Recent Events

Engaging online: Getting citizens back to the centre of democracy

2008-11-07T10:10:00Z

On October 29 2008, the Hansard Society held a seminar in the Scottish Parliament to explore the different characteristics of online engagement. Organised in collaboration with Microsoft, the session focused not simply on the technology but also on the impact of organisational culture and the broader context of citizen disenfranchisement.

The panel comprised: Navraj Singh Ghaleigh (Lecturer in Public Law, University of Edinburgh), Aileen Campbell MSP (Scottish National Party MSP for South of Scotland) and Fergus Cochrane (Clerk to the Public Petitions Committee, Scottish Parliament) . Joyce McMillan columnist of The Scotsman and Chair of the Hansard Society Scotland Working Group chaired the session.

For more information about this event, please email Emma Megaughin at hansard.scotland@hansard.lse.ac.uk or phone 0131 243 2750.

Revitalising Politics Conference

2008-11-06T16:57:00Z

The Revitalising Politics: have we lost the plot? conference took place on November 5/6 2008 in Parliament. It was organised by the Hansard Society and Professors Gerry Stoker (University of Southampton) and Colin Hay (University of Sheffield).

Visit the Revitalising Politics website to read and comment on all the conference papers and the keynote speeches by Rt Hon Hazel Blears MP and Chris Huhne MP.

Read press coverage

The Revitalising Politics website is a space for attendees and others who are interested to review, comment and expand on the position papers presented at the conference.

Conference papers at Revitalising Politics

Revitalising politics: Have we lost the plot: Colin Hay, University of Sheffield; Gerry Stoker, University of Southampton and Andy Williamson, Hansard Society.
New methods of engagement: Graham Smith, University of Southampton
Challenges of multi-level governance: Tony Travers, London School of Economics
Teaching Democracy: James Sloam, Royal Holloway College & Ben Kisby, University of Sheffield
Failing of political parties: Paul Webb, University of Sussex
Failings of interest groups: William Maloney, University of Newcastle
The role of new media: Rachel Gibson, University of Manchester
Levels of participation and citizen attitudes: Paul Whiteley, University of Essex
Bridging the gap: Revitalising politics and the politics of public expectations: Matt Flinders, University of Sheffield
Involving Young People: Jon Tonge, University of Liverpool.

Making Politics Fit For Purpose

2008-10-30T14:20:00Z

The Political Studies Association/Hansard Society 2008 Annual Lecture was given by Rt Hon Clare Short MP to a packed meeting at Westminster.

The Political Studies Association/Hansard Society Annual Lecture was introduced by Fiona Booth (Chief Executive, Hansard Society) and Prof Vicky Randall (Chair, PSA).

Click to listen to the Clare Short MP's speech and the Q&A session. View the photos.

Clare Short's speech:

‘It is widely agreed that the confidence of the people of the UK in their political system has been deeply undermined in recent years. Many agree that this cynicism is bad for democracy and believe that we must do more to educate the public in the workings of the political system. My own conclusion, after 25 years in electoral politics, is that our system is deeply flawed and visibly deteriorating in both the quality and democratic accountability of its decision-making. I suggest therefore that public education is likely to increase rather than decrease public cynicism and what is needed is a more determined demand for reform of the system.

It is of course not new to point to the massive concentration of power in the executive in the UK system. It was in 1976 that Quentin Hogg described our system as an "elective dictatorship". The old argument in defence of the system is that it produces clear majorities and strong governments capable of implementing their policy programme. The people are given a clear choice between different party programmes and are able to elect a government of their choice. Advocates of the British system argue that this is much better than a deal made between the parties, after an election.

I began my life in the House of Commons accepting this argument, but then as I saw the Thatcher government adopt highly contentious policies with the support of 42-43% of those who voted, I became convinced that awarding overwhelming power to a government supported by fewer than half the people was wrong and the government imposed on the people values and policies that the majority did not support.

