§
Provided that all schemes, Orders, or Regulations, in which conditions are prescribed, made, or issued by the Minister under Sections one and three of this Act shall be laid before Parliament as soon as they are so made or issued, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such scheme, Order, or Regulation is laid before it, praying that the scheme, Order, or Regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the scheme, Order, or Regulation, and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder."—[Mr. G. Locker Lampson.]
§ Brought up, and read the first time.
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
I do not want to spoil the harmony of our proceedings during the last hour and a half, but I set very great store by this Clause. It is moved in order to ensure that these Orders and Regulations to be issued by the Minister shall be laid on the floor of this House, so that hon. Members may gee them and may have an opportunity of discussing them. I want hon. Members to realise that if this Bill goes through without the addition of this Clause, they will have no opportunity of discussing the schemes, Orders, and Regulations, that will be issued by the Minister under this Bill. The opportunity passes directly this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. I think that this Debate has shown that it is essential that this House should see the Regulations and the schemes, in order to judge of the houses tat are going to be built. These schemes are going to contain conditions imposed upon the people who are going to build these houses, and it is essential that this House should have the opportunity of seeing and discussing them. There is a precedent for this, for when the Housing Act of this year was passed we specially included this very provision upstairs in Committee, and it was accepted by my right hon. Friend.
Regulations under the Town Planning Scheme of this Act, and the other Regulations not issued in connection with the Town Planning Scheme, are to be laid upon the Table of this House. Therefore, I am not suggesting anything new, but something that is entirely and directly according to precedent. There is one more thing I should like to say, that is, that the other day, owing to the valuable provision inserted in the Housing Act, we 1576 had a most interesting Debate in the early hours of the morning upon certain Regulations to be issued by the Minister of Health. Hon. Members will remember that the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gwynne) raised the whole thing on the Address to the Committee. My right hon. Friend (Dr. Addison) attended the Debate and listened to the arguments in the most conciliatory manner, and he came to the conclusion that these Regulations might be withdrawn and brought in in a modified form Therefore I say that, in the same way we ought to have the Regulations under this Bill laid before the House, so that, if it is thought necessary to move an Address to the Crown, hon. Members may have the opportunity of discussing them on the floor of the House. My right hon. Friend may say that it will cause delay. I submit it will not cause any delay at all. Supposing an Address to the Crown here is successful, and the House decides to nullify the Regulations, nothing done under those Regulations up to the moment of nullification will be rendered invalid, and by taking the precaution to add to the words on the Paper the following further little proviso—
Provided also that any such scheme, Order, or Regulation shall not be deemed to be a Statutory Rule within the meaning of Section one of the Rules Publication Act, 1893.you ensure that there will be absolutely no delay whatever. My right hon. Friend may issue his Regulations and Orders whenever he likes. They will be valid so long as this House desires that they shall be valid and it will give an opportunity for hon. Members to discuss them. I look upon this as one of the greatest privileges now left to private Members. It was shown to be a great privilege the other night, more especially a privilege from the public point of view, and I set great store by this Amendment.
§ Dr. ADDISONThis is a Clause to which a Minister is apt to find himself in opposition by the very nature of the case, and perhaps sometimes he will be in opposition to the general sentiment of Members; also, by the nature of the case, he is often suspect. Having said that, let me take the argument of my hon. Friend. The other Acts to which he has referred in the course of his speech are Acts in perpetuity. This is a Bill limited to twelve months. [HON MEMBER: "Two years."] No; twelve months, with a possible extension for other purposes. It is all very well for my hon. Friend 1577 to say that all Orders and Regulations will be valid up to the moment when they are cancelled, but the Regulations are to lie twenty-one days on the Table of the House, and then would be subject to alteration. Would anybody put his money into building under those conditions? Of course he would not. How can you expect any man to put his money into this business on the strength of getting a subsidy under certain conditions until he knows that those conditions will not be altered? The House will adjourn in the course of a few days, and, we all hope, will reassemble in February. Then there would have to be twenty-one days during which the House sits. That means five Parliamentary weeks probably, and would bring us to the end of March. No man could set about doing anything with any confidence until the last week in March; and yet the whole Act is to operate for twelve months only. I say that would not be reasonable. Nobody would move an inch. What private man is going to spend his money on any of these schemes? Not a single man in the whole United Kingdom.
