TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING, SCOTLAND (MINERAL DEVELOPMENT) (Hansard, 21 December 1954)

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Commander T. D. Galbraith)
I beg to move, That the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Regulations, 1954, dated 8th December, 1954, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th December, be approved. These Regulations are virtually identical with the English Regulations, which the House has just approved, except for minor modifications to comply with the law of Scotland. That being so, I hope the House will see its way to approve them. The local authority associations have been consulted about the Regulations and they have no objections to offer, and the Regulations have also been discussed with the principal trade associations concerned. Parts I and II are merely redrafting of previous Regulations that were in force and the only additions that arise—these were asked for during previous debates—are in Regulation 6 (2), where there is a small addition, and in Regulation 9 where an additional paragraph has been added.
These additions have been made to rectify things that were not considered to be right in the previous Regulations and which have been found out in the course of experience. Part III is an adaptation and modification of the Act of 1954.

§ Mr. Thomas Fraser (Hamilton)
I will not ask the Joint Under-Secretary to give us the same full explanation as did my hon. Friends in the case of the English Regulations. I always feel very sorry for Ministers who have to explain Town and Country Planning Act Regulations and equally sorry for hon. Members who have to try to comprehend them, either before they are discussed, or in the course of their being discussed. However, I might be a little better informed after I have carefully read what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government said about the English Regulations.
I am in a particular difficulty over the Scottish Regulations and I wonder 2705 whether the Under-Secretary can help us. He moved the Regulations made on 8th December and laid on the 9th December. We have not yet got the Scottish Regulations in printed form. I know that Regulations have been discussed by the House before now when they were not in printed form, but only in roneoed form.
Our difficulty is that this first copy of the Regulations in roneoed form, which I was able to procure from the Vote Office, contains several insertions, or corrections, in pen and ink. But they are corrections—be it noted—only to give the Scottish Regulations phraseology identical with that of the English Regulations—and this from a Government with Ministers who are always boasting about appointing additional Ministers to give Scotsmen more control over Scottish affairs.

Commander Galbraith
The hon. Member will be aware that most of the insertions are in respect of Regulations that were made under previous Acts and are merely repetitions of the previous Regulations. They are not new.

§ Mr. Fraser
Yes, but my difficulty is that when I picked up this copy of the Regulations from the Vote Office I could see that they were signed on the back page by the Secretary of State on 8th December and consented to by two of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury on 8th December. I discovered that at least five or six pen and ink alterations are made, but are not initialled. I do not know whether they were made before the Regulations were signed or after.
I go further. At a later date I was able to procure another copy of the (Scotland) Regulations, 1954, in which all these corrections have been made as they were roneoed, so they are not in pen and ink. These Regulations seem to be unaltered in certain respects. There is no date to show when the Regulations were made and no date to show when they are to come into operation.

§ Mr. A. C. Manuel (Central Ayrshire)
Have I got it clear—that what my hon. Friend is saying is that on the corrected copy there is no date?

§ Mr. Fraser
That is the point. I do not know whether or not this is a question for the Chair.
I do not complain that the Regulations are roneoed, but this is a serious matter. On the first copy we have several pen and ink alterations and we do not know whether they were made before or after the Secretary of State signed the Regulations. The other copy which has no alterations does not bear a date saying when the Regulations were made or when they are to come into operation. These matters call for explanation.

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes (South Ayrshire)
My copy bears the date 8th January, which has been crossed out, and date 8th December inserted.

§ Mr. Fraser
The matter seems to be getting worse.
Another point is that it is normal, when the Government make regulations to have them printed and made available for sale through Her Majesty's Stationery Office. It is normal for people who may be affected, including the owners of the mineral rights and leases and the local authorities, to be able to get a copy in order to study them and to make representations upon them. It is normal for hon. Members to be enabled to discuss them with persons outside the House who will be affected by the new law. As far as I know, that has not been possible on this occasion.
During the war, when regulations had to be made in a great hurry, because they were necessary for the effective carrying on of the life of the community, we could not possibly allow the normal time for hon. Members to consult authorities outside, but there cannot be all that hurry about these Regulations. I ask the House to say that this is a serious matter. We are asked to approve Regulations made on 8th December and laid on 9th December, yet if Members go to the Vote Office they can get two different roneoed copies which are not printed like the English Regulations.

