Do Your Job, Keep Your Seat: The Causal Effect of MPs' Legislation on Reelection

This article examines the degree to which sponsored private member's bills (PMBs) in parliament can be explained by electoral incentives. Such bills are a peculiar piece of draft legislation – technically simple, topically unimportant and with negligible passage rates. Yet members of parliament (MPs) sponsor them in large numbers. One possible explanation for this behaviour is the electoral context arising out of the variance in electoral district size and electoral list types, which makes a strong personal reputation comparatively more important for some MPs. Sponsoring bills that have no realistic chance of becoming actual regulations could be a form of personal reputation‐building and/or vote‐seeking behaviour. Evidence is examined on the sponsoring of such bills in Finland between 2003 and 2007 and in Estonia between 1999 and 2007 in order to determine if the electoral context explains why some MPs do this more frequently. The results suggest that the electoral system does have an effect. MPs who have been elected under rules where personal reputation is not central in getting elected are less likely to sponsor such bills the larger their electoral district becomes.

Editorial - When is a Private-Member’s Bill not a Private Member’s Bill? Get access Statute Law Review, Volume 34, Issue 3, October 2013, Pages v–vi, https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmt018 Published: 21 October 2013

ON October 12, 1929, a Convention 1 for the unification of certain rules relating to international carriage by air was signed at Warsaw on behalf of His Majesty. Exactly two years and nine months later, on July 12, 1932, the Carriage by Air Act 2 reached the Statute Book, the object of the Act being to make provision for giving effect to the Warsaw Convention in English law. The Act, was, of course, no more than an enabling statute and it was not until May 15, 1933, that the Convention actually came into force as between the United Kingdom and the other High Contracting Parties to the Convention. The foregoing time scale would seem to suggest that one might with some confidence look forward to action by the Government in the near future with regard to the ratification of the Hague Protocol,3 which was opened for signature on September 28, 1955. It might even be thought that action is overdue. It is known that various interested parties have from time to time made representations to the Government urging the ratification of the Hague Protocol by the United Kingdom, but hitherto without avail. Ratification could not take place until after the enactment of legislation designed to give the provisions of the Protocol the force of law in the United Kingdom, and pressure of other business had made it impossible for the Government to find parliamentary time for the passage of the necessary Act. On November 23 last year, however, a Private Member's Bill was introduced in the House of Commons with the object of giving effect to the Warsaw Convention as amended at the Hague, 1955, and to enable the rules contained in that Convention to be applied, with or without modification, in other cases and, in particular, to non-international carriage by air. The Bill was subsequently enacted as the Carriage by Air Act, 1961,4 receiving the Royal Assent on June 22, 1961. The present is, therefore, an opportune moment to review the

In a civilized society legislation should surely be based on rationality. Where what is in issue is choice between competing moral principles it seems reasonable to expect a full discussion of those principles so that the choice may be an informed one. And one would certainly expect that the policy finally adopted should be expressed in technically apt language so that doubt about its meaning is minimized. In many ways, this country is fortunate in such matters. The work of the Law Commissions contributes to an informed legislative opinion, as do the deliberations of bodies such as the Warnock Committee of Enquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology.' Even if there remains a division of opinion, the lengthy bi-cameral Parliamentary process might be expected to permit lively discussion of the opposing points of view. Finally, the drafting of primary legislation is entrusted to highly competent experts who-unfashionable though it may be to say so-often produce legislative structures of considerable intellectual distinction. But sometimes, for one reason or another, neither the resources of central government nor those of any official agency are available to tackle a problem thought by some to require investigation and remedy; and in such cases the Private Member's Bill may be used in an attempt to deal with the issue-either definitively, by the immediate enactment of legislation, or at least by arousing interest in the subject and thereby securing for it a place on a more official and well-resourced agenda. The Forfeiture Act 1982 provides an example of this process. It originated in concern about a rule of law which seemed to have the effect that a woman who killed her husband, even under the grossest provocation, would forfeit all right to succeed to his estate and to his interest in the family home and would be disqualified from the social security benefits to which a widow would normally be entitled. This draconian rule would-it seemed-be applied even if the woman's moral culpability were such that, in criminal proceedings, she had been held not to deserve any punishment at all.

Lord Alderdice, the Liberal Democrat Peer and Speaker to the Northern Irish Assembly, met with Ann Casement, Chair of the UK Council for Psychotherapy, in February 1999 at the House of Lords and offered to bring a Private Member's Bill to regulate the profession psychotherapy. They subsequently met with the then Minister for Health in the Lords, Baroness Hayman, and Anne Richardson, Senior Policy Adviser to the Department of Health. At this meeting, Lord Alderdice presented the case for taking the regulation of psychotherapists through a Private Member's Bill route because many psychotherapists do not work in the NHS.

