HC Deb 22 February 1960 vol 618 cc131-42

8.36 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Mitchison (Kettering)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Pensions Appeal Tribunals (Scotland) (Amendment) Rules, 1959 (S.I., 1959, No. 2067), dated 18th November, 1959, a copy of which was laid before this House on 10th December, be annulled. These rules deal with a very small point, and I do not intend to discuss the merits. They amend the rules governing the procedure of pensions appeal tribunals by increasing some fees to medical specialists and expenses to appellants in respect of medical witnesses and reports

The Statutory Instruments Committee of the House has called the attention of the House to the rules, as it is bound to do if it considers that there has been unjustified delay in laying them. The Committee does so consider. The rules are made under paragraph 5 of the Schedule to the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act, 1943, which is a Measure affecting both England and Wales. Section 13 makes the Lord President of the Court of Session the competent rule-making authority in Scotland.

The rules were made on 18th November, 1959. They were not laid in the House until 10th December, 1959, and they came into operation on the following day. There was a delay of 22 days in laying the rules. The Statute enjoins, as do so many similar Statutes, that they should be laid as soon as possible. An explanation has been furnished by the Scottish Office in the form of a memorandum by the Lord President. He starts by saying that the rules were made on 18th November and it was not until 23rd November that the proper legal authority, the principal Clerk of Session, sent three copies of the rules to the solicitor to the Secretary of State. No comment is made by the Lord President on that delay. The 18th of November was a Wednesday, and one would have thought that a copy could have been sent before 23rd November, which was a Monday.

On the following day, 24th November, the solicitor receiving the rules which had, apparently, on this occasion, proceeded by post, sent them to the parlia- mentary clerk at Dover House, London, with instructions to obtain proof prints. On 1st December—that is to say, a week later—the solicitor received proof prints and then sent them by van to the Principal Clerk. I do not quite know what the significance of the van is, but it is specially mentioned in the Report.

On 3rd December, the principal clerk's certified copy was sent by the solicitor to the parliamentary clerk at Dover House. The rules were laid on 10th December, and we are told that: The period between 3rd December and 10th December is accounted for by the time taken for the prints to travel from the office of the Solicitor to the Parliamentary Clerk and the time taken for printing thereafter. The printers normally require 4 clear days for final printing. In the Lord President's memorandum there follows this paragraph: It is observed that between 1954 and 1959 eight Statutory Instruments enamating from the Court of Session were passed and that the times between making and laying ranged from 14 to 21 days, the average time being 17 days. This, however, is the first occasion on which the Select Committee has raised the question of delay. I would say that the Select Committee has been very patient in the matter, but there is, I believe, what is known as the last straw that breaks the camel's back. Apparently, the difference between 21 days and 22 days just sufficed to break the Select Committee's back and make it complain of unjustifiable delay.

It is, of course, perfectly easy for the Government spokesman to—if I may use a rather crude phrase—spin quite a long yarn about how long it takes to get proof prints to and fro, about how long printers always take, and all the rest. We are put in some difficulty when considering the matter because we have not had even the experience of—what is it?—eight Statutory Instruments in five years.

I think that certain answers are necessary. First, the original delay—the one I first mentioned—is totally unexplained. I suppose that these Statutory Instruments are a bit of a shock. The Principal Clerk of Session, who I treat with all veneration, cannot be accustomed to these rare birds, but it really is a bit stiff that when the Statute tells him to lay them before Parliament as soon as possible, he should sit on them—if a Principal Clerk of Session ever does anything like that—from Wednesday to Monday. That is unjustifiable and unexplained delay.

We can look at the matter in another way. These rules have the number 2067, followed by "(S.114),"which means that they are given that number in the Scottish series. S.113 did not need to be laid, but S.112 and S.111 did need to be laid, and they have nothing to do with the Court of Session. They were mere Scottish Office Orders, and I shall give the Government their own little timetable for them both.

The first one was the National Health Service (Travel Allowances, Etc.) (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations, and the next one dealt with a matter about nurses. Both, if it is material, were longer and at least as important as the Statutory Instrument that we are now considering. In both cases, they were made on 2nd December, and they were laid on 4th December. What happened to the printer? How did he manage? Where were the proof prints? Where was the sending to and fro between London and Edinburgh? Was there a van involved? We cannot tell, but, apparently, for some mysterious reason, the Scottish Office, when left to its own, manages to have an Order made on 2nd December and laid on 4th December.

When that august body the Court of Session, and that august gentleman the with unfeigned respect, because we knew Lord President—and I speak of him him in the House previously, and for other reasons—when they intervene, it becomes physically impossible to do anything during the past six years in under 14 days, to have a better average than 17 days, and on this occasion, to take 22 days.

