This major 2011 research report investigated the continuing barriers to engagement with Parliament particularly among hard-to-reach groups, Parliament’s recent engagement initiatives notwithstanding. It presented wide-ranging strategic and practical proposals for further steps to improve the inclusivity and effectiveness of Parliament’s public engagement.
Parliament has done a great deal to improve its reach and accessibility through web, public education and outreach activities. However, those who are engaged with Parliament remain a small group, not representative of society as a whole, and likely to be older, more highly educated, in a higher socio-economic group, and male. There remains a large group of citizens who Parliament does not talk to, and who are not aware of how Parliament works and how it relates to their daily lives.
This major report presented the result of research which set out to identify which groups remain disengaged from or poorly served by Parliament, and why; key processes and practical points of engagement within and beyond Parliament where greater involvement of these groups could occur; and the current barriers to participation by these groups and the strategic measures necessary to help overcome them.
The research included the use of qualitative semi-structured focus groups held in five locations, and a quantitative survey based on a random sample of 2,005 adults, in both cases across Great Britain. The results of this research are presented in Part 1 of the report.
The rest of the report developed a framework for parliamentary engagement together with supporting practical recommendations that could be used to take further existing parliamentary initiatives, in order to enhance public inclusion by increasing the opportunities available to disengaged and - in particular - ‘hard-to-reach’ groups, such that they become more aware of and involved in the life and activities of Parliament.
The report showed that engaging more effectively with hard-to-reach groups will not be achieved through a single ‘big bang’ change, or in the short term, or by Parliament alone. Rather, the process requires a number of smaller, cumulative, changes over a longer timeframe, and often relying on the work of other bodies and groups.
The recommendations focused on a combination of formal and informal education, combined with not only traditional but also new, primarily localised, forms of participation - such as e-petitions, local meetings and citizen juries. The report drew particular attention to the role of social networks as important factors for awareness building and knowledge transfer. The report also identified it as vital for Parliament to provide information in a variety of different formats, for different audiences, through different ‘touch points’ with which people come into contact in their day-to-day lives. With this in mind, the report provided examples of placing relevant, easy-to-understand information about Parliament in popular newspapers and magazines; the use of accessible, engaging online videos; and the potential for daytime television and soap operas to be used to convey information and build awareness about Parliament.
Table of contents
- Executive Summary
- Part 1 - Analysis and Discussion
- Focus Groups
- Part 2 - Findings
- Framework for Engagement
- Part 3 - Background
- Parliament and Public Engagement
- Touch Points
Enjoy reading this? Please consider sharing it
The end of the transition period is likely to expose even more fully the scope of the policy-making that the government can carry out via Statutory Instruments, as it uses its new powers to develop post-Brexit law. However, there are few signs yet of a wish to reform delegated legislation scrutiny, on the part of government or the necessary coalition of MPs.
Parliament’s role around the end of the Brexit transition and conclusion of the EU future relationship treaty is a constitutional failure to properly scrutinise the executive and the law. As the UK moves to do things differently after 1 January, MPs must do more to ensure they can better discharge their responsibilities regarding the making of UK treaties.
The EU (Future Relationship) Bill is to be considered by both Houses in just one sitting day. How unusual is such an expedited timetable and how much time will parliamentarians really have to look at the Bill? How will MPs participate in proceedings given Covid-19 restrictions? And how will proceedings, particularly the amendment process, work on the day?
The debate about remote participation in House of Commons proceedings raises critical questions about what constitutes a ‘good parliamentarian’, what ‘fair’ participation looks like, and who gets to decide. As things stand, the exclusion from much parliamentary business of pregnant women, among others, undermines equality of political representation.
The Coronavirus pandemic has added to the questions surrounding the nature of the Parliament that should emerge from the Palace of Westminster Restoration and Renewal programme. But, with concerns over the programme’s governance and public engagement rising, the report arising from the current review of the programme will not now be published this year.
Disputed parliamentary election results – often taking months to resolve – were a frequent feature of English political culture before the reforms of the 19th century. But how could defeated candidates protest the result of an election, and how were such disputes resolved?