Frankly, the bits about you giving sponsors a lecture and such, was an attempt at humour. The basic points were serious, however. About the first criterion, I wouldn’t expect a bill’s sponsor to actually get someone from the street, it’s more something that the author(s) or sponsor of a bill should keep in mind. A bill being over-complicated should certainly be a reason for members of either house to reject it though.

Liam: Thanks for your comments. I would agree that politicians are influenced unduly by the print media – unnecessarily so. The mass media do not have the impact on voters that politicians think they do, but because politicians believe that they do have an impact it influences their behaviour. On your suggestion regarding a checklist, this very much ties in with my thinking and that of others. Indeed, it came up in evidence to the Constitution Committee last week in its inquiry into emergency legislation. We had an excellent session with Professors David Miers and John McEldowney, and one of the points they made was that in dealing with emergency legislation there is a need for a template and a checklist. The need for a checklist in examining bills for their constitutional implications was something suggested a few years ago by Professor Dawn Oliver; she penned an article on the subject for ‘Public Law’. This is something that I think is well worth pursuing. If legislation is to be introduced, then I think it needs to meet certain criteria. Your first suggestion may create practical problems, but I think the basic point you make is a perfectly sound one. Your second criterion is also very pertinent; I am not sure about me giving sponsors a lecture (!) but the need to have examined the likely effects is important; it happens already to some extent with regulatory impact assessments and there are calls to extend the practice. Your third criterion is also relevant: if there is no pre-legislative scrutiny, there needs to be a sound case made; and if there is pre-legislative scrutiny there needs to be time for the relevant committee to do its job and time for the House to consider its recommendations.

In my opinion the problem is tied into the current crisis of confidence in the press. One of the key reasons Labour one that landslide majority, back in ’97, was support of the tabloid newspapers, particularly Rupert Murdoch and The Sun.

Watching the Labour government’s actions recently — on ‘knife-crime’, Sir Fred Goodwin and such — shows this has not changed. The government still believes tabloid newspapers are the way to the nation’s heart. As discussed in that previous post, times have changed.

As the ‘papers get more desperate, and Labour’s approval rating sinks, Labour seem to cling to the notion of appeasing the tabloids ever more.

This, in my opinion, is where the ‘something must be done’ attitude comes from.

I argued that if deficient legislation is to be avoided, then there is a need to achieve greater constraint on the part of government, ensuring that legislation is necessary, well prepared and subject to pre-legislative scrutiny.

Sorry to bring this up again, but perhaps guidelines on good legislation would help. Could Parliament have, as part of the country’s constitution, a simple set of principles that all new laws have to measure-up to? For example:

Rule 1. A bill must be well prepared. A test for this is to grab any random English person off the street, if they understand the bill within 30 minutes then it’s ready to rock-and-roll, otherwise start again or split the bill into smaller, easier-to-understand parts.

Rule 2. A bill must include primary and secondary evidence, from credible sources, showing its effects outside the Westminster Village are expected, desirable and necessary. Failure to attend to this important detail automatically grants Lord Norton the right to give the bill’s sponsor a stern lecture, for at least 30 minutes but not longer than 4 hours.

Rule 3. A bill must be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, up to a maximum of X days before MPs may start to hassle parliamentary counsel.

I am being a little silly with these principles, but hopefully it gets the point across.

It may also be an idea to have MPs be ‘maintainers’ of the bills they sponsor. Responsibility could fall to them to check back on the performance of their own legislation. That idea falls down if they’re voted out of office, however!

Anyway, ideas are cheap, both these thoughts require a change in attitude in the Commons that does not seem to be forthcoming!

Am also double-chuffed that I made the same ‘something must be done’ argument as you Lord Norton, a short while ago. Great minds think alike!

There is another problem of candidate selection that concerns legislation. We have a generation coming up that is increasingly risk-averse compared with earlier generations.

As children they have not played outside because parents consider it too risky. When they do they are sheltered from ‘dangerous’ play because they might get hurt. In fact ‘dangerous’ play is where every child learns its common sense. This it seems is what society wants and politicians are encouraging it because they seek to manipulate the electorate by pandering to their irrational fears especially when it comes to election time.

As adults these people are going to enter Parliament, indeed many may already be in place and it is going to make them amenable to increased legislation to remove these fears.

How do we deal with it? Does the PPC process allow through candidates irrespective or do we seek out qualities that are resistant to it? Involvement with a team sport such as cricket would be a good indicator of somebody immune to such mind games.

Croft: Thanks very much for that. I must confess I share some of your cynicism; I very much agree with your comment about consolidation bills. On your postscript, I have already started pursuing the point about the number of views of Lords’ Hansard; I plan to follow with a Question to get some data.

I suppose in part legislation has become ever more complex with average bill lengths growing astonishingly – I’m not entirely convinced always justifiably. There is something to be said for more regular consolidation bills which draw together, repeal and enact in a single document many disparate strands.

Am I too cynical but I sometimes wonder if governments like completely unintelligible bills as they attract less scrutiny than clarity which allows people to see problems and object?

P.S I watched some of Lord Renton’s Committee last night and one of the peers – I forget who – suggested that the Lord’s Hansard has more views than the Commons, this caused some surprise and then they carried on without further comment. I’ve just looked on the Hansard site but can’t find any figures given. Does anyone know if the statement is true?

A reduction of MPs salaries to the median level of ordinary people would have consequences for the Lords in terms of allowing pension self-sufficiency in those accepting promotion to the Lords. MPs would also counter by suggesting that the current salary attracts the right sort of people into the Commons. This attitude must have some correlation with the gold digger view of MPs in the public eye.

One practical arrangement would be for MPs to adopt a salary sacrifice arrangement whereby the difference would be paid into their pension, which would not be a final salary scheme. Newly arrived MPs coming into the Commons would be perceived as arriving on the basis of service rather than reward.

The civil service would raise an eye at this but whilst they give a service to the nation their reward is reflected in their immediate pay. At the end of a career they receive a good pension and if lucky they might get a carriage clock and an invitation to a royal tea party.

Attracting the right sort of people into the Commons is important. The perception of performance is lack lustre but this is unfair to MPs. All backbenchers work hard to provide improvements to the way the Commons works. One such initiative is for the house to do certain work on certain days so that MPs can better plan their schedules and turn up for debates. This is common sense.

Common sense ought to be part of the PPC process where a candidate cannot get through unless they have successfully past a number of tests on practical and physical problem solving. These are well established in the field of management. These skills at the very least are what ordinary people are naturally endowed with.

It seems counter productive to fill the Commons with people who have superb academic qualifications but are gormless. Such people are best suited to research in an academic career where mistakes generally have no impact simply because they are academic. Good academics make good life peers.

http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2009/04/next-election-is-confirmed-for-may-7.html

What is Dale going on about here ? Fixed Term Parliaments ? Lord Tyler ?