Hansard Society

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

admin — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:55:00 GMT

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

Recess negative: it's not perfect, but the portrayal of parliament as a government puppet bears little resemblance to reality

admin — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:17:00 GMT

An article by Susanna Kalitowski, Research Fellow on the Hansard Society's Parliament & Government Programme, originally published on Comment is Free

The 11-week parliamentary recess is now under way, amid the familiar annual charges of laziness and waste. Some MPs argue that the break provides valuable time to catch up on important constituency work. Others, like John Redwood, disagree. Most political insiders seem to think it is too long.

But do we really care whether MPs are sitting at Westminster anyhow? Many believe the mother of parliaments no longer makes much of an impact and that it simply serves to rubber-stamp the government's proposals. Even Gordon Brown waded into the debate over parliament's effectiveness in a recent interview in which he derided the institution for spending the majority of its time debating "minor clauses of minor sections of minor bills" instead of "the big issues of our time" such as climate change and terrorism.

Parliament does spend a fair amount of time examining the PM's legislation - roughly a third of overall Commons' sitting time and more than half of time in the Lords - including bills this session on climate change and terrorism. This is hardly a surprise, as parliament's primary and best-known function is to make laws that affect all of us on a daily basis, regardless of whether they are "major" or "minor". And although the overwhelming majority of legislation is drawn up by the government, it is parliament alone that has the power to pass, amend and even repeal them.

Moreover, the portrayal of parliament as puppet bears little resemblance to reality. If nothing changed between the day that a bill left a government department and the day the Queen gave her assent, then that would indeed be an indictment of parliament and the legislative process. Thankfully, this is far from the case. Parliamentary scrutiny does make a significant difference to the content of legislation. In fact, thanks to the increase over the past decade in public consultation, the publication of draft bills and backbench rebellions - and a second chamber in which no single party enjoys a majority - more changes are made to bills now than in the past. Sometimes this change is dramatic - as in the case of the legislative and regulatory reform bill, which the government was forced to re-write in order to get it through the Commons. Usually, however, it is in small but significant ways. For example, during parliament's scrutiny of the immigration, asylum and nationality bill, the government was pressured to preserve appeal rights for visitors to the UK who seek to vary the terms of their visas.

Nonetheless, the law-making process remains far from perfect and lack of time remains a central part of the problem. This, coupled with the sheer volume of legislation - and its increasing complexity - makes it difficult for parliament to carry out one of its key tasks to its fullest potential.

Parliamentary time is precious. Therefore a shorter recess or a return to the ill-fated September sittings might be welcome. At the very least, parliament and government should explore further ways of using the existing parliamentary time more efficiently.

Law in the Making: Influence and Change in the Legislative Process by Alex Brazier, Susanna Kalitowski and Gemma Rosenblatt, with Matt Korris, was recently published by the Hansard Society

This article was originally published on Comment is Free on 17 August 2008.

Political Studies Association/Hansard Society Annual Lecture

admin — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:26:00 GMT

The 2008 lecture will be given by

Rt Hon Clare Short MP

Making Politics Fit For Purpose

Wednesday October 29

6.30pm, Westminster

This lecture is open to all

Government must take risks to achieve successful online engagement, says new Hansard Society report

admin — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:10:00 GMT

Digital Dialogues Third Phase Report: August 2007 - August 2008

An independent review into the use of online technologies to enhance engagement between central government and the public.

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.

For more information, click here

Digital Dialogues Third Phase Report: August 2007 - August 2008

admin — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 10:43:00 GMT

Digital Dialogues Third Phase Report: August 2007 - August 2008 by Laura Miller and Andy Williamson

Free download Full report (PDF 3MB)

Free download Executive Summary

Digital Dialogues is an independent review into the use of online technologies to enhance engagement between central government and the public.

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.

Digital Dialogues was commissioned by the Ministry of Justice.

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

admin — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 14:25:00 GMT

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

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.

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.

Not the Obama Girl!

admin — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:31:00 GMT

The No. 10 website’s latest initiative – Number10TV - has been criticised by the press before it has even been re-launched. The basic premise is that it is a publicity stunt – designed to shore up Gordon Brown’s appeal rather than to engage citizens in any meaningful way.

