---

Parliament and the Legislative Process

My Lords, two things go on. For example, ideas will be floated to generate public debate. Noble Lords will have seen that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has put forward suggestions to inform public debate. The media have reported these as if they will actually happen. Sometimes the situation is double-edged: we call for a public debate on issues before we move to a point where we develop policy on them, but the process of engaging in the public debate often becomes an assumption that that is what the Government are going to do. How we balance that is very difficult. I have seen from my colleagues a recognition that Parliament has a very important role to play. Occasionally, in this House when we take through very difficult legislation, I am sometimes irritated by the number of Statements with respect to policy initiatives. But that is about the management of the business rather than about the fact that Parliament has an important place in terms of hearing about policy and responding to policy within Parliament. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that I find it very difficult to think of ways in which we can work to ensure that the media take what goes on in this House and the other place more seriously. That is not necessarily what the media want to hear or do. I was very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord   Holme of Cheltenham, acknowledged the positive nature of the Government’s response to the committee’s recommendations on post-legislative scrutiny—a point that was also picked up by the noble Lords, Lord MacGregor, Lord Norton of Louth, Lord Dahrendorf and Lord McNally, and my   noble friend Lady Gould. Parliament and government have a common interest in strengthening post-legislative scrutiny. From the Government’s point of view, it could help to ensure that the Government’s aims are delivered in practice and that the considerable resources devoted to legislation are committed to good effect. We have therefore been giving very close consideration to how post-legislative scrutiny can best be achieved. We have asked the Law Commission to undertake a study of the options. I can report to the House that the Law Commission included that project in its ninth programme, published on 22 March. It has been recruiting a lawyer to work on that project who has some familiarity with Parliament and the debates around post-legislative scrutiny. It expects to begin work in July with the intention of reporting a year later. The commission, as is its common practice, will consult widely during the course of its work. While we do not accept that the Explanatory Notes are the best place to put criteria for evaluating a Bill after implementation, we agree that departments should be clear about the purpose of a Bill and how they will evaluate the effectiveness of legislation once it is enacted. Perhaps I may pick up on two additional points that were raised in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Smith of Clifton, came back to a point that he has raised many times with me on the scrutiny of Northern Ireland business. The noble Lord will know that we have established a Grand Committee procedure to look at that. We are looking at other ways of ensuring that Parliament can look at the detail of Northern Ireland business. I know that the budget for Northern Ireland is a particular concern. We will come back to noble Lords with some proposals on that. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, could not resist making a point about the EU Constitution. All I would say to him is that we do need a constitution to vote on, and it is not absolutely clear where we are at this point. Even the noble Lord cannot disagree that discussion by leaders within the context of the European Council is necessary before a decision is made on the next step. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, asked a number of questions about the Government’s response to Select Committee reports in this House and in another place. Indeed, he tabled a Written Question on this towards the end of May. The House of Lords Companion to the Standing Orders states that:"““The government have undertaken to respond in writing to the reports of the European Union Committee, if possible, within two months of publication, and to the reports of other select committees within six months””." The present version of the Cabinet Office guidance on departmental evidence and response to committees makes this clear. The response limit for the House of Commons is two months. I have been asked why these different practices have grown up between the two Houses. I understand that the longer deadline for responses to Lords committee reports than that for the Commons seems to be an accident of history. Separate undertakings have been given in the two Houses without reference to the practice of the other. Obviously that is not entirely satisfactory, but that is what has become custom and practice. I apologise for trespassing on the time of the House. I conclude by saying that it remains my view that the committee has made some very important recommendations which deserve further discussion. I hope that there will be opportunities to have that discussion in the course of this Parliament.