Hansard Society

Audit of Political Engagement 9: Part One

admin — Fri, 27 Apr 2012 10:23:00 GMT

Disgruntled, disillusioned and disengaged

New Hansard Society research shows people turning away from national politics

Is coalition politics bad for political engagement?

Audit of Political Engagement 9, Part One

The 2012 Hansard Society annual Audit of Political Engagement, published on April 25, shows that the public’s growing sense of indifference to politics as highlighted in last year’s Audit has hardened into something more serious as public attitudes become more negative:

42% say they are interested in politics (down 16 points, to the lowest level ever recorded in the nine-year Audit series)
Liberal Democrat supporters down 22 points to 50%
Conservative supporters down 8 points to 65%
Labour supporters down 12 points to 48%
44% say they are knowledgeable about politics (down 9 points)
Liberal Democrat supporters down 15 points to 46%
Conservative supporters unchanged at 61%
Labour supporters down 11 points to 45%
48% say they are ‘certain to vote’ in the event of an immediate general election (down 10 points to the lowest level ever recorded in the Audit series)
30% say they are ‘unlikely’ or ‘absolutely certain not’ to vote (up 10 points)

The increased negativity of public attitudes in respect of key aspects of political engagement appears to be strongly linked to public attitudes to the current coalition government:

Only 24% think the system of governing works reasonably well (down 7 points)
Liberal Democrat supporters approval rate 29% (down 4 points)
Conservative supporters approval rate 56% (up 10 points)
Labour supporters approval rate 17% (down 13 points)

Respondents’ attitudes to Parliament were also examined. Knowledge levels generally have remained stable at 40%; and 66% of the public acknowledge the crucial part that Parliament plays in our democratic system. Less positively:

Only 49% agree that the issues debated and decided in Parliament have relevance to their own lives
Only 38% agree that the government is held to account by Parliament
Only 30% agree that Parliament encourages public involvement in politics

The Audit continues to track the public’s appetite for involvement in actual decision-making both locally and nationally:

56% agree that their involvement in their local community could bring about change; only 32% say the same about involvement in national politics.
However, only 38% actually want to be involved in local decision-making, and 33% involved in national decision-making.
There has been a striking decline over the past two years in the proportion of the public undertaking voluntary work. This has dropped by eight percentage points (from 29% in Audit 7 (2010) to 21% today) – a worrying development for proponents of the Big Society agenda.

Dr Ruth Fox, Director of the Hansard Society's Parliament and Government programme, and co-author of the report, commented:

‘2011 was one of the most turbulent and momentous years in recent history. But it appears that the economic crisis, the summer riots and phone hacking did not lead to any greater interest in or knowledge of politics. The public seem to be disgruntled, disillusioned and disengaged. Thus far, coalition politics does not appear to have been good for public engagement. Worryingly, only a quarter of the population are satisfied with our system of governing, which must raise questions about the long-term capacity of that system to command public support and confidence in the future.’

For more information about the Audit of Political Engagement series click here.

Notes

The information in the Audit of Political Engagement 9, Part One is based on a Political Engagement Poll undertaken by TNS-BMRB on behalf of the Hansard Society. The findings are based on a total of 1,163 interviews conducted between 7 and 13 December 2011, which have then been weighted to the national population profile of Great Britain. Findings in relation to three questions about political participation are based on 1,235 interviews conducted in January 2012.
The data tables for Audit 9 are available here, and the political participation data from January 2012 is available here. The full SPSS data package will be lodged with the UK Data Archive following the publication of Part Two of the Audit in mid-July.
Audit 9, Part Two, which explores public attitudes to the media and politics and democracy, will be published later in 2012.
In addition to the quantitative opinion poll survey, Audit 9, Part One draws on the findings of 14 focus groups held across the country between November 2011 and March 2012 exploring public attitudes to politics and the democratic process. This research was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council. As part of this work, Professor Gerry Stoker of the University of Southampton presented a short paper at the Audit launch event which outlined the public's priorities for political and democratic reform.

Audit of Political Engagement 9, Part One

admin — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 15:24:00 GMT

42% say they are interested in politics (down 16 points, to the lowest level ever recorded in the nine-year Audit series)
Liberal Democrat supporters down 22 points to 50%
Conservative supporters down 8 points to 65%
Labour supporters down 12 points to 48%
44% say they are knowledgeable about politics (down 9 points)
Liberal Democrat supporters down 15 points to 46%
Conservative supporters unchanged at 61%
Labour supporters down 11 points to 45%
48% say they are ‘certain to vote’ in the event of an immediate general election (down 10 points to the lowest level ever recorded in the Audit series)
30% say they are ‘unlikely’ or ‘absolutely certain not’ to vote (up 10 points)

The increased negativity of public attitudes in respect of key aspects of political engagement appears to be strongly linked to public attitudes to the current coalition government:

Only 24% think the system of governing works reasonably well (down 7 points)
Liberal Democrat supporters approval rate 29% (down 4 points)
Conservative supporters approval rate 56% (up 10 points)
Labour supporters approval rate 17% (down 13 points)

Only 49% agree that the issues debated and decided in Parliament have relevance to their own lives
Only 38% agree that the government is held to account by Parliament
Only 30% agree that Parliament encourages public involvement in politics

The Audit continues to track the public’s appetite for involvement in actual decision-making both locally and nationally:

56% agree that their involvement in their local community could bring about change; only 32% say the same about involvement in national politics.
However, only 38% actually want to be involved in local decision-making, and 33% involved in national decision-making.
There has been a striking decline over the past two years in the proportion of the public undertaking voluntary work. This has dropped by eight percentage points (from 29% in Audit 7 (2010) to 21% today) – a worrying development for proponents of the Big Society agenda.

EVENT

Audit of Political Engagement 9, Part One is launched
Wednesday April 25, 6.30pm, Thatcher Room, Portcullis House

A full presentation of the findings will be made by our research team, Dr Ruth Fox and Matt Korris. Further comment will be provided by Professor Gerry Stoker, author of the award-winning book, Why Politics Matters: Making Democracy Work, and will be followed by an audience Q&A. The event will be chaired by the Society’s Chief Executive, Fiona Booth.

Hard copies of Audit of Political Engagement 9, Part One will be available at the launch event.

Professor Stoker's note on the public's priorities for political reform, presented at the launch event, can be downloaded here.

For further information, contact Virginia Gibbons at the Hansard Society on 020 7438 1225 or 07812 765 552 or email comms@hansardsociety.org.uk

Editors' Notes

The Hansard Society is the UK's leading independent, non-partisan political research and education charity. We aim to strengthen parliamentary democracy and encourage greater public involvement in politics.
The Audit of Political Engagement is an annual health check on our democratic system. Now in its ninth year, the study measures the ‘political pulse’ of the nation, providing a unique benchmark to gauge public opinion across Great Britain with regard to politics and the political process. It is published by the Hansard Society with funding from the House of Commons and the Cabinet Office.
The information in the Audit of Political Engagement 9, Part One is based on a Political Engagement Poll undertaken by TNS-BMRB on behalf of the Hansard Society. The findings are based on a total of 1,163 interviews conducted between 7 and 13 December 2011, which have then been weighted to the national population profile of Great Britain. Findings in relation to three questions about political participation are based on 1,235 interviews conducted in January 2012.
Reported changes in results from this year's Audit compared to past years refer to percentage point differences, e.g. Interest in politics has fallen by 16 percentage points from 58% last year to 42% this year.
The data tables for Audit 9 are available here, and the political participation data from January 2012 is available here. SPSS data packages will be lodged with the UK Data Archive following the publication of Part Two of the Audit.
In addition to the quantitative opinion poll survey, Audit 9, Part One draws on the findings of 14 focus groups held across the country between November 2011 and March 2012 exploring public attitudes to politics and the democratic process. This research was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council.
Audit 9, Part Two, which explores public attitudes to the media and politics and democracy, will be published later in 2012.

Next HeadsUp debate on You and Society starts next week - April 23

admin — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 10:13:00 GMT

You and Society: What Makes Society Work Well?

