Appendix: Government Response
Introduction
1. The Government welcomes the Committee's inquiry
into legislative standards. It is in the interests of the Government,
Parliament and the public that legislation is of a high standard
and meets policy objectives.
2. The Government is committed to ensuring that the
legislation it puts before Parliament is of a high standard and
to ensuring that Parliament has the necessary means by which to
perform its scrutiny function. The Government is making progress
on both these fronts. It launched the Good Law initiative in April
2013, designed to promote law which is effective, clear and accessible.
We welcome the Committee's support for this initiative and will
take into account its recommendations in taking forward the different
strands of work, in consultation with Parliament. The House will
shortly consider one initiative designed to improve the scrutiny
process: the extension of the pilot on the use of explanatory
statements on amendments.
3. Pre-legislative scrutiny has an important role
to play in improving legislation and this Government has demonstrated
its commitment to this scrutiny by publishing a higher proportion
of bills in draft than previous governments.
4. Other methods of scrutiny can also be useful.
The Government has run two public reading pilots and conducted
other forms of consultation prior to the introduction of bills.
The Government has also given sufficient time to allow proper
scrutiny in public bill committees and has provided additional
days at Commons report stage where necessary.
5. Effective post-legislative scrutiny is fundamental
to driving up standards of legislation over the medium term as
well as learning useful policy lessons. The Government continues
to publish post-legislative scrutiny assessments and would welcome
further scrutiny of these by parliamentary committees.
6. This Response addresses first the two issues to
which the bulk of the Committee's recommendations relate—a
draft Code of Legislative Standards and the establishment of a
Joint Legislative Standards Committee—before responding
to the other recommendations. In summary, whilst the Government
accepts that improvements in the quality of legislation are both
desirable and possible, it is not necessary to establish new mechanisms
to achieve this, for the reasons which are set out.
Code of Legislative Standards
7. We recommend that the Cabinet Office's Guide
to Making Legislation should adopt and set out a Code of Legislative
Standards as agreed with Parliament, and emphasise the need to
work with Parliament to ensure those standards are met. (Paragraph
37)
8. Overall there is a level of consensus amongst
our witnesses that part of the solution to improve legislative
standards is to formulate a set of standards which legislation
should meet. We do not think that legislative quality will improve
without an objective set of quality standards against which to
compare and judge bills and Acts, agreed between Parliament and
the Government. Without such a list the decision that a piece
of legislation is or is not of bad quality remains highly subjective.
As a first step in the process of reaching such agreement, we
have drawn up a draft Code of Legislative Standards (see Annex
A), which we urge the Government to consider. (Paragraph 55)
9. We consider that the exercise of distilling
what a bill does, and why (or for large multi-topic bills each
part of a bill), into a short paragraph would provide clarity
and assist both the Executive and Parliament; the better quality
Explanatory Notes already do this. Paragraph B of our draft Code
encapsulates this as a requirement. (Paragraph 63)
10. We present our draft Code of Legislative Standards
as the basis for discussion and agreement between Parliament and
the Government as to legislative standards. We recommend that
the Government undertake work to refine the draft Code, and produce
a new version for discussion and agreement with both Houses of
Parliament. (Paragraph 69)
11. We recommend that information and answers
required by a finalised Code of Legislative Standards are provided
to Parliament in the Explanatory Notes to a bill. We think that
this is the simplest and most logical place for details to be
provided by the Government, rather than a further category of
parliamentary document being created. It also has the advantage
of firmly and clearly linking standards to the bill. We acknowledge
that the best Explanatory Notes already include many of the details
we suggest in our draft Code, but the quality is variable. We
hope that compliance with the finalised Code of Legislative Standards
will help to improve the overall quality of Explanatory Notes.
(Paragraph 71)
Government Response
12. The Government does not believe that a Code of
Legislative Standards is necessary or would be effective in ensuring
quality legislation. It is the responsibility of government to
bring forward legislation of a high standard and it has comprehensive
and regularly updated guidance to meet this objective. This is
publicly available and can be used by parliamentarians in fulfilling
their role of scrutinising legislation. Following a recent review,
existing guidance for Parliamentary Counsel will be consolidated
in the Cabinet Office's Guide to Making Legislation to further
improve accessibility. We undertake annual lessons learned exercises
within Government designed to capture best legislative practice
and we would be happy to engage with parliamentarians on this
exercise if that would be of interest. Ultimately, it is for Ministers
to defend both the quality of the legislation they introduce and
the supporting material provided to Parliament to aid scrutiny.
