EMERGENCY LAWS (MISCEL LANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords] (Hansard, 24 July 1953)

§ Mr. Speaker
The new Clause—[Registration of new Clubs]—standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), and the Amendment to page 5, line 6, in the name of the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams), are both out of order.

§ Mr. James Hudson (Ealing, North)
On a point of order. Do I understand that you were also ruling out of order the Amendment to the Title standing in my name on the Order Paper, or is that matter still open for discussion?

§ Mr. Speaker
I ruled that the new Clause standing in the hon. Member's name, and the Amendment to page 5, line 6, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams), are both out of order, because they go beyond the scope of the Bill.

§ Mr. Gerald Williams (Tonbridge)
Further to that point of order. May I ask Mr. Speaker, if that means that I shall be prevented from speaking against Clause 5?

§ Mr. Speaker
That is not the same point of order; Clause 5 was discussed in the Standing Committee.

§ Mr. Williams
May I respectfully ask you whether, under your Ruling that my Amendment to leave out Clause 5 is out of order, I may speak on that Clause and give reasons, because, with great respect, I submit that you do not know on what point I want to speak, and must therefore find it very difficult to give your Ruling without knowing that?

§ Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton (Brixton)
Further to that point of order. You did say, at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, that these Amendments were ruled out of order because they were outside the scope of the Bill. In that case, may I 757 respectfully ask you to indicate how the omission of a Clause can be outside the scope of the Bill?

§ Mr. Speaker
I did not rule that the proposal of the hon. Member for Ton-bridge to leave out Clause 5 was out of order on that score; I did not select it. That would be a more accurate way of putting it, because the Standing Committee passed a Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," and it is very unusual on Report stage to move to leave out a Clause which the Committee has ordered should stand part of the Bill.

§ Mr. J. Hudson
With respect, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you saw the report of the proceedings in the Committee stage? The same point as is contained in my new Clause was discussed then, and the Chairman suggested that I might put to you the point I put to him. I thought I had rather strengthened my opportunities of putting the case to you by adding the further Amendment which is almost at the end of the Order Paper, which I thought would possibly have indicated what the scope of the Bill was in such a way that one could move the Amendment that you are now ruling out of order, and take up precisely the point you raised on the scope of the Bill in its original form, as stated in the Title. I was hoping you would be able to call my Amendment to the Title, and that you would agree with me that I am making a valiant effort to make the scope of the Bill meet the situation we are in.

§ Mr. Speaker
I assure the hon. Member that I have considered all that. The hon. Member's Amendment does seek to alter the Title, but the Title and the scope of the Bill are not in identical terms. The position about this Bill is that it makes permanent certain provisions which, up to now, have been covered by emergency laws. Therefore, attempts to revive regulations which have lapsed are beyond the scope of the Bill, which deals only with certain regulations, and they would open the door to the whole of the emergency legislation being discussed on a Bill which aims only at making certain regulations permanent. I hope that I have explained myself to the hon. Member.