Under New Labour, the distortion between votes and representation in the House of Commons has got worse. The Conservatives' 42-43% of the vote in 1979, 83, 87 and 92 brought in 53, 57, 58 and 52% of seats in the House of Commons. New Labour's 43, 41 and 32% of the vote in 1997, 2001 and 2005 brought them 63, 63 and 55% of the vote in the House of Commons. This was particularly galling to many people after the Iraq war. Blair's vote was cut by 5 million from 1997 to 2005 and only 1 in 5 of registered voters voted for the government, yet our electoral system gave it an unassailable majority in the House of Commons.

My conclusion is that our electoral system is indefensible and in itself breeds cynicism. In the UK in 2005, 19 million votes were cast ineffectively. That means that 70% of those who voted did not elect a candidate of their choice. The distortions in our system meant that - in rounded figures - in 2005, 27,000 votes elect a New Labour MP, 44,000 elect a Tory MP and it takes 97,000 votes to elect a Liberal democrat MP. This is simply wrong.

In addition to the growing distortion in the electoral system, there has been a growth in the power concentrated around the Prime Minister in No 10 Downing Street. This is a result of big majorities in the House of Commons, massive patronage powers in the hands of the Prime Minister and the effect of 24 hour news coverage and the growing power of the politics of spin.

It is no secret that the cabinet government ceased to operate in the Blair years. This was one of the findings of the Butler Report which reviewed the use of intelligence in the run up to the war in Iraq. In that case we know that the full legal opinion on the legality of the war and papers prepared in the Cabinet Office were deliberately not circulated to the Cabinet. The major Cabinet Committee intended to consider crises in foreign policy is Defence and Overseas Policy. It is chaired by the Prime Minister, attended by all Secretaries of State and Permanent Secretaries with foreign policy responsibilities, together with the heads of the security services and the armed forces. In the case of the Iraq crisis, it never met. And thus the full diplomatic, political and military options were not considered and the policy was run by the Prime Minister and a small group of officials in Downing Street, constantly in touch with the White House, but with the expertise in our own Foreign Office completely marginalised.

I can honestly testify that there was never a full discussion of any policy issue with all options considered and a consensus reached in my six years as a member of the Cabinet. The most spectacular and troubling example of this was the way in which the decision to go to war in Iraq was made, but it was true of all decisions. The discussion on whether to go ahead with the Millennium Dome had a majority of voices against it, but this made no difference whatsoever. The way in which reforms in the Health and Education services were to be taken forward were not considered or discussed.

My conclusion is that the way in which power and decision making is concentrated in Number 10 has led to unaccountable policy making and very poor consideration of policy options. When the question is asked, why the very big increases in public expenditure which the boom years afforded have not been more effective, my conclusion is that the failure to fully thrash out the new policy, and the subsequent chopping and changing and constant reorganisation is a consequence of these decision making structures and has undermined the effectiveness of reform. In effect, we have a Prime Minister with Presidential powers who is not properly held to account by the House of Commons because his power is based on the Commons majority and party patronage and loyalty keeps the troops in line.

These developments have been enhanced by the growth in the patronage powers of the Prime Minister. The abolition of hereditary peers in the Lords led to Tony Blair being able to appoint more peers than any previous Prime Minister. The number was 268 between 1997 and 2005, with 125 of them taking the Labour whip. I will come on later to the reasons why the unelected House of Lords is a better check on the executive than the Commons, but the power to appoint ageing MPs to the House of Lords and to insert a young adviser into a safe Labour seat at the last minute before a general election, has the effect of ensuring that older MPs stay loyal and new MPs frequently arise from the patronage powers of the Prime Minister rather than from local selection.

The other great power of patronage is the power to appoint and re-appoint Ministers. All Cabinet Ministers hope for greater office, junior Ministers hope to be promoted and almost all backbenchers want to be a Minister. In the UK system, we have very large numbers of Ministers and whips who are paid members of the government. Our total is 125 (including 28 in the Lords). On top of this, there are 54 Parliamentary Private Secretaries who are expected to vote with the government and the role is seen as a stepping stone to Ministerial office. This means that 1 in 3 New Labour MPs are part of the government. With constant reshuffles, this helps to keep the parliamentary party docile because it is only by being loyal that the call to Ministerial office will come. Most other countries have far fewer Ministers and are astonished by the numbers in the UK system. Most of these junior Ministers have very little decision making power, but they defend the government's programme in the House of Commons, have a departmental office, Private Secretary and government car and obviously have to support the government at all times in order to remain in office. Under New labour, the quality of patronage has grown even further than under previous governments. There is legislation limiting the size of the number of paid members of HMG but now we have the phenomenon of 12 unpaid Ministers and the number has quietly grown. They get their status, office, Private Secretary and car, but no extra salary.

