CLAUSE 16.—(Orders, regulations, and bye-laws to be laid before Parliament.) (Hansard, 18 March 1932)

§ Sir S. CRIPPS
This is another good case of the devolution of legislation which is coming in the future. With regard to Sub-section (3), does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is time that the Rules Publication Act, 1893, was dealt with? We now have this particular provision in every Act of Parliament, and does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is time that it was dealt with generally and not specifically in each Act of Parliament that is brought up?

§ Sir H. CAUTLEY
I notice that the provisional orders made under Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 are excepted from this Clause. Those provisional orders have relation to the fixing of the standard price. The words in Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 are: the order shall be provisional only and shall have no effect until confirmed by Parliament. That, I take it, is a confirmation by both Houses. Is the Minister satisfied that under his words the mere affirmative Resolution of the House is sufficient? I recollect that under the provisional order procedure which is applicable to various Bills, it is possible to move a resolution referring the whole matter to a Select Committee with the corresponding private Bill procedure. I ask the Minister to consider before the Report stage whether these words are sufficient, or whether he ought not to have in terms that it should be by a simple affirmative Resolution of the House. With regard to Sub-section (1) of this Clause, as to the annulment of orders, no one knows what these orders are. They come on at eleven o'clock at night when the House is dispersing. I make a protest against this procedure, because I hope that the Procedure Committee that is sitting will take this Provisional Order Bill procedure into account, and put in into proper shape and make it effective.

§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
As the Opposition seem to be unhappily suffering from an excess of rust and what they call gluten, whatever that means, I would like to ask the Government whether they do not think it is time they stopped this excessive number of orders which have to come before the House unless definite days are given for discussing them. I emphasise what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) has said. The second point which is worrying me is in subsection (3). I want to know why it is that the Rules Publication Act, 1893, which seems to be well known to lawyers, but not so well known in this House, is not to apply. Does it mean the House of Commons will have less control over these orders, or more control? If the Government are going to give the House of Commons less control, we ought to be very chary of passing this Clause as it stands.

§ Sir J. GILMOUR
I think the point to be borne in mind in considering this question is that these Orders must come into force with great rapidity. It is essential that there should not be delay, because of the possible effect in certain directions [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear Hear"]. We are agreed over that. As far as I understood the point put by the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), I think the procedure will be quite simple and will not entail the complicated steps which he suggested, but, all the same, I shall look carefully into that side of the question. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) asked me whether there is to be greater or less control by this House. I think there is sufficient control by this House, and I hope it will be effective control. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) that the procedure which would be entailed if we did not have this sub-section (3) would be very lengthy and dilatory. I am not competent to express an opinion on whether we should obviate the necessity for the procedure we are adopting in this case if we took the steps that he suggested. At any rate we have thought it right to secure our position in this particular instance.

§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
I am not at all happy about the answer I have received to the point which I put. I seriously want to know whether the House of Commons will have more or less control if these rules are not to apply. I quite realise that the Minister thinks the House has sufficient control, but I am not concerned about what he thinks. I am worried about whether the House has more control, and I think we might have an answer to that point.

§ Sir J. GILMOUR
According to my reading of it, it really does not affect the control by the House.