Improving standards in legislation

The House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee yesterday published its report on ensuring standards in the quality of legislation.  (You can read the report here.)  I gave oral and written evidence to the committee.  I was pleased that they accepted the case for a legislative standards committee.  They also took up the case for Government to identify constitutional legislation and treat it differently to other legislation.  I was especially pleased with their specific recommendations on this, which build on my work as Chairman of the Constitution Committee:

140. Constitutional law is qualitatively different from other types of legislation. We agree with the House of Lords Constitution Committee that there is currently no acceptable watertight definition of what constitutes constitutional legislation. However, we consider that it can be identified through experience and commonsense, and that this is encapsulated in Lord Norton’s “2Ps” test (does it affect a principal partof the constitution, and does it raise an important issue of principle), and the list oftypical features of constitutional legislation suggested by Professor Sir John Baker.  We await the Constitution Society’s work to formulate a definition.

141. We have considered the Government’s response to the House of LordsConstitution Committee Report, and disagree that a watertight definition is needed before making any changes to processes for preparing and legislating in the area of constitutional law.

142. The current ad hoc process of identifying which bills to take on the Floor of the House of Commons in a Committee of the whole House lacks transparency: it is clear that differentiation is taking place in order to decide which bills are to be considered by a Committee of the whole House, but the decision-making process is unclear.  We recommend that the Government adopts our suggestion and applies Lord Norton’s“2Ps” test, together with the list of typical features of constitutional legislation as suggested by Professor Sir John Baker, or at the very least sets out why it does not agree with this approach. We also recommend that the Government follows our draft Code of Legislative Standards and explains whether the test has been met for each piece of legislation.

I may be going to prison….

Okay, it is only to visit.  Yesterday, was another full day.  In the morning, I was giving a talk to parliamentarians from different countries about the efficacy of parliaments in scrutinising legislation.  Between 1.00 and 2.30 p.m. I had to rush to fulfil four separate engagements, albeit two of them constituting essentially courtesy calls.  At 2.30 p.m., I attended the first meeting of the Joint Committee on the Draft Voter Eligibility (Prisoners) Bill.  It is a twelve-member committee – six members from each House.  We discussed our programme as well as agreeing a call for evidence.  In addition to possible oral evidence, we agreed that it would be appropriate to visit a prison to take evidence.   Whereas other select committees go on visits to exotic foreign climes (not that I ever allowed that when I chaired the Constitution Committee, unless you regard Brussels as exotic) our only trip looks like being to one of HM Prisons.

Another day….

Just thought I would report on today’s events, mainly to demonstrate that I have not forgotten you, dear readers.  It’s been fairly busy, although the most time-consuming part of the day will be my evening’s work – essay marking.

The day started with an early morning meeting with Lord Lexden to discuss progress with a working group we are creating on overseas voting.  It was then a case of getting to Portcullis House to chair a two-hour meeting of the Higher Education Commission.  As part of our inquiry into the new landscape of higher education, we took evidence from Sir Alan Langlands, Chief Executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), Anthony McClaran, Chief Executive of the Quality Assusrance Agency for Higher Education (QAA), and Fraser Woodburn, University Secretary of the Open University.  (By a remarkable coincide, the last two used to work at the University of Hull).  It was an excellent meeting, as all our evidence-taking sessions have been.

I then had a few minutes to get to the Attlee Room in the House of Lords for the 12.30 start for the reception to mark the publication of the 2nd edition of Parliament in British Politics.  There was a splendid turnout of parliamentarians, parliamentary officials and members of the Hull mafia.  Those attending included the Lord Speaker and the Speaker of the Parliament of Ghana, as well as the Leader of the House of Commons, Andrew Lansley.  I explained the reasons for holding a reception for a new edition – the sheer scale of change in Parliament over the past eight years – and there were then splendid speeches on the current Parliament by Philip Cowley, from Nottingham University, and Peter Riddell, Director of the Institute for Government: the former focused on voting behaviour in the current House of Commons and the latter on how civil servants were having difficulty keeping up with a more assertive House. 