11-18 year-olds to have their say on the Big Society,
Britishness and Societal Breakdown

30 April - 18 May 2012

HeadsUp.org.uk

What do young people think about the society they live in? Do they feel included? How can they help to improve their local communities? From 30 April, under-18s will be debating all aspects of British society with decision-makers online.

HeadsUp is an online forum for young people to explore political issues and learn about politics through debate with their peers and politicians. HeadsUp provides a direct line to politicians, allowing students to get their views across to real decision-makers and is a safe, moderated space that can be used by teachers as a resource for the teaching of Citizenship or PSHE.

All the debates are supported by lesson plans and activities for teachers and background information for students to ensure high-quality and informed debate.

The three week debate is happening online from Monday 30th April to Friday 18th May 2012 and all of the comments can be viewed throughout the three weeks without registration. The following topics will be discussed:

o   British Society...does the government do too much? - What makes people feel left out of society? What can young people do to improve their local community? What might be the impact of Scotland leaving the UK?

o   The Big Society...do we expect too much of volunteers? - Would you want a company or charity to take over your school? Should young people have more responsibilities in their communities? Are there some things that the government should always be responsible for?

o   Broken Society...is our society really broken? Do we do enough to help those who are struggling in Britain? Were the riots an example of "broken Britain"? Do you think adults blame children and young people unfairly for society's problems?

The following decision-makers are getting involved, with more to be confirmed soon:

Mark Drakeford AM
Kevin Stewart MSP

If you would like to be involved, or need more information, contact Beccy Allen at the Hansard Society on 0207 438 1214 or Beccy@hansardsociety.org.uk

Editors' Notes

HeadsUp is an innovative website where 11-18 year olds debate political issues and learn about the political process. The site is a non-partisan, cross-party educational resource that provides a secure, structured and student-centred discussion platform.

The forum schedule for the 2011-12 school year is as follows:

   26 September - 14 October 2011 :: How equal is Britain? [report]
   21 November - 9 December 2011 :: The Media: is it doing its job? [report]
   5 - 23 March 2012 :: What makes a good family? [report]
   30 April - 18 May 2012 :: What makes society work well?
   18 June - 6 July 2012 :: Olympic and Paralympic Games...

Interested MPs, Peers, MSPs and AMs are invited to get involved in the debate - to take part please email Beccy Allen (above) for more information.

Two ways to register to participate in HeadsUp:

1. Young People - If you are aged 11-18 and want to get in on the action you need to complete the Student Sign Up Form.
2. Teachers/youth workers - can register a whole class/school year/group by completing our Teachers Registration Form.

All HeadsUp forums are open to be viewed and the debate followed by the public. Participants need to register or login to post comments (11-18s and supporting teachers/youth workers only).

The project is part-funded by the House of Commons.

There are over 1,000 schools currently registered with HeadsUp.

Hansard Society does not charge for internships

admin — Sun, 15 Apr 2012 13:34:00 GMT

Hansard Society does not receive donations from House of Lords, House of Commons, the Speaker, BBC Parliament or any government department

Statement from Fiona Booth, Chief Executive of the Hansard Society - April 14, 2012

‘Incorrect information on social media sites today alleges that the Hansard Society charges £8,000 for work experience internships. This is incorrect. For 20 years we have run an academic study programme aimed at understanding of the British political system. Hundreds of undergraduates and post-graduate students from around the world have participated in our Hansard Scholars Programme, which involves a study course in association with a leading university and internships with relevant NGOs, Parliament and other organisations. Interns do not work at the Hansard Society.

The cost for this 11-week academic programme includes all academic tuition and student fees, accommodation in central London and unlimited travel by tube and bus in central London, plus visits to the devolved legislatures and many other activities. The Hansard Society is accredited by the British Accreditation Council and is a member of StudyUK. Further information about this programme is available on our website (www.hansardsociety.org.uk)

The Hansard Society does not receive donations from the House of Lords, the House of Commons, the Speaker, BBC Parliament or any government department. We have funded project work – full details of which can be found in our audited accounts available on our website.’

For further information, contact comms@hansardsociety.org.uk or 07812 765 552

Give children a voice in adoption, say young people - April 3, 2012

admin — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:58:00 GMT

Give children a voice in adoption, say young people

www.headsup.org.uk

Young People (11-18 year olds) taking part in the first HeadsUp forum of 2012, What makes a good family? firmly believed that when it comes to adoption, the wishes of the child should be taken into account where possible.

The What makes a good family? debate ran from 5 -23 March and attracted the fourth highest number of students since the site began in 2004, with the highest number of this school year. The forum covered a wide range of issues from who should be allowed to adopt and gay marriage to the level of help families should expect to get from the government and changes to the Child Support Agency. You can read the full report of the forum here.

The young people taking part were keen that the criteria for adoption should be as broad as possible, but there were some provisos:

"I think a child (aged 5+) should be adopted by anyone they want and they should not be forced into being adopted by someone that they dont wish to be adopted by."

"...they should be with the same religion but not sure about race. I think that they should have a say on who adopts them as surely it is a extremely important thing for them."

During the forum David Cameron announced plans to withdraw barriers to mixed-race adoption, but the forum was divided on this issue:

"At the end of the day, it's everyone's goal to let that child grow up in the best circumstances possible. So not allowing that child a caring home isn't exactly helping the child grow up."

"In my opinion, they should definitely be the same race, as there has been numerous cases of children of different background adopted by parents of t a different race, this has lead to racism due to the family living in a segregated community."

The Welfare Reform Bill became law on 8 March 2012. One of its provisions - introducing a charge to use the Child Support Agency - was denounced by some of the students:

"I cannot believe the government is suggesting charging for such a service, especially when at the times when it is needed - just after a divorce/split -the people are suffering emotionally. The government should be trying to help these people, not trying to make them suffer more than they are"

"the government should not charge the poor mother for sorting things out with the child's father. If they are already struggling to pay for everything else, then how can they squeeze out some money to pay for the help they deserve?"

For further information, contact Beccy Allen at the Hansard Society on 020 7438 1214 or at beccy@hansardsociety.org.uk

Editors' Notes

o All quotes come direct from the forum and are unedited. 134 young people took part in the debate, with 278 posts; there were 4,997 visits to the website.

o The full forum report for What makes a good family? can be downloaded here.

HeadsUp (http://www.headsup.org.uk/content/) is an online debating space for 11-18 year-olds, run by the independent and non-partisan Hansard Society, to enable young people to discuss their views on political issues with their peers and influential decision-makers.

It aims to build levels of political awareness and participation so that young people can play an effective role in the democratic processes affecting their lives.

HeadsUp is also a space that politicians and political parties can use to consult with young people and find out their ideas, experiences and opinions.
HeadsUp was runner up in the Empowering Young People and Citizens category at the 2010 Nominet Internet Awards - recognising best practice use of the internet.

o Two ways to register to take part in HeadsUp:

Young People - If you are 11-18 and want to get in on the action you need to complete the Student Sign Up Form.
Teachers/youth workers - can register a whole class/school year/group by completing our Teachers Registration Form

The project is part-funded by the House of Commons.
There are currently over 1000 schools and youth organisations registered on HeadsUp.
The decision-makers supporting the forum were:

Catherine McKinnell MP - Shadow Minister for Children and Young People;
Graham Stuart MP - Chairman of the Education Select Committee;

· Baroness Massey - Chair of the All Party Group for Children;

Aileen Campbell MSP - Scotland's Minister for Children and Young People;
Drew Smith MSP - Scottish Labour Spokesperson on Social Justice;
Mark Drakeford AM - Chair of the Committee on Health and Social Care;

· Bethan Jenkins AM - former Plaid Cymru Spokesperson on Child Poverty;

Mark Bennett - Director of Public Affairs, 4Children;
Liz Gardiner - Head of Policy, Working Families.

Sir David Butler Scholarship

admin — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 10:05:00 GMT

The Hansard Society is pleased to announce details of a Scholarship award for an Autumn 2012 Hansard Scholar made possible through the generosity of the Hansard Society Trustees.

