³ÉÈË¿ìÊÖ

I will push Jonnie Hall and Lloyd Austin on a couple of the points that they raised.

I understand the point about flexibility, but you have discussed the need for consultation and scrutiny. When powers are delivered through secondary legislation, there is actually less of a requirement. Parliament has very clear rules: our three-stage process is clearly laid out and is open, allowing people make submissions. However, there is no pre-configured format for what consultation the Government might require for legislation—sometimes, it is not specified at all. If you want scrutiny and consultation, would you not be better off with primary legislation?

You mentioned guidance and parliamentary scrutiny, earlier. Bills might specify that guidance needs to be laid before Parliament but, in essence, that is a notice period before the guidance is introduced. That process does not actually require any input, and there is no ability for Parliament to amend or update the guidance, although committees could take evidence, if they want to. Are you suggesting that some thought should be given to a parliamentary role in relation to guidance, particularly when it relates to a substantial matter?

Rosemary Agnew, I was interested in some of your previous answers. What you said was similar to some things that were said last week about there not necessarily being a hard and fast distinction between framework bills and non-framework bills, and the idea that the issue is more about how powers that are delivered through secondary legislation are framed and structured. You can have very broad and open powers and other powers that are very well specified. The broad parameters are set, but the issue is the detail or the levels that are left to secondary legislation.

Does that need to be an area of greater focus, so that we have models for framing secondary powers? Most legislation will involve some secondary powers—it is very rare for legislation to have none. Are you suggesting that we think about how secondary powers are framed and structured, rather than focus purely on whether a bill is a framework bill or not?

Financial things are at the discretion of the Government, are they not?

That is what the budget is for.

This has been an interesting discussion. I will go back to the subject of my previous supplementary question. There are issues with scrutiny and the ability for other people to give input. Those are baked into our parliamentary processes, but it is incredibly rare for evidence to be taken regarding secondary legislation, under either the negative or affirmative procedure, and it is rare to have any sort of a formal parliamentary scrutiny beyond placing a matter on this committee’s agenda and, perhaps, on the agenda of a lead committee. There is some parliamentary oversight of the substance of SSIs, but it is not just a little bit less than there is for primary legislation: it is almost completely absent.

Do we need to re-examine what happens? Do we need a parliamentary change or should the Government think about how it frames secondary powers within legislation? I put that question to Lloyd Austin first, because he was circling round those points in some of his previous answers.

I will start by following on from the answers to Bill Kidd’s questions, which also relate to some other points.

On post-legislative scrutiny, part of it might be about amending, updating and fixing. Michael Clancy pointed out earlier that there are other expedited legislative processes. Are alternative ways of viewing legislation part of what needs to be looked at? Should we have more legislation that addresses updates and fixes to the law, or shorter pieces of legislation that are more focused?

I was looking at the standing orders. Through the normal processes, in theory, without using emergency legislation, legislation could be got through in seven or eight weeks, given what is stipulated for the time between stages. Rather than always thinking that legislation needs to be big and long and drawn out, should we be using it to update and improve law as we go, as opposed to using secondary legislation to achieve the same effect?

Finally, I will bring in Jonnie Hall. The thrust of my previous supplementary question was that, sometimes, powers are set out in legislation that are so broadly stated that they could almost be used for entirely opposite objectives to those that were intended. I understand the point about flexibility, but is there a need to have more scrutiny and input on such things when instruments are going through Parliament? If so, do you have any thoughts on what that could look like and what would be useful—without impeding the flexibilities, which are clearly important—if there are pressing issues?

That was helpful. Ms Springham, do you want to comment?

It was more broadly about whether there is more than one way to skin a cat. We are using secondary legislation to update things, but are there other ways of doing that?