Rubber Stamp or Cockpit? The Impact of Parliament on Government Legislation

Susanna Kalitowski

Research Fellow, Parliament & Government Programme, Hansard Society

The following article, which is derived from the Hansard Society's Law in the Making publication, was published in the October 2008 issue of Parliamentary Affairs. It can also be accessed online. 

ABSTRACT

Arguably the Westminster Parliament's prime function-and its best known-is to make law. More accurately, it is to scrutinise and approve bills put forward by the government, which is almost always able to command a majority in the House Commons. Taken together with the conventional dominance of the Commons over the House of Lords, Parliament usually passes the government's legislation. To some, this relationship is the inevitable and correct method by which the government exercises its mandate; to others it is indicative that Parliament is simply a rubber stamp, a mechanism without clout or meaning. But even if Parliament usually enacts the government's bills, to what extent does it have an impact on their content? While a great deal of public attention is regularly given to the operation and effect of individual laws, there is less understanding of the detailed process by which policy ideas evolve into legislation.  

INTRODUCTION

In an effort to fill this gap, the Hansard Society has undertaken a study on the elements that come together in making an act of Parliament.1 We ignored Bismarck's advice that ‘laws are like sausages: it is better not to see them being made' and studied how five recent pieces of primary legislation came to take the form they did and who or what influenced their final outcome, tracking them at various stages during the legislative process, including the consultation stages, prelegislative scrutiny (if undertaken) and the parliamentary stages in the Commons and the Lords.2 The research draws upon over 80 interviews with ministers, MPs, peers, government and parliamentary officials, party political staff, journalists and pressure groups.

Although the study examined the wide range of influence on legislation-from civil servants to pressure groups-it was particularly concerned with discerning the impact of Parliament.3 There is a tendency to judge the relationship between Parliament and government in terms of clear-cut rebel victory and Cabinet defeat, of dominance and submission. However, such a perspective reveals only a certain amount about the relationship between Parliament and government; there are many other, more subtle approaches to understanding how legislation is shaped.

This article examines some of the findings from the study's five case studies: the Export Control Act 2002, Equality Act 2006, the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 and the Welfare Reform Act 2007. As there is not sufficient space here to tell the whole story of each Act, the focus is on Parliament's impact on legislation and the role of MPs and peers in the legislative process.4 It is clear from the research that parliamentary scrutiny does make a difference: legislative proposals do change measurably as they make their way through Parliament. While on most occasions the broad thrust of government proposals finds its way into law, the assertion that the executive is so dominant that it is able to discount the views of Parliament is not borne out by close analysis.

EXPORT CONTROL ACT 2002

The Export Control Act tells us that in principle, more pre-legislative scrutiny is a good idea -Roger Berry MP 5

The long-awaited legislative response to the 1996 Scott Report on the arms to Iraq scandal, the Export Control Bill introduced a new regime for regulating the government's licensing of arms exports. Although it enjoyed cross-party support, the Bill emerged from the Lords with two significant government defeats on sustainable development and academic freedom, which were however overturned in the Commons. The government was forced to negotiate over the latter, although it only did so at the last possible moment, after it was clear that it would be beaten in the Lords a second time if it did not compromise. The legislature's examination of the Bill was notable for the extensive prelegislative scrutiny by parliamentary committees; the high degree of backbench Labour dissent in both Houses; and two significant amendments in the Lords.

PRE-LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY BY PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEES. The Act was the product of five years of consultation and 11 months of parliamentary scrutiny, and was subject to a higher than average degree of pre-legislative scrutiny by parliamentary committees. The House of Commons Trade and Industry Committee scrutinised the white paper preceding the Bill.6 The establishment of the Quadripartite Committee (the ‘Quad')-composed of members from four Commons select committees7-allowed for a comprehensive scrutiny of the draft bill.8 The Chair, Roger Berry MP, asserted that its prodding was partly responsible for the publication of a draft bill. The House of Lords Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee also had an influence: the power to require companies to provide information on arms exports was dropped following its recommendation.9

