HC Deb 05 July 1960 vol 626 cc206-11
17. Mr. Stodart

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take on the recommendations of the Law Reform Committee for Scotland with regard to the existing law of security; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Maclay

I will, with permission, answer Questions Nos. 17 and 31 together—

Mr. Hector Hughes

On a point of order. I object to my Question, No. 31, being answered with No. 17. My Question was addressed to the Lord Advocate. It is about a Report of a Committee appointed by the Lord Advocate, a Report to the Lord Advocate. It is about lawyers and by lawyers and the Secretary of State is not competent to deal with it.

Mr. Speaker

There are a number of topics there, only one of which can be pursued. I understand that the hon. and learned Member does not want Question No. 31 to be answered with No. 17. No doubt, in those circumstances—

Mr. Hughes

Further to that point of order. I wrote you a letter, Mr. Speaker, in which I gave my reasons for this objection. You replied, Mr. Speaker, saying that it was not part of your function to interfere with the transfer of Questions—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I did not say that. I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for his courtesy in writing to me. He was complaining about the transfer of his Question and I explained to him that there would be difficulties in the Chair allowing him to argue the matter at Question Time, because transfer raises no point of order for the Chair. The Chair is not responsible.

Mr. Hughes

With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, the doctrine of noninterference may be carried to excess and interfere with the due answering of Questions in this House.

Mr. Speaker

It may do all sorts of things, but what it does not do is to raise a point of order for me. That is why I cannot allow, even with every ground of affection and admiration, even the hon. and learned Member to argue about it now.

Mr. Hughes

This is a very important matter, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker

It may be, but it is not a point of order, so I cannot allow the hon. and learned Member to argue about it now.

Mr. Maclay

rose—

Mr. Hughes

I submit, with respect, Mr. Speaker, that it is a point of order. This doctrine may be carried to excess. Take, for example, a Question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which is transferred to the Minister of Defence—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I must insist on the hon. and learned Member desisting, because I have to look after the interests of the House as a whole. I am afraid that it is not a point of order.

Mr. Maclay

I am in a slight dilemma as to whether I am to reply to Question No. 17 separately.

Mr. Speaker

No. 17 alone.

Mr. Maclay

The Law Reform Committee has suggested that the changes in the law required to give effect to its recommendations could be effected by amendment of the Companies Act, 1948. Company law is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I am in touch with him on this matter.

Mr. Stodart

While thanking my right hon. Friend for that Answer so far as it goes, may I ask whether he is aware of the view expressed in the Report that inability to create a security over movables is one of the reasons which has prevented sufficient Scottish capital being invested in Scotland and has, in the words of the Report, caused a barrier to successful economic development? As it is the Government's declared intention to do as much as they can to solve the unemployment problem, will my right hon. Friend do all in his power to overcome this barrier?

Mr. Maclay

I am fully seized of the point which my hon. Friend makes. I am discussing it with my right hon. Friend. It is possible to over-estimate the importance of the matter, but I agree that it has great importance.

Mr. D. Johnston

Am I right in thinking—

Mr. Hector Hughes

On a point of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] My Question was replied to. May I ask a supplementary?

Mr. Speaker

To separate the issues, I indicated to the Minister that I would be grateful if he did not reply to No. 31 and he complied with that indication.

Mr. Johnston

Am I right in thinking that this is the Eighth Report of the Law Reform Committee for Scotland, that in seven of those Reports recommendations for legislation have been made by the Committee, that in only two cases has legislation followed and that on both occasions the legislation was initiated by the Opposition? In these circumstances, is there any reason to think that this Report is more likely to result in legislation than any of the other seven Reports?

Mr. Maclay

I should require carefully to check the hon. and learned Member's statistics, because they are not quite right. I am sure that this matter will be followed up with the usual speed and energy with which all these matters are followed up.

Mr. Johnston

The right hon. Gentleman says "the usual speed and energy". Are we to expect that the usual speed and energy will result in legislation on one of the earlier special Reports, that on intestate succession which has been outstanding for nine years?

Mr. Maclay

The speed of legislation depends not only on myself, but also on hon. Members who sit in the Scottish Grand Committee and the Scottish Standing Committee.

31. Mr. Hector Hughes

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he plans to take to implement the recommendations made in the Eighth Report of the Law Reform Committee for Scotland, Command Paper No. 1017; in taking such steps, what regard he will have to the note by Professor T. B. Smith in Appendix I; and what account he has taken of the suggestions in Appendix II which were not included in the recommendations.

Mr. Maclay

As I said in reply to Question No. 17, the Law Reform Committee has suggested that the changes in the law required to give effect to its recommendations could be effected by amendment of the Companies Act, 1948. Company law is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and I am in touch with him on this matter.

Mr. Hughes

Is the Secretary of State aware that I am sorry that we will not hear the Lord Advocate's voice on this Question? Is he aware that the original remit was too narrow and had to be widened, as a result of which the labours of this Committee were greatly extended and involved investigation of various systems of law ranging from Ancient Rome up to English law today? If all these labours have been crowned with success, will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the Committee's recommendations will be put into force without the usual delay?

Mr. Maclay

I have noted with great interest what the hon. and learned Member has said. I was nervous that he was going to insist upon my explaining the words "hypothecation" and "impignoration", which appear in Appendix I of the Report, and I did not propose to do so. I have noted what the hon. and learned Member has said about the need for urgency.

Mr. Johnston

Does not the difficulty in pronunciation which the right hon. Gentleman experienced show the folly of his leading on questions of law such as this, which might be better dealt with by the Lord Advocate, to whom the Question was originally addressed?

Mr. Maclay

On the other hand, the mispronunciation is that which would be experienced by any member of the public who happened to read the Report.

Mr. Fraser

Is the right hon. Gentleman creating a precedent for the practice of assuming the right to reply to Questions on a Report which has been addressed to Parliament by the Lord Advocate?

Mr. Maclay

I will investigate the precise reason for the transfer of the Question, but obviously the reason is that the recommendations become the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Rankin

On a point of order. Will you give the House your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on the result of the protest made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) about the answering of Questions together? Has a precedent now been created?

Mr. Speaker

No. I made it quite clear. Because a number of issues were arising I thought that it seemed obvious that we should get on better if the Minister replied to the Questions separately.

Mr. Rankin

Further to that point of order. Is it, then, the case that if one of the hon. Members concerned lodges a determined protest the Minister will not answer two or three or more Questions, with permission or without?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Member knows quite well that no precedent is created by this. I have repeatedly explained that I have no power to compel a Minister to answer Questions in any way.