§ Mr. John FraserI beg to move amendment No. 69, in line 39 at end insert
`which shall be laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament'.
§ Mr. SpeakerWith this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 70, in line 1 leave out subsection (3).
§ Mr. FraserThe amendments would provide for the making of all orders under the Act by affirmative procedure rather than by negative procedure. I know that this is well-worn ground, but it would be worthwhile to debate orders made under the Bill because it would give the House a further opportunity to make a comparison between the privately-owned and rented sectors. If we approve orders, we shall sanction fairly massive sums—up to £250 million of capital expenditure and £25 million to £30 million of revenue expenditure. Because of cash limits, money that is given for one purpose is taken from another purpose. Therefore, it is right for the House to have a chance to air its views about the priorities on expenditure on housing, and not to leave the matter to a Minister.
§ Mr. Wyn RobertsI appreciate the hon. Gentleman's brevity. The amendments would require all orders to be made by statutory instrument, requiring the approval of both Houses before they come into effect. The Bill refers to seven powers exercised by the order. The amendments are undesirable in three of those seven powers, because specific orders affecting financial expenditure conventionally require that these matters should be dealt with by the House of Commons only and not both Houses. More generally, the amendments would require that all orders should be approved by the affirmative resolution. We regard that as an unnecessary degree of supervision for matters, such as the appointing of a day or days for the coming into force of the Bill.
§ Amendment negatived.