Newsnight carried the story in its programme last night (I was a talking head – it can be downloaded via the previous link), suggesting that even when British politicians use new technologies, they don’t do as well as their American counterparts.

Is this true? Our ongoing research suggests not. While candidates in the US Presidential elections may have launched sophisticated online campaigns, there is little evidence that they will engage the public after the elections. They may seem more vibrant than their UK counterparts, but vast sums are spent (and raised) to make them so! And the media coverage of their online campaigns is – in the main – exceedingly positive.

This isn't the case when British politicians use new technologies to connect with their constituents. These go unnoticed by the media but in our evaluations of governmental and Parliamentary forms of online engagement, we note that the public responds well to initiatives taken by MPs, ministers and government officials so long as politicians do more than broadcast themselves online.

A clear picture emerges from our research; the public wants to engage with politicians; particularly, they want to participate in initiatives that tie in with policy processes and which deliver clear outcomes. Citizens – egged on by the media - may be momentarily seduced by publicity stunts, and may enjoy viral campaigns and political jokes but the future of online politics looks bleak unless some real progress is made in developing deliberative forms of engagement which ensure that their voice is heard and responded to in meaningful ways.

Laura Miller, Senior Researcher, eDemocracy.

l [dot] miller [at] hansard [dot] lse [dot] ac [dot] uk

Political blogging - just for the Opposition?

admin — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:36:00 GMT

A recent article in the Guardian reported that New Statesman co-owner Mike Danson has invested in LabourHome. His aim is to mobilise grass roots activism on the left which, until now, has not managed to gain the kind of online traction that popular rightwing/anti-establishment blogs such as Iain Dale, ConservativeHome and Guido Fawkes have achieved. Is this a new media specific problem? Are the left failing to get to grips with online technology? Is this about the Labour grassroots feeling that the party leadership aren’t listening so there is little point in blogging, or is it a more general lack of appetite for political campaigning amongst Labour activitists?

After three terms of a Labour government are leftwing bloggers suffering from ideological fatigue – is there anything more to say? If the Labour grassroots aren’t talking to themselves how can they begin to provide a coherent and united set of policies to present to the electorate in future elections?

Perhaps, the state of leftwing blogging is more to do with the current political context. Grassroots activity and the ability to listen to your core membership would seem to be much more crucial when a party is at a reforming and storming stage. At present, the Conservatives are a hive of activity, putting together policies with which to fight the next election. They sense their best chance of victory in a decade and it’s always easier to define what you are against than what you are for. Responding to, or being seen to sympathise with, public opinion is also easier in opposition as it doesn’t often require much more than words.

It will certainly be interesting to see what happens with rightwing blogs if there is a change of government at the next election. If this happens, will Labour activists step up their game, finally having something to rail against?

It would appear to be a lot easier to run a successful blog in opposition than when your party is in government. It is harder still when your party is an unpopular government. Talking up those in power doesn’t seem to be a successful recipe to attract readers, viewers or listeners.

If the blog is a tool most successfully used in opposition then it will be interesting to see what impact the injection of new capital, resources and energy into LabourHome has on its popularity and reach. It would appear to have an up-hill battle on its hands.

Beccy Allen, Researcher, eDemocracy Programme

Your Parliament: Make it work for you

admin — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:29:00 GMT

Your Parliament explains the basics of the British political system: the work of Parliament, the role of MPs and peers, and how laws are made. It also describes how to get involved: through voting, contacting your MP or visiting the Houses of Parliament.

The Your Parliament pamphlet provides clear, straightforward explanations on questions such as:

What is Parliament? How is the UK run?
Who are MPs and peers? What do they do?
What are political parties?
How do I vote?
How are new laws made?
What goes on in Parliament?
Why should I get involved?
How can I get involved or find out more?

Your Parliament is part of the Hansard Society's ongoing work to inform and educate the public on the workings of Parliament and the political system. It is revised and updated from the 2004 version, and is published jointly with the Houses of Parliament.

To download a free copy of Your Parliament, click here.

Your Parliament: make it work for you

admin — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:22:00 GMT

The Your Parliament pamphlet provides clear, straightforward explanations on questions such as:

What is Parliament? How is the UK run?
Who are MPs and peers? What do they do?
What are political parties?
How do I vote?
How are new laws made?
What goes on in Parliament?
Why should I get involved?
How can I get involved or find out more?

