SEA FISHERIES REGULATION BILL [Lords] (Hansard, 14 November 1966)

§ Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)
I rather hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General would explain this Bill, because it contains some aspects that are rather novel in a Consolidation Measure. Although it is called the Sea Fisheries Regulation Bill, it is not a sea fisheries Consolidation Bill. It is not a Bill for the consolidation of legislation related to sea fisheries and the sea fishing industry. All it does is to consolidate a very small part of the mass of legislation which relates to this subject.
It would have been a great help if this Bill had contained, as it ought to have contained, a Schedule showing the table of comparisons and derivation from the previous statutes. This is particularly important when only a part of the law on any one subject is being consolidated. The Joint Committee of the House of Lords and House of Commons, appointed to consider Consolidation Bills, asked for the insertion of a Schedule of tables of comparison and derivation. I hope the Solicitor-General will say why the Government did not concede this request of the Committee.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member knows from previous experience that all he can discuss on the Second Reading of this Bill is whether the proposed consolidation should take place or whether the laws should be left expressed in a number of different statutes.

§ Mr. Page
I shall endeavour, Mr. Speaker, to keep strictly to that point of order. If I may refer to the actual contents of the Bill with a view to asking the House to consider whether this is the proper time for consolidation of this subject, I call attention to the contents of Clause 2(3) and Clause 21.
As I understand, in those Clauses the Bill seeks to embody as legislation of Parliament an Order made in the past by a 168 Minister. Of course there can always be objection to that process of promoting subordinate legislation to the rank of Parliamentary legislation. We have discussed this before on Consolidation Bills in the not very distant past. There can be objection because thereupon, by embodying subordinate legislation in a Consolidation Bill, we deprive the subject of the right to challenge that Order as being ultra vires. Of course there can be no objection to that if we do so by the normal process of legislation—by Second Reading of a Bill, Committee stage, Report and Third Reading—but that is not so with the consolidation procedure because the House does not get the opportunity of discussing the matter on its merits.
What is embodied in Clause 2(3) is an Order which changed the date on which the appointment of a sea fishery officer takes effect. It changed the date from 1st April to 1st July, and a three-year appointment of a sea fishery officer will now terminate on 1st July instead of on 1st April as it did before the Order which is now contained in the Consolidation Measure. I have no objection—indeed I would be out of order if I did object—to this on the merits, particularly as the Order was made 13 years ago, but it may be that this affects individuals and the Committee mentioned this in its discussions, but not in its report.
I certainly received the impression on previous discussions of the Committee's deliberation on Consolidation Bills that it would be an accepted fact that the Committee would report such circumstances to the House when an Order was embodied in consolidating legislation. I thought we had established that rule in previous debates on Consolidation Bills, and I am surprised that, if the Committee did not report it, the Solicitor-General should not have informed the House of it by way of introducing the Bill on its Second Reading here.
There are other peculiarities of this Consolidation Measure which raise the question whether it ought to be considered before amending legislation to existing law has been laid before the House. For example, the Bill defines "sea" as including—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I would remind the hon. Gentleman of something which I 169 suspect he knows, that it has been ruled that on the Second Reading of a Consolidation Bill the only question that can be discussed is whether the law should be consolidated or left expressed in a number of different Statutes. This rule applies equally to Bills only to consolidate and Bills to consolidate with corrections and Amendments. We cannot discuss corrections and Amendments.

§ Mr. Page
With great respect, Mr. Speaker—of course I accept your Ruling—I had hoped that I was not going beyond the bounds of order in considering whether by embodying certain conditions in this Consolidation Measure we were making the law less acceptable than if it were left in its several Statutes as at present.

§ Mr. Speaker
I am not questioning the validity, Tightness or justness of anything that the hon. Gentleman says. I am merely instructing him in what is in order.

§ Mr. Page
If I may rely on you, Mr. Speaker, as, of course, I can, to call me to order if I overstep the bounds, I hope that I am in order in referring to the difficulties which I think will arise from this Consolidation Measure by the definitions which are embodied in it. I was referring to the definition of "sea" which appears in Clause 20 as including the coast up to high-water mark. It is true that in the legislation which this Consolidation Bill seeks to consolidate there is no definition of "coast", which leaves us in some doubt as to what is meant in the Consolidation Measure by the definition of "sea" as including coast.

§ Mr. Speaker
This is just the kind of thing that the hon. Gentleman cannot discuss.

§ Mr. Page
I apologise, Mr. Speaker, if I am over-stepping the bounds of order, but I should have thought that when a Consolidation Measure of this sort is brought before the House it is for the House to consider whether this is the time for consolidating the Statutes without first amending them. I am commenting entirely upon what is contained in the Measure as it comes before the House and endeavouring to show that it might have been better to delay it rather than bring it before the House at the present 170 time because there are a number of ambiguous points in the law which could have been disposed of by amending legislation before this Bill was brought before the House. On such points as I have mentioned I would have hoped that the Solicitor-General could have indicated to the House whether any amending legislation is in contemplation if the Measure is passed tonight.
There are a number of other points within the Measure which are of the same nature as that to which I have referred. As the law stands, it presents great difficulties for the seafaring officer carrying out his duties, and it would have been better if this Measure had been delayed and not brought before the House in its present state. As I am restricted by the rules of order from dealing with these matters in any detail, as you have pointed out, Mr. Speaker, I only invite the hon. and learned Gentleman to indicate whether there is any intention by the Government to bring forward amending legislation on a number of matters which were raised by the Committee.

§ The Solicitor-General (Sir Dingle Foot)
Both the hon. Gentleman and I are limited in the matters to which we may refer in this debate. The hon. Gentleman sees it to be part of his public duty—I make no complaint—to canvass each Consolidation Measure which comes before the House, but we are concerned here only with the issue of whether the law should be consolidated. Some of the hon. Gentleman's observations are really directed towards the state of the law. When he talks about a definition of "coast" or of "sea", that is all contained in the existing law. What we are concerned with here is whether it is expedient to consolidate certain Acts of Parliament. I would refer to the recommendation of the Joint Committee: The Committee are of the opinion that the Bill consolidates the existing law with such corrections and improvements as can properly be authorised under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949 and they consider that there is no point to which the attention of Parliament ought to be drawn. On the desirability of consolidating certain Statutes, I would refer to page 15 of the Minutes of Evidence of the Committee, and to the evidence of Mrs. E. Eadie, who is the Deputy Parliamentary 171 Counsel, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and who was the principal witness before the Committee. She said: The Committee may feel that this Bill is a very small contribution to the consolidation of the various Acts now in force dealing with sea fisheries and the sea fishing industry. Many of those Acts were passed in the last century, and the consolidation of them in one Act—not necessarily in one Act, I doubt if that would be appropriate, but at any rate in Acts fewer in number than those now in force would be an improvement in the statute law relating to these subjects. There are, however, so many Acts in force that it is not possible to deal with them all at the same time or very quickly. It was therefore decided that the best way of making progress with the 172 consolidation of these Acts was to proceed by stages and to select such number of Acts as could conveniently be considered relatively quickly. That is what we are doing by this Measure. No doubt we shall proceed with the process of consolidation just as the Government are proceeding with despatch unequalled by any recent Government with the business of law reform.