Oral question asked in the House of Commons, by Nicholas Winterton (Conservative). It was answered on Tuesday, 28 February 2006 on behalf of the Leader of the House of Commons.

Pre-legislative Scrutiny

Question: We were all taken aback by that brief and succinct, but positive, reply. I support the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). If we had more pre-legislative scrutiny, the nonsense of programming nowadays, whereby much legislation goes through without important parts being adequately debated either in Standing Committee or at remaining stages, would be removed, and the House would be a better place and legislation would be better for the people of this country.

Answer: Would that all right hon. and hon. Members shared the optimistic and progressive view of the hon. Gentleman, but the sad fact is that when looking at programme motions of one kind or another over a couple decades I do not consider that pre-legislative scrutiny or any other parliamentary mechanism for scrutiny would stop the inexorable trend for Oppositions to maximise the time for programme motions to complain that there is not enough time. However, I do not want to depart from the present all-party consensus; we support pre-legislative scrutiny and think it should be extended as far as is practical, but there are cases where it is not appropriate or practical.

Secondary information

Type: Oral question
Reference: 443 c124-5
Session: 2005-06
Oral question type: Supplementary
Chamber / Committee: House of Commons chamber
Subjects: Legislative drafting Parliamentary scrutiny Timetabling of bills Legislation
Link: View this Oral question on www.publications.parliament.uk