Archived Press Releases

People Like Us: Is British Society fairly reflected in Parliament? - 26 August 2008

2008-08-26T15:55:00Z

Hansard Society/Channel 4 joint fringe meetings at this year's party conferences

Liberal Democrats

Monday September 15, 6.15pm at the Bourne Hall Hotel, Priory Road, Bournemouth

Speakers: Lord Dhlokia, Chris Huhne MP, Simon Hughes MP, Lembit Opik MP, Jo Swinson MP. Chair: Katie Razzall, Channel 4 News

Labour

Monday September 22, 6pm at Jury's Inn, Great Bridgewater Street, Manchester

Speakers: Dawn Butler MP, Harriet Harman MP, Shahid Malik MP, Peter Oborne (Channel 4 Dispatches), Lord Soley (ex- Chair, PLP). Chair: Faisal Islam, Channel 4 News

Conservatives

Tuesday September 30, 6.30pm at the Copthorne Hotel, Paradise Circus Birmingham

Speakers: Iain Dale (Total Politics), Julie Kirkbride MP, Eleanor Laing MP, Theresa May MP, Baroness Warsi. Chair: Katie Razzall, Channel 4 News

People Like Us: Is British Society fairly reflected in Parliament? asks the questions:

How representative is ‘representative democracy'?
Do we need to be represented by ‘people like us'?
Given the demographic make-up of the country, why are so many MPs from a narrow section of the population?
Why are women under-represented in Parliament? What puts them off? What can be done?
Where are the ethnic minority MPs? Are we making the most of the advantages of having such a diverse population?
Should we be encouraging younger people to stand as MPs? Should we reduce the voting age or the age at which people can stand for Parliament?

For further information, contact Virginia Gibbons at the Hansard Society on

020 7438 1225 or 07812 765 552 or mediaprog@hansard.lse.ac.uk

Government must take risks to achieve successful online engagement, says new Hansard Society report - 12 August, 2008

2008-08-12T14:25:00Z

http://www.digitaldialogues.org.uk/

Digital Dialogues 3, a new report from the Hansard Society, shows that government can successfully use the internet to engage, consult and build public trust - providing it follows a few simple rules:

Government departments must be adaptable and willing to take risks
Transparency and timely feedback to participants is essential
Government departments must be clear about the purpose of the consultation and the ways that participants' contributions will be used
The right people - ministers and senior policy makers - must be involved
Evaluation is essential to ensure that departments learn and improve on the basis of experience.

Digital Dialogues 3 focuses on seven case studies (including the Office of the Prime Minister and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office) that highlight the factors that help and hinder online engagement. The report finds that many government departments remain wary of using the internet to engage because it is new and unfamiliar. While some parts of government are willing to use an experimental and adaptable approach to online engagement, others were paralysed by a sense of risk leading to disappointment, disengagement and increased public distrust.

Andy Williamson, Director of the eDemocracy programme at the Hansard Society and co-author of the report commented: ‘This report highlights how to make online engagement work by providing simple to follow guidelines for good practice engagement. I hope it will allay some of the fears and concerns and encourage more government departments to take up the online challenge.'

Justice Minister Michael Wills said: ‘Online engagement presents exciting possibilities for citizens to talk to government. Through the Digital Dialogues programme we explore these possibilities and encourage officials to try new engagement methods. I hope this report will encourage good online practice and promote greater public participation in discussions of policy.'

For further information, contact Virginia Gibbons at the Hansard Society on

020 7438 1225 or 07812 765 552 or mediaprog@hansard.lse.ac.uk

Editor's Notes

Digital Dialogues is an independent review of ways in which central government can use new technologies to promote public engagement and democratic renewal. Running since 2005 and incorporating 25 case studies it was commissioned by the Ministry of Justice and carried out by Hansard Society.
The third report is available in full at http://www.digitaldialogues.org.uk (as are the reports for phases 1 and 2). The seven case studies examined in Digital Dialogues 3 are:

Office of Children's Commissioner
Department for Work and Pensions
Office of National Statistics
Office of the Prime Minister (10 Downing Street)
Food Standards Agency
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Sustainable Development Commission

The Hansard Society is an independent, non-partisan charity that operates across the political spectrum to support the democratic process and improve the relationship between the public, elected representatives and political institutions. We carry out an intensive programme of work aimed at enhancing engagement in civic and political life. The value of our resources, action research, on- and offline projects and events is recognised by representatives of all political parties, the business community, the voluntary sector and communities across the UK and overseas. More at http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/
Established in 1997, the eDemocracy Programme was the first dedicated research unit to explore the political and social impact of information and communications technology (ICT). Today, we undertake research and evaluation and produce expert commentary and analysis. Our current programme of work explores the many faces of digital participation, engagement, political campaigning and parliamentary process.

