Parliament & Government

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

2011-09-23T12:13:00Z

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.

Beyond the headlines: Has trust in politicians really declined?

2011-09-15T14:38:00Z

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!

New MPs struggle with work/life balance - but most see politics as a long-term career

2011-06-14T12:26:00Z

A new briefing paper, A Year in the Life: from member of public to Member of Parliament, finds long working hours and the competing demands of Westminster and constituency are proving detrimental to the family life of new MPs - yet despite this, most aspire to make politics a long-term career.

Evidence from the A Year in the Life study shows:

The 2010 new intake of MPs initially expected a 60-hour week (plus eight hours travel) but six months on were working a 69- hour week;
They split their working time 63% in Westminster and 37% in their constituencies - but constituency casework takes up the largest share of their time (28%), followed by constituency meetings/events (21%) and the Commons Chamber (21%);
A vast number of the new intake report that long working hours and Westminster/constituency demands have a detrimental effect on their personal and family lives - comments such as ‘overwhelming', ‘devastating' and ‘a struggle' are common;
Over half of new MPs (56%) took a salary cut on becoming an MP.

The research also confirms the degree to which the new MPs, who by definition were not involved in the expenses scandal, hold the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) in low regard. Eighty-five per cent were dissatisfied with the induction provided by IPSA at the beginning of the Parliament and six months on 79% still said they were dissatisfied with the workings of IPSA.

Despite this, the vast majority of new MPs don't want to give up. At the start of the Parliament, 82% of new MPs aspired to make politics a long-term career and 55% aspired to become a minister. A final survey at the end of the new MPs' first year will reveal whether the reported impact on their personal lives has made them reconsider.

Matt Korris, author of the paper commented: ‘These interim findings provide an early insight into the lives of the new MPs and the challenges they face. We need effective MPs in order for Parliament and our system of representative democracy to function successfully. These findings - that the new MPs are working long hours to the detriment of their personal and family lives - underscore the need for a review of the role of MPs not just to build an improved political system, but for the very well-being of MPs themselves.'

The briefing paper A Year in the Life: from member of public to Member of Parliament, is a selected summary of interim findings of the Hansard Society's A Year in the Life project. It is based on the analysis of two surveys of the new MPs, conducted in August 2010 and March 2011, to which approximately one quarter of the new intake responded. The final report, supplemented with a third survey, interviews and discussion groups and additional research, will be published towards the end of 2011.

The 2011 project follows an earlier Hansard Society study of the 2005 new intake of MPs, which can be downloaded here.

Improving the House of Lords working practices

2011-06-01T15:03:00Z

The Parliament & Government programme has produced a short briefing paper on the working practices of the House of Lords, in advance of an oral question in the Lords about progress on proposed reforms.

On 26 April 2011 the Leader’s Group examining the working practices of the House of Lords published its wideranging recommendations for reforms to enable the Lords to better fulfil its core functions of scrutinising government, reviewing legislation and debating topical and important issues of the day. In the intervening weeks, however, there has been no response from the government and no indication of what will be done with the recommendations.

The issue is now pressing for two key reasons. Firstly, the reforms propose changes to the role of the Lord Speaker and therefore these should be considered before the House elects a new Lord Speaker on the 13 July 2011.Secondly, the government's recently published proposals for the long-term reform of the composition of the Lords risk side-lining these important changes to improve the functioning of the Upper House.

Our proposals are shaped by a series of principles and priorities that we believe should govern the process for reforming the House’s working practices.

Peers have a constitutional obligation to ensure adequate scrutiny of all legislation but equally government has a right to take forward its legislative programme in timely fashion – the goal must be to establish a judicious balance between these competing objectives.
Parliament has a right to expect that a bill presented to Parliament for scrutiny will be of good quality: that it will be technically sound
The focus should be on reforming scrutiny processes such that they are both more efficient and effective.
The best scrutiny will be done on a bi-cameral parliamentary basis in which the expertise of the Upper House is effectively deployed to augment the scrutiny that takes place in the House of Commons
The House should wherever possible seek to engage the public in an accessible, transparent and accountable way with its work.
Current scrutiny processes are not easily comprehensible for the public – indeed, many peers themselves struggle to understand the scrutiny process and procedures. Wherever possible these should therefore be simplified and rationalised to foster greater accessibility and understanding.