13. As the Committee acknowledges, many of the suggestions
in its draft Code are already included in Explanatory Notes. For
example, it is standard practice for the Explanatory Notes to
refer to any consultation documents which the Government has issued.
It is also standard practice for the Government to publish the
response to any consultation, whether in a White Paper accompanying
a Bill or as a separate document, and to make reference in the
Explanatory Notes to where that response can be found. Explanatory
Notes also routinely explain what the impact of the proposed legislation
on existing arrangements will be, and where it is possible to
access a wider assessment of the economic impact, the impact on
the third sector and business.
14. The Government is committed to ensuring that
Explanatory Notes, and Impact Assessments, are as helpful as they
can be in meeting the needs of users and are of a consistently
high standard. In pursuit of this aim, the Office of Parliamentary
Counsel has been asked, as part of the Good Law initiative, to
conduct a comprehensive review of Explanatory Notes. A comprehensive
survey of users is being undertaken to establish exactly what
users think should be included in revised Notes and how this information
should be presented. Without wishing to pre-empt this work, we
are minded to agree with the Committee's view that there is logic
in combining most information on a bill in one document. Members
of the Committee will have an opportunity to comment on the outcome
of this work and other proposals emanating from the Good Law initiative
about the drafting of legislation.
15. The aim of the revised Explanatory Notes will
be to provide bill documentation that contains the information
that is most helpful to users, including both parliamentarians
scrutinising the bill and the public seeking to understand and
contribute to debate on it. Good Explanatory Notes explain why
the legislation is needed and the process leading up to its introduction,
as well as the meaning of each clause. But every bill is different
and it is up to Government to provide the right material on a
case by case basis. A Code of Legislative Standards with lists
of requirements risks encouraging a tick-box mentality which
does little to support effective scrutiny. Nor can a Code, as
proposed by the Committee, provide the degree of objectivity it
envisages: questions such as "is it understandable and accessible?"
and "whether the change is politically or legally important"
indicate the extent to which the quality of legislation is a subjective
judgement. Similarly, whether purpose clauses or sunset clauses
are required to meet the expected "standard" will always
be a matter for debate on a case by case basis rather than an
objective test. This underlines the difficulty any committee would
have in separating the quality of legislation from the policy
underlying it.
Legislative Standards Committee
16. We recommend the creation of a Legislative
Standards Committee to provide oversight of the Cabinet's Parliamentary
Business and Legislation Committee's approach to and use of the
finalised Code of Legislative Standards. The Committee would have
the flexibility to look at individual bills before Parliament,
where a failure to adhere to the Code of Legislative Standards
was obvious from the Explanatory Notes, but would normally focus
its work on a selection of Acts that had recently received Royal
Assent, scrutinising those Acts for compliance with the Code.
This oversight model would fit within the current parliamentary
legislative timetable and would not be as resource-intensive as
a committee scrutinising every bill. We think that this model
answers the questions proposed by the Leader of the House. (Paragraph
98)
Government Response, to this and associated consequential
recommendations in paras 92 - 106
17. The Government does not believe that a Legislative
Standards Committee, as proposed by the Committee, is either necessary
or would be effective in improving legislation.
18. Without a Code of Legislative Standards, the
case for a Committee, part of whose remit is to monitor compliance
with the Code, weakens significantly. As has been explained, revised
Explanatory Notes will set out necessary information relating
to the preparation and content of the bill and Ministers will
account directly to Parliament for any perceived deficiencies.
19. Another proposed purpose of the Committee - to
monitor the work of the Cabinet Committee on Parliamentary Business
and Legislation - would not be appropriate. Paragraph 2.3 of the
Ministerial Code states that the internal process through which
a decision is made or the level of committee by which it was taken
should not be disclosed. It is essential that time and space be
allowed for Ministers to debate and stress test legislation within
Government before presenting its final position. A bill when it
is published is the collectively agreed view of the whole Government
on how it wishes to proceed. The process by which it has arrived
at that view is a matter for the Government, not for Parliament.
