---

Parliament: Legislative Proposals

It is a pleasure and a privilege to follow the noble Lord in this debate. I underwrite and agree with everything he has said and I share his respect for the relationship between government and the Civil Service. I have had the privilege of working alongside him for longer than I care to remember—certainly from my first Budget of nearly 20 years ago. As I say, I underwrite his search for improved preparation in legislative proposals, starting with his emphasis on the need to improve the quality of law in that sense. I also underline his subsidiary point of the need to consider not only the quality of the law that is introduced but also the quantity. The sheer volume under all Governments has been, and continues to be, excessive. A long time ago a young man, here depicted, produced a pamphlet entitled Too Much Law? That was in 1977, when I committed the incoming Conservative Government to make fewer laws and to make laws fewer. We did not do too well at it but my commitment remains unchanged. However, it is not only the quality or quantity of law that I am concerned about. I underline the interest of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, in this matter; in regard to the quality and quantity of the underlying policy. The quality of law, the draftmanship and so on are important and need to be improved, but it is the extent to which the underlying policy proposals have been thought through, examined and scrutinised by Parliament ahead of their introduction that is the main concern. That is why I was slightly less than polite when we had the Statement this week on the Government’s proposed constitutional consolidation or reform. The sheer volume of that alarmed me, as did the prospect of a torrent of what could so easily be half-baked upheaval. In an example I gave at the time, I said that the abolition of the Lord Chancellor’s office involved 150 subsidiary provisions in the legislation. I apologise for having misled the House: it was not 150 but 250. That is a measure of the scale of change foreshadowed in that Bill. It is important not to have too much faith in too much law. Indeed, I hesitate to enthuse over the formula proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, because I am wary of the belief that by merely passing a code of that kind we might persuade ourselves that we have solved the problem. I have often repeated my proposition that law is greatly exaggerated in the importance of its impact. I said earlier this week that, as Lord Milton said, there are three great domains of human conduct. The first is where our actions are limited or forbidden by law. Then there is the domain of free personal choice. But between these two there is a third domain, that in which there is neither law nor unfettered freedom, where people do what is right because they know they have to do it for themselves. Edmund Burke said: "““Manners are of more importance than laws. Upon them, in a great measure the laws depend””." Judge Learned Hand, a notable American judge, said: "““I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts””." It is easy to believe that by having established a code one has achieved what one wants to achieve, but it is the way in which one responds to the spirit of that and the way in which one conditions one’s approach to policy change that is so important. We need, therefore, not much less law but, in my judgment, much less change. The temptation to say, ““We are a reforming Government””—there is a temptation for the candidates in the American election now to say, ““We stand for change””—implies that one should be living in a period of constant institutional upheaval. We have seen a great deal of that under the present Government—not uniquely—in the whole of the licensing legislation, the whole of the gaming legislation and the whole of electoral law; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, pointed out, the whole of criminal justice has been changed so much and so decisively that a great deal of wisdom has been cast to one side. One very striking example of that arrived helpfully in my mail this morning. It is the document produced by the demised Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health. Its document started by saying: "““The Commission may be unique as a public body in that only months after it became operational it was informed that following a review of ‘arms-length’ bodies—it would be quickly abolished. This change in Government strategy … was followed by five Government postponements of the actual closure date … Over the five year period there was little clarity of direction and Government leadership””," and so on. That is one example of upheaval before one round of constitutional change had even set. My concern, therefore—I come to what the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said—is that we need not just fuller consideration of policy and pre-legislative consideration, but fuller, deeper and more patient consideration in advance of policy by Parliament, ahead of the production of a White Paper or a Green Paper. There is a huge mount of talent in both Houses of Parliament. Governments should have greater confidence in the ability to consult with that talent and to slow down the pace of change and upheaval. As the noble Lord said, when I go into any boardroom, committee room or staff room as a politician and ask, ““What would you like us to do?””, the response is invariably, ““For God’s sake, leave us alone””. I do not mean do nothing, but be thoughtful and careful, and be ready to consult with Parliament at a measured pace before one proceeds, with or without legislation.