§ Mr. John Rankin (Glasgow, Tradeston)
Does my hon. Friend think that the Government are in two minds about this?

§ Mr. Fraser
I do not know what to think, except that Scotland and Scottish Members have been treated badly by Scottish Ministers.

§ Mr. Rankin
I have been saying that all along.

§ Mr. Fraser
And it has been right all the time.
This is a discourtesy to Scottish Members and to Scotland. It is unfair to Scottish Members that they should not be given the same facilities as English Members to understand and appreciate the position and to have discussions with persons outside.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government appreciated the complexity and importance of his Regulations. The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has truthfully said that the two sets of Regulations are very nearly, but not exactly, identical. All the alterations in phraseology were called far to bring the original Regulations more closely into line with the English Regulations. I protest and ask the Joint Under-Secretary to offer some justification for the way in which the matter has been handled.
I made a good many notes on the Regulations about which I shall ask questions. I listened with great care to the discussion of the English Regulations and I shall not repeat anything that was then said or ask questions about any of the Regulations then discussed. I shall merely ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State to justify one of the Regulations about which I have doubt on both sides, both English and Scottish. It is very short, but complicated in appearance, and is Regulation 21. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will be able to explain it.
I protest at the shabby way in which Scotland has been treated by the Scottish Office in the presentation of these Regulations.

§ Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)
I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and to express, perhaps in less sober and careful language, my own feelings about this matter.

§ Mr. Rankin
Less sober?

§ Mr. Ross
Well, my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton is a much more temperate sort of fellow. He is probably used to the responsibilities of office. I am not, and I am inclined to be much more outspoken.
2708 We went to the Vote Office to get the Regulations for England and Scotland. We found the English Regulations decently printed. Not only have they been thought out and gone over carefully, but they are dated. Eventually the English Regulations went through. They are marked: Printed and published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1954. True, the English did not get to the stage of indicating the price.
When we asked for the Scottish Regulations we were handed this strange roneoed document. There is no indication at all on it about coming from the Stationery Office. We are entitled to ask who did this work for the Stationery Office. We see strange marks and signatures but the rest of the thing is roneod. The signatures are in ink and we see James Stuart, St. Andrew's House, Edinburgh, 1. 8th December, 1954. Again signed in ink are Edward Heath, R. H. M. Thompson, Two of the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury. I do not know whether they are supposed to be in Edinburgh at the same time. All these signatures in ink are in the same handwriting. If it was necessary not to make any differentiation, why did the Minister not roneo the actual names? It is a strange document altogether.

§ Mr. Rankin
On a point of order. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has a copy of these Regulations. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) referred to certain signatures on page 17. I have a page 17 in my copy whereas my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire has a copy which is equally valid but has no page 17 and no signatures. How can we go ahead with the discussion of Regulations of this type?

§ Mr. T. Fraser
Further to that point of order. Before you returned to the Chair, Mr. Speaker, and when I was speaking on these Regulations, I wondered seriously whether this was not a matter for the Chair. I did not press the Deputy-Speaker, because I did not know whether it was fair to do so. I would now ask your guidance. The Regulations we are discussing were made by the Secretary of State for Scotland, so it is said, on 8th 2709 December, and they were available on the 9th.
I obtained a copy soon after the 9th in the Vote Office. They were Regulations, with the name of the Secretary of State added on page 17, but I found that the Regulations were roneoed and not printed as is normal and that several verbal alterations had been made in pen and ink. I do not know whether they were made before or after the Regulations were signed. There were alterations by the deletion of several words by pen and ink drawn through the words. Since then I have got a further copy of the Regulations which has no such alterations made in pen and ink. This, I believe, is the latest revision of the Regulations, but on the face of the Regulations this time there is no date for when the Regulations were made or for when they will come into operation. I am wondering whether it is competent for us to discuss these Regulations in the circumstances.

Commander Galbraith
I think the hon. Gentleman was mistaken when he said that no date appeared as to when the Regulations were to come into operation. While there may have been an omission at the top of the page, Regulation 1 (1) states: These Regulations … shall come into operation on the 1st day of January, 1955. The reason why these Regulations are laid in this form is quite simple. Hon. Members will remember that the Royal Assent to the Town and Country Planning Act was received on 25th November, and it was necessary that these Regulations should be laid at the earliest possible moment. There was no question of disrespect, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well. The question was whether the Regulations would be printed in time so that they came into operation on 1st January, 1955.
It is quite true that in some of the earlier copies the date on which the Regulations were made has not been filled in, but the date 8th December, 1954, of course, appears with the signature of the Secretary of State, and the date of the coming into operation appears in Regulation 1 (1).