Hansard Society fringe meetings at party conferences - 18 July, 2008

2008-07-18T11:19:00Z

The Hansard Society is once again joining forces with Channel 4 to host three fringe meetings at this year's party conferences on the topic People Like Us: Is British Society fairly reflected in Parliament?

Liberal Democrats

Monday September 15, 6. 15pm at the Bourne Hall Hotel, Priory Road, Bournemouth

Speakers: Lord Dhlokia, Chris Huhne MP, Simon Hughes MP, Lembit Opik MP, Jo Swinson MP.

Chair: Katie Razzall, Channel Four News

Labour

Monday September 22, 6pm at Jury's Inn, Great Bridgewater Street, Manchester

Confirmed Speakers: Dawn Butler MP, Peter Oborne (Channel 4 Dispatches), Michael Wills MP.

Chair: Channel 4 Journalist (TBC)

Conservatives

Tuesday September 30, 6.30pm at the Copthorne Hotel, Paradise Circus Birmingham

Speakers: Iain Dale (Total Politics), Julie Kirkbride MP, Eleanor Laing MP, Theresa May MP, Baroness Warsi.

Chair: Katie Razzall, Channel Four News

PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE TO REGISTER IN ADVANCE FOR THESE MEETINGS

Parliamentary scrutiny does make a difference to legislation - 16 July 2008

2008-07-17T09:31:00Z

New Hansard Society research challenges conventional view of Parliament's effectiveness

A new book from the Hansard Society, Law in the Making: Influence and Change in the Legislative Process, analyses the elements that come together to make an act of Parliament and concludes that the widely-held view of Parliament as a ‘rubber stamp' for government legislation bears little resemblance to reality.

The research draws upon the findings from detailed case studies and over 80 interviews with ministers, MPs, peers, government and parliamentary officials and pressure groups. Key conclusions include:

Although there is a predominant belief within government that to change a bill is a sign of weakness, parliamentary scrutiny does make a difference to the final shape of an Act
MPs and peers, whether individually or collectively, have a larger impact than is commonly recognised
External actors have a marked influence on legislation, often by working closely with parliamentarians
Reforms have enhanced parliamentary scrutiny in recent years
Nonetheless, the volume and complexity of legislation continue to inhibit Parliament's effectiveness

Law in the Making: Influence and Change in the Legislative Process also suggests some recommendations for reform, including:

More structured and straightforward government consultations
An increase in pre-legislative scrutiny
Improvements to the committee stage

Fiona Booth, Hansard Society Chief Executive, commented: ‘Our research challenges the myth that government always gets its way. Parliamentary scrutiny, both in the Commons and the Lords, does make a significant difference to legislation.'

Law in the Making: Influence and Change in the Legislative Process is published on Wednesday July 16 at an event in Parliament where Rt Hon Jack Straw MP is keynote speaker.

For further information, to obtain a PDF copy of the research, contact Virginia Gibbons at the Hansard Society on mediaprog@hansard.lse.ac.uk or 020 7438 1225 or 07812 765 552

Editors' Notes

Law in the Making: Influence and Change in the Legislative Process looks primarily at five case studies, the Export Control Act 2002, the Equality Act 2006, the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 and the Welfare Reform Act 2007, tracking them through various stages of the legislative process. It also looks at other legislation, most notably Private Members' Bills.
Law in the Making: Influence and Change in the Legislative Process (ISBN 978 0900432 39 2, price £10 plus p&p) by Alex Brazier, Susanna Kalitowski & Gemma Rosenblatt with Matt Korris, is funded by the Nuffield Foundation and is available from the Hansard Society (http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/).

2008: Women and the Vote - 30 June 2008

2008-06-30T13:04:00Z

The coalition celebrates 80 years of universal suffrage

On 2 July 2008, members of the 2008: Women and the Vote campaign (1) will celebrate the 80^th birthday of women finally winning equal voting rights as men (2).

With universal suffrage now eight decades old, the coalition partners are drawing attention to both the progress and the barriers still faced by women in British politics.

The alliance has now called on the British, Scottish and Welsh Governments, and political parties to put gender inequality back to the top of their agendas.

