Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (Hansard, 9 February 1983)

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Keighley)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On 2 February, the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. dealt with three instruments: the draft African Development Bank (Immunities and Privileges) Order, the draft Commonwealth Telecommunications Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order, and the draft Commonwealth Foundation (Immunities and Privileges) Order, all of 1983. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said: One would have thought that if there was a point of substance … the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments would give us adequate time to make inquiries and to consider its report".—[Official Report, Sixth Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c, 2 February 1983; c. 7.] We had reported two of the instruments that were being considered, and there was some criticism by the hon. Member for Hamilton and others. I want to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to this matter, and I understand that the Chairman of the Committee has also done so.

The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered the instruments on 25 January and wrote to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 26 January. This was commented on as though the Committee were writing to an outside body. Its members should have realised that we are bound by our orders to refer the matter to the appropriate Department before we can report the instrument to the House. We considered the instrument on 1 February and took evidence, and ensured that a typescript copy of our views was available in the Vote Office that night, which was the earliest possible opportunity. We were not able to present the minutes of evidence because there was insufficient time. I want to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the following points.

The Committee was concerned that we should have been unreasonably and unjustifiably criticised, and asked me to place the correct position on the record. We are writing to all the Members of the Committee about the matter. However, of course, it is the Government who dictate the time and allocation of debates. If you, Mr. Speaker, were to suggest that perhaps a minimum of five sitting days should elapse between the reporting of an instrument by the Joint Committee or the Select Committee and the date on which the instrument is debated, either on the Floor of the House or upstairs in Committee, I am sure that the Committee would welcome that. It would be a signal service to the House, for which the report is designed. The Government could not so allocate the time for debate of an instrument in a way that means that the Joint Committee simply could not undertake its work.