To download a free copy of Your Parliament, click here.

e-Petitions planned for the House of Commons

admin — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:12:00 GMT

The Leader of the House of Commons, Rt Hon Harriet Harman MP has announced plans to develop a Parliamentary e-Petitions system. The popularity of the 10 Downing Street e-Petitions site highlights a public appetite for political participation, despite the fact that disengagement is increasingly becoming the norm. The Hansard Society has long argued that public disconnection stems from government's failure to develop suitable processes for participation.

To ensure that any attempts to engage the public via e-Petitions are effective, the Hansard Society has submitted evidence to the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons. The Committee's recommendations to government reflect our advice, proposing that MPs are involved from the outset in guiding the e-Petitions through Parliament and that signatories are informed of the progress of e-Petitions. It also suggests that ministers are called on to respond in most instances - and that the proposals contained within them should be forwarded to Select Committees for further deliberation, or debated within Westminster Hall.

The Hansard Society welcomes the government's response to the Procedure Committee's recommendations, viewing it as part of a gathering momentum towards engendering public participation - in many cases using online methods to increase access. The government's latest discussion paper on governance asks for responses to the question of how petitions and other participative mechanisms can enhance democratic engagement. We will continue to monitor the development of an e-Petitions system, alongside other forms of engagment and will advise Parliament and government as appropriate.

For more information please contact Laura Miller, Senior Researcher l[dot]miller[at]hansard[dot]lse[dot]ac[dot]uk

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

admin — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:19:00 GMT

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

Hansard Society at Party Conferences

admin — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 10:44:00 GMT

The Hansard Society is holding joint fringe meetings with Channel 4 at this year's party conferences asking the question:

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

* 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?

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

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

Rt Hon Jack Straw MP addresses Hansard Society meeting on legislative process

admin — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:57:00 GMT

A new Hansard Society book Law in the Making: Influence and Change in the Legislative Process was launched at a conference in Parliament where Rt Hon Jack Straw MP gave the keynote speech.

The conference was opened by Hansard Society Chief Executive Fiona Booth. Peter Riddell, Chair of the Hansard Society, explained that scrutinising the work of Parliament was one of the Hansard Society's core activities. Since the publication of the Rippon Commission report 15 years ago, Parliament had seen many changes. It was easy to be pessimistic about the role of Parliament, but the new research in Law in the Making pointed out where MPs and peers can and do make a difference to legislation as it passes though Parliament. The Hansard Society will be following up this report with further examination and research.

Alex Brazier, Director of the Hansard Society's Parliament and Government programme and joint author of the report, outlined the main themes of the publication:

The impact of Parliament and parliamentarians on the legislative process
The effectiveness of the parliamentary process
The relationship between the two Houses of Parliament
The role of external bodies and the difference they can make
The role of the media which can have some impact but covers very little of the work of Parliament.

Alex made two further points about how the legislative process works:

There are a number of factors which inhibit scrutiny - limitations on parliamentarians' time and resources, lack of time in the legislative process, the increasing volume and complexity of legislation and the massive amount of detail contained in delegated legislation.

The legislative process contains two different cultures - the features of a political battle combined with the techniques of dispassionate scrutiny. The adversarial system and ethos at Westminster still dominate with a predominant belief within government that to change a bill is a sign of weakness. At the same time, mechanisms for less partisan scrutiny have been introduced (e.g. an increase in pre-legislative scrutiny and the introduction of public bill committees).

Alex concluded by suggesting some recommendations for reform, including: more structured and straightforward government consultations, an increase in pre-legislative scrutiny and improvements to the committee stage.

Keynote Speech
The keynote speech was given by Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice. He opened by expressing his appreciation of the contribution made by the Hansard Society to the work of Parliament and described the Law in the Making research publication as ‘forensic, balanced and informative'. He reflected on the many bills the Government had taken through Parliament and judged that the most successful pieces of legislation were the ones ‘where we thought about things and took our time'. He outlined two kinds of law which are not always successful - those which are done too swiftly and those which go though on consensus with all-party agreement - he gave the example of the Children's Act.