The 2008: Women and the Vote members commented:

Nan Sloane, Director, Centre for Women and Democracy
‘It has taken us 80 years to achieve 127 women MPs (out of 646), and the quality of our democracy is the poorer for the lack of women's active participation in it. We don't want to see another 80 years elapse before our grand-daughters get anywhere near parity of representation - we think this problem can and should be solved much more quickly than that, especially since democracies elsewhere in the world have already managed it.'

Beatrice Barleon, Women's Officer, Electoral Reform Society:
'It is now 80 years since adult men and women won the right to vote on equal terms. Yet still only 1 in 5 Members of our Parliament are women. Our neighbours in Scandinavia have managed it. Spain and even Rwanda have pulled it off (5). Now is the time for Britain to get serious on equality. This will require some more creative thinking than we have seen thus far, and must tackle the structural barriers to greater equality in representation. We have a winner takes all electoral system that experience has shown favours male incumbents. It's time for a change.'

Karen Dargo, Communications Lead, Engender
Our elected representatives should reflect the people they seek to serve. Women make up half the population and the fact that we do not have equal representation in Westminster or Holyrood is a failure of our democracy to truly represent the interests of all it's people.

Having a high number of women in the Scottish parliament 1999-2003 was shown to change the focus of the traditional political agenda and the way politics was carried out - becoming less adversarial and more consensual. Women MSPs also made an impact on the policy agenda with for example, substantial progress on action to tackle domestic violence. Equal representation is good for democracy and good for women.

Katherine Rake, Director, Fawcett Society
Eighty years ago a key milestone for women's rights was reached. However, full political equality for women is still a long way off. The low numbers of women in positions of political power raises serious questions about how open, meritocratic and relevant to the electorate the British political system is.

The call to address gender inequality is not simply a numbers game. It is about governments and political parties recognising the wider cost to democracy and society when women are not equally represented. We cannot afford to delay any longer in taking the steps required to transform the culture of UK politics to achieve a representative democracy that engages and is relevant to all.

Fiona Booth, Chief Executive, Hansard Society:
‘This anniversary is a milestone for how far women have come in the last 80 years but also highlights how much further we have to go to achieve equal political representation between the genders. I would like to call on the major political parties and the House of Commons authorities to work together to encourage more women to stand for Parliament and make the House a more female friendly place. We all need to tackle the pervasive culture of acceptance that means currently only one in five of our MPs are female. More needs to be done if we don't want to find ourselves in the same position 80 years from now. A well-established democracy like ours should be leading the international league tables for female representation, not lagging behind.'

Alexandra Runswick, Deputy Director, Unlock Democracy:
This anniversary is a wonderful opportunity to celebrate how far we have come and to commemorate the trailblazers who got us to where we are now. Without the suffragists and suffragettes this debate would still be stuck in the Victorian age. But in marking their legacy let us invoke their tireless reforming spirit at the same time.

After 80 years only 127 - 1 in 5 MPs are female and only 15 MPs come from a BAME community. One of our greatest challenges remains ensuring our elected representatives resemble the people in whose name they do their jobs. Unlock Democracy continues to campaign for a fair and participatory democracy.

ENDS

Notes to editors:

Further information about the campaign can be found on www.womenandthevote.com

On 6th February 1918, the Representation of the People Act gained royal assent, granting women over 30 and married women the right to vote. This was followed 10 years later by the Equal Franchise Act (2nd July 1928) which extended the franchise to all women over 21.

Join us at Facebook
2008: Women and the Vote http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=8634882182

Partners of the 2008: Women and the Vote campaign

Centre for Women and Democracy
www.cfwd.org.uk

Electoral Reform Society
www.electoral-reform.org.uk

Engender
www.engender.org.uk

The Fawcett Society
www.fawcett.org.uk

The Hansard Society
www.hansardsociety.org.uk

Unlock Democracy
www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk

Spain has currently 36.6 percent women in its lower House. Rwanda has 48.8 percent female Representatives.

Contacts
Contact Beatrice Barleon at the Electoral Reform Society on 020 7202 8600 or email press@womenandthevote.com

Hansard Society to give evidence to Finance Committee's Review of the Budget Process - 13 June 2008

2008-06-13T10:34:00Z

Alex Brazier, joint author of the Hansard Society's 2006 report The Fiscal Maze; Parliament, Government and Public Money will be giving evidence to the Finance Committee's review of the parliamentary budget process on Tuesday June 17.

The Fiscal Maze examined the Westminster Parliament's financial scrutiny and accountability. It investigated:

Which mechanisms could strengthen Parliament's ability to carry out financial scrutiny?
What can be done to ensure that this scrutiny work has more of an impact?

Findings and recommendations of The Fiscal Maze were influential on the Westminster Parliament's Liaison Committee Report Parliament and

Government Finance: Recreating Financial Scrutiny (published in April 2008).