GOVERNMENT BACKBENCH DISSENT. A number of Labour backbenchers in both Houses were openly critical of specific aspects of the Bill, namely those concerning parliamentary scrutiny, sustainable development and extraterritoriality. They often led debate and tabled amendments, although there were few divisions and rebellions. During standing committee, Malcolm Savidge MP tabled amendments on parliamentary scrutiny, sustainable development and extraterritorial controls that were supported by his colleague Vera Baird MP. At report stage, Tony Worthington MP and Martin O'Neill MP tabled amendments on sustainable development and prior parliamentary scrutiny which were supported by numerous colleagues. Many Labour MPs signed Early Day Motions (EDMs) tabled by their colleagues at various stages of the process.10

Backbench Labour dissent similarly emerged in the Lords over the issues of prior parliamentary scrutiny, the lack of full extraterritoriality and sustainable development, though very few government backbenchers voted in favour of the successful Liberal Democrat amendment on the latter. Moreover, the issue which prompted the most radical change to the face of the Bill-academic freedom-did not mobilise government backbenchers. In fact, on the areas of concern to Labour parliamentarians, there was either no change (extraterritoriality) or fairly little (sustainable development). However, with regards to the latter, it is likely that there would have been less movement in the Lords if government backbenchers in both the Commons and the Lords had not kicked up a fuss.

DEFEATS IN THE LORDS BY THE OPPOSITION. It was the unity of the opposition parties in the Lords-a cross-party coalition of Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and crossbenchers-that led to the government's double defeat at report stage on sustainable development and academic freedom. The former was effectively quashed in the Commons after the withdrawal of Conservative support and very few Labour rebellions, despite the concern voiced by backbenchers. However, the latter resulted in a substantive change to the Bill-the addition of a new clause protecting some types of scientific research and public information from export controls-largely due to the refusal of the opposition parties in the Lords to back down.

ASSESSMENT. A senior parliamentary official asserted that the Export Control Act is representative of the ‘higher end of the legislative process'.11 Unlike many bills, it was subject to a considerable degree of consultation and pre-legislative scrutiny which, for the most part, improved the legislation, albeit not dramatically. As Roger Berry said of the Bill at second reading, ‘it is a great improvement on the white paper and it gets better with each drafting'.12 Parliamentarians recalled that the level of parliamentary debate on the Bill had been higher than average. Backbenchers from the governing party, who often remain silent, contributed to-and sometimes even led-debate at all stages of the process, even on standing committees. Nonetheless, only a few changes were made to the Bill during the parliamentary passage.

EQUALITY ACT 2006

The Equality Act shows that if enough parliamentarians have grievances and concerns, it can be remedied -Alan Wardle, Stonewall 13

The Equality Act 2006 reformed the institutional framework that accompanies equality and human rights legislation in the UK and introduced changes to discrimination law. It had been envisaged as a response to changes in European law. However, the combination of an active lobby of interests, supporters in government and pressures from Parliament meant that a broader piece of legislation was added to the statute book. As John Bercow MP said, ‘the Act as a whole is a considerable tribute to government consultation and parliamentary scrutiny'.14

CONSULTATION STAGES. The Act was preceded by years of consultation which encompassed green and white papers and the establishment of a stakeholder task force. Consultation resulted in clear changes to policy when the Equality Bill was finally published, including two entirely new protections against discrimination-for religion or belief in the provision of goods, facilities and services and the duty on public authorities to promote gender equality (the ‘gender duty').

Parliamentarians were generally unaware of the extent of consultation that had taken place between the government and external actors before the Bill was introduced. They were not party to the advisory groups and did not contribute to the official consultative process. Nevertheless, a few did have some influence even at this stage. For example, Angela Eagle MP kept equality issues on the internal Labour party radar in the run-up to the 2004 Warwick Agreement between Labour and the trade unions. She also pushed for the ‘gender duty', introducing a 10-minute rule bill in 2004.15 Similarly, Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC pushed for the harmonisation of discrimination legislation, introducing into Parliament his own Equality Bill in 2003. He was later to play an important role in the passage of the government's bill.

PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY. Parliamentarians from all sides came to the fore during the passage of the Bill, which was first introduced in the House of Lords. As it was not a party political bill, the government showed a willingness to listen to the opposition. Ministers spent time meeting privately with parliamentarians and, in many cases, responded to their concerns. As the minister in the Lords, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, explained during third reading: ‘Throughout the passage of this Bill, I have met with every noble Lord who has put down an amendment in order to make sure that we have the right kind of dialogue.'16

Perhaps due to this consensual approach, the legislation was not subject to many votes: only two took place on amendments. While the government did not relent in all instances, it did make a large number of concessionary amendments. The inclusion of provision for sexual orientation regulations and the removal of the religion and belief harassment clauses were two of the most important amendments to be made to the Bill; the former with the (somewhat reluctant) consent of the government, while the latter was won on a vote. The extent of change in the Lords meant that the decision to first introduce the Bill into the second chamber, which was a consequence of timetabling concerns within the Department of Trade and Industry, was instrumental. The Lords was able to take control of the shape of the Bill.

Both parliamentarians and external actors saw the high degree of cooperation between frontbenchers and backbenchers across all the political parties as strengthening the quality of scrutiny. For example, Conservative MP John Bercow told the Commons at third reading that, ‘the Bill was good before and, as a result of amendments in the course of legislative scrutiny, it is better now.'17 Similarly, Sam Smethers of the Equal Opportunities Commission commented that, ‘certainly in the Lords, it was very detailed scrutiny; it felt to me as if it was in safe hands'.18 A high level of ministerial involvement underpinned the effectiveness of the parliamentary process and was praised by parliamentarians such as Lord Lester. Referring to Baroness Ashton, he said: ‘She quickly made me into an ally, even though I am a Liberal Democrat. On most of the major issues, we worked together. If someone else was on this Bill, we wouldn't have been able to achieve what we did.'19

ASSESSMENT. According to the equality minister, Meg Munn, the Act ‘ultimately turned into something which it hadn't started out to be'.20 The government had planned a straightforward bill to set up a merged and enlarged new body, but the ‘process incurred significant difficulties'. The outcome was an Act that added to the incremental and piecemeal nature of existing equality legislation, despite the government's avowed aim of moving on from that model. Like the other bills considered in this study, varying narratives have emerged as to how change came about. What is clear, however, is that a range of external actors and parliamentarians played a significant role in shaping the substance of the legislation.

IMMIGRATION, ASYLUM AND NATIONALITY ACT 2006

Even though you're utterly pooh-poohed in the Commons, once a bill goes to the House of Lords, Conservative colleagues in the Lords can pick up some of our points -Humfrey Malins MP 21

The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill sought to limit appeal rights for people refused entry to the UK and introduced fines for hiring illegal immigrants, among other measures. After the London bombings of 7 July 2005 two days after the Bill's second reading, it also sought to make it easier to strip suspected terrorists of UK citizenship, deny them asylum, and speed up their deportation. It was clear from the start that there was relatively little room for manoeuvre: the government made cursory attempts to consult others before the Bill was published. Campaigners told us civil servants had indicated that No. 10 had issued a strict order to get to grips with the ‘immigration problem' as it was an ‘electoral liability'.

MPs and peers involved with the Act felt that they had little influence over its content. However, a closer look at the parliamentary proceedings reveals that when the two opposition parties worked together, particularly with Labour backbenchers, the government was far more likely to make amendments or grant concessions. Moreover, while nearly all the significant changes were made in the Lords, often the idea had first been mooted in the Commons. In addition, if the minister was personally receptive to a change, it was more likely to be made.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. Very few changes to the Bill were made in the Commons. However, MPs spent the majority of their time debating the removal of appeal rights, which ultimately was amended in the Lords. The Commons had less time to discuss other key measures in the Bill, notably the counter-terrorism clauses introduced at the start of standing committee.

The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were united throughout the committee, supporting each other's amendments on nearly every occasion; none were accepted. Neil Gerrard MP was the only backbench Labour MP to consistently speak and table amendments. Although he had agreed not to vote against the government in order to be a committee member, he helped get the issues of unaccompanied children, vouchers for failed asylum seekers, and Section 9 of the 2004 Act22 on to the agenda, which later resulted in changes in the Lords. At the end of committee, the proceedings were praised by the minister and the chair, who described them as ‘an example of Parliament working at its best'.23 Opposition MPs however did not share this view. Conservative MP Humfrey Malins felt he had ‘no influence whatsoever' as ‘the government were completely unwilling to listen to any amendments'. His colleague, Cheryl Gillan MP, also believed that the government was not willing to accept any suggestion or amendment, or even fully debate it.24 The Liberal Democrat Evan Harris MP also judged it to be a ‘worse than usual standing committee experience'.25

At report stage, the government finally introduced an amendment in response to a serious concern raised in committee that ensured that people who do not receive leave to remain did not automatically become overstayers. It also accepted a Conservative amendment to increase the deadline for the payment of fines from 14 to 28 days.  

