Feature: Private lawmaking
By Alex Stevenson
This year’s top private member’s bills vying to become law are as different as the MPs presenting them.
For the next five weeks every Friday the Commons chamber will see MPs struggle to get their bill through the House. The members involved were selected at random in a ballot; it might have seemed like winning the lottery at the time, but they now face a tough challenge in forcing their way on to the statute books.
They range in shape, size and political views. Cheryl Gillan, shadow Welsh secretary, lines up from the opposition benches alongside business, enterprise and regulatory reform committee chairman Peter Luff. From the Lib Dems come David Heath, shadow leader of the House, and science spokesman Evan Harris. And then there’s the solitary Labour MP in the top five, Chorley’s Lindsay Hoyle.
The biggest choice faced by these lucky, lucky MPs has already been made: what issue to pursue. Getting this right is like walking a tightrope. On the one hand stands the government, capable of destroying any proposal it doesn’t like the look of. On the other lies mediocrity, or a measure so inoffensive that it’s not worth bothering with in the first place. No wonder so many bills fall off before making it to the other side.
So how have they gone about it? Ms Gillan’s is, at the time of writing, doing the best, because – at the top of the list – she was able to name the first available day for her debate. This happened on Friday, when after several hours of to-ing and fro-ing 131 MPs voted it through to committee stage. There is still a long way to go; the tactics needed to shepherd it through parliament’s complex and convoluted procedures mean success is far from assured. Nevertheless, Ms Gillan stands a decent chance of getting her name on the statute books.
Helping the autistic
There are three reasons for this. Firstly – and most significantly – the autism bill is a good idea. Only two local authorities in England are aware of how many adults in their area are autistic. And roughly two-thirds of councils do not know how many of the children they are responsible for have autism.
“Our local authorities have no idea what the numbers are – you expect the services to be joined up,” Ms Gillan explained to politics.co.uk.
“It’s not rocket science – but it’s not happening at the moment and it needs to.”
The bill hopes to improve local planning of services by bolstering information about people with autism, improve inter-agency working for those moving from child to adult services and ensure access to appropriate support and services for people with autism in adult life.
As the first condition-specific piece of legislation, the autism bill will make parliamentary history if it gets through. This is where the second plus-point for the bill comes in: Ms Gillan has strong support from the National Autistic Society and 13 other autism charities. Having the backing of a coalition of pressure groups is hugely useful for MPs seeking to get their bills into law. As How Parliament Works, a textbook on parliamentary procedure puts it, it can help an MP “feel a little less like David pitted against Goliath”. The political weight offered by these outside slingshots makes a big difference.
Not that there is a lack of support inside the Commons. In fact, this is the third advantage attached to Ms Gillan’s proposed law. Her bill can be seen as the last stage in a sustained campaign for an autism bill in recent years. A ten-minute rule bill by Angela Browning, who spoke passionately in favour of Ms Gillan’s bill on Friday, had already raised the issue. And Mr Luff, who came below Ms Gillan in the ballot, has admitted to politics.co.uk he would have run with the autism bill had she not.
Every little helps
With the autism bill gone, Mr Luff explained, he was left with a number of other options; his decision for what to pursue appears a textbook example of how to play the private member’s bill game. Reforming the licensing act was a temptation; but when the government assured him they would deal with this issue he was satisfied there was no point going ahead. Having extracted something from the government he moved on to the “very powerful case” made by the Federation of Small Businesses, whose bill he eventually adopted.
His small business rate relief (automatic payment) bill is, in his own words, “a genuinely modest measure” which will help small firms get through the recession. Around half of all small businesses eligible for the £2,500 of relief are eligible but do not apply. As small business rates are often the third highest expenditure item after wages and rent, the FSB says, the £2,500 of relief on offer can have a real impact on their finances.
“You’ve got to get a huge body of people on board,” Mr Luff said.
“My expectation was that the government would embrace this bill warmly. It would be embarrassing for them [to oppose it] – it would not be good politics. But we will wait and see.”
