Subordinate provisions
243. The Department proposed that the schedule to
the order, which sets out the categories of technology which are
deemed to be sensitive for the purposes of the secure filing of
applications, should be amendable by means of a subordinate provisions
order. Article 23 of the draft order designates the
provisions in the schedule as subordinate provisions. The Department
has now recognised that part 1 of the schedule is not appropriate
for amendment by a subordinate provisions order, and has indicated
its intention to amend article 23 so that the provisions of part
2 of the schedule are alone designated as subordinate provisions.
244. The Department proposes that subordinate provisions
orders made in respect of the Schedule should be subject to the
negative procedure. It considered that the negative procedure
represented "the most efficient use of Parliamentary resources",
given the technical nature of part 2 of the schedule.[133]
245. Standing Order No. 141(6)(n) requires us to
report to the House our opinion on whether the provisions designated
as subordinate provisions in a draft order should be so designated,
and if so, to what parliamentary proceedings any subordinate provisions
order should be subject. While we consider that it is appropriate
to designate the provisions in part 2 of the Schedule as subordinate
provisions, we are not yet persuaded by the Department's argument
that any subordinate provisions order should be subject to the
negative procedure.
246. We note that the provisions of the Patents Bill
[Lords] provide for the repeal of the schedule to the order,
and for the Secretary of State to prescribe the list of technologies
contained in part 2 of the schedule by statutory instrument instead.
We further note that the Department's proposal to remove its
proposed amendments to section 22 of the 1977 Act will render
the schedule redundant. We do not therefore intend to comment
further on the subordinate provisions aspects of the proposal.
128 