HOUSE OF LORDS. Only a small number of peers participated in debates although the Bill was covered more thoroughly in the Lords than the Commons, particularly the counter-terrorism clauses. Moreover, all of the most significant changes were made there. Parliamentarians and pressure groups alike indicated that the government minister in the Lords, Baroness Ashton of Upholland, was more amenable to changing the Bill than her counterpart in the Commons. They highlighted her approachability and preference for coming to a compromise behind the scenes; there was only one division during the Lords stages and no government defeats.

From the beginning, Baroness Ashton emphasised that she was open to alternative ways to ‘streamline' variation appeals to the formulation found in the Bill. At report stage she came back with a set of amendments which preserved in-country variation appeals. A government amendment at report stage gave the home secretary the power to offer assistance to failed asylum seekers, another attempt to placate concerns raised in the Lords. Two minor opposition amendments were also accepted by the government: a Liberal Democrat amendment giving the home secretary the power to repeal Section 9 of the 2004 Act and a Conservative amendment requiring the home secretary to submit a report to Parliament on the removal of entry clearance appeals. Baroness Ashton's background in children's issues led her to intervene to ensure children under 10 would not be subject to a good character test. 

ASSESSMENT. The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act which emerged from Parliament was noticeably different from the Bill published nine months earlier. The Act's first clause was substantially revised at the start of Lords report stage in the wake of Conservative and Liberal Democrat opposition; the effect was to preserve in-country variation appeals. A number of more minor amendments and assurances were also made. However, on the major issues in the Bill that were not opposed by the Conservatives in the Lords-notably the removal of entry clearance appeals and the counter-terrorism measures-there was little or no change.  

LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY REFORM ACT 2006

The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill was an example of Parliament putting the brakes on massively. The Bill was so stupid that even Parliament noticed -parliamentary official 26

The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill was introduced as part of the government's drive to reduce regulation and conceived as a revision to the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. However, it soon became clear that the Bill had important constitutional implications and it was rapidly nicknamed the ‘Abolition of Parliament Bill' due to the unprecedented power it offered to the executive. The legislation provides a stark example of how solid scrutiny and strong opposition in Parliament can force the government to back down. A member of the government acknowledged that the work of parliamentarians in clearly identifying the Bill's shortcomings led the executive to introduce unanticipated changes. This view was echoed by an official, who told us that the pressure from Parliament alone was enough to force ministers into changes, notwithstanding the immense pressure exerted by the media and campaign groups.27 

INTERVENTIONS BY SELECT COMMITTEES. Many interviewees asserted that the lack of thorough pre-legislative scrutiny was a particular problem, as the consultation prior to the Bill's introduction achieved little beyond providing supportive quotes from business. The marked difference between the Cabinet Office consultation document28 and the Bill presented to Parliament rendered the consultation little more than a publicity exercise.

However, the work of several select committees examining the Bill proved to be of particular value and largely made up for the absence of formal pre-legislative scrutiny. Over the course of its passage through Parliament, the concerns raised and recommendations made by the Commons Regulatory Reform Committee, the Commons Procedure Committee and the Lords Constitution Committee were eventually reflected in changes, although the length of time it took for the government to accept these recommendations was widely criticised.29 

HOUSE OF COMMONS. It was during standing committee stage in the Commons that many of the key arguments later picked up in the process were actually first made. The Conservative and Liberal Democrat frontbenches had discussions throughout the passage of the Bill and were aware of the arguments each intended to make. Conservative spokesperson Oliver Heald MP said: ‘The role of opposition spokespeople is to wave the flag of danger and on this occasion I think both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats did a good job.' There was praise too for Liberal Democrat MP David Howarth, who made the House Magazine's ‘Backbencher of the Year' shortlist for his efforts.