20. Whilst the model advocated by the Committee would
meet concerns about introducing further delay to the legislative
process, it has notable shortcomings. By normally examining legislation
shortly after Royal Assent, its intervention would come too late
to amend the bill but too early to conduct meaningful post-legislative
scrutiny. Any deficiencies in legislation are unlikely to become
apparent until it has been fully implemented and in use for a
reasonable period: hence the 3-5 year window agreed between Government
and Parliament for post-legislative scrutiny.
21. There are already opportunities for scrutiny
by parliamentary committees to consider legislation on different
criteria. For example the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform
Committee in the Lords considers legislation containing Order-making
powers; the Joint Committee on Human Rights considers provisions
in legislation relevant to its remit. Departmental select committees,
such as the PCRC, have already demonstrated that they can carry
out rapid inquiries into the policy behind legislation where they
judge that there has been insufficient preparation or consultation.
22. There is no need for an additional committee
to improve accountability: Ministers in both Houses are required
to answer on the policy and detailed drafting of the bill; the
Leader of the House of Commons is expected to answer on its handling,
including pre-legislative scrutiny mechanisms. Whilst there are
elements in the pre-introduction stages and in the Explanatory
Notes that are possible to tick off on an objective basis, these
do not warrant a new committee to perform such a largely bureaucratic
task, even were a committee to find such an exercise rewarding.
Any committee would be tempted to look at the policy—a task
better suited to specialist committees.
Current problems
23. We recognise that legislation is not made
in a vacuum. The parliamentary legislative process reflects the
inherent constraints and negotiations present in the process of
turning policy into statute, and we accept that the introduction
of large multi-topic bills is, on occasion, a legitimate and appropriate
use of parliamentary time. We acknowledge that the greater breadth
of such bills allows greater scope for amendments by backbench
MPs, and that without such bills, some "worthy" but
"unglamorous" statutory sections might not become law
because of lack of parliamentary time. However, multi-topic bills
risk becoming simply too big to be scrutinised effectively. (Paragraph
14)
24. We recommend that for large multi-topic bills,
the Minister in charge of the bill explain to Parliament why this
large scale format has been chosen. If there is a good reason
for the legislation being brought forward then Parliament can
be confident that the Government has given proper consideration
to the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. (Paragraph 15)
25. We conclude that the majority of poor quality
legislation results from either inadequate policy preparation
or insufficient time being allowed for the drafting process, or
a combination of the two. This is not to point the finger at the
Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, which neither produces policy
nor determines the speed with which policy is to be transformed
into legislative proposals. (Paragraph 53)
Government Response
26. The current legislative process is sufficiently
flexible to accommodate bills of different types and sizes. Whilst
we accept that large multi-topic bills are not always ideal, it
would be wrong to assume that they are not capable of receiving
proper scrutiny. For example, the majority of the provisions of
the Children and Families Bill and the Anti-Social Behaviour,
Crime and Policing Bill were published in draft and scrutinised
separately by different select committees. The Government seeks
to reflect the size and nature of the bill in the amount of time
provided for scrutiny by public bill committee and at report stage.
As the Committee acknowledges, this type of bill is sometimes
the most efficient use of parliamentary time. It is up to Government
to determine how legislation is presented to Parliament and up
to Ministers to defend these decisions in the House during the
scrutiny of the legislation or at other opportunities.
27. If, as the Committee asserts, the majority of
poor quality legislation results from inadequate policy preparation
or insufficient time allowed for drafting, it is difficult to
see how a Code and Legislative Standards Committee would address
this. Whilst the Committee recognises that "legislation is
not made in a vacuum" it underplays the degree to which it
is an iterative process, with policies being refined and adjusted
under the light of Parliamentary scrutiny and changing circumstances.
Nor is legislative scrutiny an objective, academic exercise, the
sole purpose of which is deliver high quality law. Good legislative
practice may be put under pressure by wider political considerations
from time to time. No Legislative Standards Committee, however
formed, would be immune from such political considerations.
28. We recommend that a week should elapse between
the conclusion of Public Bill Committee evidence sessions and
the start of line by line scrutiny, to allow Members enough time
to consider the evidence they have heard, and for amendments to
be drafted and selected for debate. (Paragraph 25)
Government Response
29. The timing of different stages of the legislative
process is sufficiently flexible to allow time for proper scrutiny.
