Archived Press Releases

Parliamentary Affairs: Essential reading for anyone interested in contemporary politics

2010-03-12T10:39:00Z

Discounted rate for Hansard Society members

The latest issue of Parliamentary Affairs includes a focus on Devolution: Ten Years On.

This special issue of Parliamentary Affairs looks at how devolution has taken place over the past 10 years, examining the devolved institutions and how politics has developed in these differing environs, as well as the implications for Westminster.

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

Parliamentary Affairs is a long-established journal published by Oxford University Press in association with the Hansard Society. Individual subscriptions cost £57 a year; special reduced subscriptions for Hansard Society subscription members cost £26 a year (UK), €39 (Europe), US$52 (rest of the world).

Become a member of the Hansard Society and receive a reduced subscription rate

Individual subscriptions cost £57 a year from jnls.cust.serv@oxfordjournals.org or Journals Customer Service Department, Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP

For further information, contact Virginia Gibbons, Head of Communications at the Hansard Society on mediaprog@hansard.lse.ac.uk or 020 7438 1225

Editors' Notes

The January 2010 issue contains the following articles. Click on the title to read an abstract from each article:

Jocelyn Evans and Steven Fielding Editorial
Galina Borisyuk, Ron Johnston, Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher Parliamentary Constituency Boundary Reviews and Electoral Bias: How Important are Variations in Constituency Size?
Francesco Cavatorta and Robert Elgie The Impact of Semi-Presidentialism on Governance in the Palestinian Authority
Éric Bélanger and Jean-François Godbout Why Do Parties Merge? The Case of the Conservative Party of Canada
Hugh Bochel and Andrew Defty A Question of Expertise: The House of Lords and Welfare Policy

o Devolution : Ten Years On (edited by James Mitchell)

James Mitchell Introduction: The Westminster Model and the State of the Unions
Bruce Crawford Ten Years of Devolution
James Mitchell The Narcissism of Small Differences: Scotland and Westminster
Alan Trench Wales and the Westminster Model
Rick Wilford Northern Ireland: The Politics of Constraint
Vernon Bogdanor The West Lothian Question

o Research Note

Philip Cowley and Mark Stuart Party Rules, OK: Voting in the House of Commons on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill

o Practitioners

Jonathan Tonge and Andrew Mycock Citizenship and Political Engagement among Young People: the Workings and Findings of the Youth Citizenship Commission

o Hansard Society

Alex Brazier and Ruth Fox Enhancing the Backbench MP's Role as a Legislator: The Call for Urgent Reform of Private Members Bills

o Reviews

Arthur Aughey Devolution in the UK (James Mitchell)
Cristina Chiva Opposing Europe? The Comparative Party Politics of Euroscepticism, Volume I: Case Studies and Country Surveys; Volume II: Comparative and Theoretical Perspectives (Aleks Szczerbiak and Paul Taggart, Eds)

The next issue of Parliamentary Affairs will be published in April 2010.

What happens if there's a hung Parliament? - March 11, 2010

2010-03-11T14:18:00Z

A guide to process and procedures

A new pamphlet from the Hansard Society and the Study of Parliament Group, published today, examines what will happen if there is an uncertain election result - with particular focus on the implications for Parliament.

Who Governs? Forming a coalition or a minority government in the event of a hung Parliament sets out what will happen if no party has overall control. The authors (Robert Blackburn, Ruth Fox, Oonagh Gay and Lucinda Maer) explore the constitutional process of forming a government, the role and impact that parliamentary procedure will have in the process, and examine the constitutional issues regarding the calling of a second general election. Drawing on past history, they examine the lessons to be learnt from the devolved legislatures, and international comparisons, and explore what impact, if any coalition and minority government might have on the culture of politics in the next Parliament. Finally, they assess what role constitutional and parliamentary reform may play in any post-election inter-party agreement.

Key themes explored in the pamphlet include:

Who wins - the party with the most seats or the most votes? What does this mean for formal coalitions or informal agreements with other parties?
Who has first call on forming a government?
What's the constitutional position vis-à-vis a second general election?
What is the role of the Queen?
How long can the politicians take to form a government?
What happens to Parliament if the election result is uncertain?
What impact will parliamentary procedure have on the process of forming a government - will it help or hinder?
What effect would a hung Parliament have on the House of Lords and the Salisbury Convention?
What effect will the financial markets have on government formation?
Does a hung Parliament mean weak government?
How will MPs balance Westminster and constituency duties in a hung Parliament?
How important will electoral reform for the House of Commons be in any post election inter-party negotiations?

