Parliament & Government

Audit of Political Engagement 7

admin — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 16:09:00 GMT

The annual Audit of Political Engagement carried out by the Hansard Society measures the nature and extent of political engagement and reveals where views have changed - and where they remain constant. It offers a yearly snapshot of political knowledge and engagement in Britain.

This year's Audit shows that while the MPs' expenses scandal has affected the public's satisfaction with and perception of MPs and the Westminster Parliament, there has not been a collapse of trust in politicians or politics.

Most significantly, there has been a big decline since the first Audit in 2004 in the perceived impact of the Westminster Parliament on people's lives, compared to other institutions. Only 19% think Parliament is one of the top three influential institutions on their everyday lives - an 11% drop from 2004. But 60% still think Parliament is ‘worthwhile', compared to only 14% who disagree.

There has been no overall collapse of trust in politicians - 26% say they trust politicians generally compared to 27% in 2004 and 73% say they distrust politicians compared to 70% in 2004. Because levels of trust were already low, the MPs' expenses scandal merely confirmed and hardened the public's widely held scepticism about politicians rather than changed their views.

Public dissatisfaction with how MPs in general do their jobs has risen by 8% since 2004 - from 36% to 44% - but dissatisfaction with how individual MPs do their job has risen by only 3% - from 13% to 16%. Twice as many people (38%) are satisfied with the way that their own MP does his/her job than are dissatisfied.

While 71% of people say they have discussed MPs' expenses in the last year, only 41% say they have discussed politics or political news. The gap between these figures raises questions as to why people do not regard MPs' expenses as a ‘political' issue and may go some way towards explaining why the MPs' expenses scandal has had such mixed results in terms of trust and satisfaction with MPs and Parliament.

The report also looked at public attitudes to voting: 76% say it is their duty to vote, but only 54% say they are absolutely certain to vote in the general election. Using statistical techniques the Audit divides the public into eight segments and looks at the ‘voting gap' for each group - the difference between each group's ‘duty to vote' and their ‘certainty to vote'. The Audit concludes that if the gap between ‘duty to vote' and ‘certainty to vote' could be narrowed for these groups, electoral turnout might increase by approximately 6% overall.

Dr Ruth Fox, Director of the Hansard Society's Parliament and Government programme, commented: ‘There is no silver bullet to resolve the public's lack of trust in MPs and dissatisfaction with how they do their jobs. The public have long been sceptical about the motives of politicians and the expenses situation has merely confirmed their views. But the fact that the public now perceive Parliament to be a less relevant institution than previously is a worrying development that the new intake of MPs after the election must address.'

‘Our research suggests that part of the solution may lie in a long term commitment to improve public knowledge about how Parliament and our political system works. The Audit demonstrates that increased familiarity leads to improved favourability. The Audit results this year, as in previous years, reveal the complex nature of public attitudes to politics and political engagement and how, at times, they point in contradictory directions.'

To download a copy of Audit 7, 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 7 is available to download here. The raw data for all the Audits is available in SPSS format from the UK Data Archive.

Audit 7 was funded by the House of Commons and the Ministry of Justice.

Representative democracy article for Democracy Live

admin — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:48:00 GMT

To mark the launch of the BBC's new Democracy Live website, Ruth Fox, Director of the Parliament and Government Programme, was asked to give her thoughts on the current state of democracy in the UK. Her article can be accessed on the Democracy Live website, and is reproduced below.

For all its imperfections representative democracy remains the best form of political decision-making and governance at our disposal.

Few among us would relish the alternative and over the last half century our political system has delivered relative peace and stability, economic prosperity and living standards unimaginable to our forebears.

And yet, as Hansard Society research found last year, well before the MPs' expenses scandal, only 19% of the public believe that Parliament is "working for them".

In a system in which fidelity to Parliament's authority is predicated on public confidence and consent, such levels of dissatisfaction indicate that the democratic chain of command between politicians and the public is severely strained.

So, for all the advantages and benefits we have derived from it in the past, there is no room for complacency when contemplating the future of parliamentary democracy.

