Rushing to pass new laws without proper scrutiny would repeat past mistakes, report warns government
|
A new report by the IPPR (Institute for Public Policy Research)
reveals that the previous UK government failed to fulfill promises
of democratic renewal following Brexit. Instead, it centralised
power and reduced parliamentary scrutiny in ways that undermined
effective law-making. The report concludes that the 2019-2024
UK government prioritised hasty delivery over thoughtful
deliberation, ultimately leading to laws that did not fulfil their
intended goals – and...Request free
trial
A new report by the IPPR (Institute for Public Policy Research) reveals that the previous UK government failed to fulfill promises of democratic renewal following Brexit. Instead, it centralised power and reduced parliamentary scrutiny in ways that undermined effective law-making. The report concludes that the 2019-2024 UK government prioritised hasty delivery over thoughtful deliberation, ultimately leading to laws that did not fulfil their intended goals – and also had unintended harmful side-effects to the detriment of both democracy and effective governance. Analysis of law making in the previous parliament found:
As Parliament returns from recess and the government begins to bring forward its legislative agenda, the report emphasises that the trade-off between "delivery" and "deliberation" is a false one. A more reflective, accountable, and inclusive law-making process that is better rooted in the elected representatives of people is essential for effective, long-lasting laws that deliver on the government's missions. IPPR is warning the new government to not repeat the same mistakes by undermining parliament and by-passing scrutiny to rush new laws through. The new government must show greater respect to constitutional norms, the devolution settlement, and international law. The think tank is calling on the new Labour administration – which proposed a new Modernisation Committee in its manifesto – to use the new committee to implement reforms to improve the law-making process, including by developing a memorandum of understanding with the government on clear criteria for the use of delegated legislation. The report also suggests the Modernisation Committee explore how parliament could engage with the wider public on areas of legislation – for instance, through citizens' juries or other forms of deliberative decision-making – to help inform how MPs consider new bills. Marley Morris, associate director at IPPR and co-author of the report, said: “Many people thought that by voting to leave the EU, they were ‘taking back control'. But in reality, the promise of democratic renewal has gone unfulfilled. Since Brexit, the previous government centralised power, limited parliamentary scrutiny and threatened the rule of law. This has led to ineffective laws that failed on their own terms. “If the new Labour government can learn one thing from its predecessor, it should be that there is no simple trade-off between deliberation and delivery. In fact, debating and scrutinising new bills is often critical to making these laws work better in practice.” Dr Parth Patel, principal research fellow at IPPR and co-author of the report, said: “The way in which we are supposed to make collective decisions was treated with contempt by the previous government, leading to ineffective and illegitimate laws. It is one reason behind the growing number of people in this country who sense that have no capacity to shape the laws they live under. “The new government has the opportunity to not repeat the same mistakes – they should be the Tortoise to the last government's Hare. More deliberation and more democracy will make better legislation and have a more meaningful impact on people's lives.” ENDS NOTES TO EDITORS
|