This 2006 collection of essays and commentaries is a follow-up to Members Only? Parliament in the Public Eye, the May 2005 report of the Hansard Society Commission on the Communication of Parliamentary Democracy, chaired by David Puttnam. The 2006 report reviewed developments since publication of the original report and identified what remained to be done.
The follow-up report aimed to promote discussion of the Commission’s report and highlight the need to continue to pursue its recommendations.
David Puttnam - the Chair of the original Commission - introduced the collection, highlighting the changes that had taken place since publication of the Commission’s report, and what he would like to see happen next.
Clare Ettinghausen considered the Commission’s findings in relation to the administration of Parliament, and the way in which this impacts on communications. Patricia Hodgson discussed the ways in which a co-ordinated strategy would improve parliamentary communication, while Virginia Gibbons looked at the role of the media. Jackie Ashley contributed her own overview of changes since the Commission reported.
Each of these essays is followed by a comment from a leading practitioner with intimate knowledge of the issues involved: Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, Leader of the House of Commons; Rt Hon Theresa May MP, Shadow Leader of the House of Commons; John Pullinger, House of Commons Librarian; and Greg Hurst, political correspondent of The Times and Honorary Secretary of the Parliamentary Press Gallery.
At the end of the collection, an audit analysed progress on each of the Commission’s 39 recommendations.
Banner image: ‘Bokeh Parliament’, by Luiz Filipe Carneiro Machado.
Enjoy reading this? Please consider sharing it
The recent rearrangement of responsibilities for the government’s handling of EU-related affairs raises questions about future parliamentary scrutiny of these issues. In some respects pre-2016 institutional arrangements are restored, but the post-Brexit landscape presents new scrutiny challenges which thus far MPs have not confronted.
What information and evidence does Parliament need to enable it to oversee government law-making? Is Parliament currently provided with sufficient information and, if not, how can this be improved?
A recent House of Lords debate on a ‘made negative’ Statutory Instrument highlights Peers’ greater appetite and ability to secure such debates compared to MPs. Data on debate lengths suggests parliamentarians are more likely to give more meaningful scrutiny to SIs they wish to debate than those on which they are obliged to spend time by current procedures.
What Covid Regulations will the House of Commons debate on 14 December, and how? Amid backbench unrest, the occasion will be shaped by the interplay between delegated legislation scrutiny, parliamentary procedures, and raw politics. The outcome could have profound consequences for both public health policy and the Prime Minister’s position.
Statutory Instruments (SIs) have been a key tool in the government’s response to shortages of heavy goods vehicle (HGV) drivers. These SIs showcase the usefulness of this type of law-making but also highlight again some of the longstanding problems with its parliamentary scrutiny.
Delegated legislation may not be glamorous but it is essential to how our democracy works. Time to treat it accordingly.