EXPIRING LAWS BILL. (Hansard, 1 December 1925)

§ LORD MUIR MACKENZIE

My Lords, I venture to make a few observations on the Motion to go into Committee on this Bill. They are remarks that would not have been applicable on the Second Reading of the Bill, as to which, I think, no question can arise. It has been the practice of this House, for many years, to treat the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill as a matter of course, and I think that it has in every year up to the present year only come up from the House of Commons at the very close of the Session, and, indeed, very frequently— 997 it was the case last year—it has been passed on the last day of the Session by the suspension of the Standing Order.

Three years ago the House of Commons seemed to have awakened to the importance and the potentialities of the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill, and they appointed a Select Committee, which went into the whole subject of the position of the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill. That Committee took the matter very seriously, and presented a Report. With your Lordships' leave, I should like to read two sentences from that Report. They said:— They wish, however, to record their view that it is most undesirable that these Acts, which are essentially of a temporary and emergency nature, should be allowed to Chill into the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill and so become, without any deliberate intention of Parliament, part of the permanent system of law. Finally, although the point is not strictly speaking referred to them, your Committee would like to record their opinion that the present practice by which the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill is regularly introduced and passed through all stages under great pressure of time at the very end of a Session when serious discussion is, not practically possible, is open to grave objection. There would seem to be no reason why the Bill should not be introduced at a much earlier stage of the Session when proper Parliamentary time could be allotted to its discussion. That was the view taken by that Committee, and this year, three years having elapsed, according to the suggestion of the first Committee, a Committee was appointed which went through the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill and practically settled the Schedule which appears in the Bill this year.

I do not propose to place before your Lordships this year any amendment to the Bill, because not only has it been settled in the manner that I have mentioned by a second Committee this year, but I see from the OFFICIAL REPORT that it was adequately discussed in another place before coming up here. What I want to suggest to the House is that this belongs to a class of legislation which is eminently appropriate for discussion and consideration in your Lordships' House and that, whether a Select Committee should be appointed to revise this Bill this year or not, at any rate I suggest that for the future the Expiring Laws (Continuance) Bill should be referred to 998 a Joint Committee of both Houses who would go through the Bill very much as the Committee in the House of Commons the other day went through it, and settle the Bill for the consideration of Parliament. If what I have said commends itself to your Lordships, I should be prepared to put down a Motion to the effect of the recommendations which I have ventured to make.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE)

My Lords, the account given by the noble Lord of the proceedings of the Committee of 1922 and of the Committee of this year is, of course, perfectly accurate, and I do not differ in any respect front what he has said as to the importance of this Bill. This year, at all events, the Bill is brought here in sufficient time so that if your Lordships have proposals to make in Committee or elsewhere it can be done, and no complaint on that score, I think, can arise this year. With regard to the observations of the noble Lord as to the constitution of the Committee, after hearing what noble Lords sitting on other Benches have to say on the matter I will, of course, consult my colleagues, but as at present advised I feel myself in a good deal of sympathy with his suggestion. I think that this Bill, instead of being considered by a Committee of one House only, might well be considered by a Committee representing both Houses. I will convey the suggestion to my noble friend who leads this House and it shall receive full consideration.