STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (PRAYERS) (Hansard, 12 March 1952)

§ Sir Herbert Williams (Croydon, East)
On a point of order. Do I understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you are not calling the Prayer in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)?— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Bakehouses (Sunday before Christmas) Order, 1951 (S.I. 1951, No. 2062), dated 28th November, 1951, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th November, 1951, be annulled.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew)
Both that Prayer and the other in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) relating to the Telephone Regulations are out of order.

§ Sir H. Williams
This particular Order about the bakehouses, under the Act under which it is made, is prayable against within a certain number of days, and that number of days ends tonight. This Order is the subject of a Report of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments appointed by this House to examine this Order, and the Select Committee did not report until 4th February. The Order was made when the House was in Recess, and, therefore, there was no opportunity of praying against it during the period when it was open to 1509 Prayer before it became operative. I know very well that its operative effect came to an end on 23rd December.
The Select Committee has reported that it was possibly improperly made, and the purpose of the Prayer is to raise the constitutional question whether the Order was properly made, and though the Prayer tonight would be without effect so far as the Order is concerned, it does seem to me in order to discuss whether those who made the Order acted constitutionally, in an improper way or not, because next year there may be a similar Order made.
Therefore, we are seeking to raise a constitutional issue, and I do not see how an Order that is prayable against under the Statute can be ruled out of order merely because its operative effect is past. It seems quite absurd to have a Select Committee of this House, with grave responsibilities, presenting this document to us if we cannot discuss it. The Report was ordered to be printed on 4th February. The Committee reported that, The special attention of the House should be drawn to it on the ground that it appears to make an unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the Statute under which it was made. If we cannot discuss an Order on which our colleagues on this Committee have made a special report, it seems to me the Committee may just as well be dissolved, because what is at issue is not the merits of the Order but the constitutional propriety, and whether the Order was properly made or not.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I have not here the terms of reference of the Committee and the hon. Gentleman has, but I think he will see that every Order which is laid in this House and can be prayed against must be examined by that Select Committee. With regard to the annulment of that Order, as it has ceased to have effect, there seems to be no point in its being prayed against, because it is valueless now. It died before Christmas.

§ Mr. Ness Edwards (Caerphilly)
Further to that point of order. Do I understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you are ruling out of order my Prayer?— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Telephone Regulations, 1951 (S.I. 1951, No. 2075), dated 28th November, 1951, a copy of which was laid 1510 before this House on 30th November, be annulled.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I am speaking of the Prayer relating to the bakehouses.

§ Mr. Ness Edwards
Then I may reserve the right to ask about my Prayer later on?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Let us take one at a time.

§ Mr. Eric Fletcher (Islington, East)
With great respect to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I suggest that it is an entirely novel doctrine to deprive this House of its constitutional right to pray against any Order that has been made? Surely it cannot be competent to deprive the House of that right merely because a particular Order has already taken effect? We have had that case before.
This is a point to which the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments has expressly invited the attention of the House, and has done so on constitutional grounds. One of the grounds upon which the House has been invited to examine this Order is on grounds of impropriety. That being so, the reason I respectfully submit that the House is tonight entitled to discuss the Order is that the House can form an opinion whether the Order was properly made and whether this was a proper use of delegated legislation. Now that question arises regardless of the efficacy of the particular Order. What the Select Committee has said in its report to the House is that this Order, which purported to be made under the Defence Regulations, either ought not to have been made under those powers or could not have been made under those powers.
It will be appreciated that this Order, which purports to relieve certain people from the operations of the Factories Act, is an attempted dispensation by the Executive of provisions of an Act of Parliament passed in 1937. If in 1937 Parliament had intended to give any Executive the power to dispense with the provisions of the Act, it would have done so, but it expressly did not do so.
What the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments is therefore saying to the House is that for an executive Department in those circumstances to attempt to use provisions under the Defence Regulations is an abuse of those 1511 provisions and something the House ought to consider. It goes, not merely to the question whether this Order is right or not, but to the whole question of the use or abuse of powers given under Defence Regulations. I therefore submit, with great respect, that it will, in effect, be depriving the House of essential constitutional rights if the House is deprived of the opportunity of considering this tonight.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
I disagree with the contention of the hon. Gentleman, who now occupies on the Select Committee the position which I occupied for many years. He will know that when discussing Orders in the Select Committee the conditions are different from here. Here we can discuss only the effect of the Order, and whether it was made under the Defence Regulation or whether it was not would not be in order on a Motion to annul the Order. I therefore think it is out of order to have the discussion he wants. In any case, as the Order is now inoperative it seems to me to be a waste of Parliamentary time to discuss it at all.