In the aftermath of the expenses scandal a series of far-reaching but often inchoate parliamentary and constitutional reforms - for example, a written constitution, electoral reform, or a smaller House of Commons - have been suggested to tackle the perceived systemic infirmities.

But none of the suggested reforms actually tackle two of the biggest challenges we face today: the sheer lack of knowledge among the public about why and how our system of representative democracy works as it does; and the lack of modern mechanisms to facilitate improved public engagement and participation in the parliamentary process.

Lack of knowledge

There is a direct link between levels of political engagement and participation on the one hand and levels of knowledge and interest on the other.

Despite improved access to information available to the public today, the Hansard Society's annual Audit of Political Engagement demonstrates that people's knowledge and understanding of the basic tenets of our system of parliamentary democracy is worryingly low.

For example, half claim to know little or nothing about the constitutional arrangements governing Britain; just 32% say they understand how Parliament works; and only 50% are confident that Parliament is not the same thing as government.

Why does this matter? Well, there is rarely a unified public view on any issue. Politicians therefore have to chart a complex, difficult course between clashing interests, competing resource demands, and the variable needs of different segments of the populace.

The policy decisions that result from this process of negotiation and conciliation are often a necessary compromise between the ideal and the possible.

In the age of 24-hour news and the internet, this mediation process is even more fraught as politicians respond to the often short-term, impatient, and selective attention of both media and public.

Social networking and the blogosphere provide ever more outlets for information exchange, and are driven by new concepts of online citizen journalism and community organisation.

But when it comes to politics they tend to produce more heat than light, bringing together and reinforcing the views of the like-minded rather than educating a broader cross section of the populace about the relative merits of the political system.

The public lacks understanding about how and why the system works as it does, and how they can play a role in it. Their dissatisfaction with the political process and the policy outcomes that result is consequently high.

Unless this knowledge gap is addressed all other reforms may ultimately fail in achieving the overall objective of improving the health of our democracy.

If the public do not really understand how the democratic system operates they cannot effectively participate in it. Improved citizenship education - specifically political literacy education - is therefore urgently needed.

Online petitions

The second challenge is how to adopt new mechanisms to bring Parliament up to date with how we live today, to enable people to have a say and exercise influence in a way that reflects the way they actually want to engage.

The Audit demonstrates that a majority do not actually want to participate in decision-making and when they do they prefer mechanisms which require only short, shallow commitments of time and resources.

A Parliamentary Petitions Committee, encompassing a new system of ePetitions, would provide a possible solution.

The Audit shows that people are more likely to sign a petition than they are to engage in any other form of democratic activity.

Utilising modern technology and digital engagement tools to incorporate petitions into parliamentary procedures would therefore go some way to ensuring that Parliament is more responsive to matters of topical public concern in future as well as providing a raft of new "teachable moments" to enhance public understanding of our democratic processes.

Timetabling of business in the House of Commons

admin — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:11:00 GMT

The Parliament & Government programme has submitted evidence to the Procedure Committee inquiry on the timetabling of business in the House of Commons. We argue that there is a pressing need to reform timetabling and the use of programme motions to rebalance scrutiny in favour of Parliament. Our evidence recommends that:

A Business Committee should be established to deal with aspects of parliamentary business, including elements of the legislative process such as the decision to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny.
The Business Committee should be designed to meet the following principles: greater certainty to the parliamentary timetable; more involvement between the main political parties in the management of business; greater discussion between all interested parties in the Commons about the shape and timing of the legislative programme; and greater transparency in the overall process.

Greater flexibility should be introduced to the programming of public bill committees (PBCs), including an ‘injury time’ provision to allow for the committee to return to clauses on which debate was cut short.
Between second reading and the commencement of a PBC time should be guaranteed for the committee to meet in private to consider the witnesses they wish to call, and the decision should be solely in the hands of the committee, not the whips.
During PBC sittings where multiple witnesses are scheduled, it should be left to the discretion of the chair as to the management of time.
Both government and opposition members of the PBC need sufficient time to examine and reflect on the evidence presented, and to draft appropriate amendments to the bill. There should be the expectation of one sitting week at the very least between the two stages of the PBC to allow this to happen.
Where a bill has been heavily amended – in PBC or especially by the government at report stage – a full third reading should take place. The PBC should make a recommendation at the end of its sitting as to the necessity for a full third reading.
A mechanism should be devised to allow a number of well-supported private members’ bills to enjoy the advantages of timetabling and therefore the chance to pass all stages, if both Houses consent.