§ Dr. ADDISONVery likely. That is a different thing. When a Government Department issue Regulations they do not go and annul them without very good reason and very great care. But under this proposal all these schemes, Orders, and Regulations which are proscribed, made, or issued by the Ministry, have got to be on the Table of the House twenty-one days during which the House is sitting. I say my contention is unchallengeable that private citizen could be fairly expected to spend a single 6d. on building houses under this Bill till, at the earliest, the last week in March. If this condition were to be applied you might as well scrap the whole thing. Unless we can be trusted to act with common sense do not trust us at all, and find somebody else to do it. The whole Act is to last only twelve months, and yet it is proposed to cut three months out of the twelve by a proposal of this kind; and, further, so far as I know it is not in accordance with any precedent.
§ Mr. HOPKINSI confess I do not follow the argument of the right hon. Gentleman when he says that nobody would invest any money in building if all his Rules and Regulations had to lie on the Table of the 1578 House, because those Rules and Regulations, on which a man might base a contract, are not annulled, they do not become of no effect, for any purpose—
§ Dr. ADDISONYes, they do. That is exactly the point.
§ Mr. HOPKINSBut they do not become of no effect for any purpose for which they have been used up to the date on which they are annulled. Therefore a man who chose to put money into building would not in any way be prejudiced because they are annulled. I could make very good arguments for not accepting the Clause, but I do not think the one the right hon. Gentleman used is the right argument.
Mr. T. THOMSONThe right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the Act is only for twelve months, but I would venture to point out that though the Act is only for twelve months, the houses built under it will be for a large number of years—
§ Dr. ADDISONOh, no! Sections 1 and 3 say the houses must be begun within twelve months and built within sixteen.
Mr. THOMSONMy point is that the houses, which are begun within the twelve months, are expected to last for fifty or sixty years, and therefore any mistake during that twelve months is a mistake which will be repeated throughout the whole life of the houses. Therefore I submit that it hardly meets the case to say that it is an Actonly lasting twelve months, because the houses will be built during the twelve months.
§ Dr. ADDISONIt is only one subsidy, and the question is, Is a man going to get the subsidy?
Mr. THOMSONI take it the whole point of this Clause is to protect the standard of the houses which are being built.
§ Sir T. WALTERSSurely you can let us look after that simple matter!
Mr. THOMSONWith all due respect to the Paymaster-General, I doubt whether we can. [HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!] Why has there been this change in policy which has taken place? Why have the Government given way upon the high standard they took up earlier on? Who is moving behind the scenes? We have had considerable discussion 1579 earlier as to whether buildings should receive the subsidy, and we were referred to the White Paper. It has not come before the House; it has not been laid on the Table, and this House has no control whatever over it. We are told that buildings can be erected and subsidies granted. This is a question of fundamental principle which this House ought to decide, and no expert at the Housing Department ought to have the final voice about it. I submit that there is a great deal of substance in the provisions of this new Clause, to the effect that this House shall decide such fundamental questions as the standard with which these houses will have to comply. Any schemes undertaken under Orders already given by the Minister would be carried out, and the subsidies paid under them, even though subsequently those Orders were annulled, so that houses could not he built in future under the same conditions.
§ Mr. LYNNI have pleasure in supporting my hon. Friends opposite. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health complained that Orders will have to lie on the Table for three weeks. Why, we cannot get a reply from one of the Government Departments for three months. I do not think there can be any difficulty whatever about laying the Regulations on the Table of the House. The only thing is that, if the Regulations be laid, hon. Members who know something about building and housing generally will see to it that proper Regulations are issued, and not Regulations that have to be scrapped a day later. I hope the Committee has not reached the stage of giving itself body and soul to Government Departments. Government Departments have not done so well in the past that we can commit everything to their care. When they want the work of a shoemaker done they get a tailor to do it, and to look after the building of houses they get a man whose business it is to build up the health of the people. We ought to have people who know something about building, and to have these Regulations laid on the Table of the House before they are passed.
§ Captain ORMSBY-GOREI think the Minister of Health might meet those of us who are anxious for something of this kind. He may say that under the exceptional circumstances of the Prorogation of Parliament twenty-one days is too long, but I think, in view of what has happened 1580 this evening on the question of flats, it is absolutely essential that the House should see the Regulations before they become final for the whole twelve months. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that the Clause as drafted would, if any of the Regulations were subsequently annulled by the House, involve forfeiture of the subsidy or any other hardship on individuals that have begun work before February, I think that might be met by an Amendment of the Clause making it perfectly clear that no subsequent annulment would have that effect. It is essential that, wherever Orders and Regulations are issued by Ministers under Bills of this kind, full Parliamentary control should be retained, and that is a principle which this House ought always to assert on an occasion of this kind. It is quite clear that the final form of the White Paper, and the conditions under which the subsidy is to be given, have not yet been finally decided.