§ Mr. David Renton (Huntingdon)
With great respect, Sir Charles, I wonder whether we might pursue this point, because it is not only of interest but of great importance, too. In view of the fact that people may be punished under the Order, which has ceased to have effect before it reaches this House for consideration, it may well become necessary, if the Order is invalid for any reason, for the House to consider the matter in spite of the fact that it has expired, so that people who have been punished under it may in some way receive recompense, or whatever it may be, or the quashing of any conviction.
If the House is precluded from examining the point and from praying to Her Majesty that the Order may be annulled, people who have been wrongly punished may remain wrongly punished.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is on the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, too, and he ought to know perfectly well that if an Order is annulled it is without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under the Order.

§ Mr. Geoffrey Bing (Hornchurch)
Surely the issue is this. Though this may refer to the Sunday before Christmas, it may well be that for an offence committed under this Order on the Sunday before Christmas somebody might be subject to proceedings which are proceeding at this moment in relation to this Order. Therefore, the fact that it refers to a date which is already past does not mean that the force of the Order is necessarily spent. Under these circumstances, I would respectfully suggest that the House is entitled to consider whether the Order was properly made or not.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Hon. Members are not going to get the opportunity of doing so. There may be some argument against the Defence Regulations under which the Order was made, but the Order was in order, although the method of making it may or may not be liked by the House.

§ Sir H. Williams
What we want to discuss, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is whether the Order was properly made. If it was not properly made, then a Bill of indemnity may be required, and until the House has decided whether the Order was properly made we do not know whether an indemnity Bill is required. In the last Parliament, I was successful in bringing about a Bill of indemnity, as the former Home Secretary knows very well, and the fact that this Order only operated for a few hours on the 23rd December cannot deprive this House of the right conferred upon it by statute, namely, the right to debate this Prayer until midnight.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The Select Committee's objection was to the method by which the Order was made under the Defence Regulations for use during the war. The House may not agree about that method, but supposing that we were to have a discussion on the annulment of the Prayer, a discussion on that point would be out of order anyway and could not be allowed, so we would be no further on.

§ Mr. Ede (South Shields)
With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it seems to me that they did not deal with this question. This is not a Prayer by the Committee. This is a Prayer by certain hon. Members, some of whom may happen to be members of the Committee, but 1513 it would be perfectly proper for any number of hon. Members not members of the Committee at all, and not including a single member of the Committee, to put this Prayer on the Order Paper for reasons which, with all respect, the Chair could not know until they began to advance their arguments to the Chair. Therefore, until that stage is reached, I should not have thought that this could be ruled out of order.
May I put this further point to you, Sir, in view of the general nature of the Ruling you have given? It seems to me that if such a Ruling were in fact upheld, it might have the disastrous effect, to my mind, of having a conflict between Parliament and the courts, because it is quite open to any citizen to plead in the courts that this Order is improper and invalid owing to some technicality of Parliament, and it seems to me that we should be reduced to a state of great absurdity and might get involved in a conflict with the courts, which I understand it has always been the desire of Parliament to avoid, if it could be held that we had been precluded from raising points that might be successfully taken in a court of law, if the validity of the Order were there contested.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Of course, any Member can put down a Prayer, whether he is a Member of the Select Committee or not. The point, I gather, from the Select Committee's Report was the method of making the Order, and they thought that a more desirable way could be found. But that would not arise on the annulment of the Order. The material in the Order is all that can be discussed on the Motion to annul it. As the Order has ceased to function now, it would be really a waste of Parliamentary time to discuss a thing which is now dead.