The shift in the government's position on the Bill can be pinpointed to a letter from the Lords chief whip to the prime minister and cabinet between standing committee and report stage which argued for changes in order to make it more palatable to his fellow members- many of which mirrored opposition amendments.30 The letter was leaked to the press a few days later.31 Realising it faced defeat at report stage-and was certain to have the Bill re-written in the Lords-the government concluded it should take pre-emptive action. Substantial alterations (five new clauses and 74 amendments) were consequently tabled between the committee and report stages.32 A warm reception was given to the amendments at report stage. However, MPs argued the process had been flawed and that there were further matters that still required remedy.

ASSESSMENT. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 was an object demonstration of robust parliamentary scrutiny. This view was shared by all interviewees, from government and opposition alike, who were for the most part satisfied with the end result, if not the process that got them there. Unlike other bills in this study, significant concessions by the government were made in the Commons rather than the Lords. However, the threat of rejection in the Lords, coupled with the strong concerns expressed in the Commons, played an important role in forcing the government to concede earlier in the process than it might have done otherwise.

WELFARE REFORM ACT 2007

Individual MPs have very little or no influence - and not much more collectively. The longer that one is an MP, the harder it is to exactly pinpoint where power lies - Rt Hon Frank Field MP 33

The Welfare Reform Act 2007 reformed features of incapacity benefit and housing benefit (HB). Previous attempts by the Labour government to reform welfare provisions had led to large-scale rebellions, and many assumed that any further efforts would also prove highly controversial.34 However, the 2007 Act was characterised by a very smooth passage. There was a wide range of views as to the extent of the impact of MPs and peers-both individually and collectively-on the legislation.

HOUSE OF COMMONS. Frank Field's view cited above was shared by some parliamentarians. It is true there was little evidence of any significant changes within the Commons stages, although the amendments and concessions eventually brought forward in the Lords owed much to arguments made in the Commons. However, Labour MP Karen Buck noted that government backbenchers could see the prime minister, as well as secretaries of states, to raise concerns about policy issues, especially at the consultation stages. As she commented, ‘if you choose your case, be realistic and make a good case, you can effect change', giving the example of the exemption of social housing from direct HB payments.35 The responsible minister in the Commons, Jim Murphy, said that one of the factors that can sway a minister is an argument that resonates with his or her constituency experience-citing issues relating to terminal illness and mental illness during the consideration of the Welfare Reform Bill.36

HOUSE OF LORDS. When the Bill reached the Lords, it became apparent that the government was prepared to move on a number of significant issues and various amendments were agreed.37 It readily accepted important changes on annual reporting, the definition of health care professionals and information sharing. According to the responsible minister in the Lords, Lord McKenzie of Luton, there were two issues on which the government did not wish to make concessions: the role of private contractors and housing benefit sanctions for anti-social behaviour. However, he explained that in order to preserve the consensual nature of the proceedings, the government decided to soften its position and introduce amendments on these areas as well.38

Conservative frontbencher Lord Skelmersdale recalled he had been in close touch with other peers about their views and concerns, the strength and depth of which he used to engage effectively in negotiation with  the minister.39 Lord McKenzie pointed to the important role of crossbenchers in the Lords and the weight that their expertise in health and welfare issues carried, particularly when they engaged with external stakeholders. Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope also explained that he was telephoned by the minister to ask for his concerns on the Bill and was able to meet with the bill team, something which had rarely happened when he was an MP.40

COMMITTEES AND POLITICAL PARTIES. Parliamentarians often have more impact when they act collectively, most obviously through political parties, but also through parliamentary committees. All MPs and peers rely upon their party's brief. Liberal Democrat spokesperson Danny Alexander MP explained that the respective Liberal Democrat teams in the Commons and Lords met to provide a detailed handover from one House to the other and discuss tactics and goals.41 It was also explained that the opposition usually gets some reward for its efforts; a government frontbencher said that it is usually acknowledged through the agreement of an amendment or assurance. In addition, the work of select committees and all party groups were referred to at many points.42 Crucially, the recommendations of the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee regarding the use of the affirmative procedure for secondary legislation in the Act were accepted by the government.43  