The Scholarship is named after Sir David Butler, social scientist and arguably Britain’s leading psephologist. He has written prolifically on elections, most notably as author of the Nuffield Election Studies of each United Kingdom General Election since 1945. Sir Butler is credited with bringing modern American social science analysis to the UK. He was a co-inventor of the famous swingometer and was a regular on-screen expert on the BBC’s election night coverage from the 1950 – 1979 elections. He has since appeared on many other television and radio programmes including Sky News election night coverage.

Sir David is an Emeritus Fellow of Nuffield College, Oxford University. He was elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 1994 and he was knighted in the 2011 New Year Honours for services to political science. He is a former Chair of the Hansard Society.

The Scholarship award is for £1000. (GBP) (approximately $1500. US dollars). Scholars interested in applying for the award will be required to submit a 1000 word essay on a choice of three topics by June 1st 2012. The name of the successful recipient will be announced on June 15th. Only individuals who have submitted a completed application to the Autumn 2012 Programme are eligible to apply for this award; both new applicants and those who have already been accepted are free to apply for this Scholarship.

For more details and the three topic questions, please contact Gail Bumbury, Scholars Manager, at gail@hansardsociety.org.uk.

The recipient of the Sir David Butler Scholarship will be introduced to Sir David when the Scholars make their study visit to Oxford in October and featured in the Hansard Society Newsletter.

What makes a good family? - February 23, 2012

admin — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 10:49:00 GMT

11-18 year-olds and politicians to discuss family values, child poverty and adoption

Monday 5 March - Friday 23 March

HeadsUp.org.uk

Under-18s will be making their views known direct to politicians on HeadsUp in a three-week online debate about families in March.

HeadsUp is an online forum for young people to explore political issues and learn about politics through debate with their peers and politicians. HeadsUp provides a direct line to politicians, allowing students to get their views across to real decision-makers and is a safe, moderated space that can be used by teachers as a resource for the teaching of Citizenship or PSHE. All the debates are supported by lesson plans and activities for teachers and background information for students to ensure high-quality and informed debate.

The three week debate is happening online from Monday 5 March to Friday 23 March 2012 and will explore a range of issues surrounding family policy, including:

Adoption - Who should be allowed to adopt? How can we make sure children have a say in the adoption process? Should religion, age or race play a part in who can adopt?
Troubled families - Is it the Government's job to help so called 'troubled families'? Does labelling certain families 'troubled' make their problems worse? Should the Government be tougher with problem families?
Family values - What values are important in your family? How important is it that most families share the same values? What would you do differently if you had your own family in the future?
Child poverty - How important is money to building a happy family? What are the basic things needed for a stable, happy family? Are our chances in life decided mostly by our family?

All comments can be viewed without registration

The following decision-makers are getting involved, with more to be confirmed soon:

Mark Bennett - Director of Public Affairs at 4Children
Mark Drakeford AM - Chair of the National Assembly for Wales’s Committee on Health and Social Care
Catherine McKinnell MP – Shadow Minister for Children and Young Families
Drew Smith MSP - Scottish Labour’s spokesperson for Social Justice

Catherine McKinnell MP said in her supporting statement for the forum:

“A family should be founded on love and mutual respect, however sometimes things do go wrong and families need help to get back on track. If a family becomes ‘troubled’, not only is it hugely distressing for those involved at the time, but problems can be stored up for the future which, in turn, impact on the wider society.”

For more information contact Beccy Allen at the Hansard Society on 0207 438 1214 or beccy@hansardsociety.org.uk

Editors' Notes

HeadsUp (http://www.headsup.org.uk/) is an innovative website where 11-18 year olds debate political issues and learn about the political process. The site is a non-partisan, cross-party educational resource that provides a secure, structured and student-centred discussion platform.
HeadsUp was launched in 2003 and has covered over 30 subjects, involved 278 decision-makers and received 10,790 comments since the forums began.
The forum schedule for the 2011-12 school year is as follows:

26 September - 14 October 2011:: How equal is Britain? [report now available]
21 November - 9 December 2011 :: The Media...[report now available]
5 - 23 March 2012:: Families...
30 April - 18 May 2012:: You and society...
18 June - 6 July 2012:: Olympic and Paralympic Games...

Interested MPs, Peers, MSPs and AMs are invited to get involved in the debate - to take part please email Beccy Allen (beccy@hansardsociety.org.uk) for more information.
Two ways to register to participate in HeadsUp:

Young People - If you are aged 11-18 and want to get in on the action you need to complete the Student Sign Up Form.
Teachers/youth workers - can register a whole class/school year/group by completing our Teachers Registration Form.

All HeadsUp forums are open to be viewed and the debate followed by the public. Participants need to register or login to post comments (11-18s and supporting teachers/youth workers only).
The project is part-funded by the House of Commons.

There are over 1,000 schools currently registered with HeadsUp.

Parliamentary Public Engagement - how's Westminster doing?

admin — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:15:00 GMT

UK Parliament compares well with legislatures around the world but can still learn from good practice elsewhere

A new report from the Hansard Society, Parliaments and Public Engagement: Innovation and Good Practice from Around the World, published today, reveals that the Westminster Parliament is one of the more innovative parliamentary institutions when it comes to engaging the public with its work but that there is still much it can learn from good practice in other countries.

Many legislatures around the world face a common problem: their public are neither knowledgeable about nor particularly satisfied with them as institutions. Yet, unless the public are informed about what parliaments are doing they cannot influence the institution; and unless they can influence the institution they cannot hold it and their elected members fully to account. Over the course of the last decade parliaments have had to grapple with the broad political challenges this problem poses, and in an effort to do so, public engagement programmes have become core business for many legislatures.

Parliaments and Public Engagement highlights examples of innovative and potentially transferable good practice in this fast developing field of parliamentary activity, setting out a broad menu of ideas designed to help parliaments consider what options might be the ‘best fit' for their own public engagement goals. The areas the report primarily focuses on are:

Information provision: for example, education and training materials, website presence
Parliament as public space: visitor facilities, access tours and exhibitions
Education: activities and initiatives on- and off-site for teachers, students, and the wider community
Outreach: civil society links, community partnerships and social inclusion programmes to engage with hard to reach groups
Facilitation: support platforms for parliamentarians and/or officials to engage with the public, particularly through e-forums or other online, digital democracy mechanisms
Media: initiatives with print media, broadcasting and new media platforms - both promotional and partnership work.

The report finds that each parliament grapples with many of the same difficulties: how to draw the line between political and parliamentary activity; how to balance the needs of political representatives with those of administrative officials whilst retaining the support of the former as the primary ‘face' of the institution in the public mind; how to develop an ‘ambassadorial' capacity; how to reach out beyond the ‘usual suspects' to engage with a broad range of individuals and organisations; how to go beyond traditional media outlets in communicating the best work of the parliament; and how, in the face of enormous market competition, to make best use of limited resources.

Parliaments and Public Engagement finds that initiatives which represent a major step change in public engagement practice are often the result of the parliament finding that it needs to respond to a crisis; it must react to a significant political shift in the country; or it seeks to take advantage of a milestone, such as the anniversary of the founding of the institution. These three factors - ‘windows of opportunity' - often lead to reviews of established practices and greater innovation as a consequence.

A ‘blank slate' approach as a new parliamentary institution is established (as for example, in Scotland and Wales as a result of devolution), or the appointment of new officials or a new group within the parliament, can also lead to a more proactive and innovative approach in this area of activity.

Dr Ruth Fox, Director of Research at the Hansard Society, commented:

‘Public engagement is now core business for most parliaments. Westminster is one of the parliamentary leaders in this area but there is a rich variety of ideas, initiatives and good practice emerging from institutions across the globe which could be used at Westminster and in other parliaments to add value to their existing work. They don't all cost a lot of money - indeed, some are important sources of income generation. We hope this report will act as a useful resource that parliaments can consult in order to learn about new ideas and innovations in public engagement that are being tried and tested in other places.'