It is up to the public bill committee in the Commons to agree
how to divide its time between evidence taking and line by line
scrutiny following discussions in the usual channels. Any such
gap may affect the overall time available for scrutiny
30. Parliament must have a stronger role as a
partner with the Government in setting and monitoring standards
of legislation. This will require a change of attitude by parliamentarians
in asserting their role and "caring more" about legislative
standards, and in using existing processes and documents, such
as Impact Assessments, more effectively. It may also require the
creation of new mechanisms to assist them in the performance of
their legislative duties. A change in attitude by Government is
also required in its work with Parliament. (Paragraph 28)
Government Response
31. The Government would welcome an enhanced focus
on legislative scrutiny by parliamentarians but believes that
the existing mechanisms already allow for this, as is explained
in the response on the Legislative Standards Committee.
32. Proper preparation of policy is crucial. Clear,
coherent policy which has been subject to challenge and revision
will aid Parliamentary Counsel in drafting comprehensive and comprehensible
bills. To require a formal draft to be produced before the policy
preparation process has finished is to put the cart before the
horse, necessarily increasing the risk of error and need for parliamentary
time to be taken up with amendments. (Paragraph 34)
33. Good quality preparation should begin at an
early stage and include proper consultation, timetabled to conclude
before a bill is introduced; such consultation may need to be
targeted to avoid overloading individuals and organisations with
Government consultations. Responses to consultations should be
available for Parliament before first reading. (Paragraph 35)
34. We think that a legislative process that involves
a Green Paper, followed by consideration of expert advice, a White
Paper and pre-legislative scrutiny prior to introduction would
produce high quality legislation. We do not think that this is
achievable or desirable for every bill because of the time and
resources required to complete all of the stages. However, we
consider that, as stated in our Report on the Fixed-term Parliaments
Bill, the Government should and can utilise the potential greater
certainty provided by fixed terms for effective and efficient
legislative planning. This would allow enough time for these preferred
processes for legislation to be adopted for the majority of bills.
(Paragraph 36)
Government Response
35. The Government agrees that good quality preparation
is important to the introduction of legislation to Parliament.
Some form of consultation with relevant parties will usually be
an element of this preparation and it is current practice for
the results of such consultations to be made available at an early
stage. As the Committee acknowledges, the same process is not
necessarily achievable or desirable for every bill. It is important
to treat each bill on its merits and provide the appropriate level
of consultation and opportunity for scrutiny. The Government intends
to maintain a range of scrutiny mechanisms, including online consultations,
to be used as appropriate on a case by case basis.
36. We agree that there is a "good law championship
role" for the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and welcome
the launch of their "Good law" initiative. Their position
as specialists in the drafting of legislation and knowledge of
parliamentary procedures, as well as their connection to the Law
Commission, means that they are ideally placed to undertake this
championship role. We look forward to working with them to take
forward the recommendations in this Report, and to build upon
the preliminary work of the "Good law" initiative. (Paragraph
46)
Government Response
37. The Government welcomes the Committee's recognition
of the role the Parliamentary Counsel has in promoting high standards
of legislation and its support for the Good Law initiative. The
project aims to promote the continuous improvement of the drafting
of legislation and a shared understanding of good law. To this
end it is currently engaging with parliamentarians, officials
in both Houses, the judiciary and other users of the law. Some
proposals relating to the format of bills have already been generated
and the approval of the relevant authorities in the House will
be sought. The initiative is seeking to be open about the drafting
process, partly in order to avoid confusion and unnecessary litigation.
It is looking at ways of improving clarity and accessibility:
both in a practical sense for online users and in revised accompanying
explanatory material. Further details of this work can be found
at https://www.gov.uk/good-law The Good Law initiative will
take into account the Committee's Report and would welcome further
contributions as it progresses.
Pre- and Post-legislative scrutiny
38. We welcome the Leader of the House's commitment
to pre-legislative scrutiny. Whilst we accept that not all bills
are suitable for pre-legislative scrutiny, we note that it is
still only a minority of bills that are published in draft. We
consider pre-legislative scrutiny to be one of the best ways of
improving legislation and ensuring that it meets the quality standards
that Parliament and the public are entitled to expect. Our draft
Code of Legislative Standards would require the Government to
publish the reason why a bill has not been published in draft.
(Paragraph 115)
Government Response
39. The Government's commitment to pre-legislative
scrutiny has been demonstrated by the publication of a higher
proportion of bills and measures in draft than under previous
administrations. As the Committee acknowledges, it will not be
suitable for all bills. In such cases, Ministers are rightly accountable
to the House for the policy formulation process. As part of the
review of Explanatory Notes, the Government is considering how
information on the pre-introduction stages of a bill can best
be included.
