Parliament & Government

Audit of Political Engagement 10

admin — Wed, 15 May 2013 17:30:00 GMT

The Audit of Political Engagement is the only annual health check on our democratic system. Now in its 10th year, each Audit measures the ‘political pulse’ of the nation, providing a unique benchmark to gauge public opinion across Great Britain with
regard to the political system.

This year’s report explores a worrying decline in the public’s propensity to vote. Just 41% of the public now say that in the event of an immediate general election they would be certain to vote – a decline of seven percentage points in a year and the lowest level in the debate of the Audit. Twenty percent of people say they are certain not to vote. For young people, the picture is even worse; just 12% are certain to vote, down from 30% two years ago.

Combined with the low turnout levels at recent local elections and the disastrous turnout at the polls for Police and Crime Commissioners in November 2012, these findings are deeply worrying for the health of our democracy.

Also of significant concern are the low levels of understanding of our how our political system works. A series of true/false questions show that:

29% of people do not know that 16 is not the minimum age for vote;
Only two-thirds of the public (67%) know that Members of the House of Lords are not elected;
Just 43% know that British Members of the European Parliament are elected by British voters.

Given the active debates in 2012 about lowering the voting age, particularly for the referendum on Scottish independence, the now-abandoned plans to reform the House of Lords, and ongoing arguments about membership of the Europe Union, these findings are a sobering reflection on how little the public are cognisant of the workings of the British political system.

Audit 10 also tracks the public’s attitudes to MPs and Parliament where there are mixed results. Public attitudes towards MPs continue to decline with satisfaction with MPs is at its lowest level in the ten year Audit series:

Only 23% are satisfied with the way that MPs generally are doing their job – compared to 29% three years ago. 34% are satisfied with the way their own MP is doing his/her job – compared to 38% three years ago;
However, this has not been accompanied by an increase in dissatisfaction with MPs; more people than ever are simply ambivalent – they express no opinion one way or the other;
Just 22% of the public can correctly name their own MP – compared to 38% two years ago.

Satisfaction with how Parliament works remains unchanged at 27% but the public do seem to think it is more effective in some key respects:

47% agree that Parliament ‘holds government to account’ – up from 38% last year;
55% agree that Parliament ‘debates and makes decisions about issues that matter to me’ – up from 49% last year.

Download Audit of Political Engagement 10: The 2013 report.

Notes:

The information in the Audit of Political Engagement 10 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 1,128 interviews conducted between 14 and 18 December 2012, which have then been weighted to the national population profile of Great Britain.
The Audit of Political Engagement is published by the Hansard Society with funding from the House of Commons and the Cabinet Office.
Survey data downloads: Audit 10 data tables (PDF). SPSS data packages for all 10 Audit reports are lodged with the UK Data Archive.
More information about the Audit series.

Future News - communicating parliamentary democracy in a digital world

admin — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:48:00 GMT

The landscape of print, broadcasting and social media is changing rapidly and how it alters affects Parliament’s ability to communicate and engage with the public it serves. A new report from the Hansard Society – #futurenews The Communication of Parliamentary Democracy in a Digital World – explores these strategic communication trends and how Parliament needs to respond in order to keep pace and ensure it has a voice in the political debate commensurate with its role at the apex of our democracy.

#futurenews examines changing patterns of news consumption, the public’s attitude to news about politics in general, and Parliament in particular, and how and where they access such news. The report finds that, given the UK’s position at the forefront of mobile device and smart-phone ownership, and with one of the highest penetration rates for social networks anywhere in the world, Westminster has a huge opportunity to enhance public knowledge and understanding of its work. But if it gets it wrong, there could be serious consequences for public engagement in the future.

Key findings include:

Parliament’s approach must evolve in response to the developing ‘social’, ‘mobile’, ‘local’, ‘data’ and ‘video’ trends.
Parliament’s unique selling-point is its authoritative place at the apex of our democracy but at present it does not get a hearing commensurate with its role. It could and should be one of the most trusted sources for high-quality political and public policy information.
It can insert itself into public debate in a legitimate and appropriate way, and add value to the political conversation, by creating a useful pathway through what would otherwise be an avalanche of information. It can be more ‘anticipatory’ in its approach, providing advance warning and foresight of interesting issues coming up and seeding links to relevant parliamentary content. On the most topical issues of the day more effort should be made to curate material from across Parliament in order to create an essential ‘go to’ online resource hub for any person or organisation that is interested in it – e.g. phone hacking or House of Lords reform.
It has to be quicker and more topical, providing ready access to granular, micro-themed content packaged to people’s issue-driven interests, and offer a greater variety of ‘glance-able’ content in the form of graphics, pictures and video designed to garner people’s attention.
It needs to better identify online communities with a specific audience interest with whom it can build connections and seed content. There is a potentially large audience for current and historic material which needs to be proactively disseminated and shared to sites where it can be contextualised to meet the needs of that particular audience interest.

