Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Perhaps I could raise a point here, because I cannot believe that the process of consolidation is being properly carried out. Clause 9, to which we have agreed, states: If the licensee of a late night refreshment house knowingly permits .. drunken and disorderly persons to …". to do various things: he shall be guilty of an offence. Drunken and disorderly persons are specifically mentioned.

Clause 10(2) states: Every constable is hereby authorised and required, on the demand of the manager or occupier of a late night refreshment house licensed under this Act, or of any servant or agent of the manager …. May we be told how a constable is to know whether he is being approached by an agent of the manager and required to remove certain people——

The Deputy Chairman:

Order. This is a consolidation Measure and the hon. Gentleman is not in order in asking questions on the substance of the Bill in that fashion.

If I am not to get an explanation of that point, I am sure that I am on good ground in drawing attention to the incompatibility of Clause 9 with Clause 10(2), which says that the constable has to … assist in expelling from the refreshment house drunken, riotous, quarrelsome and disorderly persons". Many people are quarrelsome, even in the House——

The Deputy Chairman:

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not pursue that line, which is not permissible with a consolidation Bill. The law is not being changed but consolidated. All he can argue is whether or not consolidation can take place now.

I maintain that consolidation cannot be right when there is complete incompatibility between the two Clauses. In the one case, it is wrong if drunken and disorderly persons——

The Deputy Chairman:

Order. The hon. Gentleman must respect the Ruling of the Chair. I have already ruled that he is out of order in pursuing that line of discussion.

I do not wish to be riotous or quarrelsome, Mr. Gourlay, so I withdraw anything I have said that is out of order. I only hope that we shall have an explanation from the Minister. I took the trouble to get advice from the Table as to whether I might raise the point, and I got the impression that I could speak on incompatibility. However, if I missed my chance on Second Reading, perhaps I can take it on Third Reading.

Perhaps I might pursue what has been said, but in a rather different way. I think it is quite clear that we are now going into a period in which Acts will be consolidated in this field and in other fields through the Scarman Com- mittee and other committees. It would be of great assistance to the House if before such Measures come for consolidation, as in this case, there were an opportunity for the matter to be carefully ventilated in order that minor Amendments of the sort which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has suggested—be it right or wrong, I take not the point—and the sort of point of incompatibility which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) has raised, could be cleared through the channels of some form of committee composed of hon. Members of all parties. We could then, when dealing with consolidation Measures, carry out small amendments on which there is probably no party philosophy at issue at all. The House could then produce a consolidation Measure which at the same time could, by agreement, carry into effect relatively minor amendments. That is a contribution which I believe will be of value not only to this Bill and is in order, but also to future Bills. What I am saying in effect is that we ought not——

The Deputy Chairman:

Order. The hon. Member is hardly relating his remarks to the Question before the Committee, That Clause 10 stand part of the Bill. He is making a Second Reading speech. I have given him a certain amount of latitude, but his remarks are not in order.

What I am saying in effect is that we ought not to pass Clause 10 because it does not achieve the purpose of consolidation, which is an improvement to make people better understand the law. It is better that they do not understand the law if the law is a stupid ass and it is better then not to consolidate, but if we are to consolidate so that we can all discover it and citizens can read and appreciate the law, it will be of immeasurable advantage if on relatively small matters., not of great principle, we could assist those who at the same time are advising us not only on consolidation but also in improved administration of the law. I ask the Solicitor-General, when he is considering this matter with Mr. Justice Scarman and others who have to consider these matters, to see if they can find some way of enabling these matters to be written into consolidation Measures as and when they arise.

I want to keep within the bounds of order in dealing with the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, and at the same time to show proper courtesy to the hon. Members who have raised points. Hon. Members will appreciate that this Bill in its present form, Clause 10 included, has reached the Committee under a consolidation procedure which permits all the corrections and minor improvements in legislative provisions so that certain matters which I should have thought would probably have come well within the ambit of the sort of criticism the hon. Member has put forward have received the consideration of the members of the Joint Committee.

I take note of the observations which have been made and the importance it is sought to attach to them and we shall bear these matters in mind.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 11 to 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.