40. We consider post-legislative scrutiny to be
an important process in improving existing legislation for both
the Government and Parliament; indeed this is a point on which
everyone would appear to be agreed. The difficulty seems to be
in translating this support for the concept into actual examination
or inquiries by Select Committees. We observe that post-legislative
scrutiny memoranda have been used in general oral evidence sessions,
followed up with written questions, discussed informally with
Ministers, or taken up as elements in the course of other inquiries.
(Paragraph 120)
41. The reasons for the seemingly low take-up
of post-legislative scrutiny memoranda by elect Committees are
not clear. We note that the Government intends to keep the use
of post-legislative scrutiny memoranda under review. We urge the
Government to continue to produce these useful memoranda. In return,
we will undertake, and we take this opportunity to encourage other
Select Committees to undertake, more visible post-legislative
scrutiny work when opportunities arise. (Paragraph 121)
Government Response
42. The Government welcomes the Committee's undertaking
to encourage other select committees to undertake more visible
post-legislative scrutiny work. Such studies are valuable in assessing
not only whether a policy is working, but whether the legislation
that gave effect to it was well drafted and clearly understood.
43. Departmental select committees are likely to
have the necessary policy expertise to be well placed to conduct
post-legislative scrutiny. However, in the absence of a great
deal of activity in the Commons (only 12 out of 82 published have
been the subject of specific scrutiny by select committees), the
establishment of committees in the House of Lords to conduct post-legislative
scrutiny on an ad hoc basis provides an alternative mechanism.
44. The Government intend to continue to produce
post-legislative assessment memoranda within 3-5 years of the
Act as a means of facilitating thorough evaluation of legislation
and encouraging select committees to engage in post-legislative
scrutiny activity.
The approach of the devolved legislatures
45. We recommend that consideration is given to
adopting some of the processes and procedures used by the devolved
legislatures, in particular: (Paragraph 134)
46. Northern Ireland: where emergency or fast-track
legislation is introduced, we recommend that the Minister in charge
give an explanation to the House of the reason for the accelerated
process, the consequences of the bill not being accelerated, and
any steps taken to minimise recourse to this procedure. Should
the House adopt our suggested draft Code of Legislative Standards,
this explanation could be provided within new expanded Explanatory
Notes. This would be in addition to the inclusion of sunset or
review clauses as discussed above. (Paragraph 134.a)
47. Scotland: the provision of similar details
within Explanatory Notes as provided within the Scottish Parliament's
Policy Memorandum (although not consideration of the merits of
policy), and as requested in our draft Code of Legislative Standards.
Also the concept of a formal mechanism for Select Committees to
introduce legislation. (Paragraph 134.b)
48. Wales: that the effective scrutiny of the
general principles of a bill (or on our suggested Committee model,
an Act) can and should be adopted, preferably through our draft
Code of Legislative Standards and/or our model Legislative Standards
Committee. (Paragraph 134.c)
Government Response
49. The Government firmly believes that all members
of both Houses are entitled to a full explanation of why a piece
of legislation is being proposed for fast-tracking. Ministers
remain prepared to justify the need for any expedition in the
House of Commons and already do so as a matter of practice in
the House of Lords. Indeed, all Explanatory Notes to fast-tracked
Bills already address the keys points raised in the House of Lords
Constitution Committee's 2009 report on this matter. These Explanatory
Notes set out the rationale for the legislation, what alternatives
have been considered and why the fast-track procedure is appropriate.
The Good Law Initiative is considering whether any additional
information, such as that provided in the Scottish Parliament's
Policy Memorandum, should be included in Explanatory Notes and
will take into account the Committee's views, alongside those
of other stakeholders.
50. Select Committees are able to take advantage
of existing mechanisms for the introduction of legislation, as
Private Members' Bills. The Procedure Committee is currently inquiring
into this subject and the Government will consider any proposals
about the right to initiate legislation in the context of the
Committee's report.
51. Existing procedures allow for bills to be referred
to committees for second reading in the Commons, where this is
appropriate. Whilst it is useful to have this flexibility, the
Government believes that it will normally be right for each House
as a whole to be able to debate and then vote on second reading.
