---

Parliament and the Legislative Process

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Holme, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Norton, as chairman of the Select Committee. His expertise was invaluable in steering us through the production of this important report. In its introduction the report states:"““If Parliament gets it wrong, the impact on citizens can on occasion be disasterous; and history has shown examples of legislation that have proven clearly unfit for the purpose””." That principle should guide all our deliberations. The Select Committee was right to concentrate in detail on one aspect of the legislative process: primary legislation. Over the years, many reports and analyses have been written on this topic—referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Holme, as signposts. Unfortunately, a number of those have started from the negative premise that the process is in decline. Although that provides headlines for the media, it does little else. The debate benefits far more from the approach of the Norton commission, which acknowledged that things were getting better but that further improvements were needed. The Select Committee report picks up that theme against the background that Parliament cannot act in a vacuum. Parliamentarians are not the fount of all wisdom; listening to informed opinion is a crucial part of the process at all stages, starting with consultation on the policy behind the issue. As well as hearing from organisations with a vested interest in the subject, ways must be found to do the more difficult job of engaging individuals. In her evidence to the committee, the example highlighted by my noble friend Lady Amos of the consultation process used for the Green Paper Every Child Matters shows how a little imagination can overcome that problem. Two consultations were prepared: one for adults and one especially for children, 14 to 19 year-olds. Nine ministerial and 60 other events took place around the country and youngsters were able to talk directly to the Minister in a web chat. That resulted in more than 4,000 responses from youngsters, twice the number received from adults. If the Government are serious about such consultation—I genuinely believe that they are—there must be consideration of the best way to get the maximum response and in particular what new technology should be used. The principle of consultation, although in a different context, is highlighted by the Puttnam commission, set up by the Hansard Society, on the communication of parliamentary democracy. It says that, for Parliament to re-engage with the public, it can no longer be seen as a place that involves people only once every four or five years at the ballot box. We must continue to look at other ways of connecting with the public. Pre-legislative scrutiny of draft Bills provides another such opportunity for the Government to hear the public’s views. The committee and all who gave evidence welcomed its increasing use. Although I appreciate that, for a number of reasons, it is not possible to have scrutiny of all Bills, the report is right that wherever possible it should be an established and integral part of legislation, as in the Scottish Parliament. Like the noble Lord, Lord Holme, I believe that when pre-legislative scrutiny is not possible, an explanation should be provided. Therefore, I do not wholly accept the Government’s response on that point. If, as the response says, an explanation for the non-production of a draft Bill can be given by Answer to a Written Question or oral Question, why can it not be included in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill? It would save everyone time and eliminate speculation about why it has not happened. The value of scrutiny on the principle of a Bill cannot be over-emphasised. I have just participated in a scrutiny committee for the first time. We were able to examine in depth the principle behind the legislation and to bridge a gap in order to achieve that principle. As a result of that experience, I look forward to participating in the Bill as it goes through the House. Interestingly, Robin Cook commented in his evidence to the Select Committee that Commons scrutiny committees are made up of very different people from those who form the Standing Committee. I am not sure whether he was aware that that does not apply in this House. The knowledge learned from being on a scrutiny committee is seen to be used effectively in the later examination of the Bill. Where I have a minor disagreement with the Select Committee report is that it identifies the use of joint pre-legislative committees only for big and complex Bills. My view is that it should be the normal procedure whenever possible. There is great value in Members of both Houses pooling their experiences. I do not believe, as my noble friend Lord Carter does, that Members cannot be found to sit on these committees. I am certain that Members could be found if they were approached. Witnesses made other suggestions, which were highlighted in the report, about how to further involve the public in different stages of the Bill, such as further evidence being taken by special Standing Committees, Standing Committees in the Commons or Grand Committees in the Lords. My reservation is that that would increase the time taken to get the legislation on to the statute book, but it is right that at some stage every Bill should be subject to detailed examination by a committee empowered to take evidence. As the report says, carry-over is the answer for Bills that require more time to ensure effective scrutiny. As has been evidenced in practice, it should not be necessary for there to have been pre-legislative scrutiny for a Bill to be carried over. Although it appears that there is general support for carry-over—I agree with my noble friend Lord Carter on this occasion—it is little used. There seems to be a reluctance to break out of the existing sessional mentality. It is encouraging that the Government recognised in their response that there are some benefits to a rolling legislative programme. But they qualify that by saying that the sessional cut-off is currently an integral part of our programme. I cannot envisage annual Sessions as we know them being eliminated very quickly, but I would be grateful if my noble friend could elaborate further on whether she envisages a time when a two-year rolling programme is the norm. I started by referring to the impact of legislation on citizens, but the only way of discovering the impact is by monitoring the effect of the legislation. We hear when problems become apparent, such as in the much-quoted Child Support Act 1990, but we rarely hear when legislation has worked well and achieved its objective. The noble Lord, Lord Holme, said that the Government had asked the Law Commission how post-legislative scrutiny could be achieved, what the options were and who should take the responsibility. When is the Law Commission expected to report and how will implementation follow? There is clear disagreement between the Government and the committee on the thorny question of a business committee. The Select Committee discovered that it was a major development in the devolved legislatures. A corporate body takes responsibility for considering the business of the House. In all instances the committees met regularly, once or twice a week, to discuss forthcoming business and arrange the timetable. Such a committee would not replace the usual channels but would ensure a more inclusive process. I genuinely believe that there would be greater advantage in making the process more transparent and removing the mystique. The case has been made by a number of the commissions and has received cross-party support. I can do no more than quote the evidence given by my noble friend Carter to the committee about his experience as Chief Whip in the House—I apologise for not giving him warning. He said:"““In the planning of the session, the draft bills and all the rest of it, that could equally well be done by a business committee because, in a sense, it is not adversarial; it is not political; it is just the programme of work””." On the basis of that evidence, I hope that the Government will further consider, and not just reject, the introduction of a business committee. In conclusion I refer to the many reviews produced on the process of legislation. It reminds me of when I was responsible for the organisation of the Labour Party and the many reports written on how to improve that organisation, resulting in slow and marginal change. To speed the process up, I did what some people would never have believed possible: I established a review of reviews. Everybody sat down and went through all the words—no witnesses, no evidence, just the words that had been printed. We put together all those proposals, and, from that, we were able to make substantial change. I am not suggesting a similar exercise now, although it might be a good thing. Nor am I suggesting that progress has not been made: it has. However, as the Select Committee says, more needs to be done. I therefore hope that the proposals before us will be implemented and will be the basis of improving our process of legislation, as review after review has urged us to do.