PBMB11 Larissa Peixoto Gomes, Research Fellow

Senedd Cymru | Welsh Parliament

Ymateb gan Larissa Peixoto Gomes, Cymrawd Ymchwil | Evidence from Larissa Peixoto Gomes, Research Fellow

1. Do any of the following apply to you or to the organisation on whose behalf you are responding to this consultation?

I have academic or research expertise in parliamentary procedures

2. Do you want to share your views on issues relating to the Public Bill process?

No, please take me to the questions about the Member Bill process

19. Do you want to share your views on issues relating to the Member Bill process?

20. How effective or ineffective is the Member Bill process?

2

21. Please tell us about what you think is working well, what could be improved and whether there are any good examples from other parliaments that we should consider.

22. How do you think the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of Member Bills and the Member Bill process should be assessed?

Evaluating a process depends on its aims. I evaluated the Member Bill process on the aims of democratic principles, cooperation, public participation, and efficiency and quality. I based this analysis on my knowledge of the Business Committee’s reform efforts, the electoral reform that will see proportional representation elect the members of an expanded Senedd, and other work I have done within the context of Wales. Within these aims, the Member Bill process can be reshaped to become more effective and in keeping with the needs of the Senedd and the Welsh public.

I believe that the aims of democratic principles, cooperation, public participation, and efficiency and quality should guide the evaluation of the Member Bill process. I have selected these as I believe they are in line with the reforms that are being developed and implemented in the Welsh electoral and political landscape but keep in the frame the challenges posed due to outside constraints.

Democratic principles: the Senedd is a legislative body that does not often legislate. This is common in parliamentary democracies, but it is not a hard-and-fast rule. There is scope for a better distribution of labour among the Welsh branches of government.

Cooperation: politics has recently become increasingly polarised and this has made its way to Wales. Part of adhering to democratic principles is finding a way to cooperate within and outside of the Senedd.

Public participation: since devolution, there are debates on how to ensure that the Welsh public understands the importance of the role of the Senedd. There should be a balance in increasing the relevance of that participation as well as its quality.

Efficiency and quality: the increase in MSs will not be accompanied by an increase in Senedd staff. The Member Bill process needs to be inclusive, but it cannot compromise quality and it cannot further burden the Senedd’s staff.

23. What are your views on the current arrangements for selecting Members for the opportunity to propose a Bill?

The use of a lottery is a rare method of bill proposal. While it is a traditional method in the UK and a few other countries that have a British tradition, it is not commonly found in other democracies. Many MSs propose the same bill in the hope that one of them will be drawn in the lottery. This is a workaround the system, understanding its inefficiency.

It is understandable that the Senedd would aim for a method that would ensure fairness in the face of a large workload due to Public Bills, but other possibilities exist that would enable MSs to participate more fully in the legislative process.

Informational asymmetry is one the main issues that leads to executive branch lawmaking, with the government having more resources to conduct research, negotiate, and write their proposals. By shifting to proportional representation with closed lists, the Senedd will have collective campaigns – and it can be a collective legislature. It is a shift from the current individualistic view, but it could begin a healthy democratic process.

Co-authorship

Many countries enable their representatives to co-sponsor or co-author bills. In this case, the Senedd could consider a threshold of signatures for a bill to be submitted or if it is supported by a percentage of members by at least half of the parties. A system like this encourages cooperation among members and parties and an efficient use of resources.

Another possibility is collective proposal by a committee, including amendments to Public and Private Bills, and formal co-authorship with Welsh Government.

These suggestions do not, however, exclude the possibility that an individual MS propose a bill and have it on the docket. However, if Members Bills are to be analysed by order of submission, collective submission could, for lack of a better term, “skip the queue”.

Regular schedule

There are countries with regular schedules for submissions form their legislators, such as Sweden. Rather than a lottery, the Senedd could rely on clear and transparent norms of when MSs are expected to make their submissions, which would then enable them to prepare their alliances and documents.

24. What are your views on the current arrangements for how Members who have won the ballot get agreement to introduce a Bill?

25. What are your views on the requirements for the information that Members have to provide at each stage of the Member Bill process?

Explanatory Memorandums, Regulatory Impact Assessments and similar documents are extremely important as reference documents for debate and for the future. One key item is that the Senedd must not lose is its rigour and attention to evidence and detail. While these documents may not be easy reading, they are extremely valuable sources of information and ensure that proposed bills are rooted in solid foundation regardless of ideology.

The level of detail is unique to the Senedd, but I would urge that this is not changed and only that the MSs have the adequate level of support at the appropriate time to produce these documents.

