HC Deb 03 July 1905 vol 148 cc777-8
MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU (Hampshire, New Forest)

I beg to ask the hon. Member for Chorley, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether, in view of the fact that Section 9 of the Parks Regulation Act, 1872, provides for the laying before both Houses of Parliament of any rules made by the Office of Works under Schedule I. of the Act, he will explain why the recent rule regarding motor-cars was not laid before Parliament for the statutory time.

* LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)

I have to refer my hon. friend to the reply given to the hon. Baronet the Member for Barrow-in-Furness on June 27th† also to the judgment in the recent case of Musgrave v. Kennison in the High Court (June 8th).

MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU

Do I understand the noble Lord to say that no notice is required for these regulations?

* LORD BALCARRES

The hon. Member must be aware that in the case to which I have referred judgment was given in favour of the course which the Office of Works has always pursued.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

Does the noble Lord actually rely on the judgment of the Court for bis interpretation of the Act of Parliament?

* LORD BALCARRES

Not at all. The judgment was in favour of the course which the Office of Works has pursued since 1872. There is a distinction between rules and regulations, and the Lord Chief Justice upheld the practice of the Office of Works.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

Do I understand rules must be laid but not regulations, or vice versa?

* LORD BALCARRES

The matter is perfectly clear. Rules made under the Act have to be laid. Regulations may be made under the rules, and that is what we have done in this case, and indeed in all other cases during the last thirty years.