Dr Ruth Fox, Director of the Hansard Society's Parliament and Government Programme and joint author of Who Governs? Forming a coalition or a minority government in the event of a hung Parliament commented:

‘In the event of an inconclusive election result, Parliament will be the ‘theatre' in which the decisions of the political leaders play out. Our recent Audit of Political Engagement found that the public see Parliament as an institution with declining influence on their everyday lives. But a general election that results in no overall control will see renewed interest in Parliament as it moves centre stage. So it is vital that the public, politicians and the media understand the process and procedures that will influence the politicians in the decisions they may have to make after the election.'

For further information, contact Virginia Gibbons at the Hansard Society on 020 7438 1225 or 07812 765 552

Editor's Notes

The Hansard Society is the UK's leading independent, non-partisan political research and education charity. We aim to strengthen parliamentary democracy and encourage greater public involvement in politics. For more information about other Hansard Society publications visit the website at http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/
The Study of Parliament Group was founded in 1964 to study the workings of Parliament and Parliamentary institutions: its membership brings together staff of UK Parliamentary institutions and academics active in this field. The views expressed by members of the Study of Parliament Group are not necessarily those of the Group. The Group's website http://www.spg.org.uk/ provides further information about its activities.
The authors: Robert Blackburn is Professor of Constitutional Law at King's College London. Ruth Fox is Director of the Hansard Society's Parliament and Government Programme and a member of the Executive Committee of the Study of Parliament Group. Oonagh Gay is chair of the Study of Parliament Group and a member of the Hansard Society Council. She has worked at the House of Commons Library for 27 years and is currently head of the Parliament and Constitution Centre. Lucinda Maer is a Senior Research Clerk in the House of Commons Library and a member of the Executive Committee of the Study of Parliament Group.

Reforms Must Now Be Implemented After House of Commons Votes Unanimously For Reform - March 4, 2010

2010-03-05T10:08:00Z

Hansard Society Welcomes Wright Committee Result

As a strong advocate of the Wright Committee proposals for reform of the House of Commons the Hansard Society has welcomed this afternoon's vote by MPs who unanimously accepted the key recommendations.

Commenting on today's outcome, Dr Ruth Fox, said, ‘Today's result is an important milestone in reform of the House of Commons. We urged MPs to support the reforms - indeed we first recommended a Business Committee for the House of Commons nearly two decades ago - so we are delighted with the unanimous support for them in the House today.'

‘There is now a clear mandate for change and the Government should move quickly to implement them. If the proposals are to be in place for the next Parliament the Standing Orders of the House need to be amended.'

For further information, contact Virginia Gibbons at the Hansard Society on 020 7438 1225 or 07812 765 552

Editor's Notes

The Hansard Society is the UK's leading independent, non-partisan political research and education charity. We aim to strengthen parliamentary democracy and encourage greater public involvement in politics

MPs' expenses scandal has mixed results - March 3, 2010

2010-03-03T12:51:00Z

Decline in relevance of Parliament - but Parliament ‘worthwhile'

Increase in dissatisfaction with MPs in general - but not own MP

The 2010 Hansard Society annual Audit of Political Engagement published today 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'. There are two groups of people who politicians and political parties should concentrate on to improve turnout:

The ‘politically contented' (6% of British adults) where 92% have a ‘duty to vote' but only 55% have a ‘certainty to vote'. This group are mostly middle class and are generally fairly positive about politics and more trusting of and satisfied with politicians. They may be more open than most to positive efforts to engage with them.
The ‘disengaged/mistrustful' (24% of British adults) where 60% have a ‘duty to vote' and 24% have a ‘certainty to vote'. This group are mainly young and working class. They are more likely to be mistrustful of politicians but are not alienated or hostile. At 24% of the population, they are too large to ignore and present opportunities for targeted engagement initiatives.

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.'

For further information, contact Virginia Gibbons at the Hansard Society on 020 7438 1225 or 07812 765 552

Editors' Notes

The Hansard Society is the UK's leading independent, non-partisan political research and education charity. We aim to strengthen parliamentary democracy and encourage greater public involvement in politics.
Audit of Political Engagement 7 is the seventh Audit in a series which started in 2004, produced jointly by the Hansard Society and the Electoral Commission. This year's is the third Audit produced solely by the Hansard Society, with funding from the House of Commons and the Ministry of Justice.

The information in Audit of Political Engagement 7 is based on a Political Engagement Poll undertaken by Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute on behalf of the Hansard Society. Ipsos MORI interviewed a representative quota sample of 944 adults aged 18+ in Great Britain. Interviewing took place face-to-face, in respondents' homes, between 13 -19 November 2009. An additional 83 interviews were conducted with BME adults using the same methodology. Additionally, 79 interviews were carried out in Scotland and 51 in Wales. In total, 1,156 interviews were conducted and the data has been weighted to the national population profile.

Parliament must change from ‘broadcast' mode - March 1, 2010

2010-03-01T12:11:00Z

Young voters demand more two-way communication

A Hansard Society report - Parliament 2020: visioning the future Parliament - asking first-time voters, parliamentarians and parliament officials about their visions for a future Parliament found that all groups wanted to see Parliament using new technologies to more actively engage with citizens.

