asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will instruct Departments making statutory instruments that the use of the expression "all other powers enabling," should be discontinued, and that the powers exercised should be specified in the instrument.

No, Sir.

Would the right Iron Gentleman be more explicit in his answer?

The answer is explicit enough. I think the hon. Baronet's trouble is that it is too explicit. The use of these words is a harmless device, and they are necessary to catch up any other powers which may be there. They do no harm; they have been in use since 1862, I think, and I am sure that will appeal to the hon. Baronet.

Without wishing to discourage the right hon. Gentleman's respect for precedent, is not the present situation entirely unprecedented in that we are now virtually being governed by Statutory Orders and, therefore, we ought to be far more fastidious as to their form?

No, Sir, that is not the position at all. In so far as these Orders refer to Statutes, the Statutes are definitely specified. This is simply a device to catch up any other enabling points or measures which might necessarily be brought in.

Is it not the duty—

rose—

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Sir JOHN MELLOR:

61 and 62. To ask (1) the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if, with reference to the expression "all other powers enabling." contained in the Inland Post Amendment (No. 7) Warrant, S.R. & O., 1946, No. 2118, he will identify the powers and explain why the said powers were not specified in the warrant;

(2) if, with reference to the expression, "all other powers enabling," contained in S.R. & O., 1947, No. 301, he will identify the powers and explain why the said powers were not specified in the Order.

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. With reference to Questions 61 and 62, may I draw your attention to the fact that I gave notice of them on 7th March, addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer? It was only yesterday that the Treasury requested the Table to transfer the Questions to the Financial Secretary. If Questions are to be transferred, is it not the duty of the appropriate Department to do so promptly instead of leaving it until the last moment?

I accept that rebuke, and I am sorry the hon. Baronet was not informed earlier. It is a surprise to me that he was not.

I was not complaining that I was not informed, but I made a point that the Table was not informed until yesterday.

The Financial Secretary has admitted the fact, and said he was sorry for it.

The answer is as follows: The expression is a drafting device commonly used to include any regulation-making powers in Acts other than those specifically mentioned. It is not known that any such powers were sought in this case.

Is it not the duty of the Ministers and the draftsmen to know what powers they are intending to exercise and to give the necessary information in the Order?

That is the case. They know very well, but, as I said in reply to an earlier Question by the hon. Baronet, there are sometimes additional powers of a subordinate kind which it is essential should, if possible, be caught up.

Why are those words used in these two Orders?

Simply because it is a common device used on all occasions in Orders of this kind. Ninety-nine times out of 100 there are no other supporting Regulations or powers within the parent Act which need be included.

Does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that in these Orders these words are quite pointless and meaningless?

I beg to give notice that I shall move to annul the Orders, in order that the question may be debated.