But Parliament must prioritise and focus: it cannot do everything across all platforms and devices for all forms of media. Specifically, it should:

Appoint a Community Team (for each House or on a bi-cameral basis) to build links with online communities with specific audience interests and an AV media officer to produce rich in-house content to populate the website and be disseminated to a variety of audiences.
Invest in its broadcasting and digital infrastructure to enable a wider range of online sites to take its material.
Produce contextualised video news releases and make video of up to two minutes’ duration available copyright free, with attribution for any user to download and embed.
Revise the broadcasting rules, particularly for regional select committee visits.
Live-log, time-code, tag and key-word Hansard, and improve the website search functionality in order to enable people to access relevant material more quickly.

Dr Ruth Fox, Director and Head of Research at the Hansard Society and joint author of #futurenews The Communication of Parliamentary Democracy in a Digital World, commented:

‘The public have a right to expect Parliament to communicate its work quickly and clearly and to make information freely accessible in ways that keep pace with how we all access news today, particularly through mobile devices and video. The news cycle has changed and information is now disseminated and exchanged at lightning speed and Parliament can’t afford to fall behind.

‘In an online, networked world in which people are overwhelmed with an avalanche of information, Parliament could and should be one of the most trusted sources of high-quality political and policy information. It has the content at its disposal; it is a massive storehouse of interesting facts and information but most of it isn’t being used effectively. What it needs are the communication strategies and infrastructure to bring all the building blocks of content – text, sound, image, video – together to develop compelling news and information packages that will be of genuine interest to the public.

‘Given the UK’s position at the forefront of mobile device and smart-phone ownership, and with one of the highest penetration rates for social networks anywhere in the world, Parliament has a huge opportunity to enhance knowledge and understanding of its work. But if it fails to grasp the challenge there could be serious consequences for public engagement in the future.’

Download #futurenews The Communication of Parliamentary Democracy in a Digital World.

Notes

#futurenews: The Communication of Parliamentary Democracy in a Digital World explores the key strategic trends of the digital era that will have an impact on Parliament and how it needs to re-shape its own approach to keep pace with these external changes.

#futurenews highlights trends and developments across the communications sector and why they may particularly matter for Parliament. It also sets out how Parliament might respond to these challenges, drawing on examples from other sectors and legislatures.

#futurenews is based on an extensive literature review coupled with seminar participation, workshop discussions, newsroom visits, semi-structured interviews and one-to-one conversations with an array of journalists and commentators, academics, technology leaders, social media experts, communications and public engagement specialists and parliamentary officials in the UK and abroad.

The research was supported by the Group on Information for the Public, UK Parliament.

Assembly Line? The Experiences and Development of new Assembly Members

admin — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 16:45:00 GMT

What is it like to make the rapid transition from being a member of the public to being an elected Member of the National Assembly for Wales? How do AMs learn the ropes in a new and challenging political environment? How do they decide what they are going to do and how they are going to do it?

The Hansard Society has been examining the role and work of the new AMs through surveys, interviews, and personal observation of their work, supplemented by discussions with Assembly staff, to try and answer these questions and many more.

Do AMs have the resources to carry out their role effectively? How do they balance the expectations and demands of their constituents, their party, the media and others? What are they hoping to achieve, and how does the reality of the experience match up to their expectations? In short, what is it like to be a Member of the National Assembly during their earliest months in office?

The briefing paper, Assembly Line? The Experiences and Development of new Assembly Members, was launched at an event in the Pierhead building in Cardiff Bay.

Key findings include:

The new AMs initially worked an average 49-hour week (plus nine hours travel). One year later they worked an average 57-hour week;
In their first year, new AMs’ satisfaction with their work-life balance decreased considerably. Initially 83% were ‘fairly satisfied’ and 17% ‘not very satisfied’. One year on, 33% were ‘fairly satisfied’ and 50% ‘not very satisfied’
They split their working time fairly evenly between debates in the Chamber (22%), committee work (21%), constituency casework (21%) and constituency meetings and events (18%);
The new AMs were generally satisfied with the induction provided but would have benefited from more support in setting up their offices in the Assembly and the constituency;
Half of the survey respondents said the AM salary (£53,852) represented a salary increase; for the other half it was a decrease or no change from their previous employment.