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker—

§ Mr. Speaker
We are on a point of order. Commander Galbraith.

Commander Galbraith
The Regulation have to come into force on the same date as the Act, so that mineral operators could be treated on a similar basis to other developers and established claim holders. The Regulations, of course, have to be made as soon as possible in order to enable that to be done. Accordingly, they were signed and laid on 9th December in typescript. There would not have been time to wait for printed copies to be obtained. These are the reasons why the Regulations are laid in this form.

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I went to the Vote Office, and the copy which I have finishes at page 16—there is no signature of the Secretary of State.

§ Mr. Manuel
Further to that point of order. I attended the Vote Office today on two occasions and I received two distinctly different roneo-typed copies of the Regulations we are now supposedly discussing. On the last occasion that I attended the Vote Office, I was with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and I can bear out what he said, that on the latest edition of the roneo-typed copy now available in the Vote Office, where the written corrections had been incorporated into the body of the document, there was no date stating when they would come into operation, nor any date when they were laid.
The point I want to put to you is this, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) mentioned it before you came into the Chair. We have dealt tonight with the English Town and Country Planning Regulations and they are in printed form; they have been available throughout England to the public, including those who will be affected by these Regulations. In other words, they have been on sale at Her Majesty's Stationery Office for people to buy and consult.
Hon. Members for English constituencies have been able to meet people in their constituencies who are affected by these Regulations. I claim that we ought to have had the same right in Scotland. I cannot believe that this document has been on sale. In fact, I am sure it has not. There is no indication on it to show where it has been printed. It appears wrong to me that we should proceed with these Regulations while there has been 2711 no opportunity, such as that given, in England, for those affected to purchase copies of the document from the Stationery Office—a document of what is to become the law—and to take matters up with their Members of Parliament.

§ Mr. Speaker
It seems regrettable that these Regulations were not printed in the proper form. There may be a good reason for that, but I do not know. If they are available in roneoed form and in a correct form, as apparently they are, I do not see that that would prevent the House from proceeding with the matter. I do not know what is the interpretation of "printing." After all, this is a form of printing. The Joint Under-Secretary of State has given an explanation of how the shortage of time arose. It is, however, entirely a question for the House to decide whether it will pass these Regulations or not.

§ Mr. T. Fraser
In defence of the fact that these Regulations have been roneoed, the Joint Under-Secretary mentioned the date of the Royal Assent to the Act. I think I am right in stating that the Royal Assent to the English Act was given on the same day. In any case, we discussed the Lords Amendments to both Bills in the House on the same day. I do not think the right, hon. and gallant Gentleman has offered any defence of the fact that the Scottish Regulations are being treated differently from the English Regulations.

§ Mr. Ross
Before I recommence my speech, may I continue this point of order? You have ruled, by implication, Mr. Speaker, that if a correct roneoed copy had not been available now, it might well be that the discussion would have been out of order. The fact is that until this evening these correct roneoed copies were not available. I have a copy in my hand, the second copy which I have procured in the past few days. I obtained it about an hour ago, and it contains corrections in ink made by someone—I do not know by whom; it might have been by someone in the Vote Office for all I know. Surely it is unfair to expect hon. Members to consider and pass into law Regulations of this character on such a document as this. I submit to you that the discussion ought not to be allowed to continue at this stage.

§ Mr. Rankin
I hold in my hand two copies of these Regulations. One is the copy belonging to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). One copy is signed, the other copy is unsigned. Like myself, my hon. Friend obtained his copy from the Vote Office. Which Regulation are we discussing—those which I have or those which my hon. Friend has? Can we go ahead with the discussion of Regulations such as those which he possesses, which bear no signature at all?

§ Miss Margaret Herbison (Lanarkshire, North)
I obtained this copy from the Vote Office about an hour ago, and it has additions in ink at the side.

§ Mr. Manuel
Are we back to that again?

