|
 |
|
|
Report“Reforming the Legislative Process: reports of the Lords Constitution Committee and Commons Modernisation Committee” Back to seminar | Seminar series A report on a Constitution Unit public seminar on 5 December 2007 The framework for the seminar was provided by reports on the legislative process by the Lords Constitution Committee in 2004 and the Commons Modernisation Committee in 2006. In his presentation, Lord Norton emphasised the importance of taking a holistic approach to the legislative process. That is to say pre-legislative scrutiny of draft bills, scrutiny of bills as they pass through parliament, and post-legislative scrutiny of the effects of legislation are interlinked, and, as such, should be considered together. He argued that the legislative process faced four key problems. First is the “big bill mentality” of many ministers: a desire to get through a major bill during their time in office. In conjunction with the “something must be done” mentality, this creates a tendency towards excessive law-making. A third, procedural, problem is the ‘sessional cut off’, which mitigates against effective scrutiny by encouraging government to publish a “tidal wave” of legislation at the beginning of a session, and a rush to reach Royal Assent before prorogation. The fourth problem is the view that Royal Assent marks the end of the legislative process, which often leads to a failure to assess the consequences of legislation. Speaking three years after the publication of his committee’s report on the subject, Lord Norton said that post-legislative scrutiny remained “the black hole” of legislative process reforms. Although some specific acts have been subjected to such scrutiny (eg. The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005), Lord Norton argued that this ad hoc approach was insufficient. He considered it “absolutely crucial” that parliamentary committees are able to conduct thorough reviews of the consequences of legislation, both intended and unintended. To assist this process, Lord Norton suggested that at the pre-legislative stage, the intended consequences of each bill should be established, and a set of criteria to judge its effectiveness should be drawn up. This would then guide scrutiny at the post-legislative phase. As Helen Irwin pointed out, however, the process would have to factor in significant amendments to the bill that occurred during its passage through Parliament. Both speakers noted the potentially large resource implications of requiring committees to conduct detailed reviews of legislation. Lord Norton’s suggestion was for parliamentary committees to be given sufficient resources to be able to commission independent researchers to carry out such work. Lord Norton also highlighted the Law Commission’s recent report on post-legislative scrutiny and criticised the government for its tardiness in responding to its recommendations. On pre-legislative scrutiny, Lord Norton judged that reforms to date had been productive but that that practices should be extended, such that the publication of draft bills, enabling pre-legislative scrutiny, should become the “norm rather than the exception.” However, he noted the political obstacles in the shape of government reluctance to commit to extending its current rate of draft bill publication. As for scrutiny during the formal parliamentary process, Lord Norton advocated the greater use of both ‘Keeling schedules’ (which detail how a bill amends previous legislation) and ‘carry over bills’ (meaning that bills that have not been enacted are not automatically lost at the end of a session). He also said that it was of the upmost importance that all bills, at some point, be scrutinised by an evidence taking committee. This last element of legislative reform was the main focus of Helen Irwin’s presentation. She discussed the procedural changes flowing from the Modernisation Committee report of 2006, and in particular the move from ‘standing committee’ to the more aptly-named ‘public bill committee’. Aside from the more comprehensible nomenclature, the major benefit was to make evidence-taking a standard part of the legislative process. The new process is intended to supplant rather than replace traditional methods of parliamentary committee operation, with initial evidence-taking sessions on bills being followed by traditional clause-by-clause scrutiny as before. Irwin noted Jack Straw’s (then Leader of the House) statement that the aims of the reforms were to make the legislative process more accessible and comprehensible for members of the public, as well as lobbyists and even politicians themselves. This objective also lies behind measures such as the redesigned website, which brings together in one place a wide range of information about each bill. However, as stressed by Irwin, it is too early to assess the success of the new system reforms. Rather, such an assessment will be a matter for future researchers. A key question is whether evidence given publicly to committees (e.g. by relevant interest groups) has greater weight than private negotiations with government or whether, in the words of Edward Garnier MP, the system was just a ‘release valve’ for MPs to feel involved in the legislative process without the government making any real concessions. Of course, much will depend on the approach taken by ministers, hence Lord Norton’s emphasis on the importance of embedding cultural change if the reforms are to have a major impact. Laura Frascona & Akash Paun
This page last modified 25 January, 2008 by v.spence@ucl.ac.uk |
|
|
