Rt Hon Jack Straw MP addresses Hansard Society meeting on legislative process
A new Hansard Society book
Law in the Making: Influence and Change in the Legislative Process
was launched at a conference in Parliament where
Rt Hon Jack Straw MP gave the keynote speech.
The conference was opened by Hansard Society Chief Executive
Fiona Booth. Peter
Riddell, Chair of the Hansard Society, explained that scrutinising the work
of Parliament was one of the Hansard Society's core activities. Since the
publication of the Rippon Commission report 15 years ago, Parliament had seen
many changes. It was easy to be pessimistic about the role of Parliament, but
the new research in Law in the Making
pointed out where MPs and peers can and do make a difference to legislation as
it passes though Parliament. The Hansard Society will be following up this
report with further examination and research.
Alex Brazier,
Director of the Hansard Society's Parliament and Government programme and joint
author of the report, outlined the main themes of the publication:
- The
impact of Parliament and parliamentarians on the legislative process
- The
effectiveness of the parliamentary process
- The
relationship between the two Houses of Parliament
- The
role of external bodies and the difference they can make
- The
role of the media which can have some impact but covers very little of the
work of Parliament.
Alex made two further points about how the legislative
process works:
There
are a number of factors which inhibit scrutiny - limitations on parliamentarians'
time and resources, lack of time in the legislative process, the
increasing volume and complexity of legislation and the massive amount of
detail contained in delegated legislation.
The
legislative process contains two different cultures - the features of a
political battle combined with the techniques of dispassionate scrutiny.
The adversarial system and ethos at Westminster
still dominate with a predominant belief within government that to change
a bill is a sign of weakness. At the same time, mechanisms for less
partisan scrutiny have been introduced (e.g. an increase in
pre-legislative scrutiny and the introduction of public bill committees).
Alex concluded by suggesting some recommendations for
reform, including: more structured and straightforward government
consultations, an increase in pre-legislative scrutiny and improvements to the
committee stage.
Keynote Speech
The keynote speech was given by Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for
Justice. He opened by expressing his appreciation of the contribution made by
the Hansard Society to the work of Parliament and described the Law in the
Making research publication as ‘forensic, balanced and informative'. He
reflected on the many bills the Government had taken through Parliament and
judged that the most successful pieces of legislation were the ones ‘where we
thought about things and took our time'. He outlined two kinds of law which are
not always successful - those which are done too swiftly and those which go
though on consensus with all-party agreement - he gave the example of the
Children's Act.
Turning to the publication, he commented that it contradicts
the prevailing theory that Parliament is now dead. It is a myth that in the
1950s, Parliament was much more assertive and demanding of ministers and
government. In fact, Parliament has become more rebellious and assertive over
the years and, in his judgement, ‘long may that continue'. He concluded by
saying that he believed that not a single bill that he'd taken through the
House hadn't been improved by scrutiny and the parliamentary process.
Panel 1 -
External Influences on the Legislative Process
This panel featured four speakers discussing the effect of
external lobbyists and pressure groups on legislature, and the challenges,
techniques, and frustrations involved in the process.
Baroness Warwick,
speaking on behalf of Universities UK, remarked on the relationship of "trust"
that has been established between the House of Lords and charitable organisations,
and that the time provided for debate in the Lords, coupled with the collective
knowledge of the peers made it the preferred chamber to work with.
Alison Harvey, representing
the Immigration Law Practitioners Association (ILPA), made an impassioned and
insightful speech into the difficulties of lobbying on behalf of an often
‘unpopular' subject. She expressed doubt about the consultative process, and
described the main task of the ILPA as being "simply to explain" the actual
impact of bills, warning that the explanatory notes provided by the government
serve only to "lead you off with the fairies."
John Wright,
National Chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses, emphasised the need
for political impartiality on behalf of lobbyists if they wished to achieve their
goals. He noted that the work of many
pro-business organisations is compromised by perceived Conservative leanings.