Turning to the publication, he commented that it contradicts the prevailing theory that Parliament is now dead. It is a myth that in the 1950s, Parliament was much more assertive and demanding of ministers and government. In fact, Parliament has become more rebellious and assertive over the years and, in his judgement, ‘long may that continue'. He concluded by saying that he believed that not a single bill that he'd taken through the House hadn't been improved by scrutiny and the parliamentary process.

Panel 1 - External Influences on the Legislative Process
This panel featured four speakers discussing the effect of external lobbyists and pressure groups on legislature, and the challenges, techniques, and frustrations involved in the process.

Baroness Warwick, speaking on behalf of Universities UK, remarked on the relationship of "trust" that has been established between the House of Lords and charitable organisations, and that the time provided for debate in the Lords, coupled with the collective knowledge of the peers made it the preferred chamber to work with.

Alison Harvey, representing the Immigration Law Practitioners Association (ILPA), made an impassioned and insightful speech into the difficulties of lobbying on behalf of an often ‘unpopular' subject. She expressed doubt about the consultative process, and described the main task of the ILPA as being "simply to explain" the actual impact of bills, warning that the explanatory notes provided by the government serve only to "lead you off with the fairies."

John Wright, National Chairman of the Federation of Small Businesses, emphasised the need for political impartiality on behalf of lobbyists if they wished to achieve their goals. He noted that the work of many pro-business organisations is compromised by perceived Conservative leanings.

Finally Julia Hobsbawm, founder of Editorial Intelligence, spoke of the impact and power of the "Commentariat", the grouping of media columnists, opinion and leader writers on influencing the legislature, both explicitly and through moderating the political climate. She argued that the changing nature of media coverage had seen "news turn into views" and that personality and style were still very much at the forefront of contemporary politics.

Common themes of the debate were the difficulty of making an impact on legislature, and the importance of research. All the speakers agreed on the need for lobbyists to work across party lines in building support, and the necessity of identifying sympathetic individuals to support an organisations' case.

Panel 2 - The Role of Parliament and Parliamentarians in Influencing Legislation
This panel featured four Parliamentarians with diverse experiences of the legislative process. The speakers emphasised the ways in which their personal and professional backgrounds came into play in Parliamentary contexts. As one would expect, expertise in particular issues, i.e. health, could be drawn upon when proposing or amending legislation and building cross-party alliances across both Houses.

Far from it being easy for parliamentarians to challenge poorly conceived and badly drafted legislation, there are many obstacles to overcome. In the words of Baroness D'Souza, Convenor of the Crossbench Peers, ministers often do not want to be seen to be accepting challenges lest they seem weak and open to pressure. The result - described by Oliver Heald MP and David Heath MP - is that amendments can be proposed and evidence heard in committee, but it takes a surge in media commentary or a resounding challenge in the House of Lords for poor legislation to be amended or defeated.

A sense emerged of the huge pressure faced by government to produce new legislation. The sheer volume of bills, particularly on populist issues such as crime, or asylum and immigration, often meant that new legislation was being proposed before the preceding version had been implemented. The case was made for a more dedicated form of legislative scrutiny that tracked bills from inception to their implementation, and beyond into post-legislative scrutiny. As in earlier sessions, the problems of procedure and the need for reform where highlighted; certain conventions - it was argued - prevented parliamentarians from holding government to account.

Despite this, the message was not bleak. In particular Baroness D'Souza highlighted how the expertise contained in the House of Lords, combined with well targeted and informed approaches from the public, can result in effective challenges to problematic bills - at a minimum signalling that they would be defeated if they were not revised, as was the case with the government's latest counter-terrorism proposals. Moreover, there was a consensus across the panel that Private Members' Bills could be used to good effect and that government could be encouraged to propose its own legislation in support of them - even if not been debated.

Perspectives from the audience, however, indicated that Parliament has a way to go before it can claim to be properly representative. The populist media was felt to have more influence than minority groups, the latter being insufficiently represented in both houses. There was also a sense that even if the public were consulted, they often have little impact. The Parliamentarians showed a willingness to listen and respond to the audience, resulting in an interesting discussion about the pathways to engagement and the effects of power imbalances in both houses. Although a hung Parliament was not described as a panacea (an outcome could be a pot-pourri of amendments to legislation), and while increased hours would not necessarily lead to better scrutiny, there was a sense from Parliamentarians that they welcomed the opportunity to reform the way both houses worked to make better laws.