The Parliament & Government Programme has produced this briefing paper to help raise awareness of the proposals to reform working practices and the need for these to be considered by the House of Lords as a matter of urgency. Last year we provided some assistance to the cross-party group of peers chaired by Lord Filkin which explored how scrutiny of primary legislation by the House of Lords might be improved and the group chaired by Baroness Murphy which explored issues of governance in the Upper House. On 14 July 2010 we hosted a private meeting of peers to facilitate discussion of how House of Lords procedure and governance might be reformed and published the papers produced by these two groups plus the group chaired by Lord Butler which looked at reform of non-legislative procedures.

Our own recommendations to the Leader’s Group, replicated here in this paper, broadly drew on our advisory work with the Filkin group supplemented by our work for Making Better Law. The Leader’s Group endorsed many of our proposals and we would draw members’ attention to those in relation to legislative standards, pre-legislative scrutiny, taking evidence on Lords bills, and reform of Grand Committee stage as being particularly important.

Download the briefing paper here.

UPDATE: The oral question and subsequent debate can be read here. There will now be a full debate on the Leader's Group recommendations on 27 June 2011.

Private Members' Bills: proposals for reform

2011-05-24T15:22:00Z

Private Members' Bills (PMBs) represent one of the few opportunities for backbench MPs to set the agenda in Parliament and address matters of public concern. However the PMB system is not fit for purpose, with popular bills regularly scuppered by archaic procedures and executive control of the timetable.

The Parliament & Government programme has produced a new briefing paper examining PMBs and setting out the options for reform. We have a long-standing interest in Private Members’ Bills (see below), as key area where the work of backbench MPs could be significantly improved.

PMBs should provide an important opportunity for backbench MPs to initiate legislative proposals as well as policy debate, to check the executive, and to respond to issues of public interest and concern. However in recent decades the number of PMBs receiving Royal Assent has largely been in decline. Executive control of the timetable has strangled many, and procedural vulnerability has thwarted others, including many that enjoyed broad parliamentary support and commanded public interest.

The paper gives an overview of the procedural obstacles in the PMB system which inhibit its effectiveness:

Friday sitting times cause difficulties in relation to the attendance of Members;
the procedural mechanisms facilitate filibustering rather than effective debate and scrutiny;
the existence of low yet complex procedural and voting thresholds enable even limited opposition to thwart popular bills; and
the resources made available to Members to develop and promote PMBs are limited.

It then presents a series of recommendation for reform, including moving the PMB sitting times, establishing formal timetabling and carry-over motions for PMBs, and setting time-limits on speeches. It also includes a set of draft Standing Orders that could form the basis of an improved system.

Download a copy of the paper here.

The launch event for the briefing paper was a panel discussion involving Lord Steel of Aikwood, Natascha Engel MP, Chris Bryant MP, Christopher Chope MP and the authors. It was filmed by BBC Parliament and can be seen here. For more details about the launch event and the full audio recording click here.

Other Hansard Society publications which cover PMBs:

Law in the Making: Influence and change in the legislative process (2008)

Parliament, Politics and Law Making: Issues and developments in the legislative process (2004)

Issues in Law Making - Briefing Paper 1: Private Members' Bills (2003)

Audit of Political Engagement 8

2011-03-30T12:03:00Z

Willingness to get involved locally poses challenge for Big Society: only one in 10 people will ‘definitely’ volunteer

The latest Audit of Political Engagement shows that while the momentous political events of 2010 increased the public’s interest in politics to a record 58%, there was no matching rise in political or civic activity.

Beyond voting, people were no more likely to get involved or participate in politics than they are in non-election years.