There is a public question in this. It is not just a matter of treating Parliament, I should have thought, a little summarily in this matter of time. It is more than that. People have to act on these Orders. This happens to be a very small one, affecting, no doubt, few people, but if an Order is made and is not printed for a long time, and then comes into operation directly afterwards, the period between its being laid and when it comes into operation becomes very short indeed, in this case, one day.

During that period and, of course, as soon as it is laid, the question of praying against it arises, if it is capable of being prayed against, and this was one of that kind of Statutory Instruments. If we push the interval up to when it comes into operation, any Prayer, perhaps a successful Prayer—and such things have been known to happen—is bound to upset the matter more because the Order will have been in operation for a longer period before it is annulled or the Government withdraw it.

On a Statutory Instrument of this kind, raising a very small matter, I would not press a Prayer to have it annulled, but I would invite the Government to give us not merely the explanation which has already been given to the Statutory Instruments Committee—which will not carry very much weight, in view of what has happened in the case of other Orders—but to say, in suitable and respectful language, on behalf of the Executive to the judiciary, that they will see that Orders, even from the Court of Session, are dealt with with more despatch in future, and that the judiciary may be invited to emulate the Scottish Office itself, and, if it cannot get Orders laid two days after they are made, to try desperately hard, in a spirit of competition, and see if they cannot manage to get it done in three.

If it is a question of the printer, I should have thought that in a matter of this kind one might adopt a revolutionary practice, and say, "Lay copies, even 50 copies, in roneoed form, rather than have them take 22 days to do it." After all, the House of Lords, which used be content with nothing less than printed cases in every instance, has had to put up with rather simpler contrivances, and a small Statutory Instrument like this might have been dealt with with more despatch.

I cannot believe that both the Scottish Office and the Court of Session are quite such humble servants of the printers, quite such humble slaves of the van and postal deliveries, and quite so intent on proof prints passing to and fro as the case which has been put to the Statutory Instruments Committee would lead one to suppose.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. E. G. Willis (Edinburgh, East)

I beg to second the Motion.

We are indebted to the Statutory Instruments Committee for drawing our attention to the shocking manner in which the Court of Session, or whoever is responsible for laying this Statutory Instrument, has behaved. Although, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) says, this might not be a very important Instrument, the manner in which it comes into operation and is considered by the House seems to me quite wrong.

As a result of these delays, this Instrument was laid before Parliament on 10th December, so that Members of Parliament would not get it until 11th December, by which time it is in operation. Members of Parliament do not hear of this increase in fees until the increase has actually come into operation, and that is quite wrong. Suppose we decided to annul the Instrument. Would it not be wrong that doctors and other specialists should be in receipt of these increased fees for a certain period and then after a few weeks cease to draw them?

As to the memorandum submitted to the Select Committee on behalf of the Secretary of State for Scotland, as I understand it, the time from 18th November until 1st December was spent in obtaining proof prints. I cannot understand why it should be necessary, to obtain proof prints—not final prints—that we should have all this traffic between Edinburgh and London. Edinburgh has dozens of first-class printing works. It is one of the finest printing towns in the whole of Britain.

Yet to get a small Instrument like this printed, three or four days are wasted while it is posted first from the Principal Clerk of Session to the solicitor at the Scottish Office, then down to the parliamentary clerk at Dover House, and then back from the parliamentary clerk to the printer. Then it goes from the printer to the parliamentary clerk, who sends it to the solicitor at the Scottish Office and from there it goes to the Principal Clerk of Session. Is all this necessary to get the Instrument printed? Is there really any need for all these journeys? By 3rd December certified proof prints are received by the solicitor with the principal clerk's letter of 2nd December. Surely it does not take all that time to get a simple Instrument printed? Surely it does not need to pass through all these people's correspondence trays to get the job done.

In the memorandum submitted on behalf of the Secretary of State there appears a peculiar phrase which I have read and cannot understand. It says: Since 1954 at least 50 copies of Instruments subject to negative resolution are made available in the Vote Office when the Instruments are laid and it is to enable compliance with this requirement to be made that a waiting period for final printing must elapse before an Instrument is laid. I cannot follow that sentence. If it means anything at all, it appears to be a non sequitur.

I cannot see why there has to be a waiting period before the document is finally printed because there have to be fifty copies of it for the Vote Office. Is that what paragraph 8 means? I have read it two or three times and I cannot see any other meaning. I may be dense and unused to reading the Scottish Office documents, but certainly I cannot make much of this. It is almost as bad as some of the Bills that are produced, never mind a simple Explanatory Memorandum.

Twenty-two days to get a simple document like this before the House of Commons is a long time to take. I appreciate that the rules have to be passed between the Court of Session and the Scottish Office, which might cause some delay, but why should all this delay be caused to begin with? Surely, it was not necessary to take 15 days simply to get the Instrument printed, neither was all this trafficking.

