Search

17th report of Session 2004-05 : Special report, the work of the Committee in Session 2004-05

This report is a follow-up to the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee 29th report, session 2005-06 (HL Paper 149-I, ISBN 9780104008409). The earlier report set out some recommendations on how the process of making secondary legislation could be improved, and this report examines that progress. Statutory Instruments (SIs), often described as secondary legislation, are the means by which government departments implement the policy measures laid down by Acts of Parliament (primary legislation). There are approximately 1200 SIs laid for parliamentary proceedings each year. The Committee believes that Government Department's still need to do more to improve the planning and quality of SIs and the policy delivered through them, such a step would help in the Committee's process of scrutiny, as well as easing the impact of such legislation on stakeholders. The Committee further invites the Government to consider the timing and cumulative impact of SIs on those regulated and that Department's should pay more attention to the strategic planning of SIs, especially those delivering a policy set by a new Act. Also the Committee states that more resources should be devoted to the consolidation and simplification of secondary legislation so that the law is clearer and more accessible. The Committee does welcome the new format of Impact Assessments (IAs) which should be provided for key measures affecting public and voluntary sectors. Every SI or its Explanatory Memorandum should clearly express its policy objective and how the success is to be measured and evaluated. Each Department is responsible for its own secondary legislation and the Committee invites each Secretary of State to ensure that senior management systematically checks the quality of such legislation.

Statutory Instruments (SIs), often described as secondary legislation, are the means by which government departments implement the policy measures laid down by Acts of Parliament (primary legislation). While the majority of SIs are generally well-crafted and fit for purpose, the Committee's report highlights areas for improvement, including the fact that some are laid before Parliament at less than the required 21 days notice of coming into force, or laid in large numbers at peak periods of the year which renders proper scrutiny difficult. Other problems include lack of clarity due to opaque drafting or because they rely heavily on cross-references to earlier instruments, as well as inadequate consultation with those most likely to be affected by their provisions. The report sets out 20 recommendations designed to improve the overall quality of SIs produced by government departments, by establishing a strategic approach to the process of planning and making SIs based on good practice guidance, rather than the current 'laissez faire' approach. These include the need for each department to draw up an annual management plan for its projected secondary legislation, with the establishment of a centralised co-ordinating mechanism to oversee the scheduling and implementation of the whole process across Whitehall.

The report recommends changes to the Standing Orders no. 73 (affirmative instruments) and 74 (Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments) and to the terms of reference of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments. These changes are recommended in light of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, the repeal of the Northern Ireland Act 2000 by the Northern Ireland (St Andrews Agreement) Acts 2006 and 2007, and the Government of Wales Act 2006. The amendments make no change of substance to the scrutiny regime for statutory instruments, and they supersede those recommended in the Committee's earlier report (HLP 15, session 2006-07; ISBN 9780104009772).

This inquiry was prompted by the finding that in the 2006-07 session schools were the subject of around 100 different statutory instruments made by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF). Evidence from schools' representatives has convinced the Committee that the Department need to overhaul their approach, and actively to manage the planning and production of secondary legislation and guidance. Too many regulations are currently introduced piecemeal, throughout the school year. The Committee concludes that DCSF should bring schools-related instruments into force on a single date - 1 September is recommended - and give schools at least a term's notice to prepare to implement them. The Government should, moreover, adopt a less heavy-handed approach in its relationship with schools, and shift its focus away from the regulation of processes through statutory instruments towards establishing accountability for the delivery of key outcomes. This approach would leave greater room for the professionalism of practitioners to deliver the objectives of improving education. The Committee has also found that DCSF rarely reviews the effect of the regulations that it imposes. As a consequence, the Department does not know whether a statutory instrument has achieved its policy objective. The Committee calls on the Department to review the implementation of all significant regulations.

Special Report : Session 2003-04, review of the work of the Committee, 25th report of Session 2003-04

5th report of Session 2005-06 : Drawing special attention to: draft Community Legal Service (Cost Protection) (Amendment) Regulations 2005; draft Community Legal Service (Scope) Regulations 2005; revised funding code prepared by the Legal Services Commiss