The top priorities for all three groups (first-time voters, parliamentary officials and MPs and Peers) were:

Greater use of new technologies
Interactive communication

The main concern of MPs and Peers was the modernisation of procedures in Parliament, and while parliamentary officials, MPs and Peers prioritised access to information, first-time voters prioritised:

Education and outreach
Transparency and accountability
Diversity of representatives

In the wake of the recent expenses scandals, this report follows a sea-change in British politics where the whole political system is now subject to a level of interest and scrutiny not seen before and this includes the inner workings of Parliament. The research consisted of focus group discussions with three key stakeholders: first-time voters, parliamentary officials and MPs and Peers. The groups were asked to focus on how Parliament works and to think about what a Parliament of the future might look like and how new digital media will affect and influence the way that citizens engage and communicate with Parliament and MPs.

First-time voters want Parliament to engage with them through activities such as MPs visiting schools or through popular websites and social networks. They want to better relate to their representatives, identifying with them as members of their community and part of a more diverse Parliament. They wanted to feel that their MP was ‘real' and practised what they preached and they wanted to build trust in their MPs by increasing the links between MPs and their constituents, as well as improving transparency and accountability.

Parliamentary officials, MPs and Peers prioritised informing the public but focused less on engaging in two-way communication. MPs and Peers were more interested in modernising procedures and using new technology to make parliamentary processes more efficient and understandable for those both within and without parliament.

Andy Williamson, Director of the Hansard Society eDemocracy Programme and joint author of Parliament 2020: visioning the Future Parliament, commented: ‘There is a clear divide between the internal groups of MPs, Peers and parliamentary officials and the group of first-time voters. Both the internal groups were more interested in informing the public as opposed to two-way communication. While utilising new technology to modernise procedures is long overdue, there is a danger that if Parliament remains in ‘broadcast' mode it will alienate first-time voters who demand more engagement, transparency and accountability.'

The report includes 21 recommendations to refine and improve how Parliament communicates and engages with the public, the technology and information that support this work and the procedures around how Parliament works.

For further information, contact Virginia Gibbons, Head of Communications at the Hansard Society on 020 7438 1225 or mediaprog@hansard.lse.ac.uk

Editors' Notes

The Hansard Society is the UK's leading independent, non-partisan political research and education charity.
The Hansard Society eDemocracy Programme's thought-leading research has been a formative part of an emergent digital Britain from the internet's impact on Parliament, to better government engagement with citizens and the potential for civil society to harness digital media. The eDemocracy Programme undertakes research and produces publications and commentaries with a focus on online political communication and citizen engagement, exploring the many faces of digital inclusion, citizen engagement, political campaigning and parliamentary process.

‘We must nurture politicians if we want a healthy democracy' - Feb 24, 2010

2010-02-24T12:58:00Z

Peter Riddell, Hansard Society Chair, gives the inaugural Parliamentary Affairs Annual Lecture

Thursday 25 February, 6.30pm, Macmillan Room, Portcullis House

In 2009 the reputation of politicians and politics itself reached rock bottom. Peter Riddell, Chair of the Hansard Society, in his speech at the inaugural Parliamentary Affairs Annual lecture tomorrow evening will examine the role of politicians in a modern representative democracy. He will say:

‘...We need, and should nurture, politicians if we want a vibrant and healthy democracy. Criticising politicians as a class - regardless of their individual merits, as well as weaknesses - is counter-productive and dangerous. It is likely to deter good people from putting themselves forward as candidates - and is one reason for the record retirements at the end of this Parliament. So, just as we celebrate politics as a crucial activity in a healthy democracy, so let us recognise the vital role of politicians.'

Peter Riddell will examine the substantial challenges facing politics and politicians and outline the changes that must be made if public confidence in politicians is to be restored.

In defence of politicians - in spite of themselves

Inaugural Parliamentary Affairs Annual Lecture

Speaker: Peter Riddell (The Times & Hansard Society Chair)

Introduction by Professor Steven Fielding (Joint editor of Parliamentary Affairs)
Chaired by Dr Ruth Fox (Director of Parliament & Government Programme, Hansard Society)

Thursday 25 February, 6.30pm, Macmillan Room, Portcullis House

Members of the media are invited to attend - email mediaprog@hansard.lse.ac.uk to book your place or to request an embargoed copy of the speech

Editors' Notes

Parliamentary Affairs is a long-established journal published by Oxford University Press in association with the Hansard Society

Sex education - what do young people think? Feb 23, 2010

2010-02-23T17:26:00Z

Sex education - what do young people think?