ASSESSMENT. The passage of the Welfare Reform Act went almost unnoticed. According to one official, because the Bill had ‘sailed through the Commons' the government was more willing to compromise in the Lords than might otherwise have been the case.44 It was keen to preserve the broad-based support for the Bill, which had been many years in the making and bore little relation to its earlier, more radical proposals. On the face of it, the Lords stages resulted in changes to issues which had been resisted in the Commons. It could appear that the Bill's consideration led seamlessly to its final stage when Lords amendments-echoing concerns raised in the Commons- were accepted by the government without much tension. In fact, considerable negotiation and compromise led to the final settlement, which was clearly influenced by the strength of feeling in both Houses and especially the prospect of ‘ping-pong'.45  

CONCLUSIONS

In attempting to gauge the influence of Parliament on legislation, it is essential to remember that Parliament is not a collective body speaking with a unified voice; there are distinct and frequently opposing elements  within Parliament, including two separate Houses containing MPs and peers who are further divided into government and opposition, party affiliated or independent, frontbench and backbench, working individually or collectively, supported by both non-partisan officials and politically motivated personal staff. Parliamentarians from the governing party are generally better placed to extract concessions from the government than those from the opposition parties, particularly if the government has a small majority. In the Lords, where no party has an overall majority, individual peers can make a significant difference. Parliamentarians can also have a greater impact if they have a long established expertise in a certain area.

The influence of parliamentarians, particularly those from the governing party, can be felt at the earliest stages of policy development. Many people have identified the importance of the anticipated reactions of MPs and peers, noting that this can imbue Parliament with the capacity to keep issues off the agenda.46 The Welfare Reform Act demonstrates that the anticipated reaction effect cannot be underestimated, as rebellions in 1997 and had the effect of influencing future government policy on welfare provision. In the case of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act, the anticipated reaction from the House of Lords contributed greatly to the drastic reshaping of the Bill.

There are also a range of avenues through which parliamentarians can argue for the introduction of policies, either behind-the-scenes or via parliamentary or party processes. Angela Eagle MP used the Warwick Agreement between the Labour party and the unions to advocate for changes to equality legislation. Neil Gerrard MP also explained that ‘sometimes if you bang on about an issue for years, it might turn up in legislation years later'.47 When Frank Field MP first raised the notion of housing benefit penalties for anti-social behaviour in 2002, the idea had a mixed reception. However, eventually the government adopted a watered-down version in the 2007 Welfare Reform Act.

Select committees, which are becoming increasingly assertive and influential, provide an important mechanism by which parliamentarians
of all parties can shape the legislative agenda. Committees now look at legislation far more than in the past and their evidence and findings make a difference, both directly and indirectly. This was certainly the case with the Export Control Act and the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act.

Pre-legislative scrutiny, the process by which parliamentary committees consider draft bills before they enter the formal legislative process, provides an opportunity for members to give their views. However, of the five case studies, the Export Control Act was the only one published in draft. Committees also scrutinise green and white papers, as the Trade and Industry Committee did for the export control white reform green paper. With regards to the latter, most of its recommendations were fully or partially accepted.

The Lords and Commons have distinct ways of dealing with legislation, and together they can place genuine pressure on government. It is commonplace to hear it said that it is the Lords that has the most impact on legislation. It is true that most changes to legislation during the parliamentary stage are made in the Lords, usually at report stage.48 However, the case studies reveal that the arguments raised and the assurances given in the Commons are frequently the determining factor in allowing the Lords to extract concessions. Lord Skelmersdale explained that ‘the Commons outlines the problems, gets the main political issues aired and the Lords then applies the resolution'. He asserted that the ‘much lower partisan temperature in the atmosphere' in the Lords allows this to happen.

For example, only one of the case studies-the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act-was substantially amended in the Commons in the face of fierce opposition. The government had concluded that there was a real chance that it could be defeated at Commons report stage and was certain to have the Bill re-written in the Lords, so a preemptive move was necessary. Oliver Heald MP said that the Act demonstrated that ‘when there is a danger to democracy, people will come together to effect change - and change can be made'.