Different processes for different types of legislation
52. Constitutional law is qualitatively different
from other types of legislation. We agree with the House of Lords
Constitution Committee that there is currently no acceptable watertight
definition of what constitutes constitutional legislation. However,
we consider that it can be identified through experience and commonsense,
and that this is encapsulated in Lord Norton's "2Ps"
test (does it affect a principal part of the constitution, and
does it raise an important issue of principle), and the list of
typical features of constitutional legislation suggested by Professor
Sir John Baker. (Paragraph 140)
53. We have considered the Government's response
to the House of Lords Constitution Committee Report, and disagree
that a watertight definition is needed before making any changes
to processes for preparing and legislating in the area of constitutional
law. (Paragraph 141)
54. The current ad hoc process of identifying
which bills to take on the Floor of the House of Commons in a
Committee of the whole House lacks transparency: it is clear that
differentiation is taking place in order to decide which bills
are to be considered by a Committee of the whole House, but the
decision-making process is unclear. We recommend that the Government
adopts our suggestion and applies Lord Norton's "2Ps"
test, together with the list of typical features of constitutional
legislation as suggested by Professor Sir John Baker, or at the
very least sets out why it does not agree with this approach.
We also recommend that the Government follows our draft Code of
Legislative Standards and explains whether the test has been met
for each piece of legislation. (Paragraph 142)
55. We do not recommend the creation of a new
joint constitutional legislation standards scrutiny committee.
We consider that the processes we recommend to improve the quality
of legislation as a whole, together with the application of our
suggested test, will assist with the identification and improvement
of constitutional legislation, and will provide an enhanced level
of scrutiny. (Paragraph 146)
56. In particular, application of our draft Code
of Legislative Standards would assist identification of constitutional
legislation by ensuring the provision of relevant information.
Thus, our Code would allow Parliament to determine whether it
agrees with the Government's decision that a particular bill,
or part of it, is or is not constitutional, and in doing so, scrutinise
decisions as to whether particular bills should be considered
by a Committee of the whole House on the Floor of the House of
Commons. (Paragraph 147)
57. Once the use of our draft Code, or a final
agreed Code, has been established and evaluated, the question
of whether there should be more significant changes so that constitutional
legislation undergoes different procedures, or requires a constitutional
legislation scrutiny committee, could be re-considered. (Paragraph
148)
Government Response
58. The Government does not accept that it would
be helpful to seek to define "constitutional" legislation,
nor that it should automatically be subject to a different standard
of scrutiny. The tests suggested by Lord Norton and the list of
characteristics suggested by Professor Sir John Baker are themselves
subjective: whether something raises an important issue of principle,
or represents a "substantial" alteration to the liberties
of the subject, for example, are matters more for political rather
than technical judgement.
59. The Government does not accept that the process
of identifying bills to take on the floor of the House of Commons
lacks transparency. It is up to each House to agree to what is
proposed on each bill or, if not content, to propose alternatives.
It is usually a matter of common sense and therefore uncontroversial,
although not all bills that might be deemed constitutional are
taken on the Floor in Committee. The Leader of the House of Commons
answers questions on forthcoming business each week and has seldom
been asked to provide an explanation of the rationale behind the
type of committee stage proposed for a bill.
60. The Government does not agree with the Committee's
assertion that "constitutional law is qualitatively different
from other types of legislation". Constitutional legislation,
like all legislation, varies in its importance, complexity and
impact. It may form a small part of a wider and otherwise "non-constitutional"
bill. In some cases, a non-constitutional bill might bring about
fundamental social change, with greater impact on daily life,
than what might be deemed a constitutional bill, and warrant more
thorough scrutiny on this basis. Current legislative processes
provide sufficient flexibility to allow an assessment to be made
on the bill in question and the Government to propose the appropriate
method and level of scrutiny.
Other recommendations
61. We think that new Members would benefit from
briefing sessions by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel,
and that all Members would be assisted by presentations from the
Law Commission about bills before the House which have been drafted
on the basis of, or substantially influenced by, Law Commission
reports. (Paragraph 7)
Government Response
62. The Office of the Parliamentary Counsel would
welcome the opportunity to contribute to any briefings on the
legislative process for new Members provided by the House, if
there is demand. It also stands ready to provide informal briefings
to parliamentary select committees engaged in legislative scrutiny
and to increase its contacts with parliamentarians more generally.
We understand that the Law Commission will be writing to you separately
about this recommendation.
| 
