Parliament and the Legislative
Process
CHAPTER 1: SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
1. We believe the Government should move from
deciding which bills should be published in draft each session
to deciding which bills should not be published in draft. Where
the decision is taken not to publish a bill in draft, then the
reasons for this should appear in the Explanatory Notes to the
bill. (Para 34)
2. We endorse the view that there should be a
rolling legislative programme, with Departments gaining slots
in specified future sessions subject to the bills having first
been published in draft. The presumption should be that no bill
should be allocated a slot without being published in draft unless
a compelling case has been made to the contrary. (Para 35)
3. The decision as to which draft bills should
be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny should be the result of
negotiation between the Government and the Liaison Committee of
the House of Commons. We also propose the creation of a Joint
Liaison Committee of the two Houses so that the opinion of the
House of Lords can be taken into account. (Para 41)
4. A draft bill should normally be considered
by a Departmental Select Committee. Failing that, the Liaison
Committee of the Commons might consider appointing a temporary
committee. For big and complex bills, and where there is particular
expertise in the House of Lords, a Joint Committee should be considered.
Where a bill cuts across several sectors, then a (sub)committee
drawn from two or more Commons Select Committees, or a Joint Committee,
may be appropriate. (Para 48)
5. Checklists should be employed by committees
engaged in pre-legislative scrutiny, as well as by committees
at other stages of the legislative process. The Joint Liaison
Committee that we have recommended would appear well suited to
draw up the checklists. (Para 57)
6. We endorse the recommendation of the Joint
Committee on the Draft Gambling Bill that the Government should
ensure that the full text of draft Bills is available to pre-legislative
scrutiny committees in good time before they are asked to report.
(Para 63)
7. We agree with the Joint Committee on the Draft
Communications Bill's recommendation that Joint Committees be
set up at least two sitting weeks before a draft bill is published
and not be required to report until at least one month after the
end of the consultation period. We add that, in the absence of
a formal consultation exercise on the part of the Government,
the minimum should be 4 months from publication of draft bills.
(Para 69)
8. A committee considering a draft bill
should be supplied with the findings of a consultation exercise,
and the Government's response to those findings should be made
available to it. (Para 71)
9. Each bill should at some stage be subject
to detailed examination by a parliamentary committee of one or
other or both Houses, empowered to take evidence. (Para 74)
10. Guidance given by the Cabinet Office on the
preparation of Explanatory Notes should be closely adhered to,
and the Cabinet Office should monitor compliance with the guidance.
(Para 81)
11. The Explanatory Notes to each bill should
include, in the introductory section, a clear and developed explanation
of the purpose of the bill, incorporating or accompanied by the
criteria by which the bill, once enacted, can be judged to have
met its purpose. (Para 87)
12. Where a bill amends an earlier Act, the effects
of the bill on the Act should be shown in an informal print of
the amended Act and should be included in the Explanatory Notes
to the bill. (Para 98)
13. The Explanatory Notes to all bills introduced
to give effect to EU obligations should carry a section detailing
the scrutiny history of the measure. (Para 103)
14. Consideration should be given to the establishment
of business committees at Westminster. (Para 123)
15. Every bill should at some stage be subject
to detailed examination by a committee empowered to take evidence.
Para 143)
16. Bills should normally be committed after
Second Reading to a committee empowered to take evidence; though
that requirement may be dispensed with if the House is satisfied
that the bill in that form has already been subject to detailed
evidence-taking examination in the other House. (Para 144)
17. The membership of a committee examining a
bill should normally include some Members who have been responsible
for the pre-legislative scrutiny of the measure. (Para 145)
18. We commend the value of obtaining evidence
through informal meetings and seminars. (Para 150)
19. We support the principle of the carry-over
for bills that have been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny,
but believe that bills carried over should be subject to a stipulated
cut-off period from the time of their introduction. We suggest
that 14 months would be appropriate. (Para 163)
20. Most Acts, other than Finance Acts, should
normally be subject to review within three years of their commencement,
or six years following their enactment, whichever is the sooner.
(Para 180)
21. Each Government department should undertake
a review of an Act, against the criteria it provided in the Explanatory
Notes, within the time period that we have identified, and copies
of such reviews should be deposited with the appropriate Departmental
Select Committee. (Para 189)
22. The reviews undertaken by Departments should
include consultation with interested parties, similar to consultation
at the pre-legislative stage. (Para 190)
23. Money should be made available from the parliamentary
budget to allow Departmental Select and other Committees, if they
elect to do so, to commission research on the effect of an Act.
(Para 191)
24. Committees should retain the discretion to
undertake an inquiry themselves should they deem it necessary,
either in the light of the Departmental review or the research
that they have commissioned. (Para 192)
25. Evidence-taking committees, at pre-legislative
and committee stage, should be empowered to take evidence outside
Westminster. (Para 202)
26. Each House should give priority to ensuring
that material about itself put in the public domain explains in
clear and accessible manner what they are doing and what consultation
exercises are being undertaken in which comments from the public
are invited. (Para 208)
27. We recommend the greater use of e-consultation,
but such consultation should be moderated and seen as but one
of the tools available to consult the public and interested groups.
(Para 213)
28. Committees are encouraged to consider commissioning
public opinion polls where they believe it useful to have an awareness
of public opinion on the bill in question. (Para 217)
| 
