HC Deb 08 July 1996 vol 281 c20
33. Mr. Steen

To ask the Lord President of the Council what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of present scrutiny procedures of the statutory instruments passed since January 1994. [34717]

Mr. Newton

I think that our procedures for scrutinising statutory instruments are generally effective but, of course, we are always willing to consider suggestions for improvements. The Procedure Committee's recent report on delegated legislation contained many interesting ideas and, on Thursday, during the debate on parliamentary procedures, there will be an opportunity for hon. Members to express their views.

Mr. Steen

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the cost to industry of the 8,098 statutory instruments that have been passed by the House since January? Is he aware that the cost of implementing those 8,098 statutory instruments is £8.75 billion and that only 643 statutory instruments have been repealed? As the Government are committed to deregulation, just as I am, does my right hon. Friend agree that some improvements are called for before the general election?

Mr. Newton

My hon. Friend refers to activities that have gone ahead under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. I understand that he would like to see further and speedier progress but, inevitably, it has taken time to build up. I hope that he will acknowledge that many of the statutory instruments to which he refers—for example, the many that are concerned with social security—do not, in the sense in which he means it, impose costs on industry.

Mr. Spearing

Does the Lord President agree that one of the problems in scrutinising and debating the merits of statutory instruments is that, of late, primary legislation has been much more framework legislation than of yore, so the importance of statutory instruments and their impact on industry, to which the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) referred, are much greater than before? Should not the Government look to the drafting of legislation that is less of a framework and more precise and in greater detail when it is first presented to the House?

Mr. Newton

I certainly agree that it is right to seek to improve the quality of the drafting of primary legislation. I have been seeking to advance that by publishing more Bills in draft so that practitioners may have a proper opportunity to look at them before they are presented to the House. Beyond that, I understand the hon. Gentleman's point but, equally, I understand the difficulties—for example, the pressures on parliamentary time. The hon. Gentleman may have an opportunity, should he catch your eye, Madam Speaker, to develop his thoughts further in Thursday's debate.