In addition to this, the 16 House of Commons Select Committees appointed to scrutinise government activity are appointed in proportion to the balance of seats in the Commons. This means that the majority of members are government MPs and the majority of Chairs, an influential and paid post, are from the government party. The whips appoint members and propose Chairs. Rebellious MPs have difficulty being appointed to Select Committees and would never become Chairs (with the exception of Gwyneth Dunwoody). The Select Committee system, established in 1979, does enhance the Commons scrutiny of the government, but the care with which appointments are controlled ensures that the Committees rarely embarrass the government.

Added to all of this, ensuring massive concentration of power in Number 10, is the politics of spin. In the Blair regime, Alastair Campbell was widely regarded as the Deputy Prime Minister. The political machine needs a constant stream of announcements that can be fed to the press. Clever young people are appointed to advise the Prime Minister. Policy is increasingly made in Number 10 and the expertise that lies in departments has less and less influence on the decisions that are made. It is very clear that the skills of the Blair machine in its use of focus groups and spin has been deeply studied and imitated by the Cameron machine and that here is little difference between the two major parties in this regard.

Another new development which has been little commented upon but has broken the authority of the House of Commons is the timetabling and guillotining of all business. When I became an MP in 1983, Mrs Thatcher was at the height of her powers and had a big majority. But the Opposition had the power of time. We could keep debates going in Committee indefinitely, if we felt sufficiently strongly, and using this power we could squeeze concessions from the government. That power is now gone and any amendments that are not dealt with in Committee or at report stage go to the House of Lords to be dealt with. This means a massive abnegation of responsibility by the House of Commons.

It is also notable how few MPs sit in the Chamber during debates. This is because in any big debate, speeches are limited to 7 or 8 minutes because the time is guillotined. I well remember in my earlier days in the Commons how the Chamber would fill up, later in the day if Michael Foot, Enoch Powell, Denis Healey or other big figures got up to speak. No major speech, sharing big ideas or challenging the direction of government policy can be confined to 7 minutes. In addition, when we were deeply stirred by a government policy, backbenchers could plan to keep the debate going all night and thus break the government plans for the next day's business. This could be done without the approval of one's front bench, if there were enough MPs willing to speak at length. We attempted it several times and achieved it sometimes and thus used the power of time to inconvenience the government and assert the power of backbenchers. All this power is lost to the Opposition and to backbenchers and thus attendance in the House has declined and what is said in the House, as opposed to through the media, has less and less significance.

It is for these reasons and because of its composition that the House of Lords is now a more thorough and effective check on the executive than the House of Commons. They are not elected, but appointment by party is in proportion to the votes of the electorate and therefore the government does not have an automatic majority. And because the Lords' business is not subject to timetabling and guillotining debates are more serious and all amendments properly considered. Despite the Lords' hesitation in overturning policy passed by the Commons because they are not an elected House, they play a very important and honourable role in checking ill considered government policy, much of which is not scrutinised in any way by the Commons because time ran out and many parts of the bill and tabled amendments are never reached.

My conclusion then is that our political institutions are functioning very badly both in failing to take account of public opinion and in the poor quality of decision making. There are many examples but one that is worthy of note is the frequency of government introduction of new criminal justice bills and the creation of new offences. Thus for most of the 20^th century there was one Criminal Justice Bill every 10 years. From 1997 to 2006, the Home Office brought forward 60 Bills and the government created 3,000 new criminal offences. The Chief Constable of Dyfed-Powys accused John Reid and Charles Clarke, in their times as Home Secretary, of making policy on the hoof in response to media pressure.

