The Challenge for Parliament: Making Government Accountable. The Report of the Hansard Society Commission on Parliamentary Scrutiny

Publications / Reports

The Challenge for Parliament: Making Government Accountable. The Report of the Hansard Society Commission on Parliamentary Scrutiny

1 May 2001

This is the influential 2001 report of the Hansard Society Commission on Parliamentary Scrutiny, chaired by former Leader of the House Lord Newton of Braintree. It urged a step-change in the rigour and importance afforded Parliament's scrutiny work, aimed at putting Parliament at the apex of the system which holds government to account.

Commission work

The Hansard Society Commission on Parliamentary Scrutiny was established in September 1999 with an 18-month brief to examine "how Parliament carries out its role as scrutineer of the words and actions of the executive and assess whether the structure and processes are in need of change". The Commission examined the ways in which the two Houses of Parliament pursue accountability, as well as the many non-parliamentary ways by which government is scrutinised, such as through the courts, judicial inquiries, regulators and inspectors.

The Commission was funded by the Nuffield Foundation. It was chaired by the Rt Hon Lord Newton of Braintree, and its members were:

Zeinab Badawi
Rt Hon Alan Beith MP
Professor Alice Brown
Lord Burns GCB
Anna Coote
Professor Robert Hazell (vice-chair)
Robert Jackson MP
Kate Jenkins
Margaret Moran MP
Greg Power (secretary)
Steve Richards
Peter Riddell (vice-chair)
Dr Ann Robinson
Jill Rutter
Professor Colin Seymour-Ure
Lord Sawyer

Clerk to the Commission was Alex Brazier, who drafted its report along with Greg Power.

The Commission published a consultation paper which was distributed to every MP and peer plus around 800 individuals and organisations. The Commission took written evidence and held a series of private meetings and seminars, including with the-then Leader of the House of Commons, Rt Hon Margaret Beckett MP; the-then shadow Leader of the House, Rt Hon Sir George Young MP; the-then Liberal Democrat spokesperson on constitutional affairs, Robert Maclennan MP; ministers and former ministers; the Liaison Committee and select committee members; whips and backbench MPs; the Clerks of both Houses; senior civil servants; and experts on European matters. It also visited the Scottish Parliament and received help and advice from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-Parliamentary Union, as well as from several clerks of the Westminster Parliament.

During summer 2000, the Commission also conducted a survey of MPs' attitudes to Parliament, supported by the-then Speaker, Rt Hon Betty Boothroyd MP. Responses were received from 179 MPs.

The Commission met at least every two months. It also formed three sub-groups which met once a month. These covered the role of the chamber, the role of select committees, and financial accountability, and had some of their interim conclusions reflected in three discussion papers published during the Commission's lifetime.

Findings and recommendations

In its report, published at the start of the 2001 Parliament, the Commission found that "Parliament has been left behind by far-reaching changes to the constitution, government and society in the past two decades", with the central question of Westminster's scrutiny of the executive left unaddressed, and serious gaps and weaknesses evident in the working of accountability. The Commission declared that "Parliament must adapt quickly if it to retain its centrality to British politics and be effective in holding government to account".

The Commission laid out seven principles that should guide reform of accountability as exercised through Parliament. These principles were supplemented by detailed recommendations. The seven principles were:

Parliament at the apex. The central theme of the report was that Parliament should be at the apex of a system of accountability also constituted by independent regulators, commissions and inspectors.
Parliament must develop a culture of scrutiny: changes in the attitudes and behaviour of politicians were as important as changes in the working of Parliament.
Committees should play a more influential role within Parliament. In particular, the committees' role "needs to be more closely defined, so that each has a set of core responsibilities and a set of certain pre-agreed and public goals". Also, "chairing a select committee needs to be recognised as a political position comparable to being a minister ... [and] the committees should be given the staffing and resources needed to oversee the areas for which they are responsible".
The chamber should remain central to accountability. As the "public face of the House of Commons and therefore the main means of informing and persuading the wider electorate ... the chamber should be more responsive to issues of public concern".
Financial scrutiny should be central to accountability. Financial scrutiny "underpins all other forms of accountability" and thus "should be central to the work of the Commons".
The House of Lords should complement the Commons, with the unelected chamber contributing especially on issues which cross departmental boundaries, and on ethical, constitutional and social issues for which the Commons has insufficient time.
Parliament must communicate more effectively with the public, through reforms to sitting hours, procedures, the structure of staff support and the use of technology.