For further information, contact Virginia Gibbons, Head of Communications at the Hansard Society on 0207 438 1225 or comms@hansardsociety.org.uk

Editors' Notes

The Hansard Society is the UK's leading independent, non-partisan political research and education charity (www.hansardsociety.org.uk)
Parliaments and Public Engagement: Innovation and Good Practice from Around the World explores the public engagement work of over 50 parliaments encompassing a broad and representative range of political systems, geographical regions and developed and developing democracies.
The report highlights eConsultations, outreach Bill workshops and ‘Train the Trainer' programmes, the ‘MP for a week' and ‘MyUK' on-line educational games, and the Peers in Schools and Speaker's School Council Awards Scheme as among the Westminster Parliament's most innovative initiatives from which other legislatures might learn.
The report also provides international good practice examples from which Westminster and other parliaments might learn, including: a range of thematic tours and visits in the German Bundestag and on Canada's Parliament Hill; open days and night sittings in Switzerland, the Parliament of New South Wales and the Estonian Riiggikogu; the Capitol Hill visitor centre in the USA; online forums in the Chilean Senate; and educational programmes such as the Norwegian ‘Mini Ting' and the Danish ‘Politician for a day'.
The research was supported by the Group on Information for the Public, UK Parliament.
The author of this report, Dr Ruth Fox, will be giving evidence to the House of Commons Administration Committee's inquiry into visitor services on Monday 30 January at 5:15pm in Committee Room 16.

Representation of women in politics

admin — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:02:00 GMT

This month marks two years since the Speaker's Conference on Parliamentary Representation published its report and to date little progress has been made in implementing its findings.

Today, the report will finally be discussed by MPs after the Backbench Business Committee scheduled a debate on parliamentary representation on a motion proposed by Dame Anne Begg MP (who was the vice-chair of the Speaker’s Conference).

The Hansard Society has updated our Women at the Top briefing paper setting out some of the latest statistics about the representation of women in politics and public life in the UK today.

For further information, contact Dr Ruth Fox, Director of the Hansard Society’s Parliament and Government programme at ruth.fox@hansardsociety.org.uk

Vacancies

admin — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 13:11:00 GMT

There are no vacancies at present

Celebrities deserve privacy, say young people - December 15

admin — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 13:02:00 GMT

www.headsup.org.uk

Young people taking part in the HeadsUp forum - The Media...is it doing its job? felt that excessive media intrusion into the private lives of celebrities was unacceptable, particularly when it involved their children and families.

The debate - The Media...is it doing its job? - ran from November 21 to December 9, 2011. This was particularly opportune timing as the Leveson Inquiry was taking evidence throughout this period from celebrities familiar to young people such as JK Rowling and Charlotte Church. Many11-18 year-olds taking part in the HeadsUp forum expressed their support for celebrities who want to protect their privacy:

‘Celebrities should be able to keep their private photos a secret. They can't enjoy a day at the beach without the press watching their every move'

But some took the view that media interest in the lives of celebrities was acceptable to a degree and that most people who were celebrities knew this before they became famous:

‘Even though I do think that celebrities do deserve some freedom, the reason they are famous is because of the media and because everyone is interested in their lives'

The Media...is it doing its job? examined a variety of topics covering press intrusion, the media portrayal of young people and the reliability of information found online. The participants discussed whether the media should focus on serious news, entertainment or both and were particularly concerned about the negative portrayal of young people in the media:

‘I do think that sometimes TV makes all teenagers sound mopey, moany and stroppy and often rude and sometimes stupid or thick. This mainly because they feel that it will get better viewing because everyone ‘loves' watching a bunch of teens moan about their own issues''

‘Newspapers and TV constantly brand young people as binge drinking, drug taking, fire starting, pregnant at 16, violence causing nuisances. However this is clearly untrue... isn't it unfair that the media is constantly stereotyping ALL young people in these negative ways. Using a previous example of the August Riots, almost 90% of headlines mentioned teenagers as the sole cause, or almost sole cause, of the violence. But did you know that only 19% of arrests made and sentences given were to young people aged 11-18? Teenagers were unfairly blamed for the rioting and destruction when the majority of the crimes where actually committed by older people.''

Overall, the young people taking part understood many of the areas of concern that adults often have about young people and the internet. They were very clear about checking the reliability of information on the net and understood the importance of privacy of personal information, but many suggested that some elements of the law relating to the internet were still confusing:

‘I think the law should be more clear, as many people don't know what is illegal and legal'

For further information, contact Beccy Allen at the Hansard Society on 020 7438 1214 or at beccy@hansardsociety.org.uk

Editors' Notes

All quotes come direct from the forum and are unedited. Fifty seven young people took part in the debate; there were 4,924 visits to the website, with 187 comments.
The full forum report for ‘The Media...is it doing its job?' can be downloaded here.
HeadsUp is an online debating space for 11-18 year-olds, run by the independent and non-partisan Hansard Society, to enable young people to discuss their views on political issues with their peers and influential decision-makers. It aims to build levels of political awareness and participation so that young people can play an effective role in the democratic processes affecting their lives. HeadsUp is also a space that politicians and political parties can use to consult with young people and find out their ideas, experiences and opinions.
HeadsUp was runner up in the Empowering Young People and Citizens category at the 2010 Nominet Internet Awards - recognising best practice use of the internet.
Two ways to register to take part in HeadsUp:

Young People - If you are 11-18 and want to get in on the action you need to complete the Student Sign Up Form.
Teachers/youth workers - can register a whole class/school year/group by completing our Teachers Registration Form

The project is part-funded by the House of Commons.
There are currently over 1000 schools and youth organisations registered on HeadsUp.
The decision-makers supporting the forum were:

o Philip Davies MP - Member of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee;

o John Hemming MP - Chair of the All-Party New Media Group;

o Jo Swinson MP - former Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Culture, Media and Sport and Vice-Chair of the All-Party Media Literacy Group;

o John Thurso MP - former member of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee;

o Baroness Morris - former Minister of State, Department of Culture, Media and Sport;

o Viscount Falkland - former Spokesperson for Culture, Media and Sport;

o Carolyn Quinn - BBC journalist and Chair of the Parliamentary Press Gallery;

o Daniel Booth - Editor, Web User magazine;

o Susanna Giner - Youth Media Agency.

Dr. Ruth Fox writes in The Huffington Post about Europe

admin — Thu, 15 Dec 2011 12:21:00 GMT

Dr. Ruth Fox, the Hansard Society's Director of the Parliament and Government Programme has written a piece for The Huffington Post about Europe. It is titled: Europe: Adding a Democratic Crisis to an Economic One? Dr. Fox wrote,

"Britain may have wielded its first ever veto in defence of the financial institutions in the City of London last week but an even bigger national, indeed universal interest, was also at stake: the very concept of parliamentary democracy itself."

To read more please click here.

The Media: is it doing its job? - November 15

admin — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 16:10:00 GMT

11-18 year-olds to have their say on press freedom,

the recent hacking scandal and the effects of digital media

21 November - 9 December 2011

HeadsUp.org.uk

All the debates are supported by lesson plans and activities for teachers and background information for students to ensure high-quality and informed debate.

The three week debate is happening online from Monday 21 November to Friday 9 December 2011 and all of the comments can be viewed throughout the three weeks without registration. The following topics will be discussed:

o Press Freedom: Should we ever be able to tell the media that they can't publish information in a democracy? Should celebrities be able to use the courts to keep embarrassing stories out of the press?

o The Role of the Media: Does the media have a duty to provide us with high quality information? Do you think that the media is good at checking what the government is up to? Is the focus on celebrity culture a problem?

o New Media: How do you know which information to trust? Does the internet give ordinary people more power? Should the government be able to shut down social networks if they think they are being used to break the law?

o Young People: Do you think that the media treats young people fairly? Does the news pay enough attention to young people and their concerns? Should the media include more young people in its news reporting?

