reflection on the Government that there was no debate whatsoever
upon any one of the provisions of what, was a highly controversial
Bill, but we suggest that it des indicate the ridiculous inade-
Legislative quacy of the present constitution of the Council. Where we do
suggest that the Government was at fault was first in failing to
consult about the draft legislation those organisations which
would obviously be particularly interested in the subject matter
although from the Attorney General's own statements there was ample
time for such consultations. Having itself taken two years to con-
sider and draft the Bill the Government then guided it through
to the statute-book in six weeks from the date upon which it first
became available to the public. We desire to emphasise that
although the Bill was published on 6th October and presumably
could on and after that date have been purchased at the Government
Publications Centre its existence was not in fact generally known
until the first reading was reported in the Press on 4th November.
Within a few days this report brought in the Press expressions of
anxiety and of a desire for time to consider the Bill.
The
Government was well aware that this Branch felt doubt about some
of the provisions of the Bill and was by then actively engaged
in studying and reporting upon them. In spite of this the Bill
was, as we have said, allowed to go through its second and third
readings only twelve days after the first reading and without
any debate at all. If only one or two of the major criticisms we
have made are thought to be justified (and we believe that
considered opinion will prove more favourable than that) undue
haste can fairly be said to have been established and we make so
bold as to suggest that the manner in which the whole matter was
handled showed a lamentable disregard of the public interest. The
Attorney General's reported assurance at the time of the second
!
.3
20.