§ Miss Herbison
It has deletions in ink, too. Such copies were being given to hon. Members in the Vote Office about an hour ago. The point I want to put to you and ask for your ruling upon, Mr. Speaker, is that if we look at the various roneoed copies which have been available in the Vote Office we find there is not one which is a complete Statutory Instrument. The one which some of us have has corrections in ink with the date when it was made and the date when it was coming into operation—

§ Mr. Manuel
But the corrections are not initialled.

§ Miss Herbison
The one which other hon. Members have has all the corrections put in properly in typing, but that has not the date when it was made or the date when it is to come into operation. Since there does not seem to be a single copy which is a complete copy of what a Statutory Instrument should be, it seems there is not much use our continuing to discuss this matter.

§ Mr. Speaker
The authentic copy laid before this House when Regulations are made is laid in the Library, and that is the standard by which hon. Members are supposed to direct themselves. The printing has become customary for the convenience of hon. Members, and I am very sorry that it has not been done in this case. There may or may not be good reasons for it, but that does not prevent us going on with them. It may be a reason for voting against the 2713 Regulations, but it does not prevent the House discussing them.

§ Mr. William Hannan (Glasgow, Maryhill)
May I put a point through you, Mr. Speaker, to one of the signatories? I see that one of the hon. Members present is one of the two Lords Commissioners whose signature is attached to this copy. It may very well be, as I know the difficulties about Lords Commissioners speaking in the House, that he cannot give any explanation, but it might be helpful to know whether the signatures were appended to the document before or after the alterations were made. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman could offer us any advice on that matter, or whether he is aware of the alterations at all. It may very well be that the hon. Member for Hillhead (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith) may have been asked to sign this document but was not willing to take that responsibility, although he could have signed it.
In the absence of a better explanation, like my hon. Friends I feel that we should take exception to this document which, although it is before us, is not a document in which any of us could have faith. As I understand it, in the insurance or legal world, when changes are made to a document of this character, the alteration has at least to be initialled. There are no such initials here. Therefore we must pursue the matter to get a clearer exposition of the Regulations.

§ Mr. Ross
On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. You recollect that I still have the Floor of the House?

§ Mr. Speaker
I do remember that, and I think the House can continue to discuss the Regulations. I understand from the speeches of several hon. Members that there are slight corrections and discrepancies between the different editions of the roneoed script. Am I right about that? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] If those are not material alterations, it does not matter because the House is quite used to correcting verbally printers' errors and that sort of thing.

Commander Galbraith
I think that if the original copy which was laid is consulted it will be found that all the alterations have been initialled. In addition, before you took the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I did explain that a number of the alterations are concerned with the reprinting of 2714 original Regulations which are repeated here. That can be seen perfectly well by looking at the document.

§ Mr. Manuel
It is not clear to the people of Scotland.

§ Mr. Speaker
I think nothing has been said that induces me to rule that the House cannot proceed with the matter, and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has the Floor.

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that in page 9 of the Regulations, after the word "regulations," there is inserted in handwriting "other than this regulation"? That might be exceedingly important and not merely a typographical error; it might affect the whole of the paragraph.
Furthermore, in page 15, in paragraph (i), line 5, being land which has an unexpended balance of established development value at the time immediately before the service of the notice to treat has been deleted. As far as I can make out, this might make a substantial difference to that part of the Regulations. It is impossible for any hon. Member to know exactly the purport of the Government in view of this document.

§ Mr. Speaker
I must say that, if something is deleted, it is deleted. We are told that the document could not be completed in time and that this was the best that could be done. As I have said, I regret it very much, because it is far better to have these things in proper form; but if the House chooses to go on with the Regulations, I cannot stop it.

§ Mr. Rankin
If I understand correctly, Mr. Speaker, you have ruled that because a correct copy is laid in the Library, that is sufficient justification for the House to proceed, assuming the rectitude of the Government's intentions. But is it not the case that Members depend upon the Vote Office to be acquainted with Government proposals? Time and again we are told that a Government paper or Bill will be available in the Vote Office at a certain hour; we are not told that it will be in the Library.
One copy is in the Library. Has that copy to be used by all Members? We should get individual copies at the Vote 2715 Office. We are placed at a considerable disadvantage in discussing regulations which have been laid in this fashion when there are verbal differences in the contents which, so far as we know, may declare different intentions on the part of the Government. We are entitled to ask the Government to proceed no further with these Regulations tonight.