The written evidence can be downloaded in full here.

The issues around the establishment of a Business Committee are also going to be examined by the recently formed Reform of the House of Commons Committee.

Hansard Society evidence on MPs' expenses

admin — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 23:00:00 GMT

Peter Riddell, Chair of the Hansard Society, and Dr Ruth Fox, Director of the Parliament and Government Programme, have appeared before the Committee on Standards in Public Life to give evidence to assist the Committee's investigation into MPs' expenses. They recommended to the Committee that 'thorough changes' to the system are needed, and that the Committee should 'aim above the bar'.

The appearance followed the Hansard Society's submission of written evidence to the Committee, which recommended that:

All MPs should be required to provide fully receipted claims which should then be published online on a quarterly basis subject only to redaction of personally confidential information such as, for example, bank account and national insurance numbers.
There should be a clear distinction between: (a) resources made available to MPs for normal staff and office support paid centrally by the House authorities from which MPs derive no personal benefit; and (b) reasonable reimbursable expenses (not allowances) paid personally to the MP. To aid this distinction in the public domain the data for claims falling within categories (a) and (b) should be published at different times.
Clearer guidance is needed to establish the division between an MP’s work serving all constituents and his / her partisan party work on local issues and how this might be organised on a practical basis.
Eligibility for second home provision should be reviewed. MPs should be required upon election to nominate their secondary accommodation and this designation should remain in place throughout their parliamentary career unless they can provide a justifiable reason (e.g. changing family circumstances) for changing it that is acceptable to the independent Parliamentary Standards Regulator.
Staff should be employed on standard central contracts. Payments to staff should continue to be made directly to them and salaries should be automatically uprated in line with the annual staffing allowance cost of living increase.
Allowances for communication purposes are required for MPs to do their jobs adequately, but the use of them needs to be audited sufficiently by the independent Regulator to ensure public confidence in the system.
MPs and staff should be given more support and training to better integrate and embed electronic communication and information provision into their office set up.

The written evidence can be downloaded here.

At the hearing, the Committee asked about the proposals in the Parliamentary Standards Bill for addressing the expenses issue. Peter Riddell replied that as the Bill was still progressing through Parliament it was hard to assess how effective it will be, but that it was an act of political symbolism which potentially had profound constitutional consequences. He also pointed out that it was a piece of emergency legislation, which often leads to poor outcomes (see Hansard Society evidence to the Lords Constitution Committee).

In discussions on MPs' second homes, Dr Fox made the point that mortgage interest payments may be better value to the taxpayer in the medium to long term, but if this system is to continue, and MPs are to end up with the benefit of a capital asset, there needs to be a claw-back mechanism by which Parliament gets back some of the money. She argued that unless an effective mechanism could be developed (and it is hard to see how one could be easily achieved), then it is necessary to look at alternatives which may more costly to the taxpayer overall, but which engender better public confidence in the system.

Dr Fox also made the point that better induction processes are required to ensure that any future allowance system is properly explained to new MPs, to reduce any scope for misunderstandings.

An uncorrected transcript (with quite a few mistakes!) of the hearing can be downloaded here (see paras 178-296).

Restoring Trust in the House of Lords

admin — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 10:53:00 GMT

Recent events in the House of Lords have raised serious questions about standards of conduct within the second chamber, including questions around allowances, peers' external interests and enforcement of sanctions for misconduct. The Hansard Society co-hosted a seminar, with the Lord Speaker, in May 2009 drawing together a group of peers, academics, journalists, and people with a background in complex ethical and regulatory matters, to explore these issues.