§ Mr. Ede
We might, with respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, be in an anomalous position as a result of that Ruling. The proper authority might make an Order during a Recess to cover some short period that is wholly within the Recess, and then when the House resumes hon. Members would not be entitled to pray against it, although they might object to all sorts of things with regard to the Order, because it had expired by the time the House first met after the Order had been made. I would suggest, Sir, that 1514 that would be the consequence of the Ruling which has just been given, which the House would find it very difficult to contemplate.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
That is quite true. The right hon. Gentleman will remember very well the Fire Orders which were made by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) when he was Home Secretary. We had to have an indemity Act afterwards because the Orders had not been correctly laid. That can easily be overcome; but the point which is now raised is not that one.

§ Mr. Ede
With great respect to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I suggest that until we have heard what the mover of the Prayer has to say we cannot know what the arguments are that he wishes to adduce. It may very well be that even a member of the Select Committee has not exhausted all his objection to the Order in the Report which has been issued and he may still wish to adduce to the House and to the Chair arguments which are not included in the Committee's Report.

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
That may very well be true, but he can only discuss what is in the Order, and as what is in the Order has now ceased to exist no argument on the annulment would be in order.

§ Sir H. Williams
The Order still exists and remains in force until midnight tonight, and therefore we are surely entitled to pray against it, because an Act of Parliament said that we are entitled to pray against these Orders. With great respect, I do not understand why the Chair can deprive the House of its statutory right, and that is the whole point. It may well be that the Order was invalid, and a debate tonight might prove that it was invalid. If it was invalid, what happens next?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
That is the very point that was made by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). Hon. Members may remember the Fire Orders, to which I have referred, which were not properly laid during the war and there had to be an indemnifying Bill to put the mistake right.

§ Mr. Bing
Are you now on the point of the second Prayer, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Is that also not to be called?

§ Mr. Deputy-Speaker
Mr. Speaker will deal with that.

§ Mr. Speaker
The Prayer in the name of the right hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards) is out of time, more than 40 days having elapsed since the Order was laid.
In this connection, I regret that the list of Statutory Instruments published by the House contains an error. The issue of 8th March shows this Order as having six days to run from that date wherein it could be prayed against, and that would make tomorrow the last day; but this is not so. The error seems to have arisen, I would tell the House, though I have not completed my inquiries into it yet, from a misunderstanding about our proceedings following the death of His late Majesty. The House sat from 6th to 11th February, Saturday and Sunday excepted. No business beyond the swearing in of Members and the receipt of messages of condolence from other Legislatures was transacted, and it seems to have been assumed that these days did not run for the purposes of the 40 days in which an Order can be prayed against.
But, in fact, the Statute is quite clear on the point. No days are excepted by the Statute except days on which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or when both Houses are adjourned for more than four days, and during the period to which I have alluded Parliament was not adjourned for more than four days. Consequently, these days run, and that makes more than 40 days since the Order was laid.
I deeply regret if hon. Members have been misled or put to inconvenience by this error, but the circumstances have, of course, been unusual. I am bound to rule, by the Statute, that the Prayer is out of time.

§ Mr. Ness Edwards
I think it is extremely regrettable that this sort of thing should have occurred. I should like to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that the list of Statutory Instruments which is published and which are supposed to guide Members laid down that this Order has six days further to go from 8th March. This document, which I presume 1516 has the authority of the House, enables us to move this Prayer tonight.
I understand from your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, that this is in error, and it is an error that not only affects the Members of this House but everybody who is affected by the Regulations against which the Prayer has been made. It seems to me that not only are Members put in a difficulty, but all the citizens involved are being denied a right to which ordinarily they are entitled.
I should like to put this to you, Mr. Speaker. This Prayer was put down before the death of His late Majesty. It seems to me that your Ruling deprives this House of rights that it was intended to have, and it denies to the nation a protection which the Legislature intended that they should have. While I am not questioning your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, in those circumstances it is of very great regret that this error should deprive this House of its rights and deprive the nation of the protection which it ought to have.