11-18 year-olds give their views on the sex education they receive

1 March - 19 March www.headsup.org.uk

The next online HeadsUp forum for 11-18 year-olds will be Sex education - do you get enough? The topic has never been more relevant with political parties and commentators entering into the debate, giving their views on how and when young people should receive sex education and a government consultation on the matter. But what do young people think about when and what they are being taught about sex?

Young people will give their views and debate the following themes on HeadsUp.org.uk with their peers, legislators and decision makers:

Is society too sexualised? - Is there too much emphasis on sex in the media and advertising? Is sex really that important? Is pornography too easily available? Should we be more open as a society when it comes to talking about sex?
Teenage pregnancy - why do we have such high teen pregnancy rates in the UK? Does it matter how old you are when you have a baby? Is it better to be married before you have a baby? Is teenage pregnancy over-emphasised by the media?
Who do you want to teach you about sex? - Is school the best place to learn about sex? Would you like your parents to talk to you about sex more? What do you need to know to help you make informed decisions? What's the right age to start learning about sex?
The age of consent - Do we have it right? Is there a better way to decide who is responsible enough to have sex? Should there be a law about age differences in relationships? Why does the age of consent differ between countries?

HeadsUp is an online debating space for 11-18 year-olds, from the Hansard Society, to discuss their views on political issues with their peers and influential decision-makers. It aims to build young people's levels of political awareness and participation so that they can play an effective role in the democratic processes affecting their lives. HeadsUp is also a space politicians can use to consult with young people and find out their ideas, experiences and opinions.

Legislators and decision makers taking part so far are:

Annette Brooke MP (Liberal Democrat shadow spokesperson for Children, Schools and Families)
Mike Hancock MP
Jenny Randerson AM (Welsh Liberal Democrat Shadow Minister for Economy, Transport and Education)
Janet Ryder AM (Chair of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, Welsh Assembly)
Bethan Jenkins AM (Plaid Cymru Spokesperson for Child Poverty and Culture)
Anna Martinez (Sex Education Forum)

Editors' Notes

HeadsUp (http://www.headsup.org.uk/) is an innovative website where young people aged 11-18, debate political issues and learn about the political process. The site is a non-partisan, cross-party educational resource that provides a secure, structured and student-centred discussion platform. It includes information for students and lesson plans and activities for teachers to ensure quality debate on the forums.
Two ways to register to participate in HeadsUp:

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

All HeadsUp forums are open to be viewed and the debate followed by the public. Participants need to register or login to post comments (11-18s and supporting teachers/youth workers only).
The project is part-funded by the House of Commons.
There are currently 868 schools registered with HeadsUp.

Digital Citizens want to engage with politicians - Feb 10, 2010

2010-02-10T16:18:00Z

Passive democracy is not enough

A Hansard Society report - Digital citizens and democratic participation: An analysis of how citizens participate online and connect with MPs and Parliament - shows that for Britons who are already online, the internet has made it easier to take part in civic and political activities and that half of them prefer to use the internet to take part in democratic life.

Furthermore, the research suggests that they want online tools which allow them to participate and engage with politicians rather than having a passive, broadcast-only relationship with them.

70% of respondents agree that the internet makes it easier for them to participate in civic and political activities
49% agree that they would generally prefer to use the internet to participate in civic and political activities
Age is not a barrier to digital engagement when it comes to contacting one's elected representative
People aged 55-64 are the age group most likely to contact their MP online (54% did so), and people aged 18-34 were more likely to use the telephone (including mobiles and texting) than any other age group

With over two thirds of the British population online, this report explores how people use the internet to connect with their elected representatives and also the trends in online digital engagement across civic and political life. The research draws on two samples. The first was a national survey of individuals who were already online and the second was a sample of ‘digital leaders' -people with a strong interest in social media and politics. The first group demonstrated how Britons currently use the internet to participate in politics and civic life and the second group identified trends for future and developing technologies.

Among the digital leaders group, the majority (69%) used the internet or email to contact their MP. They use websites, Twitter and blogs to contact or keep informed about their MP. They would most like to see MPs embracing online tools that allow for conversation and opportunities to engage with citizens. Finally, the group wanted accurate, up-to-date, available information and open data standards which would make data accessible for individuals and groups to use.

Andy Williamson, Director of the Hansard Society eDemocracy Programme, and author of Digital citizens and democratic participation: An analysis of how citizens participate online and connect with MPs and Parliament commented: ‘Citizens do not want the passive, broadcast-only relationship with their MPs that has existed until now, they wish to communicate and engage, to track and contribute to the democratic debate. Higher levels of engagement and wider participation in the democratic process will happen when citizens feel that they are a central part of it. This presents a challenge for Parliament - both for MPs and the House authorities.'