The question is what is to be done? The key change we need is to our electoral system. Mrs Thatcher with 43% of MPs in the House of Commons and Tony Blair with 35% after the Iraq war would have been very different leaders. They would have had to listen and reach agreement with a majority. If all citizens knew their vote could make a significant difference to reward or punish their local representative, more people would vote and more MPs would attend to the opinions of their voters than their party whips. If there was no automatic majority in parliament, then coalitions would have to be made, policy proposals thrashed out and the Cabinet would become once again a place where decisions would be fully considered. And if our system was more proportional, it would be more open to new forces, such as Green parties willing to challenge the current consensus and put forward new policy proposals. And last but not least, if the electorate, in their diversity of opinion, had more influence, the spin doctors and focus groups would have less. They surely explain why all the parties are converging on the centre and all our leaders pay endless court to Rupert Murdoch. It would be so much better to have a parliament representative of the diversity of public opinion, where arguments and voting really mattered. The guillotines and timetables would fall without the authority of an overwhelming majority and politics would come alive again.

How, then, might we bring about this change? The answer, I believe, is a hung parliament with no party having an overall majority. The chances are that this would lead to a referendum on electoral reform as the under-represented Liberal Democrats made it a condition of their co-operation. My conclusion is that people are entitled to be cynical about the poor quality of our existing political institutions. But if we are determined to change our system, we can do so. The answer lies in the hands of the electorate and if current trends continue, the most likely outcome of the next election would be a hung parliament. This would put an end to arrogant centralised government. The House of Commons would be enlivened, the Cabinet would be restored and the electorate would know that their votes and opinions carried significant power and influence.'

The PSA/Hansard Society Annual Lecture given by Rt Hon Clare Short MP will be shown on BBC Parliament on Saturday evening, November 1, 2008.

Hansard Society at 2008 SNP Conference

2008-10-20T13:53:00Z

People Like Us: Is Scottish Society fairly reflected in Holyrood?

Saturday 18 October, 12.30-1.30pm, at the Royal George Hotel in Perth.

Speakers: Angela O'Hagen (Equalities and Human Rights Commission), Michael Russell MSP (SNP Minister for Environment), Emily Wilson (Channel 4 News) Humza Yousaf (Convenor of Young Asian Scots for Independence).

Chair: Joyce McMillan (The Scotsman)

Food and refreshments provided.

PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE TO REGISTER IN ADVANCE FOR THIS MEETING

No Politics, Please ….We’re Women!

2008-10-15T14:27:00Z

Over 90 people attended a Hansard Society meeting in Westminster to discuss a new briefing based on original Hansard Society research about women's attitudes to politics. The panel was: Helen Goodman MP (Government Whip), Ros Taylor (The Guardian), Dr Jonathan Dean (Gender Institute, London School of Economics), and Lee Chalmers (the Downing Street Project). The event was chaired by Dr Sarah Childs (Bristol University).

Gender Research Paper

Click here to listen to the research paper being discussed on Radio 4's Women's Hour

Audio: Part 1 Dr Sarah Childs, Helen Goodman MP
Part 2 Dr Jonathan Dean, Ros Taylor, Lee Chalmers
Part 3 Questions & Answers

Dr Sarah Childs outlined the key points of the research which shows that women are disproportionately less likely to say they are both interested and knowledgeable about politics than men. In addition, the research shows that while men tend to overestimate their actual political knowledge, women tend to underestimate how much they know about politics.

Helen Goodman MP rejected the notion that women are less interested and knowledgeable about politics. The problem is that politics has been formed in a male image. Two key differences between the genders in the way they approach politics are that women's agenda is often different from men's (for example, women are more interested in health and men are more interested in the economy) and style (women are not so interested in institutional arrangements).

Ms Goodman said that in 1997 Labour won because 44% of women voted for them - the first time that such a large percentage of women voted for Labour. She listed Labour's achievements which had benefited women, such as the minimum wage, but acknowledged that the political ‘brand' is still portrayed as a ‘boxing match' - Brown v Cameron. She emphasised that All Women Shortlists had made a real difference to women's representation in Parliament - 28% of Labour MPs are women compared to 16% of Liberal Democrats and 9% of Conservatives.