58% claim to be interested in politics (up 5 points)
53% claim to be ‘knowledgeable’ about politics (up 2 points)

People express more interest in how things work locally than in politics in general (although their knowledge about how things work locally is less than their knowledge about politics in general) and are more likely to think that getting involved is effective at a local level.

69% are interested in how things work locally
46% say they are knowledgeable about how things work locally (compared to 53% who say they are knowledgeable about politics in general)
49% believe things work well locally (compared to just 30% who believe things work well nationally)
51% say getting involved locally can change their area (compared to just 30% who say getting involved in politics can change the way the UK is run)

But only one in 10 people say they will ‘definitely’ spend some time doing some form of voluntary work at some point in the next couple of years. Those most likely to spend time volunteering are: under 45 (particularly those aged 25-34); in the highest social grades (ABC1); have children; and tend to vote Liberal Democrat.

Overwhelmingly, motivation to volunteer and get involved seems to be rooted in a sense of personal self-interest. People are more likely to get involved in their local community ‘if I felt strongly about an issue’ (40%), ‘if it was relevant to me’ (33%), ‘if I had more time’ (28%), and ‘if it affected my street’ (25%).

The Audit identifies ‘Willing Localists’ (14% of the population) as the key target for the success of the Big Society. They are not actively involved in a wide range of community and socio-political activities but seem the most willing and realistically likely to become involved in the future.

The Audit research also examines public attitudes to Parliament. While the public’s knowledge of Parliament has increased, satisfaction has decreased.

44% ‘knowledgeable’ about Parliament (7 point increase)
27% satisfied with Parliament (6 point decrease)
30% agree that ‘Parliament is working for you and me’ (8 point decrease)

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

‘The momentous events surrounding the election and its aftermath has left people feeling more interested in and knowledgeable about politics. But they have not been roused to get more involved in it – the majority prefer to remain spectators.

Even at the local community level only one in 10 say they are certain to volunteer. People say they are interested in being more engaged locally but on the whole are not willing to actually commit to activities. They are not very altruistic. It’s self-interest that motivates them to action: when an issue affects them or their community in a personal way.

This raises interesting questions for the development of the Big Society. A clear focus on the local and the personal is where the Big Society has the greatest chance of succeeding. The concept needs to avoid political associations, focus on the local and personal, and emphasise ‘community’ rather than ‘Society’. Given that the public are less knowledgeable about how things work locally than they are nationally a strategy to address this knowledge deficit is also needed.’

To download a copy of Audit 8, click here.

For more information about the Audit of Political Engagement series, click here. The tabulated survey data from the opinion polling carried out by Ipsos MORI for Audit 8 is available to download here.* The raw data for all the Audits is available in SPSS format from the UK Data Archive.

Audit 8 was funded by the House of Commons and the Cabinet Office.

* Particularly bad weather in Scotland made interview recruitment in line with the quotas difficult in December 2010, and so additional interviews were conducted in Scotland in January 2011, outside the normal Audit reporting timescale of November/December each year, to supplement the numbers. Data from these additional interviews was only used in relation to figures for Scotland quoted in the Audit report, and do not form part of the headline figures. Data tables including these supplementary interviews can be found here.

Making Better Law: Reform of the legislative process from policy to Act

2010-12-14T17:22:00Z

Parliament should be more assertive in the face of poorly prepared legislation – and a new Legislative Standards Committee is needed.

Laws are the essential threads that bind together our society, providing the framework within which our democratic system operates and mediation relations between each of us as citizens. Yet whether the audience is parliamentarians who make the law, judges who have to apply it, or the public who must comply with it, it is not difficult to find vocal critics of the quality of legislation and the process by which our laws are made today.

The quality of law is ultimately shaped by the scrutiny it receives in Parliament. But the tidal wave of often hastily prepared, deficient legislation that Parliament has been asked to scrutinise over the last decade and more has severely stretched the capacity of parliamentarians to perform their constitutional function effectively.