For further information, contact Virginia Gibbons, Head of Communications at the Hansard Society on 020 7438 1225 or mediaprog@hansard.lse.ac.uk

Editors' Notes

The Hansard Society is the UK's leading independent, non-partisan political research and education charity.
Digital citizens and democratic participation: An analysis of how citizens participate online and connect with MPs and Parliament is a parallel publication to the report MPs Online: Connecting with constituents which looked at how MPs are using digital media to communicate and engage with constituents and was published in February 2009.
The Hansard Society eDemocracy Programme's thought-leading research has been a formative part of an emergent digital Britain from the internet's impact on Parliament, to better government engagement with citizens and the potential for civil society to harness digital media. The eDemocracy Programme undertakes research and produces publications and commentaries with a focus on online political communication and citizen engagement, exploring the many faces of digital inclusion, citizen engagement, political campaigning and parliamentary process.

Open letter to Harriet Harman - February 2, 2010

2010-02-09T16:05:00Z

In an open letter to Leader of the House, Harriet Harman, seven organisations concerned with parliamentary and constitutional reform have come together to urge the Government and MPs not to act as a roadblock to reform of the House of Commons before the general election.

The Better Government Initiative, Constitution Unit, Democratic Audit, Electoral Reform Society, Hansard Society, Power 2010 and Unlock Democracy all support implementation of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons (the ‘Wright Committee') which include:

a Business Committee for the House of Commons to give MPs a greater stake in the shaping of the parliamentary agenda, thus offseting the power of the executive;
reforms to the appointment of Select Committee members and chairs;
new opportunities for public initiation of House of Commons proceedings, for example through the trialling of a Petitions Committee.

The proposals are to be considered by the House of Commons on February 23 through the introduction by the Government of up to 21 separate ‘non-amendable' resolutions. Such resolutions can be blocked by the objection of just one MP raising the prospect that the Wright Committee recommendations will be derailed by a small minority of members who object either to the proposals themselves or to the perceived anti-democratic nature of the procedure being used by the Government to introduce them. If objections to any resolution are made then the Government will need to make time available in the parliamentary timetable after the February 23 for the House to consider the resolution again in more detail. However, thus far the Government has declined to name a date and with parliamentary time running out the proposals may not be in place before the general election.

This coalition of parliamentary and constitutional reform organisations has therefore come together to urge that the Government:

1. Change the procedure for consideration of the Wright Committee recommendations on the February 23 to enable MPs to debate and vote on the proposals;

2. At least announce a date when the House will deal with any outstanding issues to which objections may be raised by one or more MPs on the February 23 - this should be within a week of the 23^rd if there is to be enough time to implement the proposals before the general election.

‘The Wright Committee was set up by the Prime Minister in response to the MPs' expenses scandal' said Ruth Fox of the Hansard Society. ‘This Parliament more than any other in recent memory needs to reform itself. The reputation of MPs, of Parliament and that of the Government itself will be further eroded if, having established a clear direction for reform, a procedural roadblock is now erected and the reforms are blocked before the general election.'

‘One of the objectives in establishing the Wright Committee was to help enhance the collective authority and reputation of the House of Commons', said Stuart Wilks-Heeg of Democratic Audit. ‘MPs should have the democratic opportunity to debate and amend the resolutions on which they vote or at the very least should know the date on which they might be permitted to consider the reform proposals in more detail if any member objects to them. It is nearly three months since the reform proposals were published - any further delay which prevents implementation before the general election is inexcusable.'

ENDS

Notes for Editors

A copy of the letter to Harriet Harman from the Better Government Initiative, Constitution Unit, Democratic Audit, Electoral Reform Society, Hansard Society, Power 2010 and Unlock Democracy can be read here.
When the House of Commons has previously considered reform proposals in the last decade - for example, changes to sittings of the House (May 1999), the programming of bills (November 2000), Select Committees (May 2002), reform of sitting hours (January 2005) and the establishment of regional Select Committees (November 2008) - all MPs had an opportunity on each occasion to debate and amend the resolutions before them. This right to debate and then amend resolutions is not permitted under the procedural device that the Government currently proposes to use for consideration of the Wright Committee reforms.

For further information contact:

Kate Egglestone at the Hansard Society on 0207 438 1210 or Ruth Fox on 07779 666771

Stuart Wilks-Heeg at Democratic Audit on 07875 696104

Harriet Harman has given a date for discussion of the Wright Committee report as March 4 - Guardian, Tuesday 9 February 2010

Hansard Society urges MPs to reach a speedy consensus on Wright Committee recommendations - Jan 21, 2010

2010-01-21T16:26:00Z

Changes must be in place before election

The Hansard Society, the UK's leading non-partisan political research and education charity, welcomes today's announcement that the recommendations of the House of Commons Reform Committee (the Wright Committee) will be debated on February 23 - nearly two months after their publication - and urges MPs to reach a speedy consensus so changes can be in place before the election.

