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 end of the transition period is likely to expose even more fully the scope of the policy-making that the government can carry out via Statutory Instruments, as it uses its new powers to develop post-Brexit law. However, there are few signs yet of a wish to reform delegated legislation scrutiny, on the part of government or the necessary coalition of MPs.
Parliament’s role around the end of the Brexit transition and conclusion of the EU future relationship treaty is a constitutional failure to properly scrutinise the executive and the law. As the UK moves to do things differently after 1 January, MPs must do more to ensure they can better discharge their responsibilities regarding the making of UK treaties.
The EU (Future Relationship) Bill is to be considered by both Houses in just one sitting day. How unusual is such an expedited timetable and how much time will parliamentarians really have to look at the Bill? How will MPs participate in proceedings given Covid-19 restrictions? And how will proceedings, particularly the amendment process, work on the day?
The Coronavirus pandemic has added to the questions surrounding the nature of the Parliament that should emerge from the Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal programme. But, with concerns over the programme’s governance and public engagement rising, the report arising from the current review of the programme will not now be published this year.
The debate about remote participation in House of Commons proceedings raises critical questions about what constitutes a ‘good parliamentarian’, what ‘fair’ participation looks like, and who gets to decide. As things stand, the exclusion from much parliamentary business of pregnant women, among others, undermines equality of political representation.
Disputed parliamentary election results – often taking months to resolve – were a frequent feature of English political culture before the reforms of the 19th century. But how could defeated candidates protest the result of an election, and how were such disputes resolved?