Lord Alderdice, the Liberal Democrat Peer and Speaker to the Northern Irish Assembly, met with Ann Casement, Chair of the UK Council for Psychotherapy, in February 1999 at the House of Lords and offered to bring a Private Member's Bill to regulate the profession psychotherapy. They subsequently met with the then Minister for Health in the Lords, Baroness Hayman, and Anne Richardson, Senior Policy Adviser to the Department of Health. At this meeting, Lord Alderdice presented the case for taking the regulation of psychotherapists through a Private Member's Bill route because many psychotherapists do not work in the NHS.

Should tobacco companies be banned from sponsoring sporting events? The BMA thinks they should; so does the Labour party, though not some of its MPs. The government disagrees, but some Conservatives favour the idea. Such is the division of opinion that the chances of pushing a private member's Bill through the Commons to prohibit the cigarette companies from pumping an estimated ?8 million a year into sport are next to none. And so it proved when Conservative backbencher Roger Sims (Chislehurst) tried his luck recently. The procedures of the House require a vote to be taken on the second reading of a private member's Bill before 2 30 pm on the Friday that it is debated. If the discussion is still going on at that time it is adjourned until some future date, in the case of Mr Sims's Bill, 14 March. In practice, however, the measure goes to the back of a long queue of private members' legislation and is, to all intents and purposes, killed off. Mr Sims's Bill suffered such fate. It is doubtful that this came as a surprise to Mr Sims or his supporters. The uninitiated who do not follow parliamentary proceedings closely, however, must be increasingly bemused by the plethora of proposed smoking legislation, which receives sub? stantial publicity in the press and broadcasting media and then seems to sink without trace. What, for instance, happened to George Foulkes's Bill to restrict smoking in public places? The original was withdrawn on 3 February after a revised version, the Tobacco Smoking (Public Places) (No 2) Bill was tabled. But shortly after the debate on Mr Sims's measure had been adjourned a list of private Bills still awaiting a second reading was read out by the deputy speaker, Ernest Armstrong. If any of the measures are uncontroversial they are usually passed through on the nod. If contentious an MP or government whip can object, whereupon a specific date can be named for the second reading. But in the case of Mr Foulkes's Bill no day was named so it is unlikely to see the light of day again. You could be forgiven for thinking that many MPs are less than committed to the measures that they put before the Commons, but that is to do the majority of them an injustice. The old hands are fully aware that certain pieces of private legislation have about as much chance of getting past their colleagues as Ferdinand Marcos has of owning a holiday home in the Philippines. The Commons, however, is not just a legislative chamber; it is also a forum for debate. And there are few better ways of generating public interest in a subject close to an MP's heart than to enshrine it in a Bill, however unlikely it is to succeed.

The issue of assisted suicide has been a matter of considerable controversy. On 9 December 2008 the incoming Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer QC, announced that he would not prosecute Mark and Julie James for taking their son Daniel, paralysed as a result of a rugby accident, to an assisted-dying clinic in Switzerland. At the same time, Margo MacDonald MSP has been attempting to change the law in Scotland, where assisting the suicide of another is a common law offence. During the Lords committee stage of the Coroners and Justice Bill Lord Falconer moved a new clause to make it legal to help another to travel to a country in which assisted dying was lawful, in circumstances where that person had made a formal declaration of intent to travel abroad in order to die and two doctors, independent of each other, had certified that that person was terminally ill and had the necessary mental capacity to make the declaration. For the Government, Lord Bach said that Ministers felt that the Bill was not the appropriate vehicle for changing the law on assisted suicide and suggested that if Falconer wished to pursue the matter further he should do so through a Private Member's Bill – and the new clause was duly defeated by 194 votes to 141.

Separation of powers Separation of powers, in the American sense of the expression, hardly exists in countries with a parliamentary regime of government: although the judiciary is independent, the other two powers are intertwined. The government can only remain in power as long as a parliamentary majority is willing to support it; ministers are accountable to Parliament; and statutes are made – in fact, if not always in law – by the government and the Parliament acting together. That is particularly true for Great Britain, where the development of cabinet government under a two-party system has tended to establish a clear distinction between the government and its parliamentary majority on the one hand, the opposition party on the other. This distinction characterizes the debates in the House of Commons, the directly elected house, where most decisions of political importance are discussed. The parliamentary debates illustrate that the executive is not independent, or ‘separate’ from the legislative bodies. Cabinet ministers participate in these debates as members of Parliament, from the government ‘front bench’. The opposition party has its own ‘front bench’, or ‘shadow cabinet’. Bills are usually introduced by government ministers; it is also possible for any MP to introduce a ‘private member's bill’, but such a bill will only be examined if it is compatible with the parliamentary timetable.