The Fiscal Maze; Parliament, Government and Public Money (A. Brazier & V. Ram, July 2006) is available to download.

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

Editors' Notes

The Hansard Society is the UK's leading independent, non-partisan political research and education charity. We aim to strengthen parliamentary democracy and encourage greater public involvement in politics
The Finance Committee launched a review of the Parliament's process for scrutinising the Scottish Government's budget on March 27, 2008
Alex Brazier is Director of the Hansard Society's Parliament and Government Programme which undertakes research on political and constitutional reform
Hansard Society Scotland provides an independent and non-partisan platform in Scotland to consider issues relating to the Scottish Parliament and the implications and lessons for other parts of UK parliamentary democracy. The programme includes events and activities to bring together MSPs and staff of the Parliament, political journalists and academics, modern studies teachers, corporate affairs staff in the private and voluntary sector, and others with an interest in parliamentary democracy in Scotland.

High Court right to force disclosure of MPs’ expenses - 16 May 2008

2008-05-16T13:11:00Z

Transparency and accountability vital for Parliamentary democracy

The Hansard Society welcomes the High Court ruling that MPs should disclose their expenses to the public.

Alex Boughton, Deputy Chief Executive of the Hansard Society commented:

“At a time when trust in our elected representatives is at a very low ebb it is important that politicians are accountable to the public they serve and are seen to be bound by the same conventions as the electorate. Transparency is key to a well functioning democracy and greater openness can only help restore trust in politics and faith that our representatives are spending public money in the most effective way.

“MPs’ expenses are clearly necessary to allow our representatives to serve the electorate to a high standard but it is also important that any abuses of trust are able to be highlighted and dealt with. This ruling is important to sustain Parliamentary democracy and accountability.”

For further information, contact Beccy Allen, Hansard Society Events and Communications Coordinator on 020 7438 1210 or mediaprog@hansard.lse.ac.uk

Editors' Note
• 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

Parliamentary e-Petitions - Politics lite? - 7 May, 2008

2008-05-08T13:56:00Z

Tuesday 20 May, 6-7.15pm, House of Commons

Speakers:

Richard Allan, Government Affairs Director, Europe, Cisco Systems
Bethan Jenkins AM, Member, Petitions Committee
Rt Hon Greg Knight MP, Chair, Procedure Committee
Andy Williamson, Director, eDemocracy Programme, Hansard Society

Chair:

Pete Picton, Online Editor, The Sun

This event will debate the implications of the Procedure Committee's recent report on e-Petitions, discuss what the next steps might be, how the process might work to ensure that the public are engaged and to limit disillusionment with Parliament.

To register for this event, please click here

Parliament must do more to scrutinise government spending, says Hansard Society - 21 April, 2008

2008-04-21T09:41:00Z

Liaison Committee's recommendations on financial scrutiny a real step forward

The Hansard Society welcomes the House of Commons' Liaison Committee Report on financial scrutiny and urges Parliament to do more to scrutinise and seek accountability for government spending.

The Hansard Society's report The Fiscal Maze; Parliament, Government and Public Money (2006), made several proposals to improve Parliament's financial scrutiny functions (detailed below). The Hansard Society welcomes the Liaison Committee's recommendations which, if implemented, represent a real move in the right direction.

In particular, we endorse the Committee's recommendations that there should be better and more comprehensible financial information from government and more time for debate and inquiry on government spending plans. Proposals to give Parliament opportunities to debate or vote on individual programmes or items of expenditure would strengthen Parliament's scrutiny role. In total, the Committee's proposals signal a change in how Parliament prioritises this crucial work.

Alex Brazier, Director of the Hansard Society Parliament and Government Programme, and joint author of The Fiscal Maze, commented:

'Effective scrutiny of government spending is essential for the operation of good government. Everyone - Parliament, Government and the public - has a strong interest in making sure that there is full transparency, debate and accountability of public money. The Liaison Committee's proposals should make a difference in achieving that.'

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

Editors' Notes

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

Parliamentary committees should make greater use of the time between the pre-Budget report and the main Budget to take evidence on the government's plans and feed its recommendations back to government;
Parliament should become fully involved in the process leading up to the Comprehensive Spending Review;
A parliamentary committee should consider the entire Finance Bill in draft;
Parliament should improve its scrutiny of tax legislation and administration; options include establishing a separate Tax Administration or Taxation Committee in the Commons;
To give a higher priority to financial scrutiny, Parliament should consider piloting a Finance and Audit Sub-Committee for selected select committees.
There should be more systematic follow-up of the reports of the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee.