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Member is entitled to ask the Government to do that, but from my point of view the Regulations have been laid before the House properly, and the House can go on with them if it likes. That is all I can say.

§ Mr. T. Fraser
In the circumstances, I beg to move, That the debate be now adjourned.
It must have been clear to every Member in the House that the House is not in a position to proceed to discuss these Regulations. There are too many different copies of them. There is, at least, a shadow of doubt as to whether we have the right and the authority to debate them. It is normal practice for regulations, when made by Her Majesty's Ministers, to be printed by Her Majesty's Stationery Office and made available for sale to the public. That has not been done on this occasion; copies are not on sale and have not been made available to the public.
I ask the House to adjourn the debate. The Joint Under-Secretary has paid attention to all that has been said—in no spirit of acrimony; we have been discussing these matters in a reasonable frame of mind. I ask him to say that he is willing now to withdraw the Regulations. I cannot believe that any great harm would come to the mineral developers if the Act should come into operation on 1st January and the Regulations should come into operation at some date a few weeks later.

§ Miss Herbison
Before we have an answer, I support my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) in proposing that the debate be adjourned. When I raised a point of order with you, Mr. Speaker, you said that we could get copies of the document in the Vote Office and that the main copy was the one in the Library. I went immediately to the Library. I discovered what I did not 2716 know before, that one has to go to one of the librarians who has to open a locked cupboard to get out the Statutory Instrument. It seems to me strange that 71 Scottish Members, besides the English Members who may want to compare the English and the Scottish Regulations, should have to queue up in the Library and get the librarian to open a locked cupboard to get out the document. That seems to me strange, if it is the practice of the House to rely on a copy in the Library.
I read the copy in the Library and compared it with the one I got in the Vote Office. I discovered that the insertions in the one I have and that are in ink are not in the copy in the Library. If the copy in the Library is the important copy, it seems to me we ought not to be discussing these Regulations any further tonight; or at least until we are sure we have in the Library the correct copy. I would ask you to rule accordingly.

§ Sir William Darling (Edinburgh, South)
It seems to me a pity that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), who, I understand, had the Floor—

§ Mr. Ross
The hon. Member cannot have been paying his usual attention to the proceedings. We are now on an entirely different Question.

§ Sir W. Darling
I am well aware of that.
I was reflecting that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, who had the Floor of the House, was, by a series of points of order, prevented from making what I am sure would have been an interesting and illuminating speech, when the excessive haste and anxiety of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) induced him to move that the debate be adjourned. I was reflecting that I had been prevented from having heard a speech which, I am sure, would have been illuminating and entertaining.
I think that my fellow countrymen are being unusually pernickety tonight on what is relatively an unimportant matter. I am not at all clear and I have not heard from you, Sir, or from anybody taking part in the debate that it is a Standing Order that Statutory Instruments or, indeed, Bills must be printed.

§ Mr. Manuel
They should be correct.

§ Sir W. Darling
I am not discussing correctness, but printing.
The gravamen of the attack on my right hon. and gallant Friend is that this document is not printed. I think it is desirable that it should be printed. I am as much an admirer of William Caxton as any other hon. Member here, but printing is not a sine qua non. It is not apparently necessary, according to the Standing Orders of the House. What is important is that Statutory Instruments should be laid, and there is no doubt—I am reinforced here by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), whose investigation bears out what I understood to be the case—that the Regulations have been laid and very carefully laid; laid to such an extent, as the hon. Lady has discovered after many years in the House, that they are not only laid but laid away in a glass case only to be opened by one of the principal Librarians.
So, whatever apparent slackness on the part of the Government may be urged by the Opposition, no one will deny that they have carefully laid these Regulations, and I call in support of my contention the hon. Lady and also the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), who is being so pernickety and so desirous of having everything right. However, it is important for him and all of us to have in our minds that Statutory Instruments need not be printed as long as they are laid.
As a Scotsman I see here an instance of a very desirable public economy. I notice that, with a generous Christmas spirit, the English Regulations are not priced. The last page of the Regulations bears the words "Price d. net."

§ Mr. Rankin
They are priceless.