Making Better Law, a new study by the Hansard Society, examines legislative process from policy to Act of Parliament, including consultation, drafting and scrutiny procedures. It analyses the political, procedural and cultural factors that together help determine the quality of the UK statute book. It diagnoses the causes and consequences of deficient law and sets out a comprehensive package of reform recommendations for Government and Parliament to improve the quality of law-making in the future.

Making Better Law: Reform of the legislative process from policy to Act by Ruth Fox and Matt Korris can be ordered here.

The Hansard Society is grateful to the Nuffield Foundation for generously supporting this publication. We would also like to thank all the speakers, discussants and attendees at the Making Better Law seminars in 2009 for their contributions and analysis that helped inform this work.

Audit of Political Engagement 7: Interactive summary report

2010-11-10T17:21:00Z

The Parliament and Government programme have produced a specially designed interactive summary of our Audit of Political 7 report published earlier this year. This PDF is designed for teachers and young people to explore the main survey findings about political engagement and prompt discussion on the issues utilising questions at the bottom of each page.

Valuable both as a tool for individual or group learning, this summary report provides an accessible introduction to the public's understanding of politics and engagement with politics and highlights the key themes. Download the summary report here.

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

Examining the government's constitutional bills

2010-10-14T15:52:00Z

The Parliament and Government programme has given evidence to the House of Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee and the House of Lords Constitution Committee on the government's new Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill and Fixed-term Parliaments Bill.

We argue that good scrutiny is an essential prerequisite of good law-making and good governance and that with regard to both the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill and the Fixed Term Parliaments Bill political expediency appears to have taken priority over Parliament’s right to properly scrutinise the executive. Tackling important constitutional issues in such a rushed manner is not a recipe for good government and high quality legislation. These pieces of legilsation would bring about a substantial constitutional change but have not been through the consultation processes that are normally expected of constitutional bills.

In relation to the AV referendum and the proposed reduction in the number of MPs, we argue there is an urgent need for a debate about the role and function of MPs and political parties in our 21st century democracy that should be the basis for future reforms. We welcome as a matter of principle the proposed reduction in the prerogative power and the constraining of a Prime Minister’s freedom of action with regard to the calling of a general election, though the decision to fix the term of a parliament at five years rather than the more normal four year terms found in other countries would set the UK apart.

Dr Fox's appearance before the Lords Constitution Committee to discuss the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill can be found here, and our written evidence can be accessed here. The Committee's final report is here.

Our written evidence to the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee on both bills can be found here, Dr Fox's appearance before the Committee here (video available for one year) and the Committee's reports here.

The accountability of the Office for Budget Responsibility to Parliament

2010-09-21T10:00:00Z

The Parliament and Government programme has given evidence to the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee inquiry on the arrangements for the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).

We recommend that Parliament should seek to ensure that it both holds the OBR to account but also makes use of its resources and expertise. Specifically we recommend that:

The Treasury Committee should hold pre-appointment hearings and possess a veto power for the appointment of all members of the Budget Responsibility Committee, not just for the appointment of the Chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility.
Consideration should be given to whether there is scope for broadening the OBR remit to enable Parliament itself (through perhaps the Treasury Committee or the Liaison Committee) to request/commission independent evaluations of government policy, within carefully agreed parameters, in respect of economic and public finance forecasting.
Mechanisms should be established to ensure that OBR reports are debated annually in the House of Commons, in either government or backbench time.

The evidence can be read in full here, and a copy of the Treasury Committee's final report can be accessed here.

Reform needed to fix the 'wash-up' in Parliament

2010-08-02T15:10:00Z

In the few days between the calling of a general election and the dissolution of the UK Parliament, outstanding legislation is expedited through the House Commons and House of Lords on the basis of deals made privately between the government and main opposition party. This process, known as the wash-up, has been criticised for restricting parliamentary scrutiny and marginalising backbenchers, crossbenchers and the other parties. While not a new phenomenon, it has received greater attention this year, with the passage of the wide-ranging Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill and the controversial Digital Economy Bill both attracting considerable concern and criticism.