It was then off to have lunch with the Ghanian Speaker – the Clerk of the Ghana Parliament accompanying him is one of my PhD students – and then to the meeting of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.   Unusually, we were taking evidence, on this occasion from junior minister in the Ministry of Justice (and Hull University law graduate) Helen Grant.  We were pursuing concerns, not exactly dispelled, over the order to abolish the Administrative Justivce and Tribunals Council. 

I then went straight to Portcullis House for my ‘open house’ session with students, though on this occasion it was MPs rather than students who stopped to have a word.  It was then a case of catching up on paperwork and beginning the evening’s task of marking.  The only common thread of each day this week – like last – is marking.  It will be the same next week….

Get your copy…

I had a short article in The House magazine last week to mark the 90th anniversary of the founding of the 1922 Committee.  I opened with: ‘The 1922 Committee is a body with a somewhat confusing name.  It wasn’t founded in 1922 and it is not a committee.  Formally, it is not even called the 1922 Committee.  It voted to change its name in 1943, but no one – including the 1922 Committee – appears to have taken much notice.’  

To find out more about the 1922 Committee, you can read The Voice of the Backbenchers, which John Rentoul has described as an ‘excellent short book’.  (You see, it is a book.)   It is available for £7.99 (including postage and packing) from info@conservativehistory.org.uk

Available from all good bookshops…

The 2nd edition of Parliament in British Politics was published on Friday.   A book launch was held in the Politics Department on Thursday.  The picture shows some of the enthusiastic students holding up one of the flyers for the book.   There was a competition for students to come up with the best poem or verse about Parliament, with a copy of the book for the winner.  The winning entry, from Dehenna Davison, was designed to be sung to the tune of ‘Hey, Jude’.

So much has happened since the first edition was published in 2005 that the book has been substantially revised, with four new chapters, two existing chapters merged, and all the rest revised, sometimes rather substantially.  The changes are reflected in the length.  The first edition was 289 pages and this one is 336.

The book is available from all good bookshops.  One student was proud of the fact that on Friday he was the first to get a copy from the consignment as it arrived at Waterstone’s on campus.   The paperback is available at under £25.  Yes, a snip at £24.99.

It’s a book

The Voice of the Backbenchers – my history of the 1922 Committee – was launched on Tuesday at a reception, attended by the Prime Minister, to mark the 90th anniversary of the 1922 Committee.    It is published by the Conservative History Group on behalf of the 1922 Committee.  I shall circulate details shortly of how copies may be obtained for those wishing to acquire copies.

Now that it is published and I have copies, I have decided that it is indeed a book.  I had listed it under the category of a short monograph, but as that basically means a short book I thought I may as well list it with the rest of my books.

Does this classification matter?  Only for where I list it in my CV, but that has little relevance for anyone else as there is little reason why anyone else would see it.   It has more relevance in terms of providing the answer when people ask me how many books I have published.  Instead of saying ‘thirty, plus a short monograph’, I can now say ‘thirty-one’.   Each response excludes new editions.  And talking of new editions, more shortly on the 2nd edition of Parliament in British Politics…

UPDATE: See John Rentoul’s report on the book at http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2013/04/24/lloyd-george-my-part-in-his-downfall/

Publication week

This week sees the publication of both the 2nd edition of Parliament in British Politics (Palgrave Macmillan) and my short monograph, The Voice of the Backbenchers. The 1922 Committee: the first 90 years, 1923-2013 (Conservative History Group).   To mark the publication of the former, receptions are being held in both Hull and at the Lords.   The latter is being published to coincide with a reception organised by the 1922 Committee to mark its 90th anniversary.  The reception is being held 90 years to the day since the meeting of the 1922 Committee at which it agreed its principles and elected officers.

The second edition of Parliament in British Politics is much changed from the first edition and substantially longer.  So much has happened since the first edition was published in 2005 – both within Parliament and in terms of the constitutional framework within which it operates – that I had to pen four new chapters as well as make major revisions to others: one chapter was dropped and two others merged into one. 

I am now at work on the proofs of the 8th edition of Politics UK.  I also have in press chapters for different books on Parliament and human rights, the oratory of Enoch Powell, and the Parliament Act 1911 in its historical context.  I managed to get these out of the way before the spring marking season.  That season is just beginning.  Expect light blogging as a result!