§ 47. Norman Baker (Lewes)If he will ask the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons to consider whether it would be appropriate to allow statutory instruments to be amendable. [81511]
§ The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw)The Procedure Committee has already considered the amendability of statutory instruments and recommended against it. It is therefore unlikely that this matter would be re-examined by the Modernisation Committee, which co-ordinates its work programme closely with the Procedure Committee.
§ Norman BakerThat is a disappointing reply, although I understand why the Parliamentary Secretary made it. The following position can often arise: a member of a statutory instrument Committee tables an amendment that garners all-party support in Committee; the Minister has to choose between passing the SI unamended, against the Committee's wishes, or asking the hon. Member to withdraw it. The hon. Member refuses to do that. Is not that simply bad government?
§ Mr. BradshawI do not agree. Accepting amendability would negate the point of SIs. I shall quote briefly from the Procedure Committee's report, which states:
Permitting the amendment … would involve excessive complications. It would … overturn many decades of practice … and … frustrate the very purpose of which delegated powers were given.
§ Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham)If we are not to have amendable secondary legislation, could many more statutory instruments be debated in draft?
§ Mr. BradshawI am told by my right hon. Friend that that would be very difficult, but, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me, I will write to him with a more expansive reply.