She stressed that women's representation does matter - women can shift the political agenda and make a difference to the way in which Parliament works. Furthermore, in constituencies where there is a woman MP, turnout rises for both women (by 9%) and men (by 5%).

Dr Jonathan Dean welcomed the report but also disagreed that women are less interested and knowledgeable about politics than men. He said that he is concerned that women are seen as a problem group as this distracts attention from the creation and maintenance of gender hierarchies in our political institutions. He outlined three institutional obstacles: firstly, institutionalised sexism in political parties, especially at local level, secondly, the media treatment of women politicians and thirdly, the myths about women's attitudes to political participation (for example, that women are fickle, that they are more interested in personalities than polices and that they need gimmicks to involve them).

He pointed out that while there is a gender gap in participation in ‘high' politics, this gap is much smaller or non-existent, in local or grass roots activity - but this is too often regarded as not ‘proper politics'. He acknowledged that these problems are deeply entrenched and hard to legislate against and called on the media to examine perceptions of politics. The key to change is to have an open and concerted debate about gender assumptions in public life.

Ros Taylor was dismayed by the title of the discussion and thought it was too Westminster-focused. We need to move beyond Westminster.

She felt that the key point was not that women actually know less than men about politics but that they think that they know less. She puts this down to women being more modest and underestimating their own knowledge. When it comes to issues such as how education and the health service works, women often know a very great deal. The problem is that women confine themselves and this humility means that they are excluded from many areas of national debate. We need to instigate a culture where women are more willing to put themselves forward.

In her job she finds that women have less time for media self-promotion and don't submit opinion pieces nearly as often as men. In addition, political coverage in the media centres on an obsession with factional debate and attempts to identity rebels so that many important elements (for example Select Committee reports) are overlooked. She also pointed out that many women journalists are pushed away from the front line of politics into features.

Her key conclusion was that we need to be more positive about women's political involvement.

Lee Chalmers said that the whole style of Parliament is set up to accommodate the way that men debate and although it's true that women don't talk about politics in the same way that men do, what they can do is make a difference.

She asked why, when women often take action at local and national level, more women don't go into politics? She felt that the answer was one of attitude - women often have to be asked to stand for office and need to be encouraged to see themselves as leaders. They need mentors at the earliest stage of political involvement. She stressed that the concept of leadership is gendered and both women and men see leaders as being naturally male.

She said that women have other hurdles to cross - for example they know that they will be judged by their looks and appearance in ways that men are not.

Ms Chalmers also asked why any of this matters. She stressed that making representation equal was important; it's not the whole story. She feels that men and women reason in a different manner - men in a linear manner and women in a more ‘holistic' way. The world has complex problems and linear thinking has not solved these problems. Women must take a step into leadership roles because it's essential to utilise your entire nation, not just one half of it. Progress is slow and we must look at how to speed up the process.

The panel then responded to questions from the audience.

People Like Us: Is British Society fairly reflected in Parliament? Party Conferences Autumn 2008

2008-10-02T11:54:00Z

Channel 4/the Hansard Society have had an extremely succesful series of events at the Autumn 2008 party political conferences. We had lots of high profile speakers, the debates were of a very high quality and there was some controversial moments! We recorded all 3 meetings, click on the links to listen.

Click here to see photographs of the events.

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

Liberal Democrat Fringe Event Part 1

Liberal Democrats Fringe Event Part 2

Liberal Democrat Fringe Event Part 3

Labour: Chair Krishnan Guru-Murthy (Channel 4 News), Speakers Dawn Butler MP, Harriet Harman MP, Shahid Malik MP, Peter Oborne (Channel 4 Dispatches), Lord Soley.

Labour Fringe Event Part 1

Labour Fringe Event Part 2

Labour Fringe Event Part 3

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

Conservatives Fringe Event Part 1

Conservatives Fringe Event Part 2

Conservatives Fringe Event Part 3

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

2008-07-17T14:57:00Z

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).