This new briefing paper, produced by the Parliament and Government programme, draws on some of the views discussed at the seminar, supplemented by our own research. It examines these issues and sets out a range of measures for reinstating public trust in the House of Lords. Key recommendations include:

Empowering the office of the Lord Speaker to be able to better represent and act on behalf of the House and take forward a mandate for reform.
Significant revision of the Code of Conduct, including setting out a clear ethos and mission for the House of Lords and extending the Code to cover the use of allowances and expenses.
Consideration of the introduction of a hybrid payments system for allowances and expenses to better reflect the degree of each peer's involvement in the work of the House.
Establishing a hierarchy of possible sanctions that may be applied for breaches of a new Code of Conduct up to and including permanent expulsion from the House.
Establishing a system of external independent regulation for the management of the Lords allowances and expenses system and enforcement of the Code of Conduct.

The briefing paper can be downloaded here.

Lords Committee report on fast-track legislation

admin — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 11:03:00 GMT

The House of Lords Constitution Committee has published the report on its inquiry into Fast-track Legislation (previously termed 'emergency legislation'), to which the Parliament & Government programme gave evidence earlier this year.

The Committee's report quotes the Hansard Society's written submission and Dr Ruth Fox's oral evidence extensively, and agrees with a number of our recommendations, including that:

Government should put in place consultation mechanisms to ensure that fast-track legislation receives scrutiny by relevant parliamentary committees and stakeholders (para 163)
There should be a presumption in favour of the use of sunset clauses as a safeguard for fast-track legislation (para 198)
Government should make prompt post-legislative review of fast-track legislation a priority (para 208)

The Constitution Committee's report can be downloaded here - Part 1 / Part 2. The Hansard Society's oral and written evidence to the Committee can be found in full in Part 2, and our written evidence can be accessed separately here.

Reforming the House of Commons

admin — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:00:00 GMT

The crisis in public trust in Parliament, sparked by the revelations on MPs' expenses, has provoked a wider debate on reform of democratic institutions in Britain. At the Hansard Society we welcome the increased attention to an area of debate we have long been actively involved in.

To contribute to the ongoing reform discussions, the Parliament & Government programme has produced a briefing paper summarising the issues around parliamentary reform, and setting out our proposals for strengthening Parliament in relation to government and improving its workings.

Launching the blueprint for reform, Dr Ruth Fox, Director of Parliament and Government programme at the Hansard Society, said, ‘The authority of the House of Commons rests on public confidence and consent. Yet public trust and faith in our politicians and the political process is at a very low ebb. As a priority the public want the financing of MPs cleaned up but they also want a more effective Parliament. The election of a new Speaker of the House of Commons provides a rare opportunity to face up to the challenge this poses and fundamentally reform the way that the House of Commons works in the public interest.'

‘What is needed is a coherent package of reforms that rebalance the relationship between parliamentarians and the executive, improve the scrutiny process, enhance the quality and effectiveness of law making, strengthen the relationship between Parliament and the public and make the House of Commons more efficient.'

‘The Hansard Society has, for over 20 years, been making recommendations for the reform of Parliament based on our research. But too often governments cherry-pick reforms because they are attractive, populist and easy to implement. We cannot afford ‘back of the envelope' proposals this time. That's why, at this important moment in Parliament's history, we've set out a blueprint for reform which we hope the next Speaker of the House of Commons and the party leaders will take on board.'

Among the blueprint proposals recommended by the Hansard Society are:

A Business Committee for the House of Commons to put control of the parliamentary timetable in the hands of a cross party body of MPs rather than leaving it in the control of the executive.
A Parliamentary Finance Office, modelled on the US Government Accounting Office, would provide individual MPs with independent expertise and advice on financial matters, empowering them to better scrutinise public spending and taxation proposals.
A shift towards a committee based culture in the House of Commons with the main chamber taking on a plenary focus. Select committee chairs and members should be elected by MPs not party whips, the work of committees should be better integrated into wider parliamentary activity and more time should be set aside for the detailed work that committees undertake.
A system of e-Petitions, managed through a new Petitions Committee, to help revitalise public engagement with Parliament. Hansard Society research shows that the public are more likely to sign a petition than to engage in any other form of democratic activity. This has to be properly integrated into parliamentary procedures.
The appointment of a Chief Executive to professionalise the organisation and operation of the House of Commons. At present the House is managed by the Clerk of the House. Clerks are expert professional advisers on constitutional and procedural issues. They are not experts in management, budgets, human resources and logistics. A Chief Executive should take on these responsibilities.