To listen to the event in full please click on one of the links below:

Alex Brazier and Peter Riddell introducing the Law in the Making research

Keynote speech by Rt Hon Jack Straw MP

Panel 1 - External Influences on the Legislative Process (Part 1, Part 2)

Panel 2 - The Role of Parliament and Parliamentarians in Influencing Legislation (Part 1, Part 2)

Radio 4's Today in Parliament (11.30pm, Friday 17 July 2008) will be discussing the themes highlighted at this meeting. It will also include additional interviews with some of the speakers at this event including; Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, David Heath MP, Oliver Heald MP and Alex Brazier.

Rt Hon Jack Straw MP's keynote speech will be broadcast on BBC Parliament channel (9pm, Saturday 18 July 2008).

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

admin — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:31:00 GMT

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/).

New Research on Influence in the Legislative Process Published

admin — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:09:00 GMT

Law in the Making: Influence and Change in the Legislative Process is the most recent publication to be launched by the Hansard Society.

"Law in the Making is a fine piece of scholarship, which is forensic, balanced and informative. It is a thorough exploration of how policy ideas gradually evolve into binding law" – Rt Hon Jack Straw MP

This original, in-depth research carried out by the Hansard Society, analyses the influences and elements that come together in making an act of Parliament. It looks at the role of external actors such as, the media, voluntary organisations, governmental bodies, professional associations and businesses, as well as Parliament and government departments in the process of making the law.

This two year study, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, draws upon the findings from five detailed case studies and over 80 exclusive interviews with ministers, MPs, peers, government and parliamentary officials and pressure groups. The case studies examined were:

The Export Control Act 2002;
The Equality Act 2006;
The Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006;
The Legislative and Regulatory Act 2006;
The Welfare Reform Act 2007.

The research tracks these, along with selected private members' bills, through all the various stages of the legislative process.

ISBN: 978 0900432 39 2

For more information, click here.
This publication costs £10 (+ p&p). To order please click here.

*** Special offer on Law in the Making - click here ***

Inside the sausage factory

admin — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 12:07:00 GMT

Writing in The House Magazine, Susanna Kalitowski introduces a Hansard Society study of the role of parliamentary scrutiny - which found MPs of all parties agreeing on the need to deliberate before you legislate

Parliament's primary and best-known function is to make laws which affect all of us on a daily basis. However, there is a widely held view that Parliament does not have much impact on the content of legislation - that it simply puts a rubber stamp on the government's proposals.

It is clear that the government rarely loses a whole bill and that it is only occasionally defeated on individual clauses. If nothing changed between the day that a bill left a department and the day the Queen gave her assent, then that would indeed be an indictment of the legislative process.

But to what extent is this actually the case? While a great deal of public attention is given to individual laws, the process by which policy proposals evolve into acts of Parliament is not well understood.

In an effort to illuminate the law making process - and Parliament's role and influence in it - the Hansard Society undertook a detailed study, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, of five recent pieces of government legislation. We chose to ignore Bismarck's advice that ‘laws are like sausages: it is better not to see them being made' and tracked what happened as they journeyed from the consultation stages, to pre-legislative scrutiny (if undertaken), and through both Houses of Parliament.

We conducted over 80 interviews with ministers, MPs, peers, government and parliamentary officials and pressure groups. At the heart of the study is a consideration of the influence that parliamentarians themselves have on legislation. The results of our research appear in a book published this week, Law in the making: influence and change in the legislative process.

One of our most important findings is that parliamentary scrutiny does make a difference to a piece of legislation. Looking at our five case studies, the government's main proposals became law, but they were altered measurably as they made their way through the legislative process. Sometimes this change was dramatic, but usually it was in small but significant ways.

There is a tendency to judge the relationship between Parliament and government in terms of clear-cut notions of victory and defeat, dominance and submission. However, we found that rebellious votes and government defeats reveal only a certain amount about the relationship between Parliament and government, and that there are many other approaches used to influence legislation that are not so easily measurable.