Reforms suggested by the Wright Committee, such as establishment of a business committee, enshrining a commitment to set up select committees within six weeks of Parliament returning, and elections for select committee chairs and members, have serious implications for the new Parliament. If they are not implemented before the general election, we run the risk of months of delay during which a new government, of whatever political persuasion, could escape effective parliamentary scrutiny.

In addition, while the proposals to enhance Parliament's control over its own agenda, timetable and procedures are vital, more needs to be done to give the public a greater say over what happens in Parliament. The Wright Committee proposed a trial period for a Procedure and Petitions Committee and ‘urgent discussions' on the introduction of e-Petitions. So near the election, any trial period in this Parliament would be of only a few weeks' duration - far too short a time to effectively evaluate the process. During the debate on 23 February MPs therefore need to focus on how Parliament will engage with the public in future.

Dr Ruth Fox, Director of the Hansard Society's Parliament and Government Programme commented, ‘Delay in implementing the Wright Committee recommendations would not be good for public confidence in our parliamentary democracy and should be of deep concern to MPs across the House. There is very little time left to implement these recommendations and the Hansard Society calls on MPs to strive for consensus and consider wider the effectiveness and duration of the public engagement proposals.'

For further information contact Virginia Gibbons at the Hansard Society on 020 7438 1225 or 07812 765 552

Editors' Notes

The Hansard Society is the UK's leading non-partisan political research and education charity which exists to strengthen parliamentary democracy and encourage greater public involvement in politics. (http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/)

The Hansard Society's evidence submission to the House of Commons Reform Committee can be found here

The Hansard Society has produced further information and comment on House of Commons reform in recent months - see Briefing Paper, Parliamentary Affairs article, BBC Democracy Live comment

Political parties must clarify plans for Citizenship Education, says Hansard Society - Jan 11, 2010

2010-01-11T14:35:00Z

Election manifesto commitments needed

The Hansard Society, the UK's leading non-partisan political research and education charity, today welcomed the Speaker's Conference report on Parliamentary Representation and called on the political parties to come up with firm manifesto commitments to promote active citizenship and political literacy.

The Hansard Society's Citizenship Education Programme works with young people through schools and colleges to educate and inform them about parliamentary democracy and develop innovative ways to involve them in participatory democratic activities. The Society strongly supports the Speaker's Conference recommendations that all secondary schools should have a fully trained citizenship teacher in post and that Government should do more to support organisations which are promoting active citizenship and political literacy. In addition, the Hansard Society:

Calls on the political parties to include firm commitments to active citizenship education for young people and adults in their election manifestos
Calls on individual MPs to act as a hub for political engagement in their constituencies, bringing together the organisations and individuals working to inform the public on how to participate effectively in the political process

Michael Raftery, Director Citizenship Education at the Hansard Society, commented: ‘The Speaker's Conference has come up with some challenging recommendations to improve parliamentary representation, but these will not be effective unless there is a strong political commitment to citizenship education from the political parties and individual MPs. Our research has shown that there is a demonstrable link between political engagement and levels of knowledge and interest. People can't fully engage in the democratic process if they don't understand it. Now is the time for the political parties to act.'

For more information contact Virginia Gibbons at the Hansard Society on 020 7438 1225 or 07812 765 552

Editors' Notes

The Hansard Society is the UK's leading non-partisan political research and education charity which exists to strengthen parliamentary democracy and encourage greater public involvement in politics. http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/
The Hansard Society's Audit of Political Engagement has been monitoring political engagement since 2004

Teach us how to manage our money, say young people - January 6, 2010

2010-01-06T13:10:00Z

11-18 year olds want more lessons on financial literacy to avoid future credit crunch

HeadsUp.org.uk

The young people using the HeadsUp online The Economy: What Went Wrong? forum expressed a sense of shock that adults had allowed the credit crunch to happen and thought it was important for their generation to learn from the situation to avoid the same thing happening in the future. They wanted more education from a young age, about economics and how to manage their personal finances:

"The younger generation should be taught how to manage their money as in later life we will be to blame if the economy fails again"

"Money literacy, economic literacy...would be a great addition to what we learn at the moment. I've been at high school for five years and we haven't had any serious money education at all."

"At our school a woman from Natwest comes to some of our PSHE lessons and helps us understand how to manage our money...I know so much more than when I started."

HeadsUp is the Hansard Society's innovative web forum, where 11-18 year-olds debate political issues with legislators and policy-makers. This forum, the second of the 2009/10 series, was The Economy: What Went Wrong? and the full report is available to download here.