The latest article in Parliamentary Affairs by Dr Ruth Fox and Matt Korris of the Hansard Society’s Parliament and Government Programme examines the political, legislative and constitutional questions raised by the wash-up process, assesses the adequacy of the measures utilised to offset them, and explores what reforms might be considered in the future.

Photo by SheCat.

Evidence to the National Assembly for Wales on Standing Orders

2010-07-30T14:33:00Z

The Parliament & Government programme has recommended that the National Assembly for Wales ensure the topicality of business, the role of the backbencher, and the public outreach aspect of the Presiding Officer's role are core to the review of Standing Orders.

The Business Committee of the Welsh Assembly is currently conducting a review of the Assembly’s Standing Orders. Dr Ruth Fox spoke at a seminar held at the Pierhead in July (a note of which can be found here), and the programme has subsequently submitted written evidence to the Committee covering the following areas:

The use of Assembly time;
Topicality and the revitalisation of the Assembly chamber and role of the backbencher;
Accountable leadership and public engagement.

The evidence highlights examples from Canada and Australia for enhancing the topicality of business in the Chamber. It also suggests the model of the Speaker Hustings held in Westminster prior to the election of the current Speaker of the House of Commons could be used when the post of Presiding Officer next becomes vacant.

The evidence submission can be read in full here.

Has Devolution Delivered for Women?

2010-05-24T13:24:00Z

Significant new measures needed if improvements in women's representation in the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly are to be sustained

This new report commissioned by the British Council and produced by the Hansard Society, concludes that the battle for fair and equal representation of women is far from won and urgent new action is needed if the progress made in Edinburgh and Cardiff over the last decade is to be sustained in the next one. Has Devolution Delivered for Women?, written by Joyce McMillan and Ruth Fox, explores the progress that has been made in improving the levels of female representation in the devolved legislatures over the last 10 years, analyses how this happened and what obstacles now threaten that progress. It explores the impact that women have had on the culture of politics in Scotland and Wales and the policy commitments that have been secured as a result of their leadership.

The report's key findings include:

Voluntary action by the political parties is not enough. Despite the wishful thinking and warm words of many parties there is no evidence that serious progress towards gender equality can be achieved without positive action. The debate about whether equal representation of women should be guaranteed by constitutional and electoral law needs to be re-opened. An inquiry similar to the Speaker's Conference on Parliamentary Representation conducted at Westminster in 2009-10 is needed in Scotland and Wales to look in detail at the issues and make recommendations.

A new ‘King Report' (along the lines of Sir Anthony King's Report on the BBC's coverage of the devolved institutions) on gender and the media in politics is needed - to explore how current assumptions about newsworthiness affect perceptions of women politicians and their work.

There has been a change in culture towards a ‘new politics' in Edinburgh and Cardiff in terms of less confrontational and less party-bound ways of working. But there is a growing perception that Holyrood is reverting back to an increasingly Westminster style of confrontational politics and the debate about how to redress this needs to be reopened.

The dramatic increase in women's representation at the dawn of devolution was achieved through strong, well-organised campaigning across a range of parties and organisations. The time has come to start rebuilding these alliances within Scotland and Wales, across the UK and internationally. To support a new campaign there is a need for structures and institutions which enable dialogue among women across the generations - for example, the idea of a Women's Centre close to the Scottish Parliament was proposed in 1999 but did not come to fruition and should be revisited.

Dr Ruth Fox, Director of the Hansard Society's Parliament and Government Programme and joint author of Has Devolution Delivered for Women?, commented: ‘Scotland and Wales have rightly been hailed as beacons of international progress on women's representation in the last decade. But the 2007 results showed that progress has stalled and there are real fears that the 2011 election results will be markedly worse. It's therefore vital that we start raising urgent questions about how and why this is happening and begin to map out what measures are needed to address it. It is a challenge that is too important to be left to the political parties alone.'

Paul Docherty, Director British Council Scotland said: ‘As an organisation that builds cultural links for Scotland internationally via 110 offices overseas we believe deeply in the importance of intercultural dialogue and diverse representation. That Scotland's position as a leading nation in the parliamentary representation of women has slipped means that we must start considering what action can be taken to redress the balance.'

