§ Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [11th February], "That the Bill be now read a Second time."—[Sir J. Mellor.]
§ Question again proposed.
§ 3.57 p.m.
§ Mr. Asterley Jones (Hitchin)The object of this Bill, as I understand it—and I have taken the opportunity in the days which have elapsed since it was previously before this House to consider the matter—appears to me to be to ensure that every Statutory Instrument which is made must inevitably be subject to annulment by this House. In the past, various efforts have been made in order to secure for all time that delegated legislation should, in some way or another, be subject to annulment. The Rules Publication Act, 1893, made what was a completely abortive attempt to secure that antecedent publicity should be given to regulations made by a Government Department. There were various ways in which that antecedent publicity requirement was successfully evaded. I will mention a few of them.
In the first place, it was also permissible for a Minister when he drafted a Bill to put into it a Clause to the effect that Section 1 of the Rules Publication Act, 1893, should not apply to regulations made under that Act. Again, there was also an escape Clause in the Rules Publication Act providing that a Minister, when he made regulations, even though they might be regulations to which the Act applied, should be able, on grounds of urgency, to make provisional regulations which should have effect until such time as proper regulations were made. 1559 Those provisional regulations, in fact, very often became permanent, and I believe there were several cases which could be quoted where provisional regulations survived for many years and no formal regulation was made. Bearing in mind past experience under both Conservative and Liberal Governments, it appears to me to be undesirable to attempt to set out in a Bill some rule of conduct for the future—.
§ It being Four o'Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
§ Debate to be resumed upon Friday, 4th March.