Clause 38. — (Regulations.)

Orders of the Day — Rent Bill – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 30th June 1965.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr James MacColl Mr James MacColl , Widnes 12:00 am, 30th June 1965

I beg to move Amendment No. 82, in page 25, line 4, at the end to insert: (2) Regulations made under paragraph (b) of the preceding subsection may contain provisions modifying Schedule 3 or Schedule 4 to this Act, but no regulations containing such provisions shall have effect unless approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. This Amendment arose out of a discussion which we had at the end of the Committee proceedings—as this is nearly the end of these proceedings—when a constructive suggestion was made by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) to the effect that it would be wise to have power to alter the Schedules. The Amendment would make the regulations under Clause 38 cover the Schedules. The Schedules are in unusual detail in describing the procedure and this was done so that people should see exactly how the rent officers and rent assessment committees would work. We might make a small mistake and be unnecessarily hamstrung about it. Therefore, adopting the hon. Gentleman's suggestion would enable us to make orders covering the Schedules, and they would be subject to affirmative resolution.

Photo of Mr Graham Page Mr Graham Page , Crosby

I am very grateful to the Government for adopting the suggestion which I put forward in Committee. I think it right and proper to take power to amend the procedure set out in the Schedule. One thing I would wish to comment on is the fact that this requires an affirmative Resolution of the House. This is the proper way to deal with an order which amends a Statute and I am very glad to see it. This has not always been done by this Government and I have complained about it each time I have seen that it has not been done. I welcome it now.

Photo of Mr Norman Cole Mr Norman Cole , Bedfordshire South

On one point—and I am probably pushing at an open door—why does it say in the existing subsection (2), which remains there, that regulations under this Clause, which means any part of this Clause must be subject to annulment, yet the (2) which we are putting in requires affirmative Resolution? Does the existing (2) qualify what we are putting in? What is the position?

Photo of Mr James MacColl Mr James MacColl , Widnes

This provides for an affirmative Resolution because, naturally, when the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is in a benevolent mood, we all want to do what we can to keep him in it, because difficulties arise when he gets out of it. He said that he was anxious that we should make a distinction between these. The other regulations simply deal with the notice and the procedure and are not altering the substance of the Clause. I think that the hon. Member for Crosby would agree with that.

Photo of Mr Norman Cole Mr Norman Cole , Bedfordshire South

The Parliamentary Secretary has not taken my point. The existing subsection says, "Regulations made under this Section", which, presumably, covers the whole lot.

Photo of Mr James MacColl Mr James MacColl , Widnes

I will look at that point.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 25, line 7, at the end to insert except in a case falling within the preceding subsection."—[Mr. MacColl.]