The following decision-makers are getting involved, with more to be confirmed soon:

Philip Davies MP - member of the select committee for Culture, Media and Sport
Viscount Falkland - former member of the Culture, Media and Sport committee
Baroness Estelle Morris - former Minister in the Department of Culture, Media and Sport
John Thurso MP - former member of the Culture, Media and Sport committee

Philip Davies MP said in his supporting statement for the forum:

"As a member of the Culture, Media and Sports Select Committee since 2005, I have examined the workings of the British press, restrictions on the media and more recently, illegal activity in newsrooms. My starting point, as a libertarian, is that a free press is an essential part of a free society. Despite the phone-hacking scandal, the British press is a dynamic and vibrant industry that exposes wrongdoing and holds people to account."

For more information contact Beccy Allen at the Hansard Society on 0207 438 1214 or beccy@hansardsociety.org.uk

Editors' Notes

HeadsUp (http://www.headsup.org.uk/) is an innovative website where 11-18 year olds debate political issues and learn about the political process. The site is a non-partisan, cross-party educational resource that provides a secure, structured and student-centred discussion platform.
The forum schedule for the 2011-12 school year is as follows:

§ 26 September - 14 October 2011 :: How equal is Britain? [report now available]

§ 21 November - 9 December 2011 :: The Media...

§ 5 - 23 March 2012 :: Families...

§ 30 April - 18 May 2012 :: You and society...

§ 18 June - 6 July 2012 :: Olympic and Paralympic Games...

Interested MPs, Peers, MSPs and AMs are invited to get involved in the debate - to take part please email Beccy Allen (above) for more information.
Two ways to register to participate in HeadsUp:

Young People - If you are aged 11-18 and want to get in on the action you need to complete the Student Sign Up Form.
Teachers/youth workers - can register a whole class/school year/group by completing our Teachers Registration Form.

All HeadsUp forums are open to be viewed and the debate followed by the public. Participants need to register or login to post comments (11-18s and supporting teachers/youth workers only).
The project is part-funded by the House of Commons.
There are over 1,000 schools currently registered with HeadsUp.

Hansard Society eNewsletter

admin — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:20:00 GMT

The Hansard Society has an eNewsletter sent out to members every month. The eNewsletter informs members of upcoming events and projects that the Society is working on. If you are not already a member but would like to subscribe to our monthly eNewsletter then Please Click Here.

If you would like to view October's eNewsletter, Please Click Here.

Hansard Scholars Programme (Undergraduates)

admin — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:00:00 GMT

Are you an undergraduate interested in politics and current affairs? Would you enjoy studying and interning in the UK, at the heart of the parliamentary process, alongside key decision-makers and opinion-formers from Parliament, Government, campaign organisations, think tanks, lobbying groups, and the media? Would you enjoy a semester living in one of the most vibrant, exciting, and politically important cities in the world?

As a Hansard Scholar, you will be part of an organisation with an unparalleled reputation in the political world, developed over more than 60 years. You will study British politics, have seminars with politicians and undertake an internship with an organisation which corresponds with your research interests and ambitions – be it with an NGO, a government department, a lobbying group or in the Houses of Parliament themselves!

The Hansard Scholars Programme is a 14-week (11 weeks in summer), full-time course (split equally between study and internship) which offers an outstanding opportunity for international students to gain academic and practical knowledge of the British political system and current debates in UK public policy.

Please follow the below links for further details.

The Hansard Society is registered with the UK Government's Department for Business, Innovation & Skills (BIS) as an education & training provider, and is accredited by the British Accreditation Council.

Parliamentary Affairs

admin — Fri, 04 Nov 2011 11:05:00 GMT

Essential reading for anyone interested in contemporary politics

Discounted rate for Hansard Society members

The latest issue of Parliamentary Affairs (October 2011) contains a variety of articles including an examination of women in Irish politics, an analysis of the Wright Committee reforms and an analysis of the SNP's draft constitution for Scotland.

As well as abstracts from the articles Parliamentary Affairs podcasts are also available. These are interviews with the authors designed to explore themes from their work. The podcasts are between 10 and 15 minutes long, and designed to inform researchers and to serve as teaching tools to stimulate discussion amongst students.

Parliamentary Affairs is a long-established quarterly journal published by Oxford University Press in association with the Hansard Society. Individual subscriptions to Parliamentary Affairs cost £62 a year but if you become a member of the Hansard Society for £60 a year, included within this cost is a special reduced subscription to Parliamentary Affairs for just £25 a year.

Become a member of the Hansard Society (£60 a year) and receive a reduced subscription rate to Parliamentary Affairs included within this cost.
Individual subscriptions cost £62 a year from jnls.cust.serv@oup.com or Journals Customer Service Department, Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP

Peers should use social media to connect with public, says Lord Sugar - October 31

admin — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 15:05:00 GMT

Lords of the Blog

Writing on Lords of the Blog today, Lord Sugar calls on his fellow peers to break down barriers with the public by using social media as a part of everyday political life:

‘Social media means that people can have direct access to me as a Lord and as a businessman. Individuals, campaigning groups and external organisations should be able to contact us and, on some occasions, put us on the spot in public forums for the decisions we take on their behalf......The way I use social media means there are no barriers between me and the public.

‘We should be looking at the best way to break down barriers between the House of Lords and what happens in people's everyday lives; we need to get the message across that what happens in our House actually affects what happens in their house.'

For further information about Lords of the Blog contact Virginia Gibbons at mediaprog@hansard.lse.ac.uk or 020 7438 1225

Editors Notes
·    The Hansard Society is hosting a special event as part of Parliament Week focusing on how the House of Lords engages with the public and what must be done to achieve a more connected Upper Chamber (hashtag #PeerTweet).

Parliament and the public: What difference does the Lords make?

6.30 - 8pm, Wednesday 2 November, Attlee Suite, Portcullis House

Introduction
o    Rt Hon Baroness D'Souza CMG (Lord Speaker)
Chair
o    Rt Hon Peter Riddell (Chair Hansard Society)
Panel
o    Mark Darcy (BBC)
o    Baroness Scott of Needham Market (Liberal Democrat)
o    Lord Soley (Labour)
o    Professor Baroness Young of Hornsey OBE (Crossbench)
o    Professor Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative)

To attend, email hans_admin@hansard.lse.ac.uk or phone 0207 438 1216

·    Lords of the Blog was launched by the Hansard Society in 2008 to encourage dialogue between the public and Members of the House of Lords. It is the only cross-party blog of any legislature in the world.
·    Lords of the Blog attracts an average of 5,000 comments per year.
·    There are 12 bloggers who write regular blog posts related to life and work in the House of Lords. Lord Sugar is the latest guest blogger on the site.
·    Lords of the Blog has been mentioned in 15 debates in the House of Lords and has informed the Lords Information Committee inquiry ‘Are the Lords Listening?'
·    Blogging peers regularly ask for opinions and evidence from the blog's audience to inform debates they are speaking in or questions they ask in the House.

Westminster World Heritage Site and Parliament Square a national disgrace

admin — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 19:25:00 GMT

New vision which puts citizen and visitor at its heart is needed, says new report from the Hansard Society

A new report from the Hansard Society - A Place for People – Proposals for Enhancing Visitor Engagement with Parliament’s Environs - exploring how better use can be made of the Westminster World Heritage Site and Parliament Square concludes that rather than a place of national pride this landmark area is a national disgrace.

A Place for People describes the area, which attracts over 30 million visitors a year, as unwelcoming: ‘a noisy, polluted, inaccessible place, seething with traffic and pedestrians and pockmarked by fortress-like security’. The report sets out a range of ideas for the development of a new vision for the area which puts the citizen and visitor at its heart, and which would unlock the potential of the site in ways commensurate with its international status and reputation. The report calls for a new vision to be implemented with the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta in 2015 in mind.

