HC Deb 14 July 1954 vol 530 cc597-602
Mr. Molson

I beg to move, in page 2, line 33, after "that," to insert "Part of that."

This is a drafting Amendment in line with a number of Amendments—

Mr. Leslie Hale (Oldham, West)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I was about to put the Question.

Mr. Hale

On a point of order. I rose to ask which Amendment we are discussing, because on my Order Paper there is an Amendment in the name of the Minister of Transport to page 2, line 29, and that I think you read out, but the Parliamentary Secretary certainly said, "After that,' insert Part of that '." I rose before you put the Question to find out which Question was being put.

Mr. Speaker

I probably did not hear, but I understood that the Parliamentary Secretary did move the first Amendment, to page 2, line 29. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Mr. Molson

I am sorry, I turned over two pages.

Later we shall be moving an Amendment to Clause 8 in order to provide that the revocation of Defence Regulation 58 shall not take effect until one month after the passing of this Measure. This is being done because we find that there are a number of applications which have been received by the Ministry and which will not have been dealt with under Regulation 56 before the passing of the Act.

Mr. Ede

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can we be told which Amendment the hon. Gentleman is now moving?

Mr. Speaker

It is fairly clear. Owing to the vigilance of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), I had not actually proposed the Question on the first Amendment moved by the Parliamentary Secretary to page 2, line 29.

Mr. Wigg

Did not the Parliamentary Secretary move one Amendment and make a speech on the other Amendment? How can he get out of the difficulty—change his speech or change the Amendment?

Mr. G. Thomas

Further to that point of order. Is it not now requisite for the hon. Gentleman to speak to the Question you have proposed from the Chair?

Mr. Speaker

I have not actually proposed it, because it has not yet been moved.

Mr. A. C. Manuel (Central Ayrshire)

May we have an indication that the first Amendment which the Parliamentary Secretary moved will he spoken to in proper sequence?

Mr. Speaker

Everything will be done in proper sequence.

Mr. Molson

I was naturally speaking to the Amendment which you, Mr. Speaker, had put to the House, and—

Mr. Callaghan

Further to that point of order. I should like to ask how the Parliamentary Secretary can speak to an Amendment which has apparently been put by you, Mr. Speaker, to the House if in fact it has not been moved?

Mr. Speaker

The Amendment I called was the Amendment in page 2, line 29. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to speak to that and I understood that he was doing so.

Mr. Callaghan

May we ask who moved that particular Amendment.

Mr. Speaker

I called it. It has not yet been proposed and I understood that the hon. Member was moving it.

Mr. G. Thomas

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You pulled up my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) and said that you must propose the Question first and my hon. Friend had to sit down until you proposed the Question.

Mr. Speaker

I proposed the Question, but I found, owing to the helpful intervention of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), that it had apparently not been moved. Therefore, my proposal of the Question was a nullity. I am now asking that the nullity be made good by the Parliamentary Secretary, and I wish that we could get on with it.

Mr. Molson

I beg to move, in page 2, line 29, to leave cut: had immediately before the said date, and to insert: would have had if this Act had not been passed. It had originally been our intention that this should come into effect immediately upon the passing of the Act. It is now clear that a number of applications made to the Ministry of Transport under Defence Regulation 56 would not have been dealt with at the time that we hoped that this Act would have been passed. We are now proposing, therefore, when we reach Clause 8, to move an Amendment that this will come into effect one month after the passing of the Act. This is a necessary preliminary Amendment, which I ask the House to accept.

Mr. Bing

There is one comment which I think should be made. The Parliamentary Secretary explained his unfortunate absence when his name was first called—before you, Mr. Speaker, were in the Chair, and we were forced to move the Adjournment of the debate in the absence of any Minister on the Front Bench. The hon. Gentleman apologised to the House very nicely indeed. He explained that he was in his room studying the documents. He then explained that the reason he spoke to the wrong Amendment was, as I understand it, that two pages of his brief were stuck together.

It would help the House to get some idea of the degree of study which the hon. Member has been able to give to the matter if he could tell us whether or not he only got to the first page of his brief during this period of study; or how it was—if he was such a long time in the room that he was not here in time for the debate—that he did not notice that these two particular pages were stuck together, which was the reason he gave to the House for being unable to move the third Amendment standing on the Paper.

I am sure that the House would willingly give permission for the Parliamentary Secretary to speak again if he would deal with this problem, which is an entirely non-political one, but which I am sure interests hon. Members on both sides of the House. We should then be given some indication of the degree of guidance we can hope for from the Minister when he moves any subsequent Amendment, and whether there are any more pages stuck together.

Mr. Speaker

We must deal with one Amendment at a time.

Mr. Hale

I wish to point out, in all courtesy, that this is the third Amendment which has been moved by the Parliamentary Secretary and in respect of all three he has given no explanation to the House at all. In regard to the first Amendment, he said that he was impressed by the argument of an hon. Member behind him, but he did not particularise the hon. Member sufficiently for me to identify him, nor did he specify what was the argument. I did not intervene, because it seemed to me that the Amendment was of no consequence, as it merely substituted one word for another. Nor was I impressed by the argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) that any association with Lord Beaconsfield was detrimental to the Bill.

10.15 p.m.

Now there is another Amendment. With very great respect to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, he has not explained it to us at all. He has merely said that the Government have changed their mind in thinking that the operative date should be varied. He has given no reason for it.

This is an increasing practice in this House. Time after time, owing to the bungling of the Leader of the House, we are called upon to discuss important Measures in some detail after 10 o'clock at night. The general attitude of Ministers is "As it is late, we will not spend time discussing it." Increasingly it has been suggested "This is technical," "This is verbal" or "This is consequential." It becomes almost a matter of form.

Those of us who zealously cherish the traditions of the House wish Ministers would at least have the courtesy to give us a little explanation. Sometimes when explanation is given it helps to terminate discussion a little more speedily than when we are left groping in the dark looking through our papers trying to find out rapidly while the discussion is going on what the Amendment is about and whether we should let it go without a contest or not. I hope that in future the hon. Gentleman will explain matters a little more clearly.

Mr. Molson

I ask for the permission of the House to speak a second time in order to give a full explanation. I am extremely sorry if, in dealing with something which was discussed fully upstairs during the Committee stage, I have assumed that the people chiefly interested in the Amendment are those who were engaged in the Committee. I entirely recognise the force of what the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) has said, and I will give an explanation of the purpose of the Amendment in about three sentences.

The intention of the Bill is to provide permanent statutory means of altering the charges made for different forms of public transport. Perhaps I might have the attention of the hon. Member for Oldham, West. I understood that he wanted an explanation.

Mr. Hale

I apologise.

Mr. Molson

Ever since 1939 this has been done under Defence Regulation 56. The effect of the Bill when it becomes an Act will be to repeal the Defence Regulation and to provide permanent statutory means for altering the charges. As the Bill was drafted, and as it was discussed in Committee, it was intended that the Defence Regulation should come to an end as soon as the Act came into operation.

There are a number of applications from various statutory undertakers which are at the present time outstanding. There is a procedure for dealing with them, and we are not certain that all the applications which have been made under the Emergency Regulations procedure will have been completed at the time the Act comes into force. The Amendment is preliminary to an Amendment which I shall move to Clause 8 to postpone the effect of that for one month. I hope that with that explanation the House will accept the Amendment.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present.

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Mr. Molson

I beg to move, in page 2, line 33, after "that," to insert "Part of that."

In Committee a number of Amendments were introduced to make special provision for the peculiar case of Glasgow. As a result, a number of drafting Amendments had to be made and it has now appeared to us desirable that this additional one should be made.

Amendment agreed to.