Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 35, at end, insert:
(3) Where an enquiry has been held under the provisions of the last foregoing Subsection the order shall be laid before Parliament and if either house, within a period of 40 days after the order is so laid before it, resolves that the order be annulled, the order shall thereupon cease to have effect, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or to the making of a new order.
In reckoning for the purposes of this subsection any such period of forty days, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
§ Mr. Medland (Plymouth, Drake)
I should like to express appreciation, on behalf of myself and some of my colleagues who worked in the Committee upstairs, and on the Recommittal stage, at the fact that the Government have decided that where joint planning boards are formed by regulations those regulations must now be laid on the Table of the House so that they can be prayed against if necessary. This point was resisted with some considerable force upstairs, and 803 again on Recommittal, but in another place better counsel prevailed, and I should like to express my thanks to my right hon. Friend for accepting the arguments which have been adduced.
§ Mr. Manningham-Buller (Daventry)
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Drake (Mr. Medland), in paying that tribute to the Minister and pointing out the work done by himself and his colleagues, did not also acknowledge the fact that in pressing for this Amendment there was a coalition with Members on this side who, I think, pressed it even more strongly.
§ Mr. Silkin
I am very glad to be able to satisfy everybody except, possibly, the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), but I would point out that this Amendment was offered on the Committee stage and rejected by my hon. Friend the Member for Drake (Mr. Medland). He wanted an affirmative Resolution; I offered him a negative Resolution, and that is what he has got.
§ Mr. C. Williams
The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to infer that I might not be satisfied. I can disillusion him; I am satisfied with this Amendment. I would like, at the same time to congratulate the hon. Member for Drake (Mr. Medland) on having joined with the right party so as to get good things done; it is indeed a hopeful omen. I have known the hon. Member for a long time, and I have great respect for him, and I know that in his remarks a few moments ago he intended to give credit all round. In spite of the provocation of the Minister, I hope that we may go on quietly with our consideration of these Amendments, and that the right hon. Gentleman will take the advice of the Chief Patronage Secretary and not make his speeches too long.
§ Mr. Molson (The High Peak)
It is a point for the draftsman, rather than for the Minister, but I should have thought that this provision was included in the Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, and, that being so, it is a question whether it is necessary for these words to be set out in full in this Bill.
§ Question put, and agreed to