Download The Fiscal Maze; Parliament, Government and Public Money (A. Brazier & V. Ram, July 2006)

UK should go to war only as last resort, say under-18s - 8 April, 2008

2008-04-08T15:57:00Z

Effective diplomacy is vital

Under-18s taking part in a Hansard Society online debate at www.headsup.org.uk felt that overseas conflict must be a last resort and that diplomaticnegotiations should be exhausted before embarking upon any conflict decision.

The debate Defence D-Day...Should our forces be in Iraq? ran from February 25 to March 14, 2008 at http://www.headsup.org.uk/. Parliamentarians and decision-makers from all political parties took part in the debate.

Young people taking part concluded:

* that the impact on the families of armed forces personnel is considerable and must be taken into account. However, some students felt that the impact on families comes with the territory and should not affect decisions to go to war.

* that we should give more thought to what life will be like in post-war zones. But a large number of students took the opposite view and felt that we should not take these considerations into account when going to war.

* that violence is sometimes a necessary evil in conflict resolution. Most students argued in favour of peaceful protest but the majority acknowledged that, on the whole, non-violent acts did not achieve their aim.

Barry Griffiths, HeadsUp Manager, commented: "The students taking part in this debate acknowledged how difficult such decisions are and explored many of the contradictions inherent in deciding to go to war. The legislators taking part used the forum as a real engagement tool and the young participants appreciated this feedback and interaction."

HeadsUp is a vital resource for teaching the political literacy element of the Citizenship Curriculum and ensuring young people's voices are heard by decision-makers. In addition to the forum where school students explore and debate the political issues and ideas that matter to them, there are teachers' notes, ideas for classroom activities and background information for young people all available on the HeadsUp website.

For more information contact Virginia Gibbons, Communications Manager at the Hansard Society on 0207 438 1225 or 07812 765 552.

Editors' Notes

This forum attracted the online involvement of a range of decision-makers, these included:

Bob Ainsworth MP - Minister of State for the Armed Forces
Linda Gilroy MP - Member of the Defence Select Committee
Gerald Howarth MP - Shadow Minister for Defence
Willie Rennie MP - Shadow Minister for Defence
Nick Harvey MP - Shadow Minister for Defence

HeadsUp (http://www.headsup.org.uk/) is an innovative website where under-18s debate political issues and processes. 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:

1. Young People - If you are under 18 and want to get involved you need to email us at info@headsup.org.uk, specifying your preferred username and password.

2. Teachers - can register a whole class/school year/group by completing our online registration form: http://www.headsup.org.uk/content/register.asp?page=s7_4

All HeadsUp forums are open to view and follow the debate. Participants will still need to register or login to post comments.
The project is jointly funded by the Ministry of Justice (former DCA) and the House of Commons.
Young people who took part in this HeadsUp Forum are available for interview. However, this may take some time to arrange due to the busy academic calendar]. For more information contact Virginia Gibbons, Communications Manager at the Hansard Society on 0207 438 1225 or 07812 765 552.
At the end of the debate, a summary report detailing young people's contributions will be distributed to relevant government ministers, MPs, AMs, MEPS, MSPs and all-party groups in Parliament.
Over 4000 individuals are currently registered with HeadsUp.

Politics and the Constitution a mystery to half the public - 27 March, 2008

2008-03-27T12:42:00Z

Mixed messages on political and constitutional reform

The Hansard Society's fifth Audit of Political Engagement, published today, reveals a high level of political ignorance about politics and constitutional arrangements in Britain:

55% of the British public say they know not very much or nothing at all about politics
48% say they have never heard of, or know hardly anything at all about, the constitutional arrangements governing Britain
31% have never heard of, or know hardly anything at all about the European Union

The survey also shows mixed levels of satisfaction with these arrangements:

The highest level of satisfaction (67% very or fairly satisfied) is with keeping the voting age at 18. Only 12% of young people aged 18-24 are dissatisfied with the current voting age
The lowest level of satisfaction (46% very or fairly dissatisfied) is with Scottish MPs being able to vote on English issues in the House of Commons

There is very little consensus on priorities for reform; even the most popular choices are identified by only a quarter of the population.

