REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
| Author | Gavin Drewry |
| Published date | 01 May 1972 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1972.tb01334.x |
| Date | 01 May 1972 |
REPORTS
OF
COMMITTEES
REFORM
OF
TEE
LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS
IF
justice under common law is
cc
secreted in the interstices of
procedure
”
then the same might be said of statute law. Both the
quantity and the quality of legislation are closely bound up with the
nature of parliamentary procedures and with the ways in which
those involved in the legislative process interpret their roles.
Certainly pressure for procedural reform has been growing at
least since the early
1960s,
reflected in, for example, the establish-
ment of the Study of Parliament Group and in the prominence of
select committees on procedure appointed with increasing frequency
by both Houses. At the same time, consumers of statute law have
been complaining noisily about the deficiencies of much legislation
;
and there has been a resurgence of concern over the growth of
delegated legislation ineffectively scrutinised by an overburdened
Parliament. The stormy passage of the Industrial Relations Bill
has cast doubts upon the capacity of the House of Commons to cope
with a Bill which is not only vast and technical but which also
provokes bitter inter-party conflict.
A recent report by the Commons’ Select Committee on Procedure
entitled
The Process
of
Legislation
provides a timely and fascinat-
ing review of the legislative process from the viewpoint of the
parliamentarian. But before considering the contents of this
important document a word
or
two should be said about the purpose
and the limitations of exercises of this kind.
On reading Procedure Committee reports one is often left with a
niggling feeling that they beg important and fundamental questions
about
the
contemporary role of Parliament. Professor
Crick’s
unsympathetic image of backbench reformers
“
frustrated from real
work
. .
.
chewing frozen procedures as
a
genteel anodyne”*
lingers uncomfortably in the mind.
To
be fair, this has become
rather less true of reports and debates on reform in recent years,
and in
The Process
of
Legislation
one can detect little of what Crick
calls
cc
mutual back-scratching about the glories of Parliament.’
”
But undoubtedly there is often a serious psychological gap between
those non-participant observers
of
the par1iamentary“process who see
Parliament as part (albeit an important one) of a total legislative
process, the centre of gravity of which has shifted away from
Westminster towards the corridors of Whitehall and for whom
‘(
representation
”
has more to do with pressure groups than with
1
Second Report, Sestlion
1970-71,
H.C.
538.
*
The
Reform
of
Parliament
(2nd
ed.,
1968)
p.
162.
289
VOL.
35
3
To continue reading
Request your trial