Finally Julia
Hobsbawm, founder of Editorial Intelligence, spoke of the impact and power
of the "Commentariat", the grouping of media columnists, opinion and leader
writers on influencing the legislature, both explicitly and through moderating
the political climate. She argued that the changing nature of media coverage
had seen "news turn into views" and that personality and style were still very
much at the forefront of contemporary politics.
Common themes of the debate were the difficulty of making an
impact on legislature, and the importance of research. All the speakers agreed
on the need for lobbyists to work across party lines in building support, and
the necessity of identifying sympathetic individuals to support an
organisations' case.
Panel 2 - The Role of Parliament and Parliamentarians in
Influencing Legislation
This panel featured four Parliamentarians with diverse
experiences of the legislative process. The speakers emphasised the ways in
which their personal and professional backgrounds came into play in
Parliamentary contexts. As one would expect, expertise in particular issues,
i.e. health, could be drawn upon when proposing or amending legislation and building
cross-party alliances across both Houses.
Far from it being easy for parliamentarians to challenge
poorly conceived and badly drafted legislation, there are many obstacles to
overcome. In the words of Baroness
D'Souza, Convenor of the Crossbench Peers, ministers often do not want to
be seen to be accepting challenges lest they seem weak and open to pressure.
The result - described by Oliver Heald
MP and David Heath MP - is that
amendments can be proposed and evidence heard in committee, but it takes a
surge in media commentary or a resounding challenge in the House of Lords for
poor legislation to be amended or defeated.
A sense emerged of the huge pressure faced by government to
produce new legislation. The sheer volume of bills, particularly on populist
issues such as crime, or asylum and immigration, often meant that new legislation
was being proposed before the preceding version had been implemented. The case
was made for a more dedicated form of legislative scrutiny that tracked bills
from inception to their implementation, and beyond into post-legislative
scrutiny. As in earlier sessions, the problems of procedure and the need for
reform where highlighted; certain conventions - it was argued - prevented
parliamentarians from holding government to account.
Despite this, the message was not bleak. In particular Baroness D'Souza highlighted how the
expertise contained in the House of Lords, combined with well targeted and
informed approaches from the public, can result in effective challenges to
problematic bills - at a minimum signalling that they would be defeated if they
were not revised, as was the case with the government's latest
counter-terrorism proposals. Moreover, there was a consensus across the panel
that Private Members' Bills could be used to good effect and that government
could be encouraged to propose its own legislation in support of them - even if
not been debated.
Perspectives from the audience, however, indicated that
Parliament has a way to go before it can claim to be properly representative.
The populist media was felt to have more influence than minority groups, the
latter being insufficiently represented in both houses. There was also a sense
that even if the public were consulted, they often have little impact. The
Parliamentarians showed a willingness to listen and respond to the audience,
resulting in an interesting discussion about the pathways to engagement and the
effects of power imbalances in both houses. Although a hung Parliament was not
described as a panacea (an outcome could be a pot-pourri of amendments to
legislation), and while increased hours would not necessarily lead to better
scrutiny, there was a sense from Parliamentarians that they welcomed the opportunity
to reform the way both houses worked to make better laws.
To listen to the event in full please click on one of the links below:
Alex Brazier and Peter Riddell introducing the Law in the Making research
Keynote speech by Rt Hon Jack Straw MP
Panel 1 -
External Influences on the Legislative Process (Part 1, Part 2)
Panel 2 - The Role of Parliament and Parliamentarians in
Influencing Legislation (Part 1, Part 2)
Radio 4's Today in Parliament (11.30pm, Friday 17
July 2008) will be discussing the themes highlighted at this meeting. It will
also include additional interviews with some of the speakers at this event
including; Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, David Heath MP, Oliver Heald MP and Alex
Brazier.
Rt Hon Jack Straw MP's keynote speech will be broadcast on BBC Parliament channel (9pm, Saturday 18 July 2008).