Download Has Devolution Delivered for Women? for free here, and please consider making a donation:

[DONATE]

What's trust got to do with it?

2010-05-05T09:30:00Z

Politicians have rarely been trusted, and the expenses scandal did not therefore lead to a collapse in trust in politics and politicians because levels of trust were already so low. But public dissatisfaction with politics is based on deeper problems than lack of trust in MPs and Parliament. This briefing paper identifies the more urgent challenge as being the decline in the relevance of politicians and political institutions to people’s everyday lives.

What’s Trust Got To Do With It? highlights the fact that distrust of politicians is long-standing – pre-expenses research in 2004 showed 27% of the public trusted politicians ‘a great deal’ or ‘a fair amount’; the same question asked post-expenses in 2009 showed a marginal decline in trust to 26%. The expenses scandal did not therefore lead to a collapse in trust in politics and politicians because levels of trust were already so low. In addition, for a majority of the public (53%) allegiance to a political party overrides perceptions of wrong- doing by candidates – they would still vote for them.

The briefing paper identifies declining rates of satisfaction with the country’s system of governance as a major challenge for politicians – while 60% of the public think Parliament ‘is worthwhile’, only 19% see it as an influential institution in their everyday lives. Furthermore, 85% of the public believe they have ‘not very much influence’ or ‘no influence at all’ over national decision-making. This perceived lack of influence is rooted primarily in the belief that politicians do not listen to what the public has to say and that the political system does not allow them to have influence.

What’s Trust Got To Do With It? recommends that MPs should concentrate on reforms to tackle lost satisfaction, relevance and influence rather than trying to address trust. Policies introduced to address issues of trust through the provision of greater transparency and accountability (such as Freedom of Information legislation) often have the opposite, unintended effect of engendering a culture of suspicion rather than trust.

Dr Ruth Fox, Director of the Hansard Society’s Parliament & Government programme and author of What’s Trust Got To Do With It?, commented: ‘The events of the past year have opened up an opportunity for a serious dialogue about what kind of representative democracy we want for the future. Politicians, by focusing on policies designed to engender trust, have missed the bigger, broader underlying concern – the declining levels of public satisfaction, perceived influence on decision-making and confidence in the relevance of Parliament to their lives. MPs in the new Parliament must tackle essential questions about the role and function of politicians and Parliament – if it’s just business as usual, public attitudes to politics and Parliament may plummet still further.’

To download a copy of the briefing paper, please click here.

What’s Trust Got To Do With It? – a Briefing Paper examining public trust in and expectations of politicians and Parliament draws on the latest academic research about public trust, politics and Parliament and is based on working group discussions conducted by the Hansard Society, the Political Studies Association (PSA) and the Centre for Citizenship, Globalization and Governance (C2G2) at the University of Southampton.

The Reform Challenge: Perspectives on Parliament: Past, present and future

2010-03-31T15:15:00Z

Since its inception the Hansard Society has made many influential recommendations for parliamentary reform. In the run up to the general election the Hansard Society asked the three main parties to lay out their party's plans for parliamentary reform, should that party form the new government. These lectures have been collected in a pamphlet, The Reform Challenge, along side speeches from the Speaker of the House of Commons, Rt Hon John Bercow MP and the Lord Speaker, Baroness Hayman, to give an overview of their ideas for reform. In addition, Dr Ruth Fox, Director of the Parliament and Government programme, examines public confidence in Parliament and MPs, and proposes priority areas for reform. The lectures were chaired by Peter Riddell (Chair of the Hansard Society).

Click here to download.

The original speeches and events (with photos and audio) can be found on the following links:

Rt Hon John Bercow MP, Speaker of the House of Commons (24 September 2009)

Baroness Hayman, Lord Speaker (9 December 2009)

Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (9 March 2010)

David Howarth MP, Liberal Democrat Justice spokesperson (15 March 2010)

Rt Hon Sir George Young MP, Shadow Leader of the House of Commons (18 March 2010)