APPENDIX 1: WORK OF THE COMMITTEE IN SESSION
2006-07
1. This Appendix offers some statistics about
our scrutiny of statutory instruments in 2006-07 and the development
of our working practices in that period.
2. We met 29 times in session 2006-07 and published
32 reports on a total of 1,179 instruments (156 affirmative and
1023 negative). (The figures for 2005-06 were: 1,731 instruments
(187 affirmative and 1,544 negative).) We drew 23 affirmative
instruments and 39 negative instruments to the special attention
of the House: a reporting rate of 15% for affirmative instruments
and 4% for negative instruments. Of the negative instruments which
we reported, 15 were debated or otherwise engaged with by the
House: an engagement rate of 38%. (The figures for 2005-06 were:
41 affirmative instruments and 139 negative instruments: a reporting
rate of 22% for affirmative instruments and 9% for negative instruments.
Of the negative instruments which we reported, 37 were debated
or otherwise engaged with by the House: an engagement rate of
27%.) We have also taken oral evidence from Departments on four
occasions.
3. The Committee's terms of reference are set
out on the inside front cover of this Report. We have deliberately
reduced the number of instruments which we have drawn to the special
attention of the House to those on which we believe the House
may wish to take action: just over 5% of the total number of instruments
considered. We have made more use of short paragraphs, under the
heading "other instruments of interest", to alert members
to instruments that are topical but not of critical interest.
4. This session we have used our terms of reference
to draw instruments to the attention of the House as follows:
- 52 instruments (83.9%) on the
ground of political importance or public policy interest;
- 3 (4.8%) on the grounds both of public policy
interest and imperfectly achieving their policy objective;
- 5 (8.1%) on the ground of imperfectly achieving
its policy objective; and
- 2 (3.2%) on the ground of inappropriately implementing
European Union legislation.
5. As in previous years, the majority of instruments
drawn to the special attention of the House have been reported
on ground of public policy interest[29].
Only two instruments were reported on the ground that they appeared
inappropriately to implement EU legislation[30]:
we note the conclusion of the Davidson Review that over-implementation
of EU legislation not as widespread as is sometimes claimed[31].
6. The number of SIs reported on the ground
that they may imperfectly achieve their policy objective has increased
to approximately 13% of those reported (5.6% in 2005-06). The
items so reported this session have shown fault, either in a lack
of evidence to support assertions made in the supporting documentation
or through insufficient emphasis in the preparation of the policy
on how the policy will work in practice[32].
7. The quality of instruments has generally
improved with, for example, fewer corrections: 30
SIs in 2006-07, 2.5% of the total laid (compared with 63 SIs,
4.1%, in session 2005-06). This figure does not however include
affirmative instruments which, as laid in draft, are not recorded
as corrections if withdrawn and re-laid. There has been a significant
increase in the number draft instruments withdrawn and re-laid,
even two or three times before approval is sought.[33]
Charts
The charts on the following pages cover the period
from November 2006 until October 2007.
- Chart 1 sets out the numbers of instruments laid
by week.
- Chart 2 sets out the numbers of instruments laid
by month.
- Chart 3 sets out the number of correcting instruments
(the number of negative instruments reprinted free of charge as
a result of error)
Chart 1 - Number of instruments laid by week
Chart 2 - Number of instruments laid by month
Chart 3 - Number of correcting instruments laid (the
number of negative instruments reprinted free of charge as a result
of errors)
| DEPARTMENT
| TOTAL NO. OF NEGATIVE INSTRUMENTS
| NUMBER OF CORRECTIONS
|
| Cabinet Office | 10
| 0 |
| Communities and Local Government
| 65 |
1 |
| Constitutional Affairs (now Ministry of Justice)
| 106 |
10 |
| Culture, Media and Sport
| 59 |
4 |
| Defence | 21
| 1 |
| Education | 130
| 1 |
| Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
| 114 |
3 |
| Foreign and Commonwealth Office
| 1 |
0 |
| Health* | 77
| 3 |
| Home Office | 61
| 4 |
| House of Commons | 1
| 0 |
| International Development
| 0 |
0 |
| Northern Ireland Office
| 32 |
1 |
| Privy Council | 17
| 0 |
| Scotland Office | 5
| 0 |
| Trade and Industry |
79 | 0
|
| Transport | 95
| 1 |
| Treasury** | 74
| 0 |
| Wales Office | 9
| 0 |
| Work and Pensions*** |
67 | 1
|
| TOTALS | 1023
| 30 |
| | |
| * Includes Food Standards Agency
| | |
| ** Includes Revenue and Customs
| | |
| *** Includes Health and Safety Executive
| | |
| | |
29 Our terms of reference are set out in full on the
inside front cover of this report. Back
30
Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/1426)
22nd Report (2006-07); Energy Performance of Buildings (Certificates
and Inspections) (England and Wales) Regulations 2007 (SI 2007/991)
in our 18th Report (2006-07). Back
31
Davidson Review: Final Report published November 2006 by
TSO available on the internet at http://bre.berr.gov.uk/regulation/documents/davidson_review/davidson_review.pdf
Back
32
For example, see the Home Information Packs Regulations 2007 SI
2007/992, 18th Report (2006-07) and Home Information Pack (No
2) Regulations 2007, SI 2007/1667, 24th Report (2006-07). Back
33
For example, the draft Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Order
2007 was withdrawn and re-laid three times in four days. The Local
Authorities (Alcohol Disorder Zones) Regulations 2008 were first
laid on 21 November 2007 then withdrawn and relaid on 8 January
2008; they have not yet been put to the House for approval. Back
| 