For example, it is commonplace to hear it that the Lords has more impact on legislation than the Commons. It is true that it defeats the government more often than the Commons. Most changes to bills are made in the Lords, usually at report stage, often in an effort to avoid a defeat.

However, our case studies reveal that the arguments raised and the assurances given in the Commons are frequently the determining factor in allowing the Lords to clinch the deal of extracting concessions. As a government minister explained to us, ‘the Commons does the passing and then gives the Lords the opportunity to score the goal and make the change.'

In addition, we found that on the whole, external actors such as campaigners and lobbyists, working closely with parliamentarians, can make a noticeable difference to the final shape of a piece of legislation - often more than they themselves realise. On the other hand, the impact of the media, which tends not to cover the process of scrutiny, is far more variable.

A number of people we spoke to asserted that Parliament's scrutiny of legislation is improving, and that far more changes are made to legislative proposals now than in the past. Nonetheless, interviewees identified a number of obstacles which hinder scrutiny, including lack of time and resources and the increasing volume and complexity of legislation.

We were also told that one of the highest barriers is cultural. Parliamentarians from all parties explained that there is a predominant belief within Whitehall that to change a bill is a sign of weakness. Many said a cultural change is needed in order for change to be viewed as possible- and even desirable.

Our study reveals that improved scrutiny mechanisms such as pre-legislative scrutiny and a range of parliamentary and external factors improve legislation without in any way affecting the government's ability to deliver its programme.

However, it remains to be seen whether there is any appetite for further moves towards a more deliberative model of legislative consideration.

Law in the Making: influence and change in the legislative process will be launched on Wednesday 16 July 2008 at 2pm in the House of Commons. The event will feature a keynote speech from the Rt Hon Jack Straw MP, Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor. For more information, email hans_admin@hansard.lse.ac.uk or call 0207 438 1222.

This article was originallly published in The House Magazine on 14 July 2008

Law in the Making: a new publication by the Hansard Society

admin — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:40:00 GMT

Parliamentary scrutiny does make a difference to legislation: new Hansard Society research challenges conventional view of Parliament’s effectiveness.

A new publication from the Hansard Society, Law in the Making: Influence and Change in the Legislative Process, analyses the influences and 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 five detailed case studies and over 80 exclusive 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;
Parliamentary scrutiny has been enhanced in recent years, with more changes made to government bills;
Nonetheless, the volume and complexity of legislation continue to inhibit Parliament’s effectiveness.

The study also suggests some recommendations for reform, including:

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

Law in the Making: Influence and Change in the Legislative Process was written by Alex Brazier, Susanna Kalitowski and Gemma Rosenblatt with Matt Korris. It looks at five case studies, the Export Control Act 2002, the Equality Act 2006, the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, the Legislative and Regulatory Act 2006 and the Welfare Reform Act 2007, tracking them through various stages of the legislative process. It also considers a number of private members' bills.

ISBN: 978 0900432 39 2

Law in the Making was published on Wednesday July 16 at an event in Parliament with Rt Hon Jack Straw MP giving the keynote address. For more information about the launch event, click here.

The publication costs £10 (+ p&p). To order please click here.

*** Special offer on Law in the Making - click here ***

The Hansard Society is grateful to the Nuffield Foundation for generously supporting this publication.

Lord Speaker's Competition Report - young people tackle waste reduction

admin — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 16:32:00 GMT

The House of Lords Sub-Committee on Waste Reduction has recently examined how the amount of waste produced in the UK can be reduced and asked to hear young people's views on the issue. A report summarising their views and offering recommendations has now been submitted to the House of Lords.

The House of Lords, with the support of the Lord Speaker and in conjunction with the Hansard Society, called for 11 - 18 year olds to submit their views on waste reduction to the Sub-Committee in creative ways. The work sent in was entered into the Lord Speaker's What a Waste! Competition and the young people behind the best entry in Key stage 3, Key stage 4 and Key stage 5 attended the House of Lords to present their ideas last month.

The winning entries represent just a handful of the excellent ideas which were submitted to the competition and as such a What a Waste! competition report, summarising all the work entered has been compiled. To ensure that the views of all young people who took part are heard by the Sub Committee, this report has now been submitted to Lord O'Neill for response.

