§ 42. Mr. Edward Lyonasked the Attorney-General whether he will introduce legislation to amend the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act, 1949, in order to make it possible in one Act both to consolidate and to enact substantive changes in any aspect of the law.
§ The Attorney-GeneralI do not think it would be appropriate to amend the Act of 1949 as proposed. Consolidation procedure, which eliminates debate on the Floor of either House and in Standing Committee, would not, in my view, be appropriate for enacting substantive changes in the law.
§ Mr. LyonsWould not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is a woeful failing in the procedures of this House that one cannot revise or consolidate a particular aspect of the law in one Bill? Would it not be comparatively simple to devise a procedure whereby the present Consolidation Committee of the House simply approved certain passages of a combined Bill and said that they did not involve any improvement or change in the law, so that the House could deal with real changes in the law in that subject?
§ The Attorney-GeneralThe problem is to balance the necessity for Parliamentary scrutiny over substantive changes in the law with speed and efficiency in proceedings. The Second Reading procedure, which the House has already approved, is being helpful in this matter, but I do not think that I could go quite as far as my hon. Friend has indicated, although I assure him that the matter is kept under review.
§ Mr. Ronald BellWill the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind the fact that such a change as advocated by his hon. Friend would impose on the Joint Select Committee a quite intolerable burden of scrutiny?
§ The Attorney-GeneralI think that that may well be so.