§ Mr. E. Fletcher
May I urge one or two other considerations upon you, Mr. Speaker. You were good enough to say in the Ruling that you gave that you were bound by the Statute. May I, with great respect, submit that this House is the master of its own procedure. This particular Prayer has been upon the Order Paper for a long time, and all the Members who have put their names to it, as well as the Minister who is prepared to deal with it, came in the knowledge and belief that this would be dealt with in our proceedings today.
These Telephone Regulations are of very great public importance. They, in fact, deal with the whole code by which the telephone system of the country is regulated under the provisions of the relevant Act. There are a large number of detailed provisions on which hon. Members want information, and on which I understand the Assistant Postmaster-General is anxious to give certain assurances.
What is the position? It is that Members of the House on both sides, in reliance upon this document, which is the list of Statutory Instruments published week by week under the authority of the House and for the guidance of Members, expected that this very important matter could be discussed this evening, as I submit it still can be.
1517 May I with great respect urge this consideration upon you, Mr. Speaker, that the Statutory Instruments Act does not attempt to lay down any limitation on the procedure of the House? The Statute merely lays down that provided a Prayer is passed within a certain time, then it shall have such and such an effect. I would submit that nothing about the Act or anywhere else can deprive the House, if it so wishes, from discussing these Telephone Regulations, and I shall be interested to hear whether the Assistant Postmaster-General is anxious to discuss them or not. I believe he is.
I would submit that the House is entitled to consider the Telephone Regulations regardless of what effect that will have on the question of their effect. Might I submit that the Statutory Insruments Act, 1946, Section 7 says. In reckoning for the purposes of either of the last two foregoing sections any period of forty days, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days. The Statute does not attempt to deal with the entirely unusual circumstances in which, between the demise of the late Monarch and the accession of the present Monarch, there were occasions, quite unusual in the history of the House, during which the House did not transact any business and on which it would have been quite improper and most unseemly to have attempted to consider Prayers for the annulment of a Statutory Instrument. It would have been contrary to the traditions and decencies of the House if, during those days when there were merely formal messages and the swearing in of Members, the House should have found it necessary to consider Prayers of the kind which the House is expected to consider tonight.
I would urge upon you that the Act requires a construction which does not put the House in the unnecessary position of having to count among the 40 days those quite unsual and exceptional circumstances. If, as I understand, it is the desire of the House to consider this important matter tonight, on those grounds I hope that no obstacles will be placed in the way of our doing it.

§ Mr. Bing
I am sorry that the Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary should desire to take advantage of 1518 the demise of His late Majesty to secure a party advantage.

§ Mr. Speaker
I merely alluded to that episode as possibly giving the explanation why there was a miscalculation of the date. Since we resumed on 19th February, there have been many days on which this Prayer could have been put down. I hope that the House will not make too much of that point.

§ Mr. Bing
I appreciate that point perfectly. After all, that is a mistake in the Regulations, and it is sufficient for the Leader of the House to do something. This Order is exempted business and could be taken, if the Leader of the House should see fit to suspend the Rule so that it can be taken. If there is a mistake it is intolerable that the Leader of the House should refuse to suspend the Rule so that these matters can be discussed. We are in the position that 16 Prayers, in view of this mistake, will have to be set down on the Order Paper tomorrow. This means that the House will have to consider transport charges throughout the night, unless the Leader of the House is prepared to suspend the Rule now so that the House can discuss the charges at a proper hour.
It is intolerable that the Leader of the House should take advantage of a mistake not to move a purely technical Motion to allow the House to discuss transport charges, increases in the price of food, and matters of that sort, and to use this mistake to blanket out hon. Members on this side of the House who have been unable to raise these matters before because of the Budget and the pressure of business. Instead of sitting there, the Leader of the House should not take advantage of a technicality of this sort but move a suspension of the Rule.
The right hon. Gentleman is just saying, "No, we will take advantage of this sort of tiling." In my respectful submission that is a gross abuse of the procedure of the House. We have a few minutes left, and there is time for the Leader of the House to do the honest thing. I sit down to give him time to do it.

