---

Parliament: Legislative Proposals

This is, indeed, a timely debate for all the reasons the noble Lord, Lord Butler, gave. I congratulate him on his choice of subject and for raising it this afternoon. It is always a little daunting to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, with his great experience in all sorts of fields; it is even more daunting when he honours us by appearing in front of us so splendidly arrayed. Recently, there has been increasing concern about how legislative proposals are put to Parliament and, flowing from that is the relationship between Parliament and the Executive. I share those concerns. There are two stages: first, how is policy formulated; and, secondly, how is it enacted when it gets to the parliamentary stage? I am concerned that so much legislation comes from the House of Commons in a form that has not been sufficiently scrutinised and, indeed, in some cases has not been scrutinised at all. The illustration given by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, of the Finance Act is certainly not unique. The result is that the quality of legislation overall produced by Parliament depends increasingly on the efforts made by the second Chamber to remedy the faults of the first. That is no way to legislate properly. It throws on the Government a greater obligation to produce legislation in the first instance which is comprehensive, precise and thorough. Unfortunately, as we all know, that is not always the case. However, if there is a perceived need for reform, how do we best go about it? Merely to complain that the House of Commons does not do its job properly is no real answer. The issue raises fundamental questions about the relationship between Parliament and the Executive. For some years now, the power of the Executive has increased and the consequent power of Parliament has declined. Furthermore, within the Executive, the power of the Prime Minister and the diminution of power by the Cabinet has produced a constitutional distortion. It surely should be basic that in any major decision the Cabinet should be consulted on the basis of proper Cabinet papers and proper discussion in Cabinet itself. While I realise that that may be time-consuming, even frustrating, for Prime Ministers, cabinet government is after all supposed to be the fundamental principle of our parliamentary constitution. Fortunately, I understand that the present Prime Minister is infinitely more assiduous in implementing this principle than perhaps was his predecessor. Even if cabinet government were to be properly restored, as I think it is now on the way to being, there remains the issue of what the relationship between Parliament and the Executive should be. I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, on the desirability of a parliamentary resolution. That would seem to be an admirable way of establishing the scope and nature of the relationship between the Executive and Parliament. Reading the text of a possible resolution, there is very little in it with which Ministers could disagree. On the other hand, it is easy to pay lip service to the terms of the resolution and much more difficult to implement it in practice. I shall illustrate. A possible resolution that has been floated is that: "““Ministers have a duty to Parliament to ensure that their policy and legislative proposals to Parliament have been thoroughly prepared””." That is unarguable. Everybody could accept it because it is, of course, true, but it would be very difficult to implement. It would require a heightened degree of political commitment to ensure that Parliament was placed in a realistic position to consider that legislation properly. The terms of a possible resolution would also have to include the main elements of the thorough preparation that would be necessary for legislative proposals to be properly considered. They are again basic and difficult to disagree with but, if implemented, they would undoubtedly have a profound effect on the quality of legislation produced by Parliament. I shall illustrate that by taking two of the possibilities: First, "““Defining the problem and explaining why action is desirable or, in the case of legislation, why it is operationally necessary””." That is again unarguable and everyone would accept it, but if it were implemented it would help Parliament enormously, and at present it does not happen. Secondly, "““Setting out principles and arguments which lead Ministers to the proposed option."." I have made the point twice already and will not repeat it. Indeed, one is sometimes driven back to the somewhat mournful conclusion that what is required more than anything else is a decision by the Executive that relations between them and Parliament have to improve. Once that is accepted, a great deal becomes obvious and possible that is at present opaque. I am pleased that my noble friend the Leader of the House will respond to this debate, but I urge her and the Government to be open and generous in their response. A great deal depends on it, but the issue must not be left here. A one-hour debate in the Moses Room late on a Thursday afternoon is no substitute for proper consideration by the House as a whole. Indeed, if ever there was a matter that should be considered by the House as a whole, this is it. While I understand, of course, that my noble friend will not be able to commit herself to the expenditure of parliamentary time—no Leader of the House ever can, although he or she is often asked—nevertheless an indication that the Government would like the issue to be further discussed would be very helpful.