In the past 30 years there have been several proposals for improvements to the area but little progress has been made.* A Place for People provides recommendations to improve both physical and intellectual access to the area, including:

Improving traffic management and pedestrianising Parliament Square;
Rationalising the World Heritage Site by expanding the boundary to include Parliament Square, Victoria Tower Gardens, Abingdon Street Gardens and Canning Green;
Turning Parliament Square into a forum for both spontaneous and organised citizenship, similar in style to a Speakers’ Corner. As well as a site for protest, it should be a place for a rich and diverse programme of events, lectures and discussions managed by an independent Square Steering Group;
Improving signage and information provision throughout the World Heritage Site and neighbouring areas;
Establishing new guided walks - for example:

a new Magna Carta Walkway (to mark the 2015 anniversary) supported by maps, guidebooks, and multi-media guides;
a cultural corridor linking Trafalgar Square to Parliament Square to Tate Britain through the provision of signage, information maps, leaflets and digital applications to relate the democratic story through the mix of art, statuary and sculpture en route.

Improving access to and use of Victoria Tower Gardens, including the introduction of a ‘People’s Terrace’ facility offering visitor amenities;
Converting the Parliamentary Bookshop on Bridge Street into a Visitor Information Centre where maps, leaflets, multi-media guides as well as gifts and souvenirs can be obtained;
Converting 6/7 Old Palace Yard into an exhibition and interpretation space for Parliament supplemented by improved interpretation space at the Jewel Tower;
Converting the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre into a multi-stakeholder World Heritage Site Visitors’ Centre.

The current management model for the World Heritage Site clearly does not work. This report therefore also calls for a new, more collaborative approach: membership of the World Heritage Site Management Plan Steering Group should be revised and implementation of a new management plan should be overseen preferably by a new Westminster World Heritage Trust or the appointment of a co-ordinator.

Dr Ruth Fox, joint author of A Place for People and Director of the Hansard Society’s Parliament and Government programme, commented: ‘The current state of the area does not say much for our sense of national pride and civic values. Those tasked with responsibility for the area have been negligent in their stewardship. Our proposals offer a new vision which puts the citizen and visitor at the heart of the area.

The opportunity to showcase the area during next year's Olympics and Diamond Jubilee - the biggest events attracting people to the capital in a generation - has largely been wasted. But there are new opportunities ahead, particularly linked to the 2015 Magna Carta anniversary. The worst outcome of all would be for the stakeholders, as in the past, to adopt an all or nothing approach. Implementation of any of the proposals set out in this report would be an improvement on the status quo.'

For further information, contact Virginia Gibbons mediaprog@hansard.lse.ac.uk or 020 7438 1225 or 07812 765 552

Editors’ Notes

The Hansard Society is the UK's leading independent, non-partisan political research and education charity.
The research for A Place for People was supported by the Group on Information for the Public, UK Parliament.
The report’s findings are based on desk and archive research, supplemented by discussion groups, one-to-one interviews and consultations with key stakeholders.

* Previous reports include:

1970 Greater London Council’s Three Square’s Project
1998 – World Squares for All Masterplan
2006 – World Squares for All - Parliament Square Regeneration: A Framework for Action

Inequality to blame for riots, say young people - October 20

admin — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:56:00 GMT

www.headsup.org.uk

Seventy-one per cent of 11-18 year-olds taking part in the first HeadsUp forum of the new school year, How equal is Britain? thought that inequality was either mostly or partly to blame for the riots in English cities this year.

The How equal is Britain? debate, running from September 26 - October 14, attracted a record number of comments from young people. The forum covered a variety of issues ranging from the role of inequality in the recent riots to equal representation in Parliament and sexism in sport. You can read the full report of the debate here.

Opinion was divided on the reasons for the riots:

"I believe that the people who got involved in the riots had a reason. Maybe it was because the government were not really taking care of them. They have got nothing left, so they have got nothing to lose."

"I don't think there was a message behind the riots because it could have started for a reason but most people that were involved with it were doing it for the excitement and money that looting provides."

Those taking part in the forum were asked if inequality played a part in the riots:
·   31% thought inequality was mostly to blame
·   40% thought that inequality was partly to blame
·   16% thought people involved were responsible for their own actions
·   13% were not sure what caused the riots

Equal representation of women in Parliament also attracted a lot of posts, with many agreeing with Green Party leader Caroline Lucas MP, who took part in the debate:

"Over half the population is female, yet we have a situation in which the important decisions about the future of the country are taken by men."

There was some debate as to how this might best be achieved, with some students supportive of fairer gender representation but stopping short of endorsing quotas:

"People should be chosen to become MPs based on how well they will be able to do their job, not on their gender, sexuality or race."

There was also extensive discussion of women in sport. Posters felt that women had fewer sporting opportunities than men, owing to limited TV coverage, stereotypes about specific sports for each gender and poor P.E. lessons at school:

"When I was younger I was put off sport, because I never saw female players, which made me think that women weren't allowed to participate. It totally put me off sport and I never tried because I didn't think it would be a job possibility."

For further information, contact Beccy Allen at the Hansard Society on 020 7438 1214 or at beccy@hansardsociety.org.uk

Editors' Notes
o   All quotes come direct from the forum and are unedited. Over 100 young people took part in the debate; there were 4,254 visits to the website, with 1,169 posts.
o   The full forum report for How equal is Britain? can be downloaded here.
o   HeadsUp (http://www.headsup.org.uk/content/) is an online debating space for 11-18 year-olds, run by the independent and non-partisan Hansard Society, to enable young people to discuss their views on political issues with their peers and influential decision-makers.

It aims to build levels of political awareness and participation so that young people can play an effective role in the democratic processes affecting their lives.

HeadsUp is also a space that politicians and political parties can use to consult with young people and find out their ideas, experiences and opinions.
o   HeadsUp was runner up in the Empowering Young People and Citizens category at the 2010 Nominet Internet Awards - recognising best practice use of the internet.
o   Two ways to register to take part in HeadsUp:
·   Young People - If you are 11-18 and want to get in on the action you need to complete the Student Sign Up Form.
·   Teachers/youth workers - can register a whole class/school year/group by completing our Teachers Registration Form
o   The project is part-funded by the House of Commons.
o   There are currently over 1000 schools and youth organisations registered on HeadsUp.
o   The decision-makers supporting the forum were:
·   Angela Burns AM - Conservative Shadow Minister for Education;
·   Christine Chapman AM - Member, Children and Young People Committee;
·   Caroline Lucas MP - Leader of the Green Party;
·   Siobhan McMahon MSP - Member, Equal Opportunities Committee;
·   Ian Mearns MP - Member, Education Committee;
·   Baroness Estelle Morris - former Minister for Education;
·   Meg Munn MP - Vice-Chair, All-Party Parliamentary Group on Women and Enterprise;
·   Jenny Rathbone AM - Member, Children and Young People Committee;
·   Tim Woodhouse - Women's Sport and Fitness Foundation.

Apply for the Summer & Autumn 2012 Hansard Scholars Programmes!

admin — Thu, 29 Sep 2011 11:05:00 GMT

If you are interested in taking part in a unique programme, studying and experiencing British politics from the inside, you can now apply for the:

(N.B. The postgraduate Hansard Research Scholars Programme takes place during the autumn term only)

The Hansard Scholars Programmes offer an outstanding opportunity for undergraduates, postgraduates and professionals to gain invaluable experience at the heart of the British political system.

As you will no doubt be aware, the Hansard Scholars Programme offers international students unique and prestigious opportunities. Not only will you be undertaking an internship placement right at the heart of British politics, but your courses and research will provide you with invaluable knowledge and understanding of the world in which you will find yourself immersed.

Throughout the Programme, you will also hear up-to-the-minute presentations from eminent figures within the British political system – from former Cabinet Ministers to prominent political journalists and academics. In addition, political study visits to Edinburgh and Oxford will give you a wider view of political culture beyond Westminster and London.

The Spring term will be a particularly fascinating time in which to immerse yourself in British politics, as the new coalition government will be nearing its second year in year in office and the implementation of new policies and proposed structural changes to the political system will be well under way. Your internship, whether in the Westminster offices of an MP or research department of an NGO or consultancy, will therefore allow you to experience this historic era in British politics from its epicentre.

Study abroad is without doubt an experience that will broaden your outlook as well as your horizons. The Hansard Scholars Programme will provide you with a challenging, rewarding, and memorable semester, in addition to the unrivalled cultural experience of living and working in a foreign country.