Key recommendations from the What a Waste! Competition Report include:

The Plastic Problem
There are inadequate plastic recycling facilities in the UK. Those which exist are not used effectively because recycling plastic is not seen as cost effective by some local councils. As such, local councils should work together to pool recycling facilities and central government should encourage and fund this activity.

School Schemes
School centred schemes are a useful and realistic way to involve large numbers of people in waste reduction schemes. Peer education about waste and recycling within schools improves not only the school environment, but can also have a trickle down effect to the local community. Schools should use student lead assemblies to promote waste reduction and appoint teams of students to be responsible for waste and recycling within the school.

The full What a Waste! Competition Report is available for download here: What a Waste! Competition Report.pdf

2008: Women and the Vote - 30 June 2008

admin — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:04:00 GMT

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

Referendums split panel at Hansard Society debate

admin — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:58:00 GMT

The Hansard Society was fortunate enough to be joined by a panel of high profile speakers; Dr David Butler, Chris Huhne MP, Rt Hon David Curry MP, Rt Hon Clare Short MP and Steve Richards at it's recent debate entitled Referendums: What are they good for? This meeting covered the issue of referendums and whether (or how) they could be appropriately used in the British political system.

Conservative MP David Curry opened the proceedings by stating that he believed referendums were the ‘landfill site of democracy’ - in his opinion a referendum does not answer the question proposed, but only panders to wider fears that the public hold. For him, a public vote on a single issue represents a challenge to the sovereignty of Parliament and could not be seen as legitimate because of the often low voter turn out. However he did conceed that referendums could have a role to play at local level.

Next, academic Dr David Butler gave a more measured account of the debate surrounding referendums. He pointed out that most countries have used referendums at one time or another but at least five hundred of these have been undertaken by Switzerland. For Dr Butler referendums had a part to play on issues of ethical importance and boarder disputes, but could not deal with the often complicated nature of political debate. His conclusion on the matter was that he felt it is better to be governed by informed politicians than an ‘impatient low turn out public’.

Liberal Democrat MP Chris Huhne appreciated the part that referendums can play in politics as part of a varied political tool kit. He cautioned against the contradictions that can be thrown up when the public vote on single issues, citing the case of proposition thirteen in the state of California. Mr Huhne did suggest that referendums could be effectively used as a safe guard on constitutional matters for example, to hold the House of Commons to account by way of a public vote on legislation that has been passed after a cooling off period.

Next to speak was Independent MP Clare Short who appeared to be the most pro-referendum voice amongst the panel. She pointed out that we talk about referendums like they are not already part of our political setup - a mistake as public votes have helped to shape the British politics on a range of important issues like the European Union and the future of Northern Ireland. For Ms Short, referendums are an essential tool to be used to help reinvigorate an alienated public dissatisfied with current political arrangements that they often feel are damaging British democracy. She highlighted examples like the Iraq War protests to illustrate that people believe that they no longer have a voice that political elites listen to. A referendum could possibly be a way of reconnecting the public with important political debates.

Last to address the audience was The Independent’s Steve Richards. For Mr Richard, referendums do not resolve political problems but instead undermine the opportunity for important debates to take place. He highlighted the fact that the 1975 vote on Europe had solved nothing, as Britain's relationship with Europe was still very much on the political agenda. He highlighted that Government's are able to use referendums as a way of sidestepping debates on important and contraversial issues for example, Tony Blair promised a number of referendums on issues such as electoral reform so that discussion could be held off until a more convenient time.

Issues raised by the audience included; whether referendums should be initiated by the public rather than the legislature, and whether unequal access to money or media influence could skew the outcome. The panel was also asked what issue it would choose to have a referendum on, with all but David Butler wanting one on electoral reform.

For Lord Norton's take on this debate please visit the Lords of the Blog

Blogging and freedom of expression

admin — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:22:00 GMT

Blogging has taken off as a low-cost way for individuals to publish online. It's not surprising then that politics and campaigning draws a large number of commentators - from the amateur observer, to the seasoned insider and the marginalised. The internet can help to level the playing field and it can be particularly powerful where oppressive regimes limit citizen's views to demonstrate and stifle a free opposition.