Public spending was also discussed, including which services should be saved or cut. The forum discussions were aggregated to find HeadsUp users priorities for public spending. The top 5 choices were:

1.      Spending on education
2.      Scrapping ID cards to save money
3.      Creating jobs
4.      Creating more youth training schemes/apprenticeships
5.      Investing in health

The young people understood that Government debt must be cut and that this would mean reductions in public spending. However, as with adult discussions, there were a variety of views about where the cuts should be made:

"Rather than focusing on one, why not cut each one slightly and share it out?"

"Some things cannot afford to be cut slightly, like the NHS..."

Beccy Allen, HeadsUp Project Manager, said about the forum:

"It is rare for students to request more lessons at school but HeadsUp users clearly feel that there is a gap in the curriculum where economics is concerned. In the forum it was suggested that there should be fewer lessons about the dangers of smoking or drugs, for example, and more lessons about how to manage your finances. Whatever we may think, the economy effects us all and the young people growing up during the credit crunch are very aware of its importance to their lives now and in the future."

For more information contact Kate Egglestone at the Hansard Society on 0207 438 1210 or k.egglestone@hansard.lse.ac.uk

Editors' Notes

HeadsUp (http://www.headsup.org.uk/) is an innovative website where 11-18s debate political issues and learn about the political process. The site is a non-partisan, cross-party educational resource that provides a secure, structured and student-centred discussion platform.
Two ways to register to participate in HeadsUp:

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

All HeadsUp forums are open to be viewed and the debate followed by the public. Participants need to register or login to post comments (11-18s and supporting teachers/youth workers only).
The project is part-funded by the House of Commons.
There are 908 schools currently registered with HeadsUp.

Boundary changes will not ensure ‘fairness' for Conservatives - Parliamentary Affairs article now available online - Dec 18, 2009

2009-12-18T13:05:00Z

Labour's real advantage at next election is a better distribution of voters

January 2010 issue of Parliamentary Affairs

Discounted rate for Hansard Society members

In the forthcoming January 2010 issue of Parliamentary Affairs, leading academics demonstrate that changes in the redistribution of seats to create uniform constituency sizes have only a minor impact on the outcome of elections - the geography of each party's support base is much more important.

The article, Parliamentary Constituency Boundary Reviews and Electoral Bias: How Important are Variations in Constituency Size? by Galina Borisyuk, Ron Johnston, Colin Rallings and Michael Thrasher, examines the contention that equalising constituency sizes would address the inbuilt bias towards Labour in the current First Past the Post British electoral system.

The 2005 election demonstrated the ‘unfairness' of the voting system

Labour got 36.1% of share of votes and 56.5% of the seats
Conservatives got 33.2% of the votes and 31.5% of the seats
Liberal Democrats got 22.6% of the votes and 9.9% of the seats

The authors show that the rules and procedures applied by the Boundary Commissions preclude the achievement of substantial equality in constituency electorates. Furthermore, the research measures electoral bias in a three-party system to demonstrate that variations in constituency electorates had only a minor impact on the outcomes of elections after the last two redistributions.

Almost half of the bias enjoyed by Labour in 2005 stemmed from geography and its superior vote distribution - on average it was more likely to ‘win small but lose big' than its opponents. In England at the 2005 general election, for example, Labour obtained one seat for every 28,111 votes that it won, whereas the ratio for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were 41,982 and 110,591 respectively.

Professor Michael Thrasher, co-author of the Parliamentary Affairs article, commented: ‘Our research shows that equalising the electorates is not the key issue. Labour's real advantage currently stems from a better distributed vote - it acquires fewer surplus and wasted votes than its rivals and benefits more than other parties from the general decline in electoral turnout, requiring fewer votes for its victories. These are the reasons that, despite the boundary changes that come into force at the next general election, the Conservative Party needs, all other things being equal, to hold a double-digit lead over Labour in the popular vote in order to secure even a slender majority in the next House of Commons.'

For further information, contact Virginia Gibbons, Head of Communications at the Hansard Society on mediaprog@hansard.lse.ac.uk or 020 7438 1225

Editors Notes

Parliamentary Affairs is a long-established journal published by Oxford University Press in association with the Hansard Society. Individual subscriptions cost £57 a year; special reduced subscriptions for Hansard Society subscription members cost £26 a year (UK), €39 (Europe), US$52 (rest of the world).

Become a member of the Hansard Society and receive a reduced subscription rate.
Individual subscriptions cost £57 a year from jnls.cust.serv@oxfordjournals.org or Journals Customer Service Department, Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP.

Time to increase MPs' power in Parliament - Parliamentary Affairs article now available online - Dec 15, 2009

2009-12-15T16:27:00Z

New Public Bill Committees can improve legislative scrutiny

Parliamentary Affairs article now available online

Discounted rate for Hansard Society members

In a forthcoming issue of Parliamentary Affairs - now available online- Jessica Levy, parliamentary researcher to Dr Tony Wright MP, outlines the potential of new Public Bill Committees to revitalise Westminster's legislative process.

