The consultation
process
27. The Department of Social Security heralded the
Consultation Panel as a radical new approach to Government business.[226]
The parties to the Consultation panel were listed at Annex C of
Part 1 of the Consultation Document. We have received written
or oral evidence from most of the organisations represented on
the Panel, who generally reported favourably on their experience
of the process:
"I am very grateful that during the consultative
process the Lord Chancellor's Ancillary Relief Advisory Group
was included and, therefore, had the opportunity to have its say
on the development. The points that we urged have all been taken
and by and large reflected so we are both grateful that we were
consulted and particularly grateful that the points we urged have
been recognised." — Lord Justice Thorpe[227]
"We believe that pre-scrutiny of this sort reduces
the chances of errors and gives the opportunity for useful refinements
to be suggested to Bills which we hope will be incorporated, and
we will end up with better, simpler, more effective legislation.
So we very much welcome that." — Mr Peter Murray, National
Association of Pension Funds[228]
"We were very supportive of it." —
Mr Brian Arrighi, Association of British Insurers[229]
"It is very encouraging that there should have
been an invitation to make representations at the stage before
the document is published as an actual Bill. I do not have any
adverse comment to make about the way in which it has been conducted."
— Mr Martin Pointer, Family Law Bar Association[230]
"We have very much appreciated the thorough
liaison which DSS has carried out with interested parties, including
SPC, before the release of the papers, and we believe that this
initiative has been worthwhile." — Society of Pension
Consultants.[231]
28. The Consultation Panel inevitably comprised mainly
organisations representing commercial and professional interests,
although Fairshares was represented.[232]
Families Need Fathers regretted that they had not been included
in the Panel.[233]
Another limitation is that the panel stage of the consultation
was not conducted in public. There is a difficulty in finding
ways of consulting with representatives of the general public
or 'consumers' of proposed legislative changes, which can only
partly be overcome by the use of fashionable marketing techniques
such as opinion polls or focus groups. It may well be that the
expectation of pre-legislative scrutiny by the select committee
had an effect on the thoroughness of the consultation process,
so that this Bill has perhaps been given more detailed consideration
in the pre-drafting stage than is often possible.
29. The Consultation Document was published in two
volumes on 8 June 1998. It was made available to Members in the
Vote Office[234],
and announced in a written Answer,[235]
but it was not formally laid upon the Table on the House as a
Command Paper, unlike the previous Green and White Papers on this
subject. Indeed the Consultation Document is a more ephemeral
publication than a Command Paper; it carries no ISBN number and
is not priced for sale. Whatever advantages this had for the internal
economy of the DSS in avoiding charges for copies sent to interested
parties, it is normally easier for the general public at the time,
and for researchers in the future, to obtain Government papers
if they are properly published.[236]
We recommend that any draft Bill published by the Government
in future should be laid before Parliament as a Command Paper.
30. The select committee's inquiry — with its
public evidence sessions — has added another dimension to
the Department's preparation of the legislation, but has not added
unduly to the logistical burdens of the Department.[237]
The Consultation Document invited responses by 7 August 1998,
although in practice the Department was flexible over considering
later responses;[238]
some of the respondents complained that it was not possible to
put together full and detailed responses in the time available.[239]
We ourselves were constrained by the timing of the publication
of the draft Bill, and the desirability of concluding our Report
before the end of the Session. Several of the witnesses from whom
we took evidence in July had to resort to undertaking to send
us their considered views later in writing.[240]
We recommend that Bills which are to be published in draft
for pre-legislative scrutiny by a select committee in the Session
before their formal introduction should be published no later
than Easter, in order to allow potential witnesses plenty of time
to prepare their evidence and for the select committee to complete
its work before the end of the Session.
31. The Minister was very positive about the value
of the pre-legislative process:
"Certainly the process has flushed out a few
areas where drafting can be improved; where some minor changes
need to be made to the draft legislation. ... We would probably
say we have received the type of representations that we might
have expected from the practitioners. The difference is that instead
of receiving those once the Bill is in Committee, which is very
often the case and time is pressing to make any changes, we have
had them sufficiently in advance to be able to take those points
into account and hopefully have a better prepared Bill by the
time we go into Committee."[241]
It remains to be seen how the Pension Sharing Bill
will fare in its Committee stage, and to what extent our own Report
will have contributed to the making of better legislation. The
Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons,
in particular, will want to review the results of the different
approaches to improving the legislative process, of which a pre-legislative
inquiry by the appropriate departmentally-related select committee
is only one of a number of possible approaches.[242]
There might be a case for a separate legislation committee for
each major department to hold pre-legislative inquiries as well
as debating Bills at the Standing Committee stage.
32. In conclusion, we endorse the written evidence
from the Trades Union Congress, who welcomed the Government's
approach to dealing with this legislation as part of the modernisation
of the House of Commons:
"The publication of a draft bill combined with
pre-legislative scrutiny by the Social Security Select Committee
should permit technical difficulties to be ironed out at an early
stage and, ultimately, lead to stronger final legislation. This
should prove a particular advantage in an area such as pensions
and divorce where 'the devil is in the detail'."[243]
33. Details of the specific issues raised in evidence
to the Committee on the contents of the draft legislation are
listed in the Annex to this Report.
221 
