At present the powers of ministers derive from two sources, the Royal Prerogative and primary legislation (i.e. Acts of Parliament). It seems quite wrong that in a modern democracy, any powers should stem from from an historical accident. Parliament should claim the right to award those powers, and would have done so had it shown any independence from the executive.

An Act of Parliament will grant some powers to ministers absolutely - that is powers that may be used without reference to Parliament. That is fair enough if MPs understand the implications. Other powers in theory are subject to parliamentary supervision. In such cases ministers have to lay orders before the House of Commons. There are three possible procedures:

• The Super Affirmative Resolution procedure,
• The Affirmative Resolution Procedure, or
• The Negative Resolution procedure.

Under the Super Affirmative Resolution Procedure the Order is laid before Parliament for 60 days, and a motion has to be passed by both Houses approving the order. By contrast under the Negative Resolution procedure, the Order becomes law on the date stated on it but will be annulled if either House passes a motion calling for its annulment within a certain time. As government controls the business of the House of Commons, such resolutions are never put in the House of Commons. In the House of Lords such motions can be tabled by an individual Member and are usually debated, although rarely put to the vote. For all practical purposes then, orders subject to Negative Resolution are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It is all a pretence.