The potential for the internet is perhaps at its greatest in those countries that restrict press and broadcasting freedoms. It has become a medium for citizens to express opinions more openly.

The internet is a tool to communicate within a country and also to ensure that unfiltered alternatives to state-controlled media seep out beyond the borders. Political reformers in Zimbabwe have used the internet to raise global awareness of the electoral crisis, thereby increasing pressure on the government of Robert Mugabe and the ruling ZanuPF party. Whereas political websites there have been able to generate grassroots campaigns, in other countries, net activists have been subjected to a government-led backlash.

In these places, blogging is not without risk. As authoritarian regimes wake up to the power of the internet, they are increasingly likely to widen to net of censorship to include the online. In Iran, the power of political bloggers, who unlike the press had been able to criticise the regime, is being systematically eroded by the introduction of stringent laws that ban political websites. In future, it is feared that Iran's bloggers will face the same harsh penalties experienced by dissident journalists.

Even in countries where censorship is not routinely practiced, there have been attempts to regulate political communications during elections. Sometimes this appears to encroach on individual rights to freedom of expression. Where legislation has been introduced in an attempt to make elections fairer, the result can be a stifling of the local blogsphere.

Whilst South Korea's 2002 general election was largely decided on the internet, it has introduced legislation to curb negative campaigning. The result has been less internet-based election activity, despite world leading levels of broadband penetration. In Japan too, internet campaigning was banned in 2005 because it was thought to marginalise older voters - the very demographic that forms the core support for the ruling party. Candidates' websites were held in stasis during the elections there and breaches penalised.

Such measures may have restricted freedom of expression in Korea and Japan, but in New Zealand, citizen activism has not declined despite the introduction of the Electoral Finance Act 2007 to regulate political activity including the internet; indeed, bloggers have threatened to deliberately flout the law which they say impinges on their rights.

The internet is now a key tool in the fight for freedom, democracy and basic human rights. Last year, 36 bloggers were arrested for using the internet to organize civil society, expose corruption or human rights abuses or to criticize governments and politicians.

Karishma Desai
Intern, eDemocracy Programme
eDemocracy[@]hansard[.]lse[.]ac[.]uk

Test Blog post 1

admin — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 09:26:00 GMT

this is just a test please ignore

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

admin — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:34:00 GMT

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.

Lord Speaker's Competition - Winners Announced!

admin — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 10:25:00 GMT

The winners of the Lord Speaker's competition for young people 2008, have attended the winners’ day at the House of Lords and presented their findings to a special sitting of the House of Lords Science and Technology Sub-committee on Waste Reduction.

The winners were:

Key Stage 3: William Lewis and Harry Roffey from Bodiam Manor School for their in-depth investigation into why plastic cannot be recycled in their local area, quizzing the local council and supermarket in the process. The team presented their findings in a PowerPoint presentation.

Key Stage 4: Josie Palmer and Katie Leivers from Ridgeway School presented an examination of what could be done to reduce waste using an eye-catching collage. To really bring the message home, the team raided senior staff's wastepaper bins and got creative with what they found.

Key Stage 5: Mark Malik, Alice Jones, Daniel Beech, Sultana Akhtar and Matthew Jones from Joseph Leckie School set themselves the challenge of coming up with an innovative solution to the waste reduction problem and the result was a reusable shopping bag scheme. By using recycled materials and a community-centred approach, this social enterprise looks set to rid their community of plastic carrier bags.

The competition, run in partnership with the Hansard Society's Citizenship Education Programme, asked young people to submit their ideas on how to reduce the amount of waste the UK produces. Over 87 teams of young people submitted their ideas in the form of short films, animations, collages, essays, research papers and presentations.

Entries covered issues including the role of councils in recycling and the contribution of big business and were then judged by an eminent panel including the Lord Speaker and the Chairman of the House of Lords Sub-Committee on Waste Reduction, Lord O’Neill.

While the winners presented their findings in person, every entrant to the competition will have their voice heard by the Sub-Committee as a report compiling the entries has been submitted to Lord O’Neill for response. It is not just the winners who will have their views heard as the Hansard Society have compiled a report based on all entries which Lord O’Neill will respond to.