The most popular areas for reform are:

How the Human Rights Act works in practice (26%)
How political parties are funded (24%)

The least popular areas for reform are:

Britain's unwritten Constitution (9%)
Changing the voting age to 16 (9%)

In addition, the Audit reveals a deterioration in political engagement since 2004:

31% of people agree with the statement ‘when people like me get involved in politics, they really can change the way that the country is run' - compared to 37% in 2004
24% of people think that the system of governing needs a great deal of improvement - compared to 18% in 2004
12% are ‘politically active' - compared to 14% in 2004

Peter Riddell, Chair of the Hansard Society, commented: ‘The Audit reveals high level of political ignorance about Britain's constitutional arrangements at a time when the government is bringing forward a programme of reform. It demonstrates the enormous challenge facing all of us who are working for greater public engagement and democratic renewal. Furthermore, one of the most striking points is how little public interest or support there is for calls for votes at 16, electoral reform or fixed-term parliaments.'

Michael Wills MP, Minister for Constitutional Reform, Ministry of Justice, commented: ‘Constitutional reform and democratic renewal are key priorities for the Government, and I welcome the Hansard Society's valuable contribution to our understanding of some of the key issues that we need to address. The findings of the latest Audit will help to shape the Governance of Britain work programme, and show how vital it is that we explore ways to reconnect people with their democracy.'

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.
An Audit of Political Engagement 5 is the fifth Audit in a series which started in 2004, produced jointly by the Hansard Society and the Electoral Commission. This year's is the first Audit produced solely by the Hansard Society, with funding from the House of Commons and the Ministry of Justice.
For more information and to download Audit 5, click here.
Further Audit findings show:

Views on Parliament, government and MPs

75% of people agree that ‘a strong Parliament is good for democracy'
74% feel that ‘government does not spend enough time listening to the views of individual members of the public'
74% believe that ‘MPs spend too much money on expenses'
72% think that ‘MPs are essential in representing the views of their constituents'
66% agree that ‘MPs need sufficient resource to properly represent and inform their constituents'

Understanding of political and constitutional issues

A clear majority have never heard of, or know hardly anything about:

The powers that government can currently exercise without Parliament's approval (75%)
Proposed reforms to the House of Lords (71%)
Whether Britain needs a new Bill of Rights (68%)
How the Human Rights Act works in practice (63%)
How the date of a general election is chosen (60%)
How political parties are funded (58%)

Knowledge of politics

44% of people say they know a ‘great deal' or ‘a fair amount' about politics
52% of men compared to 37% of women claim to know ‘a fair amount' or 'a great deal' about politics
63% of 65-74 age group compared to 16% of 18-24 age group claim to know ‘a fair amount' or 'a great deal' about politics
63% of ABs compared to 20% of DEs claim to know ‘a fair amount' or 'a great deal' about politics

Interest in politics

51% of the public say they are either ‘very' or ‘fairly' interested in politics
19% are ‘not at all' interested in politics
58% of men compared to 45% of women are ‘very' or ‘fairly' interested in politics
69% of 65-74 age group compared to 33% of 18-24 age group are ‘very' or ‘fairly' interested in politics
68% of ABs compared to 28% of DEs are ‘very' or ‘fairly' interested in politics
27% of BMEs compared to 53% of white people are ‘very' or ‘fairly' interested in politics
27% of people in Wales compared to 51% in GB as a whole are ‘very' or ‘fairly' interested in politics

Voting

53% of people say they would be ‘absolutely certain' to vote
78% of 65-74 age group compared to 23% of 18-24 age group are absolutely certain to vote
55% of women compared to 52% of men are absolutely certain to vote
66% of ABs compared to 34% of DEs are absolutely certain to vote
65% of people in Scotland compared to 41% of people in Wales are absolutely certain to vote

The information in An Audit of Political Engagement 5 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 1,073 adults aged 18+ in Great Britain. Interviewing took place face-to-face, in respondents' homes, between 29 November and 7 December 2007. The data has been weighted to the national population profile.

Nine Lords a-blogging - 14 March, 2008

2008-03-14T16:14:00Z

Nine Lords a-blogging

Unique collaborative blog launched to engage with public

http://www.lordsoftheblog.net/

Lords of the Blog [http://www.lordsoftheblog.net/] is a new collaborative online blog, launched and written by Members of the House of Lords to increase public engagement with the work of the Upper House and its Members.

Nine Peers have come together from across the House to make short regular entries providing an insight into the business of the House of Lords and to talk about their own activities in and around the Chamber. Members will write and upload material and moderate user comments themselves.

Lords of the Blog [http://www.lordsoftheblog.net/] will be made available to the public for their comments and contributions from Monday 17 March, 2008.

Find out why Lord Tyler decries the myth of a ‘golden age' of political reporting; Baroness D'Souza's definition of a crossbencher and what Lord Norton has to say about Iain Dale's request for nominations for the most fanciable political journalists.

