Executive Summary
This report provides an overview of our work in session 2021–22. During the height of the pandemic, departments had to meet the challenge of producing large numbers of coronavirus-related statutory instruments to very tight timetables and under difficult working conditions. We recognise these pressures and acknowledge the work and achievements of the officials who had to respond to the exceptional demands of the pandemic. However, as the pressures of the pandemic eased off—this year we considered 126 statutory instruments (SIs) related to COVID-19, a reduction of two-thirds on the last session—we would have expected departments to return to normal legislative practices and diligence when preparing secondary legislation.
We were therefore disappointed with the quality of some of the secondary legislation and supporting material laid in this session. We were also concerned about the Government using practices which curtailed Parliament’s ability to provide effective scrutiny as part of the legislative process. These are concerns which we considered in more depth in our report Government by Diktat, and which we expect to look into further in the forthcoming session.
This report identifies examples of poor quality and legislative practices from this session and highlights some areas for improvement, in particular on:
- Restricting parliamentary scrutiny (paragraphs 7 to 24);
- Failing to provide information on impact (paragraphs 25 to 34);
- Inadequate consultation (paragraphs 35 to 37);
- Poor quality explanation (paragraphs 38 to 43);
- The availability and appropriate use of guidance (paragraphs 44 to 47); and
- Corrections (paragraphs 60 to 64).
In addition to our reports to the House under our terms of reference, we also provide information paragraphs on instruments which we consider are likely to be of particular interest to Parliament and these have prompted, on a number of occasions, debates in the House (paragraphs 52 to 53).
We welcome submissions with real life experience of organisations or individuals who may be affected by particular regulations. Where possible, we publish these submissions as part of our weekly report (paragraphs 65 to 66).
Effective parliamentary scrutiny will be of particular importance in the context of the so-called Brexit Freedoms Bill, which, according to the Government, will “make it easier to amend or remove outdated retained EU law” and will “accompany a major cross-government drive to reform, repeal and replace outdated EU law”. Given the volume of retained EU law, it is important that Parliament’s role in scrutinising legislation—especially as regards secondary legislation—should not be in any way weakened by the Government’s ambitions for reform in this area.
Our supporting team
Finally, we would like to thank the team who support the work of the Committee: Philipp Mende and Jane White, the Committee Advisers, Emily Pughe, Committee Operations Officer, and our Clerk, Christine Salmon Percival. We would also add Lara Orija, Media and Communications Officer, who joins us at every meeting. As this report demonstrates, the workload of the Committee is challenging in the range and complexity of policy areas considered and the number of instruments that come before us. Our scrutiny work requires the team supporting us to have extraordinary flexibility and resilience, exceptional attention to detail, and a keen instinct for identifying, amongst the morass of instruments and documentation, which instruments are of significance, the issues they raise and the questions that need to be asked. Their sustained hard and skilful work is critical to the ability of the Committee and of the House to perform their fundamental role in holding the Government to account by effective scrutiny of secondary legislation. We owe them a debt of gratitude.