Most of the changes to the case studies were made in the Lords. Only a few were made in response to government defeats. During the passage of the Equality Act, the government lost one of only two votes to take place on an amendment in the Lords, leading to the removal of the controversial religious harassment clauses. The Lords also defeated the government twice when considering the Export Control Act, introducing new clauses on sustainable development and academic freedom. Although the former was overturned in the Commons and not insisted upon by the Lords, the unwillingness of the Lords to back down on the latter resulted in a compromise amendment formulated by the government in consultation with the opposition parties. It is clear from the case studies that the government's efforts to avoid repeated defeats and the ‘ping-pong' of bills between the Houses further strengthens the role of the Lords.49 However, the advent of carry-over of bills between parliamentary sessions may diminish this effect, as there may be no strict deadline to force the government to compromise.

However, the government usually makes concessions before it risks being defeated. For example, because the strength of feeling was against it on the introduction of protection against sexual orientation discrimination in the provision of goods, facilities and services, the government allowed Lords Alli and Lester to introduce amendments to the Equality Bill to enable regulations to be made in this area. For the same reason, the government substantially revised the first clause of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill at the start of Lords report paper and the Work and Pensions Committee did for the welfare stage, preserving in-country variation appeals. To preserve the spirit of consensus surrounding the Welfare Reform Bill, the government reluctantly introduced amendments concerning private contractors and housing benefit sanctions for anti-social behaviour.

As the source for nearly all legislation, the government remains by far the most dominant force in the legislative process. This should come as little surprise within a parliamentary system in which the government, armed with a working Commons majority, has firm control on the levers of power.50 However, our five legislative case studies challenge the view that Parliament is a near-impotent force. In fact, Parliament, as a whole and through its constituent parts, makes a difference to legislation, sometimes in major ways, and more frequently through many minor but significant changes.51

The Hansard Society is grateful to the Nuffield Foundation for the funding of this research.

ENDNOTES

1 The findings have been published in A. Brazier, S. Kalitowski and G. Rosenblatt with M. Korris, Law in the Making: Influence and Change in the Legislative Process, Hansard Society, 2008, from which the content of this article is derived.

2 We have focused on legislation developed and passed during the last decade, during which there has been only one political party in power with either an overwhelming or fairly comfortable majority. A different outcome at the next election is likely, and there are varying opinions as to what effect that may have on Parliament's role and influence.

3 In addition to Parliament, the study examines the role of the government and external actors such as lobbyists and the media on legislation.

4 For the full findings, see A. Brazier, S. Kalitowski and G. Rosenblatt with M. Korris, Law in the Making: Influence and Change in the Legislative Process, Hansard Society, 2008.

5 Interview with Roger Berry MP, 18 March 2008.

6 House of Commons Trade and Industry Committee (1998-1999), Strategic Export Controls, Second Report, HC 65.

7 The Committee is made up of members from the Defence, Foreign Affairs, International Development and Trade and Industry Committees. In 2008, the Quadripartite Committee changed its name to the Committees on Strategic Export Controls. For further consideration of the work of the Committee, see Z. Yihdego, ‘Arms Sales and Parliamentary Accountability: The Role of the Quadripartite Committee', Parliamentary Affairs, 61(4), 2008, 661-680.

8 House of Commons Quadripartite Committee, Draft Export Control and Non-Proliferation Bill, HC 445, 2000-2001.

9 House of Lords Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, Twentieth Report, HL 72,2000-2001.

10 Seventy-seven Labour MPs signed an EDM on sustainable development and trafficking and brokering tabled by Tony Worthington (EDM 469 2001/2002), and a later EDM from Ann Clwyd MP received the backing of nearly half of the Commons (EDM 826 2001/2002).

11 Interview with an anonymous parliamentary official.

12 HC Deb 9 July 2001, vol. 371 col. 577.

13 Interview with Alan Wardle, Stonewall, 3 July 2007.

14 Interview with John Bercow MP, 5 November 2007.

15 Sex Equality (Duties of Public Authorities) Bill.

16 HL Deb 9 November 2005, vol. 675 col. 634.

17 HC Deb 16 January 2006, vol. 441 col. 664.

18 Interview with Sam Smethers, Equal Opportunities Commission, 29 August 2007.

19 Interview with Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, 26 November 2007.

20 Interview with Meg Munn MP, 15 January 2007.