Talked briefly yesterday at a very interesting conference sponsored by the Hansard Society and the Nuffield Foundation on Law in the Making.  Until recently there has been relatively little research on the details of influencing legislation – how, who does it, by what means, what works best etc.

It’s a big subject and complex but it forced me to think about what can be achieved. When I was first appointed as a peer, I remember the Chair of the Nominations Commission warning me not to be too optimistic about being able to change things. Of course, this is right – things move very slowly in Parliament (except when the Government introduces emergency legislation).

Despite this there are lots of informal ways to modify draft legislation for the better. The Indpendent Crossbench Peers do not follow any party line but because of their expertise in various fields have an authoritative concern that any laws which touch on their interests and which will have far reaching effects are meticulously examined.

That said governments in general are relucant to give in to demands for change, presumably because they think it makes them appear weak and any weakness will be seized upon by the opposition.

What I do see is the creation of fluid cross-party coalitions on a given bill or even a single aspect of a bill with powerful effect. Here is one example:

In the Health and Social Care  Bill completed last week, a long standing and contentious aspect was the ‘portability’ issue – the smooth and rapid transfer of disability benefits from one local authority to another when a person with disabilities moves residence. It has  been the work of one peer, Lady Jane Campbell, herself severely disabled, for almost ten years. She was unable to move her amendment securing this smooth transfer at the usual stage of the bill because she was in hospital fighting for her life.

Thankfully she recovered and managed to get herself to the Lords for the Third Reading of the Bill at which stage by convention no new material is allowed to be introduced. However, a group of peers who supported Jane Campbell’s amendment managed to persuade the relevant authorities to allow her to table her amendment and she duly defended it. It was a tour de force and a hugely reasoned one and deserved to be put on the face of the  bill without delay.

But the Government rejected it – this time with a well-argued case; essentially they wished to appoint a commission to look at the amendment and others in order to achieve comprehensive rather than piecemeal revisions and this they promised would be achieved rapidly. So although it was a rejection it was also a triumph for Jane because it seems there is no doubt that the Government will take her concerns fully on board.

Without the support from a number of peers it may be that this amendment would have been lost to the detriment of the Bill as a whole.

There are other examples where Ministers in the Lords are not only accessible but do listen to genuinely expert views and are then prepared to alter draft bills- but it is rare.