Referendums split panel at Hansard Society debate

2008-06-18T12:58:00Z

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

The Audit of Political Engagement 5

2008-03-31T10:01:00Z

Thursday 27 March, 10 – 11am, House of Commons
Speakers:
Alex Brazier, Director, Parliament and Government Programme, Hansard Society
Peter Riddell, Chair, Hansard Society
Michael Wills MP, Minister for Constitutional Reform, Ministry of Justice

Chair: Fiona Booth, Chief Executive, Hansard Society

The Audit of Political Engagement is in its fifth year and measures the nature and extent of political engagement through a national survey conducted by IpsosMORI. This allows us to compare data year on year and give the nation its annual political health check. This year's research also includes data on public attitudes to constitutional reform including issues such as; the House of Lords, a Bill of Rights and the European Union.

Refreshments available from 9.30am

Launch of No Overall Control? publication

2008-03-11T12:11:00Z

Tuesday 11 March, 11am – 12.15pm, House of Commons

Speakers:
Professor Vernon Bogdanor, University of Oxford, Alex Brazier, Hansard Society, Professor Phil Cowley, University of Nottingham, Dr Rosanne Palmer, Cardiff University

Chair: Fiona Booth, Hansard Society

This event launched an edited collection of essays from commentators, academics and parliamentarians, including; Simon Jenkins of The Guardian and The Sunday Times, Professor David Butler from the University of Oxford and Simon Hughes MP.

A hung parliament is a phenomena that few within Westminster will have had personal experience of, or even remember, the last instance being in 1974. This collection of essays is a handbook to guide those currently working in Westminster on the issue of shared government, its implications and the possible consequences of a hung parliament for the House of Commons. This book provides a wide range of views on coalition governments and hung parliaments from individuals with first hand experience of power sharing. It includes examples, both international and from the devolved UK institutions, of what happens when no single party has an overall majority.

Politicians: a Class Apart or Servants of the People?

2008-02-28T12:36:00Z

Peter Oborne opened the debate by declaring that while he believes in Parliament, he also believes that there was something ‘horribly systemically wrong' with the way it operates. He described a ‘structural corruption' at the heart of Parliament and gave some examples. He felt that politicians operated as a ‘corrupt cadre' and brought politics into disrepute.

Austin Mitchell commented that a few examples of wrong-doing do not mean that politicians are fundamentally corrupt. He said that politicians are not a class or an elite, rather a mixed body of people motivated by duty not by a desire for expenses. He agreed that some things have gone wrong and gave the example of Housing Allowances. He did agree that politicians are viewed with distrust and hostility and felt that the reason why was because the many and varied wants of the public can't all be fulfilled. He spoke of a sense of duty and the feeling that MPs were struggling to keep their heads above water with a rising tide of work.

Norman Baker declared that his opinion was somewhere between Peter and Austin's. He agreed that Parliament isn't working as it should be and that ‘we haven't changed as the world around us changes'. He felt that while the system doesn't allow for sensible operation, MPs were ordinary people with the same attributes and faults as other people. He said that safeguards must apply - a clear set of rules, openness and accountability were needed when public money was at stake. He gave the example of his two-year battle to get a Freedom of Information request answered on MPs' travel expenses and said that ‘we need to reform our allowances'.

Andrew Tyrie urged the meeting to move beyond discussing MPs' allowances. He said that he didn't recognise Peter's description of ‘structural corruption' and declared that there never was a ‘golden age' of independence. There has been a ‘professionalisation' of MPs and that the quality of Parliament today is higher and politics is cleaner. We now have a higher percentage of dedicated politicians compared to the ‘dilettantes' who existed in the 19^th century and in the 1930s. He agreed that reforms need to be made and defined the problem as ‘the legacy of a 19^th century club trying to hold a democracy to account in the 21^st century'. Modernisation is the key, combined with effective scrutiny, cleaning up the issues of pay, allowances, pensions etc plus one further reform - to create a form of democratic debate here which the public are prepared to listen to and engage with'.

Questions from the floor covered issues such as state funding of political parties, centralisation of MPs' staff, the power of the Whips system and membership of select committees.

Is the West Lothian Question unanswerable?

2008-02-06T16:17:00Z

Wednesday 6 February 2008
House of Commons

6.30pm - 7.45 pm

Speakers:
Sir Malcolm Rifkind MP
Lord Falconer of Thoroton

Chair: Sheena McDonald

The Scottish voters have elected a nationalist administration to govern them but where does this leave the rest of the UK?