Like Ms Gillan, Mr Luff has mustered substantial support from outside parliament. A range of other public affairs organisations have rallied behind it, including Unison, the National Federation of Subpostmasters and the Campaign for Real Ale. And, also like Ms Gillan, he has parliamentary support. His early day motion on the bill has attracted the signatures of over 100 MPs, the quorum needed to push the bill through to committee stage. So long as they turn up to vote on March 6th, Mr Luff’s prospects look good.
Money matters
“No private member’s bill is allowed to cost money,” Chorley MP Mr Hoyle told politics.co.uk conspiratorially. That doesn’t mean there’s not scope for spending plans to be looked at in future.
This is a principle Mr Hoyle, a Labour backbencher who has not been afraid to stand up to the government in the past, is looking to apply with his bill. He’s third on the list and so stands a realistic chance of making it through. But his combative approach is less narrow than the senior Tories preceding him.
Mr Hoyle is upbeat – but he makes clear he faces a tough fight in getting his statutory redundancy (amendment) bill past the government’s watchful eyes.
For as the economic clouds darken in Britain’s economy his attempt to change the way statutory redundancy is calculated faces its own metaphorical hurricane of government reluctance.
“There’s a storm ahead. Do we turn around?” he asked.
“The hurricane is going to hit us. I’m determined we get through to the other side – or sink.”
At stake is statutory redundancy pay, which when introduced in 1965 had a maximum payment cap equivalent to 203 per cent of average weekly earnings.
By 2008 that figure was equivalent to just 56 per cent. Mr Hoyle’s bill hopes to change the formula through which the payments are made to help unemployed workers through the recession.
“It’s very easy to take down a bill so you can get your name in the history books,” he added. “I’ve gone for a more difficult task because I think it’s right.”
This approach is markedly different from the first two. On balance, you would expect him to fail. His bill is by the far the most ambitious of the top five and the government has already been sending signals there may be difficulties in implementing its proposals. But Mr Hoyle has the stomach for a fight and will, at any rate, be prepared to go down fighting. And not, let’s hope, with the ship.
Constitutional tinkering
The Lib Dems in the picture offer something of a third way. David Heath, with his busy schedule as the Lib Dems’ shadow leader of the House, was unable to give politics.co.uk an in-depth interview about his bill. But, bumped into in the corridors of Westminster, he revealed how the practicalities of politics can sometimes get into the way. Originally second on the list, his preferred day fell on the same day as his party’s spring conference. He arranged to swap with Mr Luff, to the latter’s advantage. Mr Heath remains optimistic his prospects will not be hit too heavily.
That leaves Dr Harris, whose bill proposes abolishing the ban on the monarchy marrying Catholics. This legislation would alter a historical relic which dates back to the 1701 Act of Settlement. Catholophobia was institutionalised then, but Dr Harris rightly says this is utterly outdated. He wants to scrap it.
Previous attempts by MPs, including Conservatives Edward Leigh and John Gummer, have met with positive noises from the government. Last year justice secretary Jack Straw said the government was “ready to consider” changing the law. And Dr Harris believes there is no indication the Conservatives plan to oppose the bill, suggesting it stands a reasonable chance of becoming law.
He remains cautious, however, noting finding a quorum is a “challenge for all private member’s bills” and that negotiating the report stage must be done amid serious time constraints.
“Some people do it because they want to get their name on a bill [which gets] into law,” Dr Harris explained.
“I’ve done that through amendments to government bills. So I wanted to take on an area where there’s no opportunity to do this. And I feel strongly about discrimination.”
Dr Harris’ bill will not actively help people through the recession. Nor will it help vast amounts of people (even the royal family can only get through so many divorces). It does, however, seek to address a high-profile historical anomaly which does need amending. He hopes he can finally make that change, 308 years too late.
“The ultimate pressure group”
That’s the How Parliament Works definition of the government, the all-powerful parliamentary monster which must be placated for a bill to succeed. The statistics suggest the top five could all get through; in the 25 years to 2002, exactly 300 private member’s bills became law. Nevertheless, nothing is guaranteed. Watch this space to follow which fail – and which succeed.
