Recess negative: it's not perfect, but the portrayal of parliament as a government puppet bears little resemblance to reality

An article by Susanna Kalitowski, Research Fellow on the Hansard Society's Parliament & Government Programme, originally published on Comment is Free

  
The 11-week parliamentary recess is now under way, amid the familiar annual charges of laziness and waste. Some MPs argue that the break provides valuable time to catch up on important constituency work. Others, like John Redwood, disagree. Most political insiders seem to think it is too long.

But do we really care whether MPs are sitting at Westminster anyhow? Many believe the mother of parliaments no longer makes much of an impact and that it simply serves to rubber-stamp the government's proposals. Even Gordon Brown waded into the debate over parliament's effectiveness in a recent interview in which he derided the institution for spending the majority of its time debating "minor clauses of minor sections of minor bills" instead of "the big issues of our time" such as climate change and terrorism.

Parliament does spend a fair amount of time examining the PM's legislation - roughly a third of overall Commons' sitting time and more than half of time in the Lords - including bills this session on climate change and terrorism. This is hardly a surprise, as parliament's primary and best-known function is to make laws that affect all of us on a daily basis, regardless of whether they are "major" or "minor". And although the overwhelming majority of legislation is drawn up by the government, it is parliament alone that has the power to pass, amend and even repeal them.

Moreover, the portrayal of parliament as puppet bears little resemblance to reality. If nothing changed between the day that a bill left a government department and the day the Queen gave her assent, then that would indeed be an indictment of parliament and the legislative process. Thankfully, this is far from the case. Parliamentary scrutiny does make a significant difference to the content of legislation. In fact, thanks to the increase over the past decade in public consultation, the publication of draft bills and backbench rebellions - and a second chamber in which no single party enjoys a majority - more changes are made to bills now than in the past. Sometimes this change is dramatic - as in the case of the legislative and regulatory reform bill, which the government was forced to re-write in order to get it through the Commons. Usually, however, it is in small but significant ways. For example, during parliament's scrutiny of the immigration, asylum and nationality bill, the government was pressured to preserve appeal rights for visitors to the UK who seek to vary the terms of their visas.

Nonetheless, the law-making process remains far from perfect and lack of time remains a central part of the problem. This, coupled with the sheer volume of legislation - and its increasing complexity - makes it difficult for parliament to carry out one of its key tasks to its fullest potential.

Parliamentary time is precious. Therefore a shorter recess or a return to the ill-fated September sittings might be welcome. At the very least, parliament and government should explore further ways of using the existing parliamentary time more efficiently.

Law in the Making: Influence and Change in the Legislative Process by Alex Brazier, Susanna Kalitowski and Gemma Rosenblatt, with Matt Korris, was recently published by the Hansard Society

 
This article was originally published on Comment is Free on 17 August 2008.