Is it not possible for the Scottish Office to devise a simpler procedure? Is it necessary for this Statutory Instrument to come to London to be printed? Could it not be done in Edinburgh? I should have thought that it could have been done there quite well and much more rapidly and that the House could have the rules in its hands at least one week, probably two weeks, before they came into operation. We are entitled to an explanation of this phenomenal delay, because it is much longer that any previous Statutory Instrument has taken. We should also be told why there has been all this travelling from office to office simply to get the rules printed.

8.57 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson)

On this occasion, the House has seen fit to question the amount of time which has been taken to deal with these rules. As the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) said, the rules are made under the Pensions Appeal Tribunals Act, 1943, and they differ from most other Statutory Instruments because they are made not by a Minister responsible to this House, but by the Lord President of the Court of Session. In other words, the Government do not have entire control of the rules, and the way in which they are made is only to a limited extent within the Government's control. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Scotland is only responsible at all because he offers the Lord President the use of the machinery at his disposal for the printing and laying of the Statutory Instrument.

There has been criticism of the time involved. Although, as is made clear in the memorandum sent by the Secretary of State for Scotland to the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, this time is by no means abnormal for this kind of procedure, nevertheless, now that the House has drawn attention to it, we shall certainly see whether it is not possible to devise some other form than that which so far has passed without comment from the House.

I am at some additional disadvantage in this matter because in an earlier debate the hon. and learned Member for Kettering said that he had not been satisfied with excuses. I shall not make excuses but merely explain. As the memorandum makes clear, the rules were made on 18th November, reached the Scottish Office, when the Ministers responsible in the House come into the matter, on 24th November, and were laid before Parliament on 10th December. In other words, it took sixteen days from the time my right hon. Friend received them to the time when they were laid, which is just about the average for this type of Statutory Instrument.

One point has to be remembered, and this is really the explanation of the delay and the reason why in the two examples which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering quoted it was possible to get a completely different rate of presenta- tion. It has to be remembered that Statutory Instruments are normally already in proof when they are made. Thereafter, they have to be printed, and that normally takes four days. In the instances which the hon. and learned Member quoted that took only two days and that is to be counted for gain. In this case, as is quite obvious, the proofs had to be sent back to Edinburgh, granted this way of dealing with the matter. If printed in Edinburgh that would be a different matter.

Mr. Willis

Why not?

Mr. Macpherson

I have already said that we should look into the possibility of doing that in future. I understand that the Lord President has at present no means at his disposal for printing a Statutory Instrument of this character.

It took ten days from the time the proofs were received in London to the time when the Instrument was laid before Parliament, four days to go back to Edinburgh and return to London, and six days to print—which was rather longer than usual admittedly, but those six days included a weekend. The House will appreciate that the time spent in getting the proofs printed has to be spent in any case. In other words, it makes no difference to the time when the rules are actually laid. What matters is the time between the completion of the proofs and the laying of the Instrument. The time of completing the proof makes no difference to the time it takes for the Instrument actually to come before the House. The position merely looks worse but is not in fact worse. It may be possible to devise means of overcoming that apparent disadvantage and we shall certainly be very glad to look into it.

The hon. and learned Member for Kettering complained also about the period of coming into operation being only one day and that this gave far too little time for the House to consider the matter or for publication to be made. On that, I would certainly say that the nature of these rules does not need very much publication. The first allows a fee for a medical specialist or other technical expert whose opinion the tribunal takes. The 1949 rules say that a fee of 5 guineas or, with the leave of the President in special cases, 7 guineas shall be paid. The rule under the present Order substitutes 10 guineas for the 7 guineas which can be paid only by leave of the President. Therefore, it is the Lord President who is the person who has to know about this.

Mr. Willis

The Lord President of the Court of Session, of course, has to know about it, but is it not also the purpose of having regulations that the House of Commons should know about them?

Mr. Macpherson

Yes, I made a note of what the hon. Gentleman said and I was coming to that point. The answer is that in the laying of all such Orders and Statutory Instruments subject to the negative procedure, they almost invariably come into operation at once notwithstanding that they can be prayed against for forty days afterwards. That is perhaps one of the disadvantages of the procedure. I can remember a case about eggs some time ago when this caused a little trouble.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East also asked what paragraph 8 means. As I understand it, the paragraph means that as fifty copies are needed it is as well to get the Instrument printed anyway, and therefore there is a waiting period in order to print enough copies to fulfil the usual requirement of the House for copies to be laid.

Mr. Willis

I did not understand paragraph 8. I am still wondering what the hon Gentleman's explanation of paragraph 8 means.

Mr. Macpherson

I will try to explain again if the hon. Gentleman wishes. I should have thought it was clear that paragraph 8 simply means that there must be time to enable fifty copies of Instruments subject to negative resolution to be printed in order to satisfy the requirement of the House.