A copy of the briefing paper can be downloaded here. It was launched at the Hansard Society Speaker Hustings on 15 June 2009.

Evidence to the Speaker's Conference on Parliamentary Representation

admin — Fri, 15 May 2009 08:54:00 GMT

Peter Riddell, Hansard Society Chair, and Dr Ruth Fox, Director of the Parliament & Government programme, have given oral evidence to the Speaker's Conference on Parliamentary Representation. The Conference is considering, and will make recommendations for rectifying, the disparity between the representation of women, ethnic minorities and disabled people in the House of Commons and their representation in the UK population at large.

A transcript of the hearing will appear on this webpage and a video can be found here. The Hansard Society's written evidence submission will be published by the Conference in due course. The Speaker's Conference is currently hosting an online forum where the public can give their views on the issues under consideration.

The Hansard Society has recommended to the Conference that the political parties, the government and Parliament all have a role to play in improving the representation of women, BME and disabled people. The parties should take measures to substantially increase the number of women, BME and disabled people in their selections, and ensure that this takes effect in winnable seats. They should also ensure that selection processes are non-discriminatory, taking account of existing advice on promoting equality, and providing training for party selection committees and party members where appropriate.

The Government should, while recognising the independence of parties, endorse a permanent place for permissive legislation on the selection of women candidates. It should, along with all parties, actively support the extension of the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act that permits the use of equality guarantees and which is due to expire in 2015. It should also fund research on equal representation, and after the general election a detailed study of the efficacy of the parties’ different approaches to improving representation will be required.

Parliament should commission a research study of the lessons to be learnt from Scotland and Wales with regard to the representation of women, exploring how the political parties and the new political institutions achieved a significantly higher level of representation than the House of Commons, what reforms have been instituted and how important these have been in improving female representation levels, and what factors account for the recent decline in the number of women elected in the devolved legislatures at the last elections.

The Hansard Society's evidence to the Speaker's Conference is part of our ongoing work in the area of Representative Democracy.

People and Parliament: Hansard Society gives evidence to the Lords Information Committee

admin — Thu, 14 May 2009 16:17:00 GMT

The Hansard Society has given oral and written evidence to the House of Lords Information Committee's inquiry on People and Parliament, which is looking into how the House of Lords can improve public understanding of its work and role, and how people would like to interact with the House of Lords and Parliament. The inquiry was prompted by a debate in the Lords initiated by Lord Norton of Louth, for which we produced a briefing paper, and during which the Hansard Society's work received many favourable references.

Dr Ruth Fox, Director of the Parliament & Government programme, Dr Andy Williamson, Director of the eDemocracy programme and Michael Raftery, Director of the Citizenship Education programme all appeared before the Committee at the first oral evidence session. They argued that Parliament has made significant improvements in its work to communicate and engage with the public since the recommendations of the Puttnam Commission in 2005, but that there was still plenty of room for improvements to be made.

Recommendations for improvements included:

A Communications Service should be established for Parliament and that Parliament’s communications strategy should be subject to regular consultation, review and evaluation in relation to optimum principles of accessibility and transparency, participation and responsiveness, accountability and inclusiveness.
Further work on the parliamentary website to make it more accessible and intuitive in relation to users’ interests. Parliament should also promote open data standards for all its content and make digital content free and easy to virally circulate and re-post elsewhere.
The commissioning of a rigorous evaluation of the Parliamentary Outreach programme's three pilot regional projects as it transitions to a national programme, to ensure that the work is as effective as possible.

The session can be viewed online and a transcript is available. The Hansard Society's written evidence can be downloaded here.

