What information and evidence does Parliament need to enable it to oversee government law-making? Is Parliament currently provided with sufficient information and, if not, how can this be improved?
On 19 January 2022, the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law and the Hansard Society co-hosted this webinar on ‘Parliamentary Scrutiny, Evidence and the Rule of Law’, which explored the role of evidence, impact assessments, explanatory memorandums and other related material in facilitating parliamentary scrutiny of government law-making by delegated legislation. The event followed the publication of a Bingham Centre Report analysing the first 18 months of coronavirus legislation from a Rule of Law perspective, and forms part of the Hansard Society’s Delegated Legislation Review, which is developing proposals to reform the processes by which delegated legislation is made and scrutinised.
Justin Madders MP, Shadow Minister for Employment Rights, previously Shadow Minister for Health and Social Care
Selvin Brown, Director (Net Zero Buildings), BEIS and Policy Profession Board Member
Stephen Gibson, Chair of the Regulatory Policy Committee
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, member of the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Professor Jeff King, UCL Laws (Chair)
The coronavirus pandemic has exposed and exacerbated weaknesses in the processes used to enact legislation. Laws have often been made at breakneck speed, resulting in a reduction in the quality and quantity of impact assessments and other documents explaining and justifying government policy positions. This is problematic from the perspective of both the Rule of Law and effective Parliamentary scrutiny. The Rule of Law requires the law-making powers of the government to be prescribed and controlled by Parliament, but Parliament cannot properly scrutinise the policies and rationale underpinning proposed legislation without timely and digestible information justifying the proposed legal changes.
The need for good quality supporting documentation is paramount where the government introduces new laws via delegated legislation; a form of government law-making where Parliament’s scrutiny role is already limited. The coronavirus pandemic has accelerated a general trend towards the increased use of delegated legislation to enact significant policy changes. However, there are long-standing criticisms of the procedure by which delegated legislation is made and approved. This includes frequent criticism by the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of the quality of Explanatory Memorandums, which are meant to provide a free-standing explanation of what each piece of delegated legislation does and why it is being introduced.
In our latest ‘Whipping Yarn’, we talk with Simon Hart, former Conservative Chief Whip during Rishi Sunak’s Premiership. Hart opens up about his time in one of Westminster’s most demanding and discreet roles, chronicled in his new book, ‘Ungovernable: The Political Diaries of a Chief Whip’.
If a crisis or major national event occurs during a period when Parliament is adjourned, there are often demands from MPs, the media and the public for Parliament to be ‘recalled’. But the House of Commons Standing Orders stipulate that only Government Ministers - in reality, the Prime Minister - can ask the Speaker to recall the House. In recent years the House of Lords has generally been recalled at the same time as the House of Commons.
In response to the Modernisation Committee's call for views on 17 October 2024, we submitted evidence outlining key areas we believe the Committee should prioritise. Our submission recommended a focus on: strengthening legislative scrutiny, with particular emphasis on reforming the delegated legislation system; enhancing financial scrutiny, especially in relation to the Budget and the Estimates; addressing strategic gaps in parliamentary scrutiny; making more effective use of parliamentary time; and reviewing the Standing Orders, language and rituals of the House of Commons.
This briefing explains what to watch for during the Second Reading debate of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill on 29 November. It outlines the procedural and legislative issues that will come into play: the role of the Chair in managing the debate and how procedures such as the 'closure' and 'reasoned amendments' work. It looks ahead to the Committee and Report stage procedures that will apply if the Bill progresses beyond Second Reading. It also examines the government's responsibilities, such as providing a money resolution for the Bill and preparing an Impact Assessment, while addressing broader concerns about the adequacy of Private Members’ Bill procedures for scrutinising controversial issues.
In this ninth instalment of our special mini-podcast series, we continue to explore the latest developments in the progress of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, often referred to as the assisted dying bill. We are joined by Dr Marie Tidball MP to discuss the amendments she has secured for a Disability Advisory Board and an independent advocate for people with learning disabilities.