For the next six months the Hansard Society will evaluate the pilot, capturing data about the audience of the blog in order to assess its reach and value.

Barry Griffiths, Lords of the Blog Manager, at the Hansard Society commented:

"This is a fascinating pilot to be involved in as the House of Lords is packed full of expertise on a whole range of topical subjects. It's great to see the peers involved become more comfortable using the blog as a communication tool to raise awareness and engage with the public on issues relating to the role and business of the House of Lords."

Editors' Notes

Contributing Members include:

Lord Soley
Lord Norton
Lord Tyler
Lord Lipsey
Lord Dholakia
Baroness D'Souza
Lord Teverson
Baroness Young of Hornsey
Baroness Murphy

The pilot is funded by the House of Lords and will run for six months initially.
The blog has been running on a development site since January to help get the contributing members up to speed. All the posts published during this test period will be available to read.
For more information about this pilot please contact Virginia Gibbons, Communications Manager at the Hansard Society on 0207 438 1225 or 07812 765 552.

No Overall Control: good news or bad? - 11 March, 2008

2008-03-10T10:20:00Z

No Overall Control - good news or bad?

An essential handbook for understanding the effects of a hung parliament

No Overall Control? The impact of a 'hung parliament' on British politics is a timely new publication from the Hansard Society highlighting the challenges facing Parliament, the political parties, individual MPs and the public in the event of a hung parliament at the next election.

No Overall Control? tackles essential questions, including:

Why is a hung parliament more likely today?
How would Parliament function?
Would the role of MPs change?
Would a hung parliament be a catalyst for electoral reform?
Would a hung parliament strengthen Parliament or would it make government indecisive and unstable?
Would a hung parliament improve the relationship between politics and the public?
What lessons can be learned from parliaments and assemblies outside Westminster?

No Overall Control? is an edited collection of essays from distinguished commentators, academics and parliamentarians including Vernon Bogdanor, David Butler, Phil Cowley, Simon Hughes MP, Simon Jenkins, Helen Margetts, Austin Mitchell MP, Rosanne Palmer and Philip Norton. The contributors present a range of divergent views on the advantages and disadvantages of a hung parliament.

Peter Riddell, Chair of the Hansard Society, commented: ‘It is over 30 years since a general election did not give one party a clear working majority in the Commons, and most current MPs and political journalists have no experience of either how a hung parliament might operate in practice or what the consequences would be for the relationship between politics, the parties, and the public No Overall Control? provides an indispensable guide to the issues that we will all be talking about if the next general election leads to a hung parliament.'

No Overall Control? The impact of a ‘hung' parliament on British politics is launched on Tuesday 11 March at 11am at Westminster. Speakers at the launch are:
Professor Vernon Bogdanor, University of Oxford, Alex Brazier, Hansard Society, Professor Philip Cowley, University of Nottingham, Dr Rosanne Palmer, Cardiff University. Chair: Fiona Booth, Hansard Society

To attend the launch, register at www.hansardsociety.org.uk/events

For further press information, contact Virginia Gibbons at the Hansard Society on 020 7438 1225 or 07812 765 552 or email mediaprog@hansard.lse.ac.uk

Editors' Notes

The Hansard Society is the UK's leading non-partisan political research and education organisation which exists to strengthen parliamentary democracy and encourage greater public involvement in politics.
No Overall Control? The impact of a ‘hung parliament' on British politics edited by Alex Brazier and Susanna Kalitowski (ISBN 978 0900432 29 3) costs £10 and is available from Hansard Society, 40-43 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JA or http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/

Is recycling a waste of time? - 25 Feb, 2008

2008-02-25T17:39:00Z

Is recycling a waste of time? How can we reduce the amount of waste we produce?

A House of Lords Committee wants to hear your views

New Hansard Society competition for 11 to 18 year-olds sponsored by the Lord Speaker

If you're under 18 and feel strongly about how we can reduce waste, this is your chance to make your voice heard in Parliament - and win up to £100 for your team. A House of Lords committee has been examining all aspects of waste reduction and is joining forces with the Hansard Society to encourage young people to enter a new competition to present their views on waste and recycling - by video, audio or written submissions. Following the success of last year's essay competition, What a Waste! is being sponsored by the Lord Speaker, Baroness Hayman, and supported by Parliament's Education Service.

Who can enter?

There are three age categories:

11-14 (Key Stage 3)
14-16 (Key State 4)
16-18 (Key Stage 5)

What are the prizes?