Update: The Committee's final report has now been issued, and can be downloaded here (Part 1 / Part 2). The Hansard Society has welcomed the report as 'far reaching' and 'comprehensive'. For more details, click here.

Image is subject to Parliamentary copyright. Parliamentary copyright images are reproduced with the permission of Parliament.

Audit of Political Engagement 6

admin — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:25:00 GMT

Audit 6 has a special focus on the public's attitudes to political participation and citizenship and explores issues such as the degree to which people want to be actively involved in decision-making locally and nationally, how influential in decision-making they feel they are, and how satisfied they are with the system of governance in Britain. This Audit indicates that an ‘Obama effect' may be developing among British black and ethnic minorities (BMEs):

41% of BMEs agree that ‘when people like me get involved in politics, they really can change the way that the country is run' compared to 31% of whites - a 10% increase since 2007
42% of BMEs are ‘very' or ‘fairly' interested in politics -a 15% increase since 2007
43% think the present system of governing works well compared to 32% of whites - the first time in six annual Audits that BME respondents are more optimistic than whites

Download the full Audit of Political Engagement 6

For more information about the Audit of Political Engagement Series, click here. The raw survey data from the opinion polling carried out by Ipsos MORI for Audit 6 is available to download here.

Audit 6 was funded by the Ministry of Justice and the House of Commons.

Handling a legislative emergency

admin — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:08:00 GMT

Hansard Society gives evidences to the Lords Constitution Committee

Dr Ruth Fox, Director the Parliament & Government Programme, recently appeared before the House of Lords Constitution Committee inquiry on emergency legislation.

Whether it’s the Banking (Special Provisions) Act 2008 which facilitated the nationalisation of Northern Rock or the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, emergency legislation has often been controversial.

The inquiry is exploring the constitutional implications of emergency legislation and the procedural changes that might be necessary in order to improve parliamentary scrutiny and provide safeguards against abuse when legislation is rushed through Parliament.

In her evidence, Dr Fox said that the emergency legislation passed during the last 30 years was varied in subject matter, importance and urgency, and no simple definition would be easily achieved. However she identified common origins for urgent legislation such as court judgements, flawed original legislation, and treaty agreements.

The Committee also considered how parliamentary procedure functions in the case of emergency legislation. Dr Fox argued that when the government is seeking to fast track a bill through Parliament, it should be allow for greater flexibility in the parliamentary timetable to permit as much time for scrutiny as possible. In many instances when emergency legislation has been put forward by government, additional days for Parliament to consider bills could have been granted and sitting times could have been extended. She also reiterated the Hansard Society’s long-standing recommendation for the establishment of a Business Committee to manage the timetabling of legislation in a more transparent and accountable manner.

Dr Fox argued that given the limitations on scrutiny inherent with any fast-track passage through Parliament, it is vital to have formalised post-legislative scrutiny arrangements. The Hansard Society’s suggestion would be to establish a Joint Emergency Legislation Review Committee, composed of members of both Houses, who would examine any emergency legislation passed by Parliament at a set time after Royal Assent to assess whether it needed to be revisited. The Committee would compel the government to give its assessment of the impact of the legislation and seek the views of parliamentarians on it, before deciding whether it should be reconsidered through new primary legislation or renewed in its existing form through delegated legislation.

You can hear an audio recording of the evidence session on the Parliament website. The Hansard Society also provided written evidence to the inquiry, which can be found here.

Update: The Committee has now issued its report. Click here for more.

What makes for Good Government?

admin — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:21:00 GMT

Robin Cook, when Leader of the House of Commons, succinctly described the purpose of parliamentary scrutiny functions: ‘Good scrutiny makes for good government’. We wholeheartedly agree with this view, and to this end the Parliament & Government programme recently submitted evidence to the Public Administration Select Committee's inquiry into Good Government.