Mr. Willis

Why?

Mr. Macpherson

Because fifty are required, it is convenient to print them, and four days is the normal time taken for printing. However we need not deal with that point closely. In some cases it takes two days, in this case, with an intervening weekend, it has taken six days. The hon. Gentleman asked, is there any need for all the journeys? As I have said, now that the committee has brought the matter to the attention of the House, and now that the hon. and learned Gentleman has prayed against the rules in order to bring it still more forcibly to the attention of the House, I am certain that we shall be able to go into the matter with the Lord President to see whether any improvement can be made.

Mr. Mitchison

May I ask two questions? First, if the Scottish Office thinks it advisable to have the orders printed in advance, so that there is an interval of only two days, surely the hon. Gentleman might suggest to the Lord President that there is something to be said from the public point of view for that practice? I should have thought there was a great deal to be said. My second question raises a point upon which the Minister might like to consult the Lord Advocate and refers to the first five wasted days. The law says that a copy is to be laid before Parliament as soon as possible. In Scottish law, of which I know nothing, who obliges the Lord President to keep the law?

Mr. Macpherson

The Lord Advocate, who is sitting here beside me, says that it is the Lord Advocate.

Mr. Mitchison

Not since the days of Dundas.

Mr. Macpherson

I am certain that the Lord President is only too anxious to comply with the law which he is there to administer in Scotland. We appreciate that now the matter has been brought to the attention of the House we would like to have it looked at. This is not the worst example; indeed, as I pointed out, from the point of view of the time when it came into the hands of the Secretary of State, it is an average example. The mere fact that this is the first time that it has been brought to the attention of the Secretary of State and of the House is an indication that the House has been prepared in the past to recognise that the laying of rules and instruments by the Lord President gives rise to special problems. These are not present when the Secretary of State is laying orders or Statutory Instruments. Nevertheless, we are always anxious to do our best to make certain that the House is served as well as possible and we shall most gladly look into the matter.

9.10 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison (Lanarkshire, North)

This very short debate has been useful. I am sure that those of us who are interested in the subject are glad that the Joint Under-Secretary has told us time and time again that the Secretary of State is most anxious, and that he is sure that the Lord President is most anxious, about this matter. I hope that these anxious people will ensure that when this type of Statutory Instrument comes before us again it will appear in a much shorter time.

The Joint Under-Secretary said that if we took the time which was taken when the Secretary of State had the matter in his hands, it was not a very long time, and that a longer time was taken previously. But we are concerned with the total time taken, from the time the Instrument was prepared by the Lord President until it appeared before the House of Commons.

I hope that when the period of four days is discussed—I imagine that the discussions will be between the Secretary of State and the Lord President, or the Lord Advocate and the Lord President—it will be suggested that there need be no delay and that when the decision is made the Instrument can be sent immediately to St. Andrew's House—in one day. That would save three days. I hear one of my hon. Friends suggesting that it could be sent in a van. One could even walk from the Lord President to St. Andrew's House; it could be done in a very short time instead of the four days, for which no explanation has been given. I am sure that the Lord Advocate or the Secretary of State will ensure that the delay is reduced.

I am also interested in the matter of the two days for travelling between Edinburgh and London. I was for a short time a Joint Under-Secretary at the Scottish Office, and I would point out that it is possible to make use of the teleprinter and be perfectly certain that no mistakes are made. There is no reason for sending the regulation by train to Edinburgh and back again.

I now turn to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) about the waiting period. I am not at all surprised that my hon. Friend wanted an explanation. It seems to me that the words used in paragraph 8 do not mean what the Joint Under-Secretary says they mean. I am sure that what he said is what the paragraph is meant to mean, but the words do not express that meaning. I am sure that anyone who examined the paragraph would be puzzled.

Only 50 copies are needed to be put in the Vote Office.

Mr. N. Macpherson

At least 50 copies are needed.

Miss Herbison

The hon. Gentleman says that at least 50 copies will be needed. When it is a matter of printing it does not matter how many. Let us take it that it is 50 or 60. My hon. Friends and I would have no objection, if it would cut the time down to the four days in which the Secretary of State can do the job, if we were given cyclostyled copies to ensure that we were able to exercise the rights of Members of Parliament in these matters.

Now a number of points have been raised, and the Secretary of State says that he is sure that the Lord President is only too anxious to comply with the law and that he himself is only too anxious to see that this time is cut down. We await with interest the next Statutory Instrument which comes from the Lord President and I hope that it will not be the 22 days, or the average of 17 days, or the lowest opportunity of 14 days, but that it will be considerably shorter than that period. If it is, then this short debate will have been worth while.

Mr. Mitchison

In view of the undertaking that has been given by the Minister. I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.