Introduction
Executive summary
The changing role of Parliament: New forms of accountability
Building a culture of scrutiny in th eCommons
Reforming the select committees
Restoring the centrality of the Commons chamber
Parliament and financial scrutiny
Scrutiny, accountability and the second chamber
Two-way communication: Parliament and the outside world
Parliament at the apex
Conclusions and recommendations
Appendices
- Appendix 1 - The theory and practice of parliamentary accountability
- Appendix 2 - Written evidence submitted to the Commission
- Appendix 3 - Meetings of the Commission
- Appendix 4 - Survey of MPs: The effectiveness of Parliament, parliamentary roles and workloads
- Appendix 5 - Survey of the subject-matter of House of Commons Select Committee Reports; Sessions 1997-98 and 1998-99
- Appendix 6 - Financial Procedures
Bibliography
Index

Latest / Highlights

Blog / Assisted dying bill: What will happen at Second Reading on Friday 19 September?

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill - the Bill to legalise assisted dying - has passed through the House of Commons and now reached the House of Lords. A rare two-day Second Reading debate began on Friday 12 September and is due to resume on Friday 19 September. In this blog, we explain what happened during the first day of debate and what to expect when it resumes. We outline each of the key motions and amendments on which the House will vote, and how these votes may shape the character of later stages.

News / Parliament Matters Bulletin: What’s coming up in Parliament this week? 15-19 September 2025

Peers will vote on the assisted dying bill’s Second Reading, while MPs will question the new Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood MP and Lord Chancellor David Lammy MP. The Commons will debate the Employment Rights, English Devolution and Community Empowerment, and Sentencing Bills, as Peers examine the Planning and Infrastructure and Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bills. Committees will hear evidence on arms exports to Israel and the Online Safety Act. MPs will also debate an e-petition on SEND support and consider a Ten Minute Rule Bill on child poverty strategy, including removing the two-child limit for Universal Credit. The youngest minister in nearly two centuries will make his first appearance before a Select Committee. ❓ We value your thoughts. Please click here to let us know what you think of the Parliament Matters Bulletin in our reader survey.

News / Assisted dying bill - special series #16: The Bill makes its debut in the House of Lords - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 106

As Peers embark on a marathon two-day Second Reading debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – the measure that would legalise assisted dying in England and Wales – we are joined by former Clerk of the Parliaments, Sir David Beamish, to decode the drama. With more than two hundred members of the House of Lords lining up to speak, Sir David explains why, despite the intensity of the arguments, no one expects the Bill to be rejected at this stage. Instead, the real fight will come later, after Peers get into the clause-by-clause detail and see what defects can be remedied. Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

Briefings / The assisted dying bill: A guide to the legislative process in the House of Lords

Having passed through the House of Commons, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill - the Bill to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales - must now go through its legislative stages in the House of Lords. This guide explains the special procedures for legislation in the House of Lords, and for Private Members’ Bills in particular. It answers some frequently asked questions, including how Peers might block the Bill, and gives an explanation of each stage of the process, from Second to Third Reading.

Briefings / Delegated powers in the assisted dying bill: Issues for the attention of the House of Lords

Like many pieces of primary legislation, the assisted dying bill leaves much of the practical and policy detail to be worked out later by Ministers through regulations. After the Bill’s Second Reading in the House of Commons, we published a briefing which drew attention to two of its delegated powers. But since then the Bill has been heavily amended, prompting new questions: how have its delegated powers evolved, do these changes strengthen or weaken the approach to the delegation of ministerial power, and are further amendments needed and if so, why?