Our evidence paper looks at our proposals in two specific areas, parliamentary scrutiny of government finance and government legislation, drawing from our recent publications The Fiscal Maze and Law in the Making. It also looks at recent developments in the area of parliamentary scrutiny of the executive as a whole. Its conclusions argue that:

The Government could allow for better financial scrutiny by Parliament by reconsidering the timing of the Budget and Pre-Budget reports. The dates for such important statements should be set well in advance or perhaps even be fixed.
A greater willingness by the government to open up the Comprehensive Spending Review process to scrutiny and input by Parliament is needed, and there should also be greater follow-up of the NAO/PAC reports to ensure government money is being spent effectively.
Consultations on legislation should be more structured, and should be focused much more clearly on choices and priorities, taking respondents through competing arguments and the consequences of choices. The often unrealistic approach that all options are open – even when it is obvious that the government has a clear direction in mind – should be avoided.
In making the case for primary legislation, the issues that should be considered include whether existing legislation needs to be consolidated or repealed and whether it already provides the necessary powers.

The aim of these proposals is to promote a culture of explanation, openness and information and to ensure that government seeks and responds to parliamentary input and oversight.

Click here to download the evidence paper.

Photo by Chris O, from Wikipedia, used under GNU license.

Briefing for Lords' debate on Parliament's communication with the public

admin — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 14:10:00 GMT

Professor the Lord Norton of Louth has secured a debate in the House of Lords "to call attention to the case for enhancing Parliament's ability to communicate with members of the public."

The Hansard Society has done a considerable amount of work in the area of Parliament’s engagement with the public, both in the form of research reports and in practical engagement projects such as Lords of the Blog. In 2005 the Hansard Society Commission on the Communication of Parliamentary Democracy (the Puttnam Commission) examined whether Parliament was failing in its democratic duty to communicate with the electorate. It made 39 recommendations, which together set out a practical route for much needed change, and in 2006 a follow-up report examined the progress made. The annual Audit of Political Engagement tracks the public's interest, engagement and satisfaction with politics, and the recent Parliament and the Public report examined the public's knowledge of and attitudes towards Parliament.

To contribute to the Lords' debate we have produced a briefing paper entitled Enhancing Parliament’s Ability to Communicate with Members of the Public summarising our research and recommendations, and assessing where progress still needs to be made.

Update: The debate has since taken place, and can be read in full here. The work of the Hansard Society received numerous favourable mentions.

Update 2: The House of Lords Information Committee has now launched an inquiry on People and Parliament, in response to the debate.

More bills, please, we’re British

admin — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 15:44:00 GMT

Writing for Our Kingdom, Susanna Kalitowski analyses the latest Queen's Speech and argues that bigger is not better when it comes to legislation

The standard media line on yesterday's Queen's Speech is that it was ‘thin' on legislation and, by extension, ideas. Only 15 bills were announced compared to the 18 previewed in May. Last year's Queen's Speech contained a whopping 29 bills, and there were 25 in 2006. The government's explanation for this year's shortfall is that it needs to concentrate its resources on the economic downturn. Pundits are speculating that it is indicative of a likely early election.

This predictably cynical reaction to the ‘slimline' programme provides one possible explanation for the substantial increase in the amount of legislation in recent years. In Britain, a large number of bills has become a sign of a government's strength, authority and capacity for innovation.

When the Hansard Society interviewed politicians for our extensive study on law making, we were told that the predominant culture within government inspires the creation of more and more legislation - even though much of it is superseded before it can actually be implemented.

Parliamentarians were open in admitting that they found it difficult to scrutinise so much legislation effectively - and that they often do not understand the bills they are examining. Many confessed that the content of anywhere from a quarter to a half of all the legislation they voted on was effectively a mystery to them.

They also pointed out that more bills means less time for Parliament's other vital work: select committee scrutiny of government departments, debates on important issues of the day and examination of secondary or delegated legislation - where much of the real detail of the laws that affect us on a daily basis is contained. It could also allow time to conduct post-legislative scrutiny, reviewing and improving existing legislation, an activity very seldom undertaken.

It is time for a more mature national debate on the government's annual legislative programme. Bigger is not necessarily better - and many policies do not actually require new legislation. A reduction in the number of bills taken through Parliament would allow for much more detailed scrutiny and permit more time for other equally important work. This year's Queen's Speech is a good start.