This symposium draws together a collection of papers that reflect on the potential to extend parental rights for employees and facilitate the combination of work and family responsibilities. The enduring difficulties of integrating paid work with family commitments, and the significance of this tension for the persistence of employment inequalities between men and women, ensure that these are issues of considerable importance in contemporary society. However, policy development and implementation are frequently contested, while barriers such as the gendered division of domestic labour appear almost impervious to change. Nonetheless, policy advances have been made, and much can be learnt from investigating different approaches and the impediments to change. The symposium seeks to make a contribution to this endeavour. The papers included here were initially presented at a workshop held in April 1999 as part of the gender stream of the Reshaping Australian Institutions Project at the Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University. The workshop was supported by Sociology and Political Science Programs within the Research School, and brought together a range of participants from academia, government and women's organisations. The timing was apposite. It was held a few months prior to the International Labour Conference session at which the Maternity Protection Convention (International Labour Organisation [ILO] Convention no. 103) was to be reviewed. It was also a time when the New Zealand government was faced with a private member's bill proposing paid parental leave--an initiative which, if successful, would have made the absence of paid parental leave in Australia even more conspicuous internationally. Significant changes were also in progress in the United Kingdom, where the Employment Relations Bill 1999 proposed the introduction of parental leave and simplification of existing provisions on maternity rights. In Australia, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission was conducting the National Pregnancy and Work Inquiry, and the Work and Family Unit within the federal Department of Workplace Relations and Small Business was preparing a report on family friendly employment practices. Several of these issues were discussed at the workshop. Visiting British academic Jill Eamshaw spoke on the difficulties of protecting maternity rights under the complex legislative arrangements that have evolved in the United Kingdom, and the potential of the new legislation to simplify the situation. Jennifer Curtin (University of Canberra) analysed the politics of the New Zealand initiative, Jennifer Earle (Women's Legal Centre) spoke on the ILO deliberations and the need to extend provisions in Australia, and Gillian Whitehouse presented the results of collaborative research with Di Zetlin which sought to identify the distribution of work and family measures in Australian workplaces, and some of the impediments to their implementation. A further issue raised was the development of a Draft Code of Practice and Guidelines on Pregnancy and Work in New South Wales. Philippa Hall, Deputy Director of the NSW Department for Women, informed the workshop of progress on this initiative, which was designed to set out and explain legal obligations as they have been defined in statutes and in case law, and provide guidance in ensuring work and workplaces are safe, fair and consistent with the entitlements of pregnant women and new mothers. The Report of the National Pregnancy and Work Inquiry has subsequently recommended that, once adopted in NSW, the code and guidelines be included in the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission database as a source of practical advice on risk control relating to pregnancy at work, and be reviewed with a view to implementing such a Code nationally (Recommendations 22 and 23 of the Report of the National Pregnancy and Work Inquiry, Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, 1999). …

Computer misuse

The ‘best of both worlds’ thesis contends that mixed-member electoral systems should provide individual legislator accountability via single-member district (SMD) elections, as well as collective party accountability via a multi-member district (MMD) tier. This study evaluates the mandate divide and electoral connection under the Welsh mixed-member proportional system of representation during the 3rd (2007–11) and 4th (2011–16) Assemblies. Consistent with the best of both worlds thesis, electorally vulnerable SMD legislators are found to make more member bill attempts, and those whose member bills are randomly selected for introduction enjoy a significant boost in their electoral margin of victory. There is some evidence that MMD legislators are rewarded by their party selectorates for member bill efforts with a move up the party list, although this result is less robust. An additional check confirms the absence of contamination across electoral tiers.

Clanek analyzuje volebni podporu středových populistických stran v Ceske republice. Na zakladě dat z narodnich volebnich studii a s využitim vybraných teorii volebniho chovani nejde volebni podporu těchto stran vysvětit pomoci tradicnich konfliktnich linii, ale pťedevsim pomoci hodnoceni valencnich charakteristik.

The first Ancient Monuments Act was the first measure to protect part of the built and artistic heritage of the United Kingdom. Gives a full account, from the documentary sources, of the Act's genesis, as a private member's Bill of the Liberal MP Sir John Lubbock, baron Avebury, and its administration by General A.H.L. Fox-Pitt-Rivers, first Inspector of Ancient Monuments. Discusses Lubbock's and Fox-Pitt-Rivers's concern with prehistoric monuments of ethnological interest, and their reluctance to involve themselves in the matters of taste that arose in the protection of more recent buildings, especially ecclesiastical and medieval structures. Catalogues the sites involved in the 1882 act, with a summary of its consequences in each case. -- AATA

Many scholars speculate about the political implications of Internet proliferation. The Internet might, for example, open new channels of communication, which should benefit ideologically extreme and electorally small parties. On the other hand, the Internet might push party systems toward normalization, ultimately reinforcing the extant dominance of incumbent parties. We draw on data from 205 small and extreme parties in 35 countries and focus on both party- and system-level outcomes to investigate some of the most pressing research questions from this debate. We find that where party systems were previously concentrated or restrictive, Internet proliferation has no effect on votes for small and extreme parties. By contrast, in more permissive settings, Internet proliferation has had the small—but measurable—effect of driving up votes for these parties. At the level of the party system as a whole, however, we find little evidence that Internet proliferation increases either polarization or fragmentation.