The research also highlights new AMs’ satisfaction with committee work in contrast to frustration with the way in which other aspects of the Assembly work – in particular plenary debates, financial scrutiny and First Minister’s Questions. The new AMs are generally critical of the media coverage of the Assembly. As the Assembly nears its 15th anniversary in 2014, and while a lively debate is underway – both inside and outside the Senedd – about the need for further reform, this report provides valuable insight into its workings through the eyes of new Members.

Kindly supported in part by the Assembly Commission, this study forms part of a wider comparative study
the Society has conducted into the experiences of newly elected representatives at Westminster, Holyrood and the Dáil Éireann, the full results of which will be published later in 2013. You can also read an interim paper on the experiences of new MPs at Westminster.

Audit of Political Engagement 9: Part Two - The media and politics

admin — Fri, 13 Jul 2012 15:40:00 GMT

Public satisfaction with media reporting of politics increases

But tabloids do little to advance political engagement of their readers

The second part of this year's Audit of Political Engagement report shows that public satisfaction with media reporting of politics has risen: 45% claim to be satisfied compared to just 38% who said the same two years ago.

But two thirds of the public perceive the coverage of politics in the tabloid media to be far more negative and distorting in its portrayal of politics and politicians than in all other media outlets. Notably, tabloid readers themselves strongly agree with this negative view of their own newspapers of choice.

Audit of Political Engagement 9 - Part Two finds that the coverage of politics in all media, but the tabloid media in particular, contributes to a sense of fatalism among citizens about their capacity to influence the political process. Broadsheet readers, even controlling for demographic differences, are more likely to be politically engaged and feel they can exercise influence in the political process. But there is little evidence that tabloid newspapers help stimulate the political engagement of their readers, relative even to those who read no newspaper at all.

At the Leveson Inquiry, the views of leading politicians, journalist, academics and celebrities are being heard. The Audit explores what the public think about the relationship between politics and the media.

The research shows:

63% of the public (and 70% of tabloid readers) say tabloids ‘look for any excuse to tarnish the name of politicians’ – compared to 20% for broadsheets, 21% for TV programmes and 12% for radio programmes
63% of the public (and 71% of tabloid readers) say tabloids ‘focus on negative stories about politics and politicians’ – compared to 21% for broadsheets, 29% for TV programmes and 14% for radio programmes
68% of the public (and 74% of tabloid readers) say tabloids ‘are more interested in getting a good story than telling the truth’ – compared to 23% for broadsheets, 26% for TV programmes and 14% for radio programmes

When it comes to positive attributes, the research shows that TV programmes were judged to be ahead of the other forms of media. But the public do not give TV a ringing endorsement: only four or five in 10 people agree that it is fair in its representation of politics and helps the public learn about what is happening in politics.

38% of the public say TV programmes ‘do a good job of keeping politicians accountable for their conduct’ – compared to 34% for broadsheets, 29% for tabloids and 19% for radio programmes
41% of the public say TV programmes ‘are generally fair in their representation of politicians’ – compared to 27% for broadsheets, 15% for tabloids and 20% for radio programmes55% of the public say TV programmes ‘help the public to learn about what is happening in politics’ – compared to 37% for broadsheets, 25% for tabloids and 26% for radio programmes

Previous Audit research has consistently revealed that most citizens are observers of, rather than active participants in, the political process and the media is the principal conduit by which they conduct that observation of politics. Audit 9 research shows that television is overwhelmingly the most common channel of communication (75%) for political news and information - with tabloids (27%), radio (26%), news websites (20%), broadsheets (16%) and social media (6%) a long way behind.

Throughout the nine-year annual Audit lifecycle, the media is the institution that the British public consistently believes has the most impact on their lives. This year’s Audit explores what kind of influence the public believe the media actually has on politics, the electorate and those they elect to office:

74% believe the media influences how people vote
60% believe the media influences the topics politicians debate in Parliament
54% believe the media influences the decisions politicians make

Dr Ruth Fox, Director of Research at the Hansard Society and joint author of Audit of Political Engagement 9, Part Two, commented:

‘The media plays a vital role in our democracy, providing citizens with access to and information about politics. Newspapers typically claim a right to freedom from regulation in the interests of democracy. But these findings suggest that the media – particularly the tabloids – do not greatly benefit our democracy from the perspective of nourishing political engagement.

Given the influence that the public thinks the media has, and the demonstrable link between readership and political engagement, the media ought to bear some responsibility for the consequences of its coverage of the democratic process and the willingness of citizens to engage in it. That power and influence should be balanced by some sort of independent, public interest, regulatory framework – supported by a more effective sanctions regime – which recognises and is designed to stimulate the responsibilities of the press alongside its rights within our democracy.’

Download Audit of Political Engagement 9 - Part Two.

