Our Lifting the Lid series aims to open up the delegated legislation process and reveal the stories behind recently published Statutory Instruments. This week: The European Union Referendum (Date of Referendum Etc.) Regulations 2016.
On Monday 22nd February the government formally laid before Parliament the delegated legislation required to start the official campaign period before the EU referendum.
The European Union Referendum (Date of Referendum etc.) Regulations 2016 formally set the date of the referendum, which will be held on Thursday 23 June, and confirms that the referendum period, in which all campaigners will be subject to spending limits, will begin on Friday 15 April.
The Instrument also prescribes the period for which one campaign organisation can be designated as lead campaigner for each outcome in the referendum by the Electoral Commission. Campaigns can apply to become lead campaigner from Friday 4 March and the Electoral Commission must make its decision by Thursday 14 April, the day before the referendum period begins.
These Regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure which means that both Houses of Parliament must actively approve them before the provisions can come into effect.
Just over 20% of Statutory Instruments laid before Parliament each session are subject to the affirmative procedure, which is usually assigned to more substantial and important pieces of delegated legislation. The vast majority of Statutory Instruments subject to parliamentary scrutiny are subject to the negative procedure, a less stringent form of parliamentary control than the affirmative procedure. Flow charts outlining the process for these two procedures can be found here.
In the House of Commons, affirmative instruments are automatically referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee for debate unless a motion for the instrument to be debated on the Floor of the House is tabled. Regulations relating to terrorism and security are automatically considered on the Floor of the House where they can be debated by all MPs for up to 90 minutes, but more usually the bulk of affirmative instruments are debated in committee.
Delegated Legislation Committees are composed of 18 MPs nominated by the party whips to reflect the composition of the House. Debates in these committees can last up to 90 minutes and are conducted on a motion that ‘the committee has considered the instrument’. Following the debate in Committee, an approval motion is put formally to the House without debate on a separate day. If a debate is held on the Floor of the House, the approval motion question is put immediately after the debate. The vast majority of approval motions in the Commons are resolved without division, but if dissent is indicated the vote is deferred and MPs cast their vote by ballot paper between 11.30am and 2pm on the following Wednesday. This has happened on four occasions in the current session.
In the House of Lords a motion to approve an affirmative instrument can be taken in either Grand Committee or on the Floor of the House. In a similar vein to the House of Commons, if an affirmative instrument is debated in Committee, an approval motion is put formally to the House without debate on a separate day.
Unlike primary legislation, the scrutiny stages for statutory instruments in both Houses run concurrently but the majority of affirmative instruments are approved by the House of Commons before the House of Lords has approved them.
Cabinet Office guidance advises government departments to allow around six sitting weeks for the passage of an affirmative instrument through all its parliamentary stages. This allows for both the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee to consider the instrument and report on it within 12 to 16 days of it being laid. In the House of Lords, an approval motion cannot be moved until the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has reported on the instrument. This is a scrutiny reserve that the House of Commons does not observe.
Given that the instrument prescribes time periods that begin in a little over two weeks, it is expected that its progress through the parliamentary stages will be rapid and not in keeping with the usual 6-7 week process.
Enjoy reading this? Please consider sharing it
The new review of the Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal project opens up a range of different outcomes for the future of the building. However, with the alarming state of the Palace not changed by the Coronavirus, the government should not use the pandemic as an excuse to downgrade or delay the much-needed repairs.
Submitting evidence before the House was to take further decisions on its Coronavirus arrangements, we decried the Leader of the House’s decision to end hybrid proceedings and remote voting as "over-hasty, poorly thought-through, unwise and unnecessary". Our recommendations covered House business, risk management, delegated legislation and select committees.
Jersey’s States Assembly was the first legislature in the Commonwealth to hold a full virtual meeting, with all members able to participate, in order to get around the limitations imposed by the Covid-19 crisis. Mark Egan, Greffier of the States, describes how this was achieved and suggests that some of the States Assembly’s Covid-19 innovations may stick.
The unprecedentedly long delay in appointing the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) again exposes the extent to which the work of this parliamentary committee is constrained by the executive. Important ISC inquiries, as well as publication of the Committee’s ‘Russia report’, are being held up.
Should the Liaison Committee have as its chair someone who is not simultaneously a select committee chair, and should the identity of that person be determined by the government? The answer to these questions will tell us much about how this cohort of MPs, particularly government backbenchers, view the relationship between Parliament and the executive.
The extensive take-up of remote evidence-taking by House of Commons select committees during the Easter recess is a significant Coronavirus-induced change of practice. It shows how procedural and technological change can help support scrutiny.