Please click here for Programme dates

The Hansard Scholars Programme is a highly competitive programme for undergraduates, postgraduates and professionals. Each semester we are forced to decline a number of very good candidates and it is therefore crucial that you provide us with as much positive information about your interests and experience as possible to support your application.

Click here for further details (incl. application form) about the undergraduate Hansard Scholars Programme

Click here for further details (incl. application form) about the Hansard Research Scholars Programme

Application Procedure

The following pieces of documentation should be submitted in English:

Application form - download here: Undergraduates / Researchers
A short personal statement outlining reasons for applying
A CV / Résumé. This must also be submitted by e-mail
A sample of written academic work (approx. 2,000 words)
Two letters of recommendation (at least one academic)*
Copy of your university transcript**
Applicants from non-English speaking countries must provide the results of a TOEFL test (or equivalent)

* Letters of recommendation sent via email must come directly from the email address of your referee.
** An official hard copy of your university transcript must be sent via post to the above address.

All applications should be sent to:

Hansard Scholars Programme
Hansard Society
40-43 Chancery Lane
London WC2A 1JA
United Kingdom

Or emailed to:

scholars@hansardsociety.org.uk

We look forward to hearing from you!

If you have any questions about the Hansard Scholars Programme, please email
scholars@hansardsociety.org.uk or call +44 207 438 1223.

Building on success - why we need to review the select committee system

admin — Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:13:00 GMT

This article was originally posted on the LSE Politics and Policy blog.

Select committees are one of the great success stories of Parliament. Over the last 30 years they have become the principal mechanism through which the House of Commons holds the executive to account and have influenced the direction of government policy and legislation. Reforms in the past decade have increased their status and sharpened their operation, particularly the recent change to elect committee chairs and members, and events such as the banking crisis and the phone hacking scandal have given committees and their work a higher profile than ever before.

However these successes mask underlying questions about the functioning of the select committee system. Many new demands have been placed on committees in recent years, their workload is increasing and public expectation of them has been heightened, and yet resources are finite and will come under increasing pressure in the future as a result of budget cuts.

The workload of committees

Committees have a set of 10 core tasks, set out in 2002 (following a recommendation of the Hansard Society’s Scrutiny Commission), to guide their work. These include examining government policy proposals (white papers, green papers etc.), departmental decisions and outputs, pre-legislative scrutiny of draft bills, scrutiny of the implementation of policy and legislation (post-legislative scrutiny), departmental expenditure, the workings of Executive Agencies, Non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) and regulators, and major appointments made by the department.

The sum total of these tasks, for even a medium-sized government department, represents a huge workload for a committee of 11 MPs (and four or five staff). And while no committee can be expected to cover everything during the course of a parliamentary session, there are concerns that an impending increase in the weight of work is going to stretch their ability to cover even a sensible, representative fraction of it.

The new or expanding areas of work cover a variety of the core tasks, the most high profile being an increase in pre-appointment hearings for appointees to senior public offices. These were introduced in 2008 on a pilot basis, and after more than 30 hearings in three years, are here to stay. The Treasury Committee last year secured the right to veto the Chancellor’s appointment, and crucially also dismissal, of the head of the new Office of Budget Responsibility, and the Liaison Committee has recently set out a list of just over 60 posts that it believes select committees should hold veto-enhanced pre-appointment hearings for (while leaving to the committees’ discretion whether to hold hearings for the many other lesser posts).

Committees are also likely to be burdened with more pre-legislative scrutiny as the government embarks on its second legislative programme from May next year. Ministers in both Houses have repeatedly stated their intention to bring forward more draft bills in subsequent sessions, and while similar undertakings were made and not realised under the previous administration, an increase in the number of draft bills is likely and will put significant pressure on committee time and resources.

Another reform that potentially brings with it extra work is the new system for post-legislative scrutiny. In 2008 the government committed to publishing a review of every Act of Parliament (other than financial measures) between three to five years of Royal Assent to assess their impact, with the intention being that select committees would analyse these reviews and undertake their own investigation if required. This was backdated to start with Acts passed in 2005, so only recently have these reviews started to be published in any number for select committees to consider.

A number of other reforms also have significant workload implications; improved financial reporting by government departments will heighten expectations that committees undertake detailed scrutiny of public spending, especially during a time of economic uncertainty and austerity measures, while the 2008 Planning Act requires committees to scrutinise proposals for National Policy Statements on planning.

The expansion of the role and function of select committees in this way, and the extra demands and opportunities that arise as a result raises questions about the extent to which committees are in command of their own agenda. There is a danger that the very success of committees makes them the default option for all additional parliamentary activity that arises and that government may have too much influence upon them by adding new tasks to their workload. The increasing demands on select committees and their members have been explicitly referred to in the last 18 months both by the Reform Committee and the Liaison Committee, with both recommending that a review of the core tasks is needed. It is now essential that this takes place.

Reviewing the select committee system

A review must balance the case for a more prescriptive approach with the clear predisposition of committees to retain their ability to set their own agenda. While the current formulation of core tasks has helped move select committees towards a more systematic form of scrutiny, any attempt to expand them would bring the system up against both its own limited resources and in conflict with the members who perform these roles.

Greater definition of the core tasks is therefore essential for committees to plan their work more effectively over the course of a parliament, ensuring that they are making the best choices possible about what policy areas and bodies to scrutinise, and providing some form of accountability and transparency for those choices. For example, scrutiny of the work and expenditure of ‘executive agencies, NDPBs, regulators and other associated public bodies’ referenced in Tasks 5 and 7, and ‘major appointments’ in Task 8 leave it entirely open to each departmental committee to decide which bodies and appointments it will focus on. As a consequence some bodies and appointments attract more attention than others, and large areas of departmental operations go unscrutinised.

The review should also examine how committees follow-up their work. The current model encourages committees to undertake inquiries, hold hearings and produce reports, but then often leave the subject entirely and move on to other things. Committees should seek to maintain a watching brief on areas they have scrutinised, examining whether their recommendations have been implemented, and calling ministers to fresh evidence sessions to account for progress.

This should go alongside some self-examination by committees. They should review the inquiries they have undertaken and recommendations made, and reflect upon their coverage of the core tasks over a parliament. Committees in Scotland produce legacy reports at the end each parliament that perform this function, setting out the areas they have covered, the progress made, and a possible roadmap of future work for their successors. Committees in Westminster should look to maximise the value of such a system both for self-evaluation and improvement and also the cementing of institutional memory.

The review should also consider whether cross-cutting policy committees, involving members and resources from a number of committees, would be beneficial to tackle cross-departmental issues (such as government policy on young people). There is the potential for committees to take a more innovative approach to the use of their resources and the harnessing of external support.

The select committee system is more effective than it has ever been. But to maintain their development, and avoid being bogged down under the weight of increasing workload and expectations, a thorough review of their core tasks and resources is needed for them to continue to develop and prosper in the future.

Matt Korris.

This article is heavily adapted from ‘Reviewing Select Committee Tasks and Modes of Operation’ by Alex Brazier and Ruth Fox in the Hansard Society’s journal Parliamentary Affairs.

An audio recording of a recent Hansard Society event entitled ‘Select Committees: Are they as effective as they think they are’ is available here.

How equal is Britain? September 22, 2011

admin — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 13:49:00 GMT

11-18 year-olds to discuss the recent riots, and equality

of opportunity in education, sport and youth employment

26 September - 14 October 2011

HeadsUp.org.uk

The first debate of the school term will be ‘How equal is Britain?' and is supported by comprehensive BackUp information for students and Teachers' notes to help plan lessons around the debate topic.

The three-week debate is happening online from Monday 26 September to Friday 14 October 2011 and all of the comments by the legislators and forum users can be viewed throughout the three weeks without registration. The following decision-makers are getting involved, with more to be confirmed soon:

Caroline Lucas, Leader of the Green Party
Siobahn McMahon MSP, Member of the Equal Opportunities Committee
Ian Mearns MP, Member of the Education Committee;
Baroness Morris, Former Secretary of State for Education.