§ Sir W. Darling
I commend this economy and the expedition of my right hon. Friends. If it is desired by the Government and it is in the public interest that we should have these Regulations for England, why should Scotland toddle behind? Is it the desire of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North to show that we are always behind the English? Even with a roneoed copy, the English with characteristic adaptability 2718 have got together two Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury in order to dispose of Scottish business.
My right hon. Friend signed the document which we have had roneoed and now the only thing that prevents our having the Regulations approved is this rather pernickety feminine fastidiousness of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North and her too simple followers. I hope that we shall proceed with all possible speed and have these Regulations approved before Big Ben chimes ten o'clock.

§ Miss Herbison
Which Regulations?

§ Sir W. Darling
Those which have been laid, and if the hon. Lady would like them read I will go into a corner with her and read them to her privately. We should proceed forthwith and have the Regulations approved by ten o'clock.

§ Mr. A. C. Manuel (Central Ayrshire)
In supporting the Motion which is before the House, I should like to take this matter a little further. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) has based his case on the printing of the Regulations, but I want to put before the House what is apparent to all of us on this side. It is that the copy of the Regulations which has been laid in the Library is a copy which is devoid of the insertions which the Minister is trying to get passed by the House tonight. That is the main point.
It is most unbecoming for Scottish Tory Members to be agreeing that the procedure which has been adopted by their Front Bench is proper. They should agree with us that the Regulations have not been properly laid and that our constituents in Scotland have a right to be able to go to the Stationery Office and procure a copy in the same way as constituents in England have a right to do.
Why should Scottish constituents who are interested in the mineral workings and development charges and the rest which arise from these Regulations not have that right? Is there any hon. Member opposite who dares to say that they should not have the right and that they should be fobbed off with three editions of roneoed copies, not one of which is alike? If the Regulations have been 2719 properly laid in the Library we must accept that the matter can be placed before the House and debated but, with respect, after examining the insertion on page 5 of the Regulations I maintain that the Minister is trying to have passed by the House something which is missing from the copy which has been laid in the Library. On that ground I have pleasure in supporting the Motion.

§ Mr. Hector Hughes (Aberdeen, North)
I support the Motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and submit that it would be utterly wrong for the House to proceed in the circumstances. I see that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) is leaving the Chamber—

§ Sir W. Darling
Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to interrupt?

§ Mr. Hughes
The hon. Member sought to confuse the issue by discussing in an irrelevant way the question of laying these Regulations. I think, Mr. Speaker, that you will agree with me that the object of laying the Regulations is to give hon. Members an opportunity of seeing and studying them. The facts here show that hon. Members of this House have not had access to the Regulations in the true sense, for a variety of reasons.
One reason was that there was one copy of the Regulations in the Vote Office and a different copy in the Library. There were two copies of the one in the Library. I am arguing that the object of laying Regulations is to give hon. Members access to them so that they can consider and study them with a view to putting their views before the House. Hon. Members have not had that opportunity, because there were three sets of Regulations. There was one set containing certain matter in the Vote Office and another set which purported to be the same, but were different in their content, in the Library. Even those in the Library were inaccurate—they differed from those in the Vote Office; so how, therefore, could hon. Members know which were the right Regulations to rely upon?

§ Mr. Speaker
Order, order. If the hon. and learned Member will forgive me, I am trying to hasten this matter and I have now sent for and obtained the copy laid in the Library. I think it was the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) who made the point that something had been inserted in page 5. If he will show me his copy and let me compare it with the one in the Library—

§ Mr. Emrys Hughes
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. How are we to consult the copy in the Library if you have it?

§ Mr. Speaker
The hon. Gentleman cannot do so now.

§ Mr. Hughes
If we cannot consult the copy in the Library, how can this debate be in order?

§ Mr. Speaker
I now have the copy from the Library.

§ Mr. Ross
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do you propose to examine each of these copies individually? Obviously—it is all very well for the Leader of the House to frown and look annoyed about this, but the fact is that each of these Regulations—or what purport to be the Regulations—have been altered by someone in pen and ink. If you, Mr. Speaker, wish to check that we are all discussing the same thing—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order, order. I have now put myself in possession of the facts of this case, and I see that in the copy on which the House has been working there is, at the top of page 5, an insertion in ink which, I understand, is material to the Regulations. I do not find that in the copy laid in the Library. Therefore, I rule that there is a material difference in the Regulations and that the Regulations must be re-laid.

§ Mr. T. Fraser
In view of what you have just ruled, Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.