26. What are your views on the rules for what Member Bills can and can’t do?

27. What are your views on how the Senedd is asked to agree in principle to the financial implications of Member Bills?

28. What are your views on the availability of support and resources for Member Bills

There are two important issues regarding support and resources as outlined in the consultation document. The first is related to the Senedd staff and other resources that are funded by the Senedd and/or Welsh Government. It cannot be stressed enough that the increase in MSs, for the time being, does not mean an increase in Senedd staff. Therefore, extra care should be taken that Members are able to rely on the staff without overburdening them. A regular schedule for bill submissions and/or more emphasis or collective work could prove helpful in that regard.

The second is the “external stakeholder resources”. It is unclear if any funding can come from or be given to these external stakeholders and what is the transparency process there. It would be concerning if private lobbying groups are working with MSs under the guise of supporting the development of bills. While public participation is always encouraged and welcomed under democratic principles, the legislature should never be at risk of being coopted by private interests.

29. Do you have any views on the issues listed above, or any other issues relating to the Member Bill process that you have not already covered in your response.

Not included in this consultation was the public petition system, which I believe is also an area that could be reformulated to be better integrated with the democratic aims of the Senedd and the Member Bill process.

The rules and practices of law and policy making are almost as unique as fingerprints. This is an area where legislatures are truly able to innovate and the Senedd is at the vanguard by having a systematic review of all its processes. It is possible to find examples here and there of different practices and outcomes, but this is also a moment when the Senedd can also craft what works best for its citizens and its members.

In developing this response, I consulted the following bibliography and legislation:

Bowler, Shaun. 2010. ‘Private Members’ Bills in the UK Parliament: Is There an “Electoral Connection”?’ The Journal of Legislative Studies 16 (4): 476–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572334.2010.519457.

Kerrouche, Eric. 2006. ‘The French Assemblée Nationale: The Case of a Weak Legislature?’ The Journal of Legislative Studies 12 (3–4): 336–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572330500483930.

Mattson, Ingvar. 2016. ‘Parliamentary Committees: A Ground for Compromise and Conflict’. In The Oxford Handbook of Swedish Politics, edited by Jon Pierre, 2015th ed. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199665679.013.38.

Onyango, Gedion, and Abraham Ibn Zackaria. 2024. ‘Policy Capacity of the Legislature and Evidence-Informed Policy Making in Ghana: A Comparative Analysis’. In Public Policy in Ghana: Conceptual and Practical Insights, edited by Michael Kpessa-Whyte and James Dzisah, 31–51. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33005-6_3.

Reich, Gary. 2002. ‘Executive Decree Authority in Brazil: How Reactive Legislators Influence Policy’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 27 (1): 5–31. https://doi.org/10.2307/3598517.

Santos, Fabiano, and Júlio Canello. 2016. ‘Comissões Permanentes, Estrutura de Assessoramento e o Problema Informacional na Câmara dos Deputados do Brasil’. Dados 59 (4): 1127–68. https://doi.org/10.1590/001152582016109.

Szabó, Zsolt, and Herbert Küpper. 2021. ‘Legislation and Legislative Process in Eastern Europe’. International Journal of Parliamentary Studies 1 (1): 73–108. https://doi.org/10.1163/26668912-bja10008.

Tusalem, Rollin F. 2023. ‘Bringing the Legislature Back In: Examining the Structural Effects of National Legislatures on Effective Democratic Governance’. Government and Opposition 58 (2): 291–315. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2021.32.

Brazil. Regimento Interno da Câmara dos Deputados. Available at: https://www2.camara.leg.br/atividade-legislativa/legislacao/regimento-interno-da-camara-dos-deputados/arquivos-1/RICD%20atualizado%20ate%20RCD%2011-2024.pdf (Accessed: 27 March 2025).

Chile. Constitución Política de la República de Chile. Available at: https://www.camara.cl/camara/doc/leyes_normas/constitucion.pdf (Accessed: 27 March 2025).

European Parliament. Rules of Procedure. Available at: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/rules/rules20240716/Rules20240716_EN.pdf (Accessed: 27 March 2025).

Kenya. Constitution of Kenya. Available at: https://kenyalaw.org/kl/fileadmin/pdfdownloads/TheConstitutionOfKenya.pdf (Accessed: 27 March 2025).

Romania. Standing Orders. Available at: http://www.parliament.am/library/Standing%20orders/ruminia.pdf (Accessed: 27 March 2025).

Sweden. Riksdagsordning (2014:801). Available at: https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/riksdagsordning-2014801_sfs-2014-801/ (Accessed: 27 March 2025).

30. Are there any other comments that you would like to make?