§ The Minister of Health (Mr. Harry Crookshank)
No one is more jealous than I to see that the proper procedure of the House is carried out at all times. I am surprised that the hon. and learned 1519 Gentleman should raise this question, and I cannot understand the point of his diatribe. He has studied our procedure, and he should know that Prayers are exempted business. It has nothing to do with me or anybody else to extend the time tonight when hon. Gentlemen may put down a Prayer—

§ Mr. Bing
rose—

Hon. Members
Sit down.

§ Mr. Crookshank
—and to try to accuse me of taking advantage of a technicality is monstrous.
What has now occurred, as I understand it, is that you, Mr. Speaker, have given a Ruling which none of us can controvert without taking strong measures against yourself, which I hope that none of us will have occasion to do during your tenure of office. None of us can controvert your Ruling. You have said it is out of time, and there is nothing I or anybody else in this House can say that will deal with this problem. If hon. Gentlemen opposite like to controvert your Ruling that is between them and you, but it certainly is not between them and me.

§ Mr. E. Fletcher
rose—

§ Mr. Crookshank
I am answering the speech of the hon. and learned Member. It is not for me to put down a Motion for the suspension of the Rule for Prayers. It is not necessary. If hon. Gentlemen put down Prayers, time will be found for Prayers. On this occasion, as on the occasions when we have had preliminary warnings through the usual channels that a particular day would suit hon. Members for a Prayer to be put down, we tried to facilitate Government business for that purpose. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) knows that that has been the practice we have tried to adopt during this Parliament.
Unfortunately, on this occasion the Prayer put down has been ruled out of order by you, Sir, and, therefore, the question of debating the issue falls. But, of course, a general debate on the matters raised by this Prayer is another story. If hon. Members opposite wish to raise this or any other subject during the Session or in the immediate future they have days on which they select the business—

§ Mr. Bing
Nonsense!

§ Mr. Crookshank
It is no good saying, "Nonsense"—

§ Mr. A. C. Manuel (Central Ayrshire)
What is the Leader of the House talking about?

§ Mr. Crookshank
I am answering the hon. and learned Gentleman who made an attack on me. I am saying that if the contents of this Order is a matter of great importance to the Opposition—which is a matter of opinion—it is a well-known fact that the Opposition have certain facilities and certain days on which they can put down particular topics.
But in view of your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing more that I can say. If hon. Gentlemen opposite dislike your Ruling they have their remedy, but it is not a remedy against me.

§ Mr. Speaker
I wonder if I can help to smooth this matter over a little, because it is quite clear from my own point of view, and, as has been put to me, the mistake in the list is serious, and I admit that it is.
I would like to say that it is the responsibility of hon. Members who put down Prayers to comply with the Statute themselves. It is true that the accuracy of documents issued from this House is so great, and so few mistakes occur in them, that hon. Members rely on them to give them the number of days they have left. But that does not shift the statutory position from the hon. Member who wishes to pray from taking the 40 days which are allowed to him by the Statutory Instruments Act. The only exception in the Act are days on which Parliament is prorogued or dissolved, or days on which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days. That is the statutory position by which hon. Members are bound.
In reply to the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher), who so eloquently reminded the House that it is master in its own house, I would point out that the House is bound by its own Statutes and cannot alter them without repealing them. I hope that in those circumstances the House will realise that I have no option under the Statute but to rule this Prayer out of time and, therefore, further discussion on it is out of order.

