Examination of Witnesses (Questions 140-149)
MR JOHN
STEWART AND
MS JOANNA
WARNER
21 JUNE 2006
Q140 Sir Nicholas Winterton: May
I comment on the remarks that Mr Stewart has made about clause
stand part? I am not sure that he is aware that, to an extent,
it is very much dependent upon the chairman of the standing committee
whether or not there is a clause stand part debate. Whether or
not a Member would like to have a clause stand part debate, if
the chairman of the standing committee believes that the substance
of the clause has been discussed in the group of amendments or
in the amendment that has been selected and debated, he or she
as chairman of that committee can indicate that he or she does
not intend to allow a stand part debate. I myself would be reluctant
to do away with a clause stand part debate, because it could well
be that an important issue has not been discussed as part of the
group of amendments or the groups of amendments that have been
debated under that clause. I think that not to permit an important
matter to be raised on clause stand part would be regrettable
and would reduce the ability of Members of this House in standing
committee to scrutinise legislation. In the main, however, what
the Lords does, by a Member giving an indication that he would
like a clause stand part debate, might be helpful; albeit that,
until all the amendments have been debated, the chairman is not
to realise that an important matter might not have been debated
in the substance of the amendments that have been called for debate.
Would you agree with that?
Mr Stewart: I would. I am aware
of the chairman's role in that respect and, yes, I would agree.
Q141 Mr Burstow: I just want to pick
up on two things quickly. One was on the special standing committee
procedure. In your earlier answer, you seemed not to be drawing
a distinction between the executive consulting about its intention
legislatively, and then the role that we have as legislators also
to scrutinise. Do you draw a distinction between those two roles?
If there were a special standing committee where there was a select
committee role being fulfilled, who were examining the draft bill,
examining evidence, and then going into standing committee, do
you draw a distinction between that role and the role of the executive?
Mr Stewart: I am sorry if I did
not, but I absolutely do draw a distinction. I think that it is
right for the executive to consult and, yes, it is absolutely
right that the legislature should also do their own consultation.
Q142 Mr Burstow: The other thing
was that you mentioned the Health Select Committee, its inquiry
into the smoke-free issue, the timing of its publication, and
so on. In any material way, did that report have a bearing on
the outcome of the consideration of the bill in the Commons, to
your knowledge—or in your opinion, rather?
Mr Stewart: I think it is fair
to say that it was following the publication of that report that
the Government decided that they would facilitate a number of
options for Members to vote on. I think that decision was informed
by not just the report by the Health Select Committee but also
changing public mood in support of a ban. I do not have the figures
at hand, and again I am not the policy lead, but I think I am
right in saying that the shift in support of a ban has moved very
significantly in support of one over a very short period of time—over
the course of a year. So I think that it was a number of factors
but, yes, I am sure that the select committee's report did have
a bearing on that decision to have the free vote and facilitate
the different options that were presented to Members at Report.
Q143 Chairman: I have two questions,
one of which I am sure Dawn Butler would be raising were she here.
It is about the use of IT in this process. Do you get the amendments
in the format in which they are published in the Commons?
Mr Stewart: We receive the amendments
the day after they are tabled on the formal notification of amendments
paper, but it is possible for the bill team to pick up the manuscript
copies of the amendments from the Public Bill Office.
Q144 Chairman: Within the Clerk's
Department, I understand that they are also translated into a
comprehensible form using the Microsoft Word format to track changes.
We are looking at whether we should do that; because, frankly,
it is ridiculous today that you cannot see immediately the effect
of a change. I assume, if the answer to this question is yes,
that would be helpful for you as well.
Ms Warner: It is something that
we do for ourselves already. When we get an amendment in and when
we are briefing our ministers, we create what we call a "How
this would look" section, where literally we reproduce the
clause and either strike out the words that are removed or add
in words in bold that are added in.
Mr Stewart: I have some examples
here, if you would be interested to see them.
Q145 Chairman: That would be very
helpful, because what is frankly crazy here is that parliamentary
counsel, the Clerk's Department, and individual departments are
doing it; I am sure that NGOs are doing this, and one or two researchers
will be doing it. The only people who are denied this information
is Parliament as a whole. I am very clear that we have to change
that.
Ms Warner: There is no doubt that
it is a very quick and easy way of helping people to understand
what the amendment is doing.
Q146 Chairman: Of course. You would
find it easier because you would have fewer Members putting forward
amendments, the effect of which they do not comprehend because,
if you are amending language in the sentence rather than in "Line
15, word 3, to leave out and insert . . .", it becomes much
more comprehensible.
Mr Stewart: I think that you probably
would still need to table the amendment in that format, as in
"Clause 3, page 2, leave out . . .", but it might be
a good exercise for Members to write out how this would look in
the amended form, because they will begin to see it more clearly
sometimes. It certainly helps us to do so.
Q147 Chairman: The other issue was
to pick up a point that Theresa May and others raised. It is this
question of how specific primary legislation is. I know, Mr Stewart,
you are following your minister's decisions on this, but I have
to say that I am uneasy about an approach which says that principal
definitions should be left for the secondary legislation. What
that says to me is that there has been insufficient consideration
in departments and by ministers about what they mean. I know the
other argument, which is that you can change the definition later,
but these definitions are the fundamental building blocks of legislation.
Either ministers should get them right or they really should be
delaying the legislation.
Mr Stewart: There is a balance
to be struck between the two. I think that this is a political
decision whether the detail is given up-front at the start or
whether it is held back for regulations. There might be reasons
on both sides why that is.
Ms Warner: And a judgment to be
made about what is a principal definition.
Q148 Chairman: I understand that.
However, I think that this is a point where it is too easy, both
for officials and for ministers, to say, "We will leave that
bit. It is too difficult. Put it in the LBW drawer and we will
sort it out later".
Mr Stewart: Apart, of course,
from the Delegated Powers Committee's important role in scrutinising
the appropriateness of delegated legislation.
Chairman: That is a fair point.
Q149 Sir Nicholas Winterton: Do our
witnesses therefore think that secondary legislation should be
subject to amendment? Is that an inappropriate question? Because
if more and more legislation is being subject to secondary legislation,
for whatever reason, do you think that, when the statutory instrument
comes forward, the House of Commons, and for that matter the House
of Lords, should have the right to amend that statutory instrument?
Mr Stewart: I do not think that
is for the department to take a view on.
Chairman: That is a good answer! You
have given us an hour. I hope that it was not too daunting. We
are very grateful to you. Thank you very much.
| 