The article, Public Bill Committees: An Assessment - Scrutiny sought, scrutiny gained, examines the changes to the Commons committee stages, and suggests further reforms to increase their effectiveness. The author highlights the potential of these reforms to contribute to a cultural shift in the attitude of MPs towards scrutiny.

Public Bill Committees (PBCs), introduced in the autumn of 2006, replaced standing committees and have:

Power to receive written and oral evidence form outside experts
Power to decide frequency of their sittings
Power to divide their sittings between witness sessions and line-by-line scrutiny

The PBC system is notably distinct from the overtly adversarial standing committees it replaced. By conducting evidence sessions during the course of bill scrutiny, the reformed committee system is opening up the legislative process to the public and informing debate on the bill's clauses and schedules as well as its merits and problems. In doing so, it is improving the quality of parliamentary scrutiny.

However, further improvements are needed if the PBCs are to realise their full potential; to empower Parliament to provide effective scrutiny of the government:

More time must be scheduled for PBCs to complete their work
All members of a PBC must be involved in decisions on evidence giving
PBC membership should reflect the balance of views across the House of Commons
The chair of the PBC should determine the committee's programme

Jessica Levy, author of the Parliamentary Affairs article, commented: ‘Our political system needs to change the culture within Parliament towards more effective scrutiny of the executive. Public Bill Committees represent a notable step in this direction and have the potential to achieve much more if further reforms are introduced.'

For further information, contact Virginia Gibbons, Head of Communications at the Hansard Society on mediaprog@hansard.lse.ac.uk or 020 7438 1225

Editors Notes

Parliamentary Affairs is a long-established journal published by Oxford University Press in association with the Hansard Society. Individual subscriptions cost £57 a year; special reduced subscriptions for Hansard Society subscription members cost £26 a year (UK), €39 (Europe), US$52 (rest of the world).

Become a member of the Hansard Society and receive a reduced subscription rate.
Individual subscriptions cost £57 a year from jnls.cust.serv@oxfordjournals.org or Journals Customer Service Department, Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP.

Clarity needed on Kelly Report recommendation for non-elected members of House of Commons Committee - Dec 10, 2009

2009-12-10T17:55:00Z

Appointment of lay members with voting rights raises important constitutional and parliamentary issues, says Hansard Society

Following today's statement by the Leader of the House that the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 is to be amended to implement the Kelly report recommendations regarding the role and remit of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, further clarification from the House of Commons is still needed on the appointment of lay members.

The Kelly Report recommended that at least two lay members who have never been parliamentarians should be appointed, with voting rights, to the Standards and Privileges Committee as a ‘step towards enhancing public acceptance of the robustness and independence of the disciplinary process' in the House of Commons. (Kelly recommendation 51, p106-107)

Today's statement does not address this recommendation which raises important constitutional and parliamentary issues as there is no precedent for non-elected members to be appointed to a House of Commons Committee and to be accorded voting rights equal to those of the MPs (see Editors' Notes). For the Standards and Privileges Committee to appoint lay members, then authorisation will be needed through a Resolution of the House. This will need to be laid by the Government.

Further clarity is also needed in relation to parliamentary privilege and the legal implications of lay members being members of a House of Commons Committee and the appointments process for these members.

Dr Ruth Fox, Director of the Hansard Society's Parliament and Government Programme said, ‘The announcement of new legislation to amend the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 is an important step forward in ensuring that the recommendations contained in the Kelly report are implemented. However, the House of Commons now needs to clarify what it proposes to do about the appointment of lay members, with voting rights, to the Standards and Privileges Committee. This issue raises important parliamentary and legal issues that need to be resolved as soon as possible if the new system is to be in place for the next Parliament.'

For further information contact Virginia Gibbons on 020 7438 1225 or Ruth Fox on 07779 666771

Editors' Notes

The Hansard Society is the UK's leading non-partisan political research and education charity which exists to strengthen parliamentary democracy and encourage greater public involvement in politics. (http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/)

On publication of the Kelly Report in November the Hansard Society made clear that a number of its recommendations raised important parliamentary and legal issues that would need to be resolved if all the proposals in the report were to be implemented. Today's written statement by the Leader of the House of Lords confirming that new legislation will be brought forward by the Government to address some of these issues in relation to the future of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority is therefore a welcome step forward
There is precedent, dating back to the 1933-34 Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform, for a committee to ‘call into consultation' non-members of the House. Then, the Joint Committee called into consultation representatives of the Indian States and British India but whilst they sat with the other committee members during the examination of witnesses, they had to put questions to witnesses through the Chair and they did not have voting rights. This approach was also considered during the handling of the devolution legislation in 1998/99.

The Hansard Society has produced further information on House of Commons reform in recent months - see Briefing Paper, Parliamentary Affairs article, Democracy Live comment