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONI think the reply given by my right hon. Friend is really not worthy of his abilities. He treats this question as if it were entirely new, but in nearly every Bill that has passed this House during the last year this proviso has been inserted. It was put into the Health Act, the Housing Act, the Electricity Act, and even into the Treaty of Peace Act. Why should my right hon. Friend say now that he does not want it?
§ Dr. ADDISONI am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, but it is not what I want; I do not mind a bit. As my hon. Friend knows quite well, I raised no objection in regard to the other Bills he has mentioned.
§ Dr. ADDISONI do not recollect that. In this case there is no objection to the House having control. The question is the building of these houses within twelve months. It is twenty-one days during which the House is sitting, and that would bring it to the middle of March. We should, in fact, lose three months. My objection is only on the ground of the delay, which I think would be fatal to the whole scheme.
Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSONI believe the point made by the right hon. Gentleman is entirely unsound. The period of twenty-one days tells against the House of Com- 1581 mons, not against the right hon. Gentleman's housing scheme. I agree that it prevents the House of Commons from looking as closely at these Regulations as they might like to look at them, because the work begun under the Regulations would
| Division No.151] | AYES. | [6.0 a.m. |
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. William | Hirst, G. H. | Robertson, J. |
| Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.) | Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. (Midlothian) | Roundell, Lt.-Colonel R. F. |
| Bell, James (Ormskirk) | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Royce, William Stapleton |
| Betterton, H. B. | Jones, J. (Silvertown) | Smith, W. (Wellingborough) |
| Brown, J. (Ayr and Bute) | Lane-Fox, Major G. R. | Steel, Major S. Strang |
| Buckley, Lt.-Colonel A. | Lorden, John William | Swan, J. E. C. |
| Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood) | Lunn, William | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Edwards, C. (Bedwellty) | Lynn, R. J. | |
| Foxcroft, Captain C. | Murray, Hon. G. (St. Rollox) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES,— |
| Glyn, Major R. | Murray, William (Dumfries) | Mr. G. Locker-Lampson and Mr. |
| Graham, D. M. (Hamilton) | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | T. Thomson, |
| Grundy, T. W. | Richardson, R. (Houghton) |
| NOES. | ||
| Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher | Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John | Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G. |
| Allen, Col. William James | Goff, Sir Park | Raw, Lt. Colonel Dr. N. |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Green, J. F. (Leicester) | Ramer, J. B. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Hailwood, A. | Robinson, T. (Stretford, Lancs.) |
| Bell, Lt.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes) | Hanna, G. B. | Rodger, A. K. |
| Boles, Lieut.-Col. D. P. | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Luton, Beds.) | Royds, Lieut.-Colonel Edmund |
| Breese, Major C. E. | Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.) | Sanders, Colonel Robert Arthur |
| Brittain, Sir Harry E. | Hope, James Fitzalen (Sheffield) | Scott, A. M. (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Broad, Thomas Tucker | Howard, Major S. G. | Seager, Sir William |
| Bruton, Sir J. | Inskip, T. W. H. | Seddon, James |
| Buchanan, Lieut.-Colonel A. L. H. | Jephcott, A. R. | Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander |
| Casey, T. W. | Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Stanley, Col. Hon. G. (Preston) |
| Coates, Major Sir Edward F. | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Glasgow) | Stephenson, Colonel H. K. |
| Cope, Major W. (Glamorgan) | Lewis, T. A. (Pontypridd, Glam.) | Sugden, Lieut. W. H. |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish University) | Loseby, Captain C. E. | Sutherland, Sir William |
| Cozens-Hardy, Hon. W. H. | Macmaster, Donald | Taylor, J. (Dumbarton) |
| Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln) | Malone, Colonel C. L. (Leyton, E.) | Terrell, Capt. R. (Henley, Oxford) |
| Davies, Sir Joseph (Crewe) | Moles, Thomas | Townley, Maximilian G. |
| Davies, T. (Cirencester) | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. | Walters, Sir John Tudor |
| Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander H. | Neal, Arthur | Ward-Jackson, Major C. L. |
| Dixon, Captain H. | Parker, James | Whitla, Sir William |
| Elliot, Captain W. E. (Lanark) | Perkins, Walter Frank | Williams, Lt.-Corn. C. (Tavistock) |
| Eyres-Monsell, Commander | Pickering, Col. Emil W. | |
| Forrest, W. | Pinkham, Lt.-Colonel Charles | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Lord E. |
| Gange, E. S. | Pratt, John William | Talbot and Captain F. Guest. |
| Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham |