I have just become a member of this Committee and attended my first meeting last week. The title makes it sound very dry and boring. In fact it isn’t and it performs an important Parliamentary function.
Acts of Parliament are primary legislation. Ministers are given delegated powers by Parliament to avoid every detail being spelt out in an Act thus making the Act very rigid when you often need some flexibility. A simple example would be the date an Act comes into force. The orders and regulations contained in an Act are made by Ministers with powers delegated by Parliament. These are called ‘delegated powers’ or sometimes ‘secondary legislation’. Several thousand delegated powers are given annually.
The Committee has to look at each Public Bill and decide if the powers delegated are appropriate. Should the power be delegated or should it be in the primary legislation? The other side of the same coin is to consider whether the Bill makes too little provision for delegation thus not giving legislation sufficient flexibility.
The Committee also has to recommend whether the proposed delegated power should be subject to affirmative or negative resolution procedure. The negative procedure means the power can become law without a debate or vote. They can be opposed and rejected but not amended. Affirmative procedure requires a positive vote in both Houses and can’t pass into law until then. They are the most important ones.
The Committee makes recommendations to the House. The House can decide whether they think the Committee got it right or wrong.
For enthusiasts or students of Parliament the following link may be useful: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/stat.htm
I agree that this is a very important committee, Lord Soley, and I wish you luck in working on it.
Do you think the Lords does very good work in terms of scrutinising secondary legislation? How do you think the House of Commons compares?
Would you have a look at the recent ban that forbids people with a full-time job from driving a 7.5+tonne LGV the next day?
A recent article in Horse and Hounds magazine, 5 March 2009, has highlighted a problem for those who have, say, an office job for five days of the week, but now can not load and drive horseboxes to an equestrian event.
According to the article, the British Horse Society (BHS) were led to believe that the rest periods required did not apply to private horseboxes, as given by DEFRA and VOSA, but a recent (ongoing) prosecution has caused concern for all who may think this is daft.
Please read the article, and I would be very grateful to see what the other side of the coin looks like.
On the subject of horses, can you please clarify the law on carrying a horse passport. I can’t fathom what happens if you are caught having a trot out without it on you. Is it the case that you must produce the passport to a DEFRA office within 3 hours, else you are liable to be prosecuted?
Thanks, Clive, I do hope you can help make sense with these laws, and good luck with the appointment. I think you might get a lot of questions…
Tiz
@ Lord Soley: I’ll ask the obvious question. The Ctee must keep or have some figures; Roughly what proportion of acts use the affirmative or negative resolution procedure and what is the usage split between the two types. How often does parliament use either to defeat a proposed law change?
Adrian.
I do think the Lords does a better job mainly because we have more time. MP’s are so driven by constituency work as well as the other pressures that close attention to detail is less than it should be. The more intense Party battle makes it more difficult on the non contentious issues too.
Tiz. Wow! Can i answer questions about horses? Firstly I am worried about getting into specifics on a blog site like this. It could become very open ended and consume more time than I have available.
I think for specific details of the type you want you firstly have to await the court judgment – you might find it backs the position you thought applied. Secondly, if you are a member of an organization relevant to this they will probably take the issue up with Parliamentarians who know more about this than I am ever likely to know. Thirdly, it is a good example of a case which you should write to your MP about if the above options fail.
Sorry not to spring into action but I hope you understand why”
Completely understand, and thanks for replying.
My experience with trying to get an MP from any party to represent my concerns is nil and something tells me Phil Wilson will be too busy with more worthy stuff, too. Like saving his marginal seat…
Yes, I wrote about two laws that happen to impact upon horse owners. I happen not to own or ride a horse, and never have.
The greater issue is the continuing criminialisation of people, in part due to a lack of understanding, proper research, asking all who may be affected for their opinion, listening, and making recommendations for exceptions. That is your remit. Mine is to get you to take an interest in the subject.
Else, the green custard throwers win.
Ladytizzy: I hope that comment about Sedgefield was slightly sarcastic!
Although Phil Wilson got elected in a by election and his majority rather predictably went down, i would hardly call Sedgefield a marginal now!
Probably best described as desperate hope, Blue! There’s another year to go, so there’s time.:0
Croft. I will get the figures but not for a few days.
Tiz. OK. So I’ve got my sou’wester on and I’m having windscreen wipers fitted to my glasses! I have also got some rhubarb to go with the custard.
I really can’t pursue individual cases here but I will try and post some more helpful advice in a few days meanwhile I’m fleeing the town!
Good idea, Clive. I mean about providing some helpful advice, of course. The juxtaposition of this post with your previous one still jars.
