CLAUSE 12.—(ORDERS AND REGULATIONS.) (Hansard, 16 February 1949)

§ Sir J. Mellor
I beg to move, in page 10, line 13, at the end, to add: and every such instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. The Clause provides that Any power to make regulations or an order conferred on the Minister by this Act shall be exercisable by statutory instrument. The purpose of the Amendment is to secure that such statutory instruments shall be subject to annulment by Parliament. This is a reasonable proposal. It is quite probable that the Minister will pray in aid the fact that in the case of the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, there was no provision for orders and regulations to be subject to annulment, but it is desirable, especially as this is a much wider Measure, that any orders and regulations made by the Minister, which must be made by statutory instrument, should not only be subject to the provisions regarding publication of the Statutory Instruments Act, but also should have to be laid 1250 before Parliament and be subject to review and annulment if disapproved. That should be the normal course when an Act of Parliament makes provision for a Minister to issue regulations and orders under it.
If the Minister has any special reason against that course, then the onus should be upon him to show that there is no occasion for Parliament to review his orders and regulations or to have the opportunity of annulling them. I think that prima face it is the right of the House of Commons to have the Minister's orders and regulations laid before it and that the right should be available to hon. Members to move Prayers against them if they consider that course desirable.

§ Mr. Bevan
As the hon. Member has pointed out, what we are doing here is merely to follow the procedure laid down in what is the principal Act for the purpose of this Clause of the Bill, that is the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946. As we have already covered 83 per cent, of the population by these regulations and orders, it does not seem reasonable that we should alter the whole procedure for the remaining 17 per cent., especially as they will be in areas of scattered populations where probably we would have to join a number of districts together, or attach districts to existing tribunals. Although, generally speaking, I would agree with the hon. Member, it does not seem to me that in this case there is a special point in making the proposed alteration.

§ Sir J. Mellor
I wish to point out that this is not only a question of making orders in regard to areas, but of particulars described under Clause 4, particulars in regard to terms and conditions of tenancy which have to be registered by the local authority. That is the kind of point which the House of Commons should have an opportunity of considering. I would also point out that under this Bill the principal Act is not the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act, 1946, but the principal Acts are the whole series of Rent Restriction Acts.

§ Mr. Bevan
It is for the purposes of the Act of 1946 that these tribunals are set up.

Commander Galbraith
In view of the very great difference between what we 1251 are doing here and the Act of 1946 and that the right hon. Gentleman has actually admitted that he would like to see such matters generally coming before the House, although he does not want that in this case, would it not be wise to reconsider the matter between now and the Report stage? If he will give an assurance of that kind, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) would withdraw his Amendment.

§ Mr. Bevan
If the hon. Member will give an assurance that he will look at the question of whether he has to worry about 17 per cent, of the population when we have already swallowed 83 per cent., I will certainly look at it again, but we do not want to clutter up the Business of the House unnecessarily. This has worked well so far and I have not heard the slightest objection to it. I think this the simplest procedure and in no way are the rights of the House overridden. Regulation-making power of this sort is quite common in such matters and it is not usual to bring such matters in detail before the House. I will certainly have a look at it to see whether it is desirable, but I hope I shall not be taken as having given any promise.

Commander Galbraith
The right hon. Gentleman has undertaken to look at it seriously in view of what has been said and, in those circumstances, I hope my hon. Friend will consider withdrawing the Amendment.

§ Sir J. Mellor
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman promises to look at the matter. It will in no way add to the trouble involved, because, in any case, these instruments have to be printed and published. It only means their being formally laid and subject to annulment by Prayer, if any hon. Member thinks fit to move a Prayer during the first 40 days after they are laid. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.