 40-day period in respect of it will be considered to have begun yesterday.

Sir J. Mellor

I am much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for your Ruling. May I ask for your clarification on one point? Surely, Mr. Speaker, this Schedule is part of the Order and, therefore, there can be only one date for laying. As I understand it, there has not been any official notification to the House of the re-lay which is normally made by notification through the Votes and Proceedings Office. I submit that at present the Order is not laid at all, and I would be very grateful for your guidance upon that point.

Mr. Speaker

I think that the hon. Baronet is mistaken. The Order was laid in part. It was not complete at the time but, still, it was laid. It was, so to speak, the notification of the birth of the baby, but we found that it was not complete in all its limbs. Now it has been made complete, and so it comes before the House as a whole child, and in view of my statement just now no other notification is necessary.

Sir J. Mellor

Surely, if it is possible for orders or parts of orders or schedules to be laid in dummy that would undermine the whole Parliamentary control of delegated legislation, because it would be open to the Minister to present the skeleton and to add the flesh afterwards. I submit, Sir, that that would raise an intolerable position from the point of view of Parliamentary control.

Mr. Speaker

I am quite prepared to consider that point, but at the moment I am advised that it is not necessary at all. I must take the advice that I receive.

Mr. Erroll

Further to that point, Mr. Speaker, as I had a Prayer against this incomplete Order, which was adjourned by the wish of the House, and which is due to come up again tomorrow night, may I seek your Ruling as to whether I am now to start the Prayer all over again, as the Order is now complete for the first time, or must it be regarded as a continuation of the adjourned Prayer to an incomplete Order?

Mr. Speaker

That is rather a nasty one at short notice. I would like to think that over because I would not like to give a false Ruling about it. It is a difficult question to answer at short notice, but I will consider it.

Mr. S. Silverman

While you are thinking it over, Mr. Speaker, would it perhaps be worth while to take into consideration the possibility that if there were no Order there could be no Prayer?

Mr. Speaker

I take all these things into consideration.

Mr. C. S. Taylor

There is one point on which I think we ought to have an assurance, and that is that no action has been taken between the time when the original Order was mislaid and the time when the new Order has at last been laid.

Mr. Speaker

That is not a matter for me; it is a matter for the Ministry. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an assurance about that.