§ Mr. Ede
I gather that hon. Members on both sides of the House were taken by surprise by the fact that there was a mistake in the documents which we come to rely on as accurate without ever going behind them ourselves. May I say that my hon. Friends and myself on this side of the House had been considering when we should put down this Prayer and certain other Prayers which, as a result of the Ruling you, Mr. Speaker, have given, will also be time-expired unless we can act very quickly?
That may entail, after my experience of a year or so ago, some very great inconvenience to all of us. I am most anxious to avoid spending a whole night out of bed. I was brought up to pray before getting into bed, and that was at a time when my bed-time was about 6.30 p.m. and not 6.30 a.m.
As I understand it, this is the position. Within the 40 days a Prayer is exempted business but, in this democratic State, this House can approach the Throne through other means than exempted business. A Prayer can be laid against an Order although the 40 days had expired, but we could not then claim it as exempted business. I have taken some trouble to be advised, and I understand that it would then become an ordinary Resolution of the House, and subject to the Ten o'clock Rule. That is to say, it cannot be taken after ten o'clock if it is opposed; but it is not uncommon for Motions to appear in the name of the Prime Minister, exempting from the Ten o'clock Rule certain named items on the Order Paper.
I think my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) was suggesting that it might be for the convenience of all hon. Members, in order not merely to debate this particular Order, but some 12 or 14 others which now become time-expired for praying against by Friday night, if they were put down later. We did put some down for next Tuesday, and it would be quite intolerable that we should have to discuss as many Prayers as now appears likely tomorrow night if it could be arranged that there should be a suspension on one or two nights next week so that these Orders could be discussed at times more suitable than tomorrow.
I would not have made this appeal had we got out of time by our own default. As you, Mr. Speaker, have said, documents submitted to this House 1522 are generally so accurate that one cannot complain of inconvenience caused by one slip which, in my experience of the House, is quite unprecedented; and I hope that some way can be found for discussing these matters without putting all of us to great inconvenience.
Had we fallen out because we could not calculate 40 days, I should not have had the effrontery to ask for consideration, but a slip has occurred which has rather caught us out. We did not put down Prayers for earlier days of this week because we thought that prolonged praying was not likely, in a special week such as this, to be an effective aid to public business.

§ Mr. Crookshank
May I say to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) that I appreciate just as much as anyone else that we have got into some difficulty owing to this unexpected result. This involves the prerogative of hon. Members opposite, or, indeed, any other hon. Gentlemen—it is not only the Opposition that is concerned. My hon. Friends, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), have always been very scrupulous in examining these Orders and Regulations and they may very well get into some difficulty, though I do not know that as a fact.
But I submit, it is not a matter we can discuss now across the Floor of the House or across the Table. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] An hon. Member is so ebullient that it makes things very difficult. I was trying to answer the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields.
I appreciate as much as anybody that the Prayers which are moved in this House frequently raise questions of general importance which it is of value to discuss. I am quite prepared to say, that if the right hon. Gentleman likes to have this matter discussed through the usual channels the Government will see in this particular case—it is only a particular case owing to miscalculation of the days, and never mind how it happened—whether anything should be done to try and meet the general convenience of the House, which is all I am concerned about.
1523 As I said earlier, some of these subjects might very well come up in a time at the disposal of the Opposition. [Interruption.] I think it was the right hon. Gentleman, who is leading the Opposition at the moment who appealed to me. The right hon. Gentleman knows quite well that in this period between now and the end of the month we find ourselves, by Statute, in great difficulty owing to the fact that necessary finance business must be completed by dates over which none of us have control.
During that period there will still be opportunities at the disposal of the Opposition and if there are major matters of importance they could bring them forward on those days. That might be part of the solution. If there are other ways which might be found after discussions I should be happy to have those discussions, not only with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields but also with some of my hon. Friends.
We all recognise that, whatever the reason, we have been debarred tonight from pursuing these subjects; and apparently certain Prayers which the Opposition want to put down on Tuesday will be equally barred. I shall be glad, and I know my hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary will be glad, to have talks through the usual channels. But, of course, whatever form these debates take, in the nature of things they cannot be Prayers as Prayers cannot take place on these subjects because they are time-expired.
I must again remind the House that we are strictly limited in the time at our disposal for the next fortnight owing to the 'statutory necessity of dealing with finance; but if something can be arranged I shall be very glad, as Leader of the House, to do what I can.