Susanna Kalitowski is a research fellow on the Hansard Society's Parliament and Government Programme. Law in the Making: Influence and Change in the Legislative Process can be purchased from the Hansard Society website.

This article was originally published on Our Kingdom on 12 December 2008.

A passion poisoned by process?

admin — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:30:00 GMT

Writing in The House Magazine, Susanna Kalitowski interprets the latest survey of public attitudes to Parliament

The Westminster Parliament is the heart of democracy in the United Kingdom. But in this age of widespread political disenchantment, how do the British people view the nation's supreme representative body? The Hansard Society's annual Audit of Political Engagement recently found that 75% of people agree that a strong Parliament is good for democracy, yet only a third are satisfied with how the institution works at the moment.

In an effort to shed further light on the public's complex relationship with Parliament, we commissioned ComRes to conduct a poll examining people's attitudes towards the institution. The results reveal strikingly low levels of knowledge about Parliament, as well as some surprising perceptions about its role. While half of people profess to be knowledgeable about politics, over two-thirds (68%) feel that they do not have a good understanding of how Parliament works.

We asked people to what extent they knew about six aspects of Parliament: the House of Commons, the House of Lords, Prime Minister's Questions, how laws are made, debates on issues of the day and select committee inquiries. In view of the prevailing ignorance, it is unsurprising that the majority told us that they know either not very much or nothing at all about all six.

People feel considerably more informed about the House of Commons (42%) than the House of Lords (26%). In terms of Parliament's day-to-day work, the public are most familiar with Prime Minister's Questions and how laws are made, with 46% of people feeling knowledgeable about each - 14% more than the number of people who say they understand Parliament as a whole!

The least understood component of Parliament's work are select committee inquiries: 80% of people say they know not very much or nothing at all about them. This is a shame in light of past research which has found that people are particularly attracted to the style of work they undertake once an explanation is given about how they operate.

Select committees are also one of the most obvious manifestations of the distinction between Parliament and government, which our survey found 51% of people fail to recognise.

What is more, not even half of those who claim to understand this essential difference can correctly identify the functions of each body. For example, even people who recognise that Parliament and government are not the same thing are divided about who has responsibility for drafting major legislation, with 34% saying it is government's role and 31% saying that it is Parliament's role. Only 42% associate ‘debating and passing laws' and ‘holding ministers responsible for their actions' with Parliament rather than government.

Fortunately, interest in Parliament is higher than knowledge, with 53% of the public saying they are interested in Parliament and 47% open to the possibility of learning more about what goes on there.

As in past surveys about attitudes towards politics, a number of demographic groups are significantly less likely to say they are interested in and knowledgeable about Parliament: lower socio-economic groups, people from outside the South East, young people aged 18-24 and women.

One silver lining in our findings is that two of these disengaged groups - young people and women - are disproportionately more likely to say that they would like to learn more about what happens in Parliament. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for people from lower socio-economic groups, who are 10 percentage points less likely to say they want to know more.

On a more positive note, around half of the population believes that Parliament undertakes important functions that no other body can undertake and that it is relevant to the lives of ordinary people.

However, only 19% of agree with the statement ‘Parliament is working for me'. Over half (52%) disagree. Similarly, only 18% believe that Parliament broadly reflects the make-up of British society, accurately reflecting the severe under-representation of women and ethnic minority groups at Westminster - and highlighting the need for the upcoming Speaker's Conference on the subject.

The poll results suggest that Parliament is viewed by the public less as a medium for participatory government and more as a necessary - but elite - part of non-participatory government.

Parliament is held in high regard by at least half of the population, but many people - particularly from lower socio-economic groups - feel disconnected from the institution. It is clear that much more needs to be done to educate people about how Parliament works and how they can engage with it.

Susanna Kalitowski is a research fellow on the Hansard Society's Parliament and Government Programme. Parliament and the Public: Knowledge, Interest and Perceptions can be downloaded from the Hansard Society website.

This article originally appeared in The House Magazine on 24 November 2008.