I agree. In fairness, the Government have said that they will consult before introducing any of these regulations, but I shall have a little to say about the inadequacy of Statutory Instrument Committees as a means of ensuring thorough and sound debate.
I shall quote from the regulatory impact assessment; this is the nub of the issue. Paragraph 31 says:"““The Animal Welfare Bill is an enabling measure, setting out certain fundamental principles but leaving detailed legislation to regulation and codes of practice.””"
That, really, is the trouble. Even with the commitment to consult on the regulations and codes of practice, that is an inadequate way for Parliament to consider detailed legislation. Unamendable statutory instruments get a maximum of one and a half hours of obscure debate in Committee. I speak as a former Government assistant Whip, so I know whereof I speak—Government Members are not exactly encouraged by the Whips to participate in the proceedings.
I think I know why the Government have taken this approach. It is partly to prevent the Bill from becoming too long, complex and inflexible, and I have some sympathy with that. However, the Bill is enabling only in the sense that it enables the Government to do virtually whatever they want.
Animal Welfare Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Peter Ainsworth
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 10 January 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Animal Welfare Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
441 c173 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 20:36:34 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_289570
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_289570
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_289570