Notes

The information in the Audit of Political Engagement 9, Part Two is based on a Political Engagement Poll undertaken by TNS-BMRB on behalf of the Hansard Society. The findings are based on face-to-face interviews conducted in respondents homes with a representative quota sample of 1,163 adults aged 18 or above living in Great Britain between 7 and 13 December 2011. The survey was repeated between 11 and 15 January 2012: 1,235 face-to-face interviews were carried out. Both surveys included booster sample interviews in Scotland, Wales and with respondents from Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) cultural backgrounds. The datasets have been weighted to the national population profile of Great Britain. For the purposes of the multivariate regression study the two survey datasets were pooled to provide a total of 2,404 cases for analysis.

The data for Audit 9 is available on the main Audit of Political Engagement page, and copies of the SPSS packages are lodged with the UK Data Archive following publication.

The Audit also draws on the findings of 14 mixed demographic focus groups held across Great Britain between November 2011 and March 2012 exploring public attitudes to politics. This research was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (RES-00-22-4441).

What next for e-petitions?

admin — Fri, 18 May 2012 15:35:00 GMT

A Petitions Committee is needed to deal with petitions and respond to public expectations.

A new Briefing Paper What next for e-petitions? published today by the Hansard Society examines the problems with the current e-petitions system and calls for Parliament to take over ownership and responsibility for e-petitions from the government. It also calls for the House of Commons to establish a new Petitions Committee to deal with public petitions in the future.

What next for e-petitions? identifies four main problems with the current e-petitions system:

Ownership and responsibility

The system is controlled by government but the onus to respond is largely placed on the House of Commons.

There is no agreement about the purpose of e-petitions

Are they ‘an easy way to influence government policy', a ‘fire alarm' about issues of national concern, a ‘finger in the wind' to determine the depth of public feeling on a range of issues? Or should they be used to empower the public through greater engagement in the political and parliamentary process, providing for deliberation on the issues of concern?

Public and media expectations of the system are consequently confused

People expect an automatic debate once the signature threshold is passed and react negatively when this does not happen.

There is minimal public engagement with Parliament or government

Beyond the possibility of a debate for those e-petitions that pass the 100,000 signature threshold, little or nothing currently happens with them. And if an e-petition does not achieve the signature threshold but still attracts considerable support (e.g. 99,999 signatures) there is no guarantee of any kind of response at all.

What Next for E-Petitions? examines how the current system was developed, how it works in practice and the roles played by the Office of the Leader of the House of Commons and the Backbench Business Committee. It also compares the Westminster e-petitions system with those in place in Scotland and Wales and concludes that while there are valuable lessons to be learned from the devolved legislatures, the sheer volume of e-petitions received at Westminster demonstrates the need for a custom-made model to manage petitioner expectations and the engagement process. Key recommendations are:

Ownership of and responsibility for the e-petitions system should rest with the House of Commons and not the executive.
The House of Commons should create a Petitions Committee, supported by staff in a Petitions Office, to engage with petitioners, moderate the process and provide a single route for consideration of both paper and online petitions.
Members of the Petitions Committee should be elected and have the power to refer petitions to a relevant Select Committee, to commission their own inquiries into specific petitions, to question ministers on the issues and to invite petitioners and others to give evidence at public hearings.

Dr Ruth Fox, Director of the Hansard Society's Parliament and Government programme and author of What Next for E-Petitions?, commented:

‘The introduction of the e-petitions system was a step in the right direction, and the government deserves credit for setting up the system quickly and cost-effectively. But it is falling short of public and media expectations. If the House of Commons is to be responsible for responding to petitioners' concerns then it should take over the running of the system from the government. A new Petitions Committee should then respond to petitioners' concerns and properly engage them in the parliamentary process.'

Download What next for e-petitions?

Notes

The Hansard Society co-hosted a seminar with the House of Commons Backbench Business Committee in March 2012 to discuss how the e-petitions system could be reformed in order to enhance public engagement and better link the system to parliamentary processes.

The seminar drew together Committee members and clerks, officials from the Office of the Leader of the House of Commons and the Government Digital Service, participants from the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales, academics and campaigners with experience and expertise in digital engagement.

The ideas and recommendations set out in What next for e-petitions? draw both on the views discussed at the seminar and additional issues and ideas derived from Hansard Society research.

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.

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.

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!

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

admin — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:26:00 GMT

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

admin — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 15:03:00 GMT

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

admin — Tue, 24 May 2011 15:22:00 GMT

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

admin — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 12:03:00 GMT

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

admin — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 17:22:00 GMT

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 from the Houses of Parliament shop.

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

admin — Wed, 10 Nov 2010 17:21:00 GMT

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

admin — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 15:52:00 GMT

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.