Examination of witness (Questions 120
- 124)
TUESDAY 30 MARCH 1999
PROFESSOR DAVID
MIERS
Chairman
120. Can I move on to the question of procedural
changes? At the moment, as you know, there is a 60 day period
for parliamentary scrutiny of a proposal which also gives an opportunity
for the public to make direct representations to the Committees.
Do you believe that is an important safeguard that we should ensure
is retained in any changes which take place?
(Professor Miers) Yes, I do. I cannot really see
much benefit to be gained by the saving of what will amount to
a few days. According to the Government's paper it takes about
a year anyway for a Department to activate the procedure. The
Committees have completed on occasions their deliberations within
the 60 day period with a few days to spare. It seems to me that
for the purpose of the Department acting ten days earlier than
would otherwise have been the case over a one year process, that
is such a marginal saving that it is hardly worth thinking about.
The disadvantage, which I think is the principal point—the
other is a managerial point—is that with a 60 day period
people outside know they have 60 days within which to make representations
to you, and you do receive, and the other Committee has received,
representations subsequent to an initial report or completion
of your initial findings. One question which would arise is how
you would notify the general public that you have completed your
procedures and no more evidence will be heard or no more representations
will be accepted by you. Where you have a clear window of opportunity,
it seems to me better to leave that fixed.
121. Especially when one considers the burden
may well have existed for some time.
(Professor Miers) Absolutely, we are talking about
burdens which have been in existence for many, many years. It
seems to me to be over-egging the pudding to say, "Let's
save six days here on the procedure" because the Committees
have happened to have completed their business earlier because
it was a measure of fairly short compass.
122. So the 60 days focuses our attention
here, it focuses the public outside and it does give a sufficient
time so people could not say, "It has been too brief".
(Professor Miers) I would agree with all those,
Chairman. I imagine it is easier to timetable, is it not, within
the Committee if you know you have these periods of time.
123. Do you think that the second stage
scrutiny should be dispensed with if neither Committee recommends
amendment of the proposals?
(Professor Miers) I think you could do without
the second stage scrutiny. If there are no amendments proposed
and you know that there will be no second stage scrutiny, so you
have examined the proposal and are entirely satisfied with it,
then I would be comfortable with the idea that that would be the
end of it, that would be agreed and would go forward.
124. Is there any point you feel we have
not covered which you would have liked to have made comment on?
(Professor Miers) No, thank you, Chairman. The
only one observation I would make, in response to Mr Steen's invitation,
is that I have thought about the application of deregulation procedure
in other contexts, for example, super affirmatives or dealing
with framework legislation. Whether that is something which this
Committee might want to press for the Modernisation Committee,
to consider might be worth considering. I would conclude on this
point, having spent quite a number of years writing about the
way in which legislation is made, one of the obvious benefits
of the deregulation procedure is the way in which the Committees
in both places have been able to exert a degree of scrutiny over
proposed legislation, albeit modest mostly, which is absent from
much primary legislation. It really is a model of effective scrutiny
and in that respect I can understand and I can see why it is that
the Government wants to extend it, but I think there are also
lessons for other aspects of parliamentary procedure.
Chairman: Thank you
very much. Can I thank you on behalf of the Committee for coming
from Cardiff to give us the benefit of your views this morning?
I again apologise for the delay in starting. I would just finally
say that if there is anything as you are going back on your train
to Cardiff which you feel you would have liked us to into account
which we missed, by all means write to the clerk. I cannot guarantee
what we will do with it but we will certainly look at anything
you want us to look at if there is anything which comes to mind.
Thank you very much. The next meeting, I did say, is 20 April.
Just for the record, we will also be having fairly soon the New
Year Eve's Licensing Hours and Casino Deregulation, both of those
will be tabled fairly speedily after Easter. The next meeting
is 20 April. Thank you very much.
|