I did link this post to a H&H subscriber whom I suspect is a Tory supporter – she has a patent on musical gallows, stuff like that (don’t worry, I have an amusingly eclectic address book).
On the off chance that you are swamped with a letter, obviously I can’t take responsibility for any extra work load when you return.
Tiz xx
Croft
Thanks to the dilligent work of the Clerks Department I can provide you with the following information.
There is no central record of how many delegated powers each bill or Act of Parliament contains, but it is fair to say that the vast majority of government bills contain delegated powers, the number in each varies depending on the size of the bill and the subject. The Committee also looks at private member’s bills and around 50% of these contain delegated powers.
To give an idea how many statutory instruments are made by Government each year, the Office of Public Sector Information website (www.opsi.gov.uk) lists 3327 SIs for the calendar year 2008. Many of these were minor or local. Of the instruments that come before Parliament, in the 2007-8 Parliamentary Session there were 965 negatives and 189 affirmatives.
It is extremely rare for SIs to be rejected by either House. Records show that the Lords has voted down 3 affirmatives and 1 negative. I am not aware that the Commons has voted any down at all. This shows how important it is that Parliament checks all government bills, and doesn’t grant excessively big powers to Ministers in the first place! The Delegated Powers Committee has a good track record here: the Government usually accepts its recommendations, and if they don’t the House often takes them up and argues the point further.
It should be noted too that the Government does sometimes withdraw an SI if Members identify problems with it, or submit a new SI to correct any errors in the original.
I hope this is helpful
Lady Tizzy.
I’m sorry you didn’t spot the humour in my response.
Horse passports. You do have to present them when asked by an authorised person. The best way for you to get a detailed answer is to use the contact site on line http://www.horsepassportagency.co.uk/org/contact.php
The horse box issue is more complex. I have read the article and it is vague about the question of an appeal. I am not legally qualified and although you could read the relevant section in the Act I’m not sure you will be satisfied by that.
Two options: First ask the Horse and Hounds on their question and answer link. Secondly do write to your MP. I would do the latter and ask about your postal difficulties as well. MP’s are good at following up such queries and if you don’t get an answer ( I suspect you will) then phone their office at the Houses of Parliament (0207 219 3000) or their constituency office.
I hope that helps.
Crumbs, sorry, didn’t mean to upset you. Of course I appreciate our good humoured exchanges!
My esteem for you has been significantly raised, truly, because of the effort you have made in looking at the issues raised. Thank you. I will write to my MP, and suggest readers of H&H do the same.
(Can we go back to Clive and Tiz, now?)
@Clive Soley: So my name is mud in the Clerks Dept then for making them find that answer 🙂 Interesting to know though as I’ve never seen figures mentioned when the issue is debated.
It would seem to, on the face of it, make it hard to get a view in the round of the range, justification and usage of such provisions without some central collation or monitoring. There may be good reasons but presumably some departments, as in many organisations, have preferred ways or doing things and make more or less use of specific powers.
What requirements are there to ensure that the public primarily or interest groups (too often claiming to represent the former) have a chance to make real representations before SIs are introduced. Please don’t let it be one of those purely for form consultations!
What role does your cttee have in post legislative scrutiny of SIs to see if the powers were used and have had the intended consequences and consider representations from the public etc about SIs in the real world?
[quote]Records show that the Lords has voted down 3 affirmatives and 1 negative[/quote]
Out of the total number of SIs that’s a quite amazing/depressing percentage.(choose according to your level of cynicism!) Even with the best will in the world there must be some poor SIs passing – perhaps those that are deemed ‘non-controversial’ thereby attracting the least scrutiny might actually be the most open to unintended consequences.
Without moving too far into the world of horseboxes 😉 it does pose an obvious question – what obligations are placed upon the government when passing a SI to actually make sure its passing is known and understood by those it will affect in reasonable time to make any necessary arrangements?
OK Tiz – all is reason and light again! A sense of humour is vital in politics. Without one I would have gone stark staring mad by now! And just occasionally we politicos need a bit of TLC!
(TLC = tender loving care for the uninitiated!)
Croft. The Committee does not do post legislative scrutiny. That would need to be done on the Act as a whole.
Concerning the number of SI’s rejected you need to remember that governments do lean over backwards to please the Committee – not just to be nice but because if they get it wrong it can cause them many problems. Similarly if the House had too many affirmative orders then we could spend half our time looking at these.
There is a problem about informing the public about this type of legislation. Inevitably they get less publicity than the Act itself and although much more information is available on line now it is still difficult to track these issues. Maybe this is one for Lord Renton’s consultation (above) about how Parliament can keep in touch.
TLC for politicians, well you said you had a sense of humour 🙂