The winning entrants will:

Visit the House of Lords (accompanied by their teacher) to make a presentation to members of the Science and Technology Committee and receive feedback.
Get a tour of Parliament
Receive a cheque for £250 for their school or organisation
All entrants will receive a certificate signed by the Lord Speaker and the Committee's Chair, Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan.

What is the closing date?

Competition entries must be submitted to The Hansard Society by 28 April 2008

Where do I find further information?

Entry details, competition rules, background information and lesson plans for teachers outlining the work of the House of Lords and its committees can be found at: http://www.parliament.uk/holcompetition/

Baroness Hayman, the Lord Speaker, said: "After the success of last year's competition we have decided to be even more ambitious in 2008 and run a competition that will introduce the entrants directly to the workings of Parliamentary Select Committees. Clearly waste reduction is an issue close to young people's hearts and I know the Committee are very keen to hear their views on the subject. I would encourage all schools to get involved and contribute to this exciting competition.

Fiona Booth, Chief Executive of the Hansard Society, said: ‘We are delighted to host this competition with the House of Lords. As the consumers of tomorrow, it's particularly important to hear from young people on the subject of how we can reduce waste in our society. In addition, the young people get to learn more about how the House of Lords operates and what role its committees play in our parliamentary democracy.'

For further information, contact

Virginia Gibbons at the Hansard Society on 020 7438 1225 or 07812 765 552

Editors' Notes

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 competition is sponsored by Baroness Hayman, The Lord Speaker who funds the programme through her Woolsack Fund, a charitable trust she established primarily to encourage greater understanding amongst young people of the role of Parliament and the House of Lords.
Parliament's Education Service is supporting the competition. The Education Service works with schools and Members of both Houses of Parliament to support young people in developing their understanding of parliament and democracy.
The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee appointed a sub-committee (chaired by Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan) to look at sustainable approaches to waste reduction.
Entries for the competition will be judged by the Hansard Society's Citizenship Education Programme. Their shortlist will then be judged by a distinguished panel of experts including the Chief Executive of the Hansard Society, the Chair of the Lords Science and Technology Committee Sub Committee on Waste Management (Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan), the Lord Speaker and Committee staff.

Should our forces still be in Iraq? - 18 Feb, 2008

2008-02-18T12:21:00Z

Should our forces still be in Iraq?

Young people debate defence issues with legislators

Follow the online debate at

http://www.headsup.org.uk/

Under-18s are tackling a variety of defence issues in a secure and structured online debate, organised by the Hansard Society. Defence d-day...Should our forces be in Iraq? will run from February 25 to March 14, 2008 at http://www.headsup.org.uk/

As well as giving their views on Iraq, the young people taking part in the debate will consider other key questions:

Should we intervene in overseas conflicts and what are the implications of these decisions?
What is the impact on the families of those serving in the armed forces? Have you (or your friends) got any relatives serving in the armed forces? Do your grandparents remember WW2?
Do we stop and think about life in post-war zones such as Iraq, Afghanistan or the Balkans? Was it worthwhile?
Has violent or non-violent conflict resolution been more successful when looking at recent conflicts?

Legislators and experts involved in this forum include:

Bob Ainsworth MP - Minister of State for the Armed Forces
Gerald Howarth MP - Shadow Defence Minister
Linda Gilroy MP - Member of the Defence Select Committee
Willie Rennie MP - Shadow Minister for Defence
Nick Harvey MP - Shadow Defence Minister

Barry Griffiths, HeadsUp Manager, commented: "Although Iraq and Afghanistan attract most headlines, we want the young people taking part in this debate to consider wider aspects of war and consider the effect of conflict on civilians as well as the armed forces and their families."

Editors' Notes

HeadsUp (http://www.headsup.org.uk/) is an innovative website where under-18s debate political issues and processes. 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:

1. Young People - If you are under 18 and want to get in on the action you need to complete the Student Sign Up Form.

2. Teachers/youth workers/youth group - can register a whole class/school year/group by completing our Teachers Registration Form.

All HeadsUp forums are open to view and follow the debate. Participants will still need to register or login to post comments.
The project is jointly funded by the Ministry of Justice (former DCA) and the House of Commons.
Young people taking part in this HeadsUp Forum are available for interview. However, this may take some time to arrange due to the busy academic calendar]. For more information contact Virginia Gibbons, Communications Manager at the Hansard Society on 0207 438 1225 or 07812 765 552.
At the end of the debate, a summary report detailing young people's contributions will be distributed to relevant government ministers, MPs, AMs, MEPS, MSPs and selected all-party groups in Parliament.
4000 individuals are currently registered with HeadsUp.