Winners and losers: can Parliament predict policy success and failure? Begley, P., Anitha, S., Bochel, C., Bochel, H., Defty, A., Gordon, J., Hinkkainen, K, Haux, T.*, Kisby, B., McKay, S. and Strange, G. School of Social and Political Sciences *University of Kent

Policy ‘success’ and ‘failure’ Considerable attention paid to policy ‘failure’/‘fiascoes’/‘blunders’ –But much less to ‘success’ The role of experts and evidence in policy making Interest in the processes of policy making and implementation –Including ‘better’ policy making under Labour The quality of scrutiny of legislation

Our focus here is on Parliamentary scrutiny of legislation –Reduces the challenges of defining a ‘policy’ –Is one of the principal arenas in which government policy proposals are subject to a formal scrutiny process –Provides legitimacy for the policy –Less concerned with external judgements of success and more with claims made by supporters and critics

Methods Two case studies – the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the Academies Act 2010 Identification of claims and predictions (supporters and critics) –Consultations, formal and informal –Analysis of parliamentary records –Analysis of extra-parliamentary records Comparison of predictions with available evidence on outcomes –Analysis of available data –Analysis of parliamentary scrutiny –A number of in-depth interviews with those involved (Any evidence of references to evidence or experts during parliamentary scrutiny)

The Acts National Minimum Wage Act 1998 –Foreshadowed in 1997 Labour manifesto –Introduced in House of Commons (was in committee for 19 sittings/more than 70 hours) then went to Lords –Presented as concerned with fairness, not damaging to the economy/competitiveness, part of wider strategy to help unemployed people, bringing UK in line with other states Academies Act 2010 – Foreshadowed in 2010 Conservative manifesto (parts in Coalition’s ‘programme for government’) – Introduced in House of Lords, then went to Commons (where the committee stage was a committee of the whole House) – Presented as continuation of Labour’s approach

National Minimum Wage Act: examples of claims House of Commons –Government Justice and fairness Economic benefits Rising inequality No minimum wage has increased costs to public purse, damaged training, productivity and investment Other developed nations had such protection –Opponents Too many questions/too unclear Will damage competitiveness/cost jobs/increase unemployment Legislation cannot create prosperity CBI and Chambers of Commerce opposed Should be minimum income not minimum wage Will trigger increases in differentials Enforcement powers dangerous Regionality should be taken into account House of Lords – Government Justice and fairness Particular benefits to women and ethnic minority groups Workers, businesses and economy will benefit – Opponents US example misguided Will damage competitiveness Will increase inflation Will cost jobs and close businesses Regionality should be taken into account Should accept poorly paid jobs to begin with and work way up

Academies Act: examples of claims House of Lords –Government Continuation of Labour’s academies programme Extending freedoms to schools –Opponents Deprived schools would not be supported as well as in the past Inequalities (funding and others) between academies and other schools Questions over extent of consultation prior to conversion Possibilities of straying from National Curriculum) Concerns about SEN (government accepted some elements of this at report stage) Impacts on other local schools (government accepted some elements of this at third reading) House of Commons – Government Improving quality of education Giving freedom to schools Raising standards Following the path of USA, Finland, Sweden – Opponents/critics Lacked specific measures to drive up standards Reinforced inequalities between schools Questions over extent of consultation prior to conversion Selection and admissions SEN Concentrated power in hands of Secretary of State Some noted that the examples of USA and Sweden did not offer the support for the Bill the Secretary of State implied Extent of curriculum freedoms

(Preliminary) conclusions Neither bill was subject to formal pre-legislative scrutiny Considerable preparatory work done in Opposition Both pieces of legislation allowed governments to claim some mandate for them These factors may have mitigated against pre-legislative scrutiny and greater consultation Parliamentary scrutiny dominated by broad philosophical ideas and related arguments rather than detailed discussion/concerns –Some differences between Commons and Lords –Lords less ‘political’ and more ‘technical’ – although the claims of both supporters and critics were broadly the same Scrutiny of the Academies Bill did appear to have some impact, including through the government’s own amendments; while the government made changes to the National Minimum Wage Bill it is much less clear that these were linked to scrutiny In both cases the Opposition tended to identify a number of issues early on and stuck with them throughout the scrutiny process Few apparent references to evidence, experts or expertise by supporters or critics