Conclusions and recommendations
1. We reinforce our earlier recommendation
that we should have the power to refer draft Orders to debate
if we consider they warrant wider consideration, regardless of
whether or not we divide. We recommend that the following text
be included in the Standing Orders:
(4) In relation to every draft Order laid under
section 14 of the Act subject to the negative or affirmative procedure
under sections 16 or 17 of the Act, the committee shall report
its recommendation whether the draft Order should be made (in
the case of the negative procedure) or approved (in the case of
the affirmative procedure), indicating in the case of the latter
whether the recommendation was agreed -
(a) without either a division or a recommendation
that the draft Order should be debated;
(b) without a division but with a recommendation
that the draft Order should be debated; or
(c) after a division.
2. If our recommendation above is not accepted,
we recommend that the Government clarifies precisely what "unusual
circumstances" could justify its refusal for such a debate.
Moreover, we see no benefit in a specific provision to recommend
a debate that does not also trigger procedural consequences. [12]
3. We welcome the removal of the detailed
provisions relating to the over-turning of a Committee veto.
4. We therefore recommend that the relevant
paragraph of the proposed new Standing Order No. 18 read as follows:
(2) If the committee has recommended
under paragraphs (4) or (6) of Standing Order No.141 that a draft
Order be not made (in the case of the negative procedure) or be
not approved (in the case of the affirmative or super-affirmative
procedure), has reported and that the recommendation is not intended
to operate section 16(4), 17(3) or (as the case may be) 18(5)
or (9) of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006:-
(a) no Order in the terms of the draft Order,
or
(b) motion to approve the draft Order,
shall be made unless the House has previously
resolved to disagree with the committee's report.
(3) Any questions necessary to dispose of
proceedings on a motion for a resolution pursuant to paragraph
(2) to disagree with the report of the committee shall be put
not later than three hours after their commencement; and the question
on any motion thereafter made by a Minister of the Crown that
the draft Order, if subject to the affirmative or super-affirmative
procedure, be approved shall be put forthwith.
5. We welcome the Minister's acceptance of
our recommendation that such Subordinate Provisions Orders continue
to be scrutinised by our Committee.
6. We are pleased to note that Minister's
further revised version of Standing Orders 141(3)(b) and (c) has
incorporated our recommendation.
7. We welcome the extra time available for
the second stage scrutiny of revised draft orders.
8. We reaffirm our earlier recommendation
that the provision should be deleted. If this is not acceptable,
we would recommend the following wording:
(14) It shall be an instruction to the committee
that before reporting on a draft Order it shall afford to any
government department concerned an opportunity of furnishing orally
or in writing to it or to the sub-committee appointed by it such
explanations as the department think fit, except to the extent
that the committee considers that it is not reasonably practicable
to do so without risking the opportunity for effective exercise
of a function conferred by section 15, 16, 17 or 18 of the Act
on a committee charged with reporting on a draft order.
9. The Minister gives a commitment that a
review would be undertaken within five years. We welcome this.
12 The procedural consequences are set in the proposed
version Order 18. Back
| 