§ Mr. Ede
I think the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has met us quite well on the points we have raised and I have no doubt the Patronage Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley) can have a conversation which I hope will enable the matter to be arranged satisfactorily. I would advise my hon. Friends that we should accept the right hon. Gentleman's gesture at the moment. After all, if it does not come off, or if it does not come 1524 off quite as well as we expected, we shall be seeing the Leader of the House for a long time.

§ Mr. Crookshank
I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, but I would make this addendum: that my hon. Friends interested in this matter should have their case considered as well.

§ Mr. E. Fletcher
The right hon. Gentleman will realise that this matter is urgent, and under your Ruling Mr. Speaker some 14 or 15 Prayers which otherwise would have been in time next week must now be taken tomorrow if they are to be taken in time. May I have the attention of the Leader of the House?

§ Mr. Crookshank
I am listening.

§ Mr. Fletcher
I am grateful to have the right hon. Gentleman's attention. May I have his assurance that some announcement will be made tomorrow, because we shall be put in the same difficulty tomorrow night to make sure we are in time?

§ Mr. C. S. Taylor (Eastbourne)
There is one point which I think ought to be on record. This list of Statutory Instruments and duties has only been available to hon. Gentlemen for one or two years. In the old days we had to work out the dates ourselves by looking at the Instruments and working them out. This document was produced because some of my hon. Friends and I pressed for it for the convenience of the House. I would submit it has no official authority in the House, but is for the convenience of hon. Gentlemen. We all regret the mistakes contained in it. When we were running Prayers we had to work out the dates on which the Order or Regulation had to run, and work them out correctly.

§ Mr. Bing
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman rise to the point of order?

§ Mr. Bing
Yes, Sir. We on this side of the House accept your Ruling in this matter, but I wish to point out to you that there is no objection at any time in this House to a humble Address being presented to Her Majesty. The request from this side of the House is that the 1525 Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary will be prepared to grant facilities for a Motion for such an Address to be moved. So long as 40 days are running there is a statutory obligation for time to be given, but once the period has elapsed the Motion becomes the same as any other Motion on the Order Paper, and the question is merely one of the Leader of the House promising to give facilities for such a Motion to be made.
The point I tried to make earlier was that, in view of the mistake, which is not the fault of either side of the House, the Leader of the House should not take technical advantage of that, but should undertake to move the suspension of the Rule so that the Motion could be moved in the same circumstances as if the paper had been correct. That is the point I wish to put.

§ Mr. Speaker
I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to look again at Section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, in which, at first sight, it seems that Parliament has limited itself. I hope what has been said tonight will result in fruitful discussion, and that we may now pass from it.

§ Sir H. Williams
Her Majesty is disabled by the terms of Section 5 from doing what hon. Gentlemen wish to be done. If the Government made a new Order slightly different in form, that would be the only solution.

§ Mr. C. R. Hobson (Keighley)
I want to raise a point about the Post Office Regulations, which are of considerable importance. As a result of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement, many of these Regulations are now wrong. Can you, Mr. Speaker, rule, or will you consider asking the Committee to consider, that in view of the alterations contemplated the whole of the Regulations should lie in abeyance until such time as the necessary alterations to the Regulations, or new Regulations, are introduced.

§ Mr. Speaker
I have no knowledge of anything which transpires in the Committee of Ways and Means until it is reported to the House. I understand that there was a discussion of some sort yesterday on this matter. If I may say so, it seems highly probable that an amending Order may have to be laid, in which case we can deal with it.