The following topics will be discussed:

How equal is Britain? Is Britain divided? Were the riots in London, Birmingham and Manchester a reaction to inequality in our society? How can we make sure that Parliament is more representative of British society? How can the gender pay gap be closed? Does the British monarchy need reform?
Young people - Have you ever experienced age discrimination? Should there be a younger voting age? Do you know your rights? Are young people more affected by government cuts than other groups in society?
Education - Are school dress codes fair? Does everyone have an equal chance in our education system? Do schools do enough to include students with special education needs and disabilities? How well does your school tackle issues such as bullying and racism?
Sport - Are sports still sexist? Should men and women compete in the same sports together? Can women's sports ever reach the same status as men's? Do you think mixed sports teams at schools are a good idea?

Caroline Lucas MP commented:

"If we are to make our democracy stronger and improve the political system for future generations, it's crucial to ensure that the views of young people are fully heard and understood. So I warmly welcome this HeadsUp online debate on what is perhaps the most fundamental issue of our time: inequality."

Baroness Morris commented:

"It's difficult to find a time in history or a country in the world that hasn't relied on education in a quest to bring about greater equality. That's why, in any debate about equality in Britain, the performance of the education system must come under scrutiny."

For more information contact Beccy Allen at the Hansard Society on 0207 438 1214 or r.allen@hansard.lse.ac.uk

Editors' Notes

HeadsUp (http://www.headsup.org.uk/) is an innovative website where 11-18 year olds debate political issues and learn about the political process. The site is a non-partisan, cross-party educational resource that provides a secure, structured and student-centred discussion platform.
The forum schedule for the 2011-12 school year is as follows:

§ 26 September - 14 October 2011 :: How equal is Britain?

§ 21 November - 9 December 2011 :: The Media...

§ 5 - 23 March 2012 :: Families...

§ 30 April - 18 May 2012 :: You and society...

§ 18 June - 6 July 2012 :: Olympic and Paralympic Games...

Interested MPs, Peers, MSPs, AMs and MEPs are invited to get involved in the debate - to take part please email Beccy Allen (above) for more information.
Two ways to register to participate in HeadsUp:

Young People - If you are aged 11-18 and want to get in on the action you need to complete the Student Sign Up Form.
Teachers/youth workers - can register a whole class/school year/group by completing our Teachers Registration Form.

All HeadsUp forums are open to be viewed and the debate followed by the public. Participants need to register or login to post comments (11-18s and supporting teachers/youth workers only).
The project is part-funded by the House of Commons.
There are over 1,000 schools currently registered with HeadsUp.

Connecting Citizens to Parliament

admin — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:41:00 GMT

Connecting Citizens to Parliament explores which communities and social groups are not engaging with Parliament, why and how this might be redressed. It concludes that connecting with ‘hard to reach' groups cannot be achieved by a sudden radical change of approach, but demands a number of smaller cumulative step-changes, many of which Parliament can initiate or suggest but cannot necessarily lead.

The Connecting Citizens to Parliament research is based on a quantitative survey of 2,005 adults and five qualitative semi-structured focus groups. It confirms that social class and age are the strongest determining factors for engagement. Barriers to engagement include:

Parliament itself because of arcane traditions and the complexity of its processes and procedures
The narrow range and overall lack of parliamentary coverage in the media
Weaknesses in the delivery of political literacy education in schools, in the community and voluntary sector
The dearth of informal learning opportunities through public libraries and social networks.

Parliament 2020: Visioning the Future Parliament

admin — Mon, 19 Sep 2011 11:18:00 GMT

Parliament 2020: Visioning the Future Parliament - international research from the Hansard Society - demonstrates that effective political literacy education and greater use of digital media are priorities to bridge the gap between elected representatives and the public.

The focus of Parliament 2020: Visioning the Future Parliament is on how parliaments can improve processes, enhance communication and better engage with citizens. The participants in the research project comprised parliamentarians, parliamentary officials and members of the public from four countries (Australia, Canada, Chile and the UK).

Beyond the headlines: Has trust in politicians really declined?

admin — Thu, 15 Sep 2011 14:38:00 GMT

The Committee on Standards in Public Life’s (CSPL) biennial survey of public attitudes towards conduct in public life has just been published, to headlines proclaiming a decline in public trust in politicians – indeed an increasing decline in the words of committee chairman Sir Christopher Kelly. But is this really the case?

The headline finding is that only 26% of the public trust in 'MPs in general'. This result shows absolutely no change from previous years (it was 27% in 2004, 29% in 2006 and 27% in 2008). This figure also exactly matches the finding for 'trust in politicians' in our Audit of Political Engagement 7 (the survey for which was conducted at the end of 2009, the year in which the expenses scandal took place) and fits with the general trend across the Audits, which have shown very little change in the levels of trust in politicians over time.

So trust in politicians in general has not changed. But there has been a marked decline in trust in ‘your local MP’ according to the CSPL survey – 40% trust their local MP now, compared to 47% in 2004, 45% in 2006 and 48% in 2008.

The question is what accounts for this decline? While it is tempting to suggest, as The Independent does, that it is a reaction to the highly publicised failings of individual MPs during the expenses scandal, there are strong arguments that it is instead a consequence of the 2010 election.

Firstly, the election led to a significant turnover in MPs, which means that many people have new MPs who they will be less familiar with. This is borne out by the Audit 8 finding that fewer people could correctly name their MP this year than at any previous time the question has been asked. Given that familiarity tends to go hand-in-hand with favourability, the reduced trust in 'your local MP' may simply be a product of fewer people knowing who their MP is.

Secondly, the impact of two parties in coalition may have damaged trust, particularly among Liberal Democrat supporters (and potentially Conservatives as well), for whom high profile policy u-turns on the economy and tuition fees may well have reduced their faith if they have a local Lib Dem MP.

Disappointingly the CSPL has not published the raw survey data along with the report, so it is currently not possible to tell, for example, whether there were a large proportion of people answering ‘Don’t Know’ to this question about trust in their local MP,* or to cross-check factors like party support or party of a respondents MP against the trust measure.

If the election and coalition are the root cause of this change, then there can be some cause for optimism that the situation will improve of its own account, as people become more familiar with their new MPs and with coalition government.

But even so, none of this should detract from the fact that perceptions of MPs’ behaviour certainly appear to have worsened by plenty of other measures, as the proportion of the public who agree that all or most MPs are:

‘dedicated to doing a good job for the public’: 26 per cent in 2010 (-20 points from 2008);
‘competent at their jobs’: 26 per cent (-10 points);
‘telling the truth’: 20 per cent (-6 points);
‘making sure that public money is spent wisely’: 18 per cent (-10 points);
‘in touch with what the public thinks is important’: 15 per cent (-14 points).

And yet despite this decline in the perceptions of MPs’ behaviour, this has not had any impact in the overall levels of trust. Given the consistency in that finding (from both the CSPL survey and the Audit), can we conclude that 26% is rock bottom for trust in politicians?

One other fascinating nugget from the CSPL survey is the finding that the proportion of the public who think that MPs are ‘setting a good example in their private lives’ is down to 22% (from 42% in 2004, 38% in 2006 and 36% in 2008). Does this mean that the public perceive the fiddling of expenses as something that is part of an MP’s private life, rather than misconduct in public office, or does this relate to something else entirely?

Whatever the answers, these results certainly underscore the need for greater efforts to be made to inform and engage the public with the work of MPs, and ideally for the media to be more even-handed in its coverage of politics and politicians – holding them up when they do good work, as well as holding them to account when they do not.

Matt Korris

For more on trust in politics, see What's trust got to do with it? and for more on the public's attitudes towards politics, see the Audit of Political Engagement series.

* I would not actually expect a great increase in people saying 'Don't Know' to this opinion question on trust. People tend to be willing to say 'Don't Know' to questions of fact (such as "What is the name of your MP?") but will usually give an opinion on matters whether they know anything of the facts or not!