The Dominion MONDAY, JUNE 19, 1944. DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 224, 19 June 1944, Page 4

The Dominion MONDAY, JUNE 19, 1944. DELEGATED LEGISLATION

There was an interesting discussion in the British House of Commons recently on the subject of delegated legislation—Government by Orders-in-Council and departmental regulations. The Home Secretary, Mr. Herbert Morrison, started the ball rolling with a statement of opinion that Parliament in the future should confine itself to the consideration of broad principles and finance, leaving to the Executive “the task of working out the details within the policy Parliament has approved, and implementing them by means of departmental regulations and orders.” This statement, coming from a member of the Government, raised at once a fundamental issue of such vital importance in British constitutional practice that the Prime Minister felt it incumbent to assure the House that Mr. Morrison was simply voicing his own personal opinion. “I am quite sure,” said Mr. Churchill, “the Home Secretary has no desire to disrupt national unity. I gather he was embarking on a philosophic disquisition on a hypothetical and conjectural situation which might arise after the war.” The incident, nevertheless, had the immediate effect of raising public comment in which the whole issue, was canvassed from various points of view. The question is of great interest in this country, because of the obvious need for applying some system of supervision and check to the immense and increasing volume of delegated legislation under the present Government, especially since wartime conditions greatly extended its authority in this connexion. How the rights and privileges of the citizens can be safeguarded against excessive regimentation and actual injustice on the part of bureaucratic authority armed with powers to make regulations having the force of law, has become a matter of general concern. It may be useful at this juncture to note some of the points made in the public discussion roused in Britain by Mr. .Morrison’s state" ment in the House of Commons. Remarking that the prevalent feeling is that Parliament has far too little effective'control over delegated legislation, the political correspondent of the London Times observed that after the experiences of wartime the House of Commons would never consent to further extension of powers of legislation to Ministers without much stronger safeguards than exist at present. The Nezvs-Chronicle suggested as one of alternative possibilities the kind of committee system of supervision “which works well under the American Constitution.” The Glasgow Herald thought that “the best* expedient would be to devolve much more work on committees of the House of Commons, but that would make it more and more difficult for members of Parliament to combine their public work with the pursuit of their own professions.” The Economist observed that “the real domestic problem of Parliament is to find means of making better use of its time so that it can, without holding up the process of Government, simultaneously approve and criticize legislation, pass Government policy under continuous review, watch over the public interest, and protect the rights of individuals and minorities.” That is a precise statement of the real and whole function of Parliament. Our own experience tells us that this requirement of Parliamentary Government is not, and cannot be, fulfilled under present-day conditions. The issue is between Parliament, as representing the people, and the Executive, which is responsible to Parliament. Dr. C. K. Allen, endorsing in the London Spectator the suggestion of a Standing Committee of Parliament to supervise orders and regulations, emphasizes that the first and most important is a matter of will rather than of legal prescription. “Parliament,” he said,. “must take its stand as it has done before, on the issue whether Executive or the Legislature is to be the dominant power of Government. If, again, We still have confidence in our Courts, 1 their prerogative—well tried throughout the a g es —to keep vicarious power within bounds must be preserved whenever an issue of law is raised.” This line of approach is simple, direct, and clear-cut.