The Constitution Committee have been appointed "to examine the constitutional implications of all public bills coming before the House; and to keep under review the operation of the constitution".

The Committee have decided to conduct an inquiry into Parliament and the Legislative Process. The Committee invites evidence that analyses the role of Parliament and the relationship of Parliament to citizens in the legislative process, and identifies where change needs to be made.

The Committee especially welcomes submissions that:

(1)  Assess Parliament's capacity to affect outcomes in one or more of the three basic stages of pre-legislative, legislative, and post-legislative scrutiny;

(a)  What advances have been achieved over the past decade?

(b)  To what extent and why is Parliament unable to affect the content of public Bills?

(c)  To what extent should and does it engage in post-legislative scrutiny?

(2)  Address the relationship between the two Houses of Parliament;

(d)  Has the use of Joint Committees to examine draft Bills enhanced Parliament's capacity to influence the content of measures?

(e)  Should Joint Committees be employed on a regular basis?

(f)  Could more be done to utilise the combined strengths of the two Houses?

(3)  Consider the relationship between legislative scrutiny and citizens. Studies of legislative scrutiny frequently consider legislative—executive relations to the neglect of legislative—citizen relations.

(g)  To what extent is it possible for citizens, as individuals or operating collectively as groups, to have some input into parliamentary consideration of legislative measures?

(h)  Should there be more consultation and structured forms of input?

The Committee will also draw on existing studies of the legislative process. The Committee is working to a tight timetable and the inquiry is confined to primary public legislation.

Background

Legislative scrutiny is fundamental to the work of Parliament. Acts of Parliament constitute the law of the land. Parliament alone has the constitutional authority to give assent to such measures. Subjecting those measures to rigorous scrutiny is an essential responsibility of both Houses of Parliament if bad law is to be avoided.

There has been a recognition for many years that the legislative scrutiny undertaken by Parliament has not been as effective as it could and should be. As far back as 1947, L. S. Amery declared that Parliament 'has become an overworked legislation factory'. In 1993, the Hansard Society Commission on the Legislative Process, chaired by Lord Rippon of Hexham, published a seminal report, Making the Law, identifying deficiencies in the legislative process and making proposals for reform.

How much has been achieved in the period since that report was published? As the volume of legislation increases, has the capacity of Parliament to subject legislation to effective scrutiny increased or has it been overshadowed by greater executive control and measures that are too long and complex to be scrutinized effectively within existing resources? What needs to be done to ensure effective parliamentary scrutiny of legislation?

The Committee will consider primarily the role of the Westminster Parliament in the legislative process, but is happy to receive evidence which draws on experience of other Parliaments and Assemblies.