Appendix 1: Extracts from executive summaries of two SLSC reports
Interim report on the Work of the Committee in Session 2019–21 (39th Report, Session 2019–21, HL Paper 200)
In the period under review [the first 12 months of session 2019–21 up to 18 December 2020], we considered 901 statutory instruments and 33 other instruments. This is above the average for each of the calendar years 2016 to 2019, but below the level reached in the period of most intensive Brexit preparation. The details of the instruments laid, the Departments which laid them, and the Committee’s observations on general trends are set out in the section on Committee Activity of this report (paragraphs 33–43).
In addition, in this report, we draw attention to a number of factors which we consider to be of significance both as to what has happened in the period under review but, no less importantly, as to their potential impact on the future effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny. These are:
- Emergency legislation and the quality of Explanatory Memoranda (paragraphs 8–15)
- Incomplete revocations (paragraph 16)
- Inconsistent sunset provisions (paragraph 17)
- The pandemic as a pretext for significant policy changes (paragraphs 18–19)
- Blurring of legislation and guidance (paragraphs 20–21)
- Inadequate Impact Assessment (paragraphs 22–23)
- Restricting parliamentary scrutiny (paragraphs 24–28)
- Increased use of “skeleton bills” (paragraphs 29–32)
- Overlarge complex SIs (paragraph 39).
Work of the Committee in Session 2019–21 (54th Report, Session 2019–21, HL Paper 276)
Given the uncertainty about the length of session 2019–21, we published an Interim Report about our activity during the first 12 months of the session (up to 18 December 2020) (We called this period “Year 1”).
- This report is in two parts. The first part examines activity in the remainder of the session (from 19 December 2020 to 27 April 2021). We found that although some of the matters we raised in the Year 1 report have improved, others continue to be an issue:
- Corrections and flawed instruments (paragraphs 5–6)
- Poor quality explanation (paragraphs 7–8)
- Blurring of boundaries between legislation and guidance (paragraphs 9–11)
- Restricting Parliamentary scrutiny (paragraphs 12–13)
During recent times, departments have had to meet the twin challenge of producing large numbers of EU Exit and pandemic-related instruments to very tight timetables and under difficult working conditions. In this report, and the reports we have published throughout the session, we have made a number of criticisms–some of them points of detail but others matters of principle that go to the very heart of the relationship between Parliament and the executive and the rule of law. That said, we wish to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work and the achievements of the many civil servants who have had to respond to the exceptional demands of the current period.