Is the West Lothian Question unanswerable? will consider questions such as; Is the Union under threat? Is an English Grand Committee the answer? Could a federal UK work?

Questions will be taken from the floor after the discussion by our speakers.

Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke MP addresses inaugural annual lecture

2007-12-13T12:18:00Z

Mr Clarke opened the meeting by describing his role as Chair of the Conservative Party Democracy Task Force which was trying to tackle the widespread public lack of interest in (almost contempt for) politics. He stressed that he believed that politicians shouldn't want to be loved - healthy scepticism is valuable, but the low turnout in elections is worrying, in particular in regard to young people. There isn't any evidence of genuine detachment from political issues, on the contrary, people are very passionate about the issues but they no longer associate them with politics and Parliament.

He said that politics has not come to terms with the age of the mass media. Political debate is now constant - 24 hours a day, seven days a week. ‘Frenzy' is the right word to describe the current situation. Every problem is a ‘crisis'; every error is a ‘scandal' so that practitioners and public see this media frenzy as what it's all about.

In addition, the celebrity culture predominates so that some individual politicians are seen as celebrities while political parties have become extremely weak.

While party allegiance is weak, single issue pressure groups are strong and have an unchallenged status. As politics has become more complex, the lure of single issue pressure groups with one straightforward answer to problems has become more attractive. These days the public take little part in politics; what makes the running in politics is headlines and focus groups.

Mr Clarke stressed that he believed that politics should not just be about reacting to events. Members of political parties should think that they can make a difference. He believed that the public do want a better process for politics and if we make politics work better, that is in the interest of the public.

Parliament needs to institutionalise rules so that we don't drift further into presidential politics (part of the celebrity politics he referred to earlier). He stressed his belief in cabinet government, collective decision-making and a non-political civil service. He noted that every person in opposition is a very strong supporter of parliamentary reform; but once they were in government, reform didn't seem so urgent.

His solution was to have in writing a powerful code of practice with a select committee to enforce it. Proper parliamentary accountability is vital. He stressed that Parliament is not powerless - in fact there is more rebellion now than there used to be. But you have to know how to rebel, how to pick your issues, to be effective.

He would propose two immediate changes. Firstly, the House of Commons must have more control of its own timetable and what it debates. We need a new business committee - not dominated by officers of the government - and suitable amounts of time in the House of Commons should be at the command of Parliament, not Government.

Secondly, select committees are the basis of Parliament and the key to making Parliament more powerful. Select committee chairs should be elected by secret ballot by all MPs and given more powers.

On the House of Lords, Mr Clarke said that its great weakness is that it is not regarded as having legitimacy. If its members were elected - he suggested 12 year terms with a third retiring every four years and a different electoral system - the Lords would have more legitimacy. But it was vital to put in statute the supremacy of the Commons as Government must get through the manifesto it was voted in on. The Salisbury rules would have to be updated.

Is any of this going to happen? Mr Clarke thought the atmosphere was good and the mood to get serious parliamentary reform going is strong across all the political parties. The key is to keep the heat on and strike while that heat is still on.

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

Ken Clarke lecture 1

Ken Clarke lecture 2

Developments in Scottish Politics: The English View

2007-12-03T10:33:00Z

Tuesday 27 November 2007 from 4.00pm to 5.30pm, Faculty Room North, David Hume Tower, George Square, Edinburgh.

The fourth seminar in the Institute of Governance's series on Identity and Governance in England.

Speaker: Peter Riddell - Chief Political Commentator and Assistant Editor, The Times, and Chair, Hansard Society.

Respondent: Joyce McMillan - Columnist and Chief Theatre Critic of The Scotsman, Visiting Professor of Creative Industries at Queen Margaret University and Council Member, Hansard Society.

Chair: Charlie Jeffery - Co-Director of Institute of Governance, Professor of Politics at the University of Edinburgh, and Vice-Chair, Hansard Society Scotland Working Group.

Constitutional Reform: The central role of Parliament

2007-11-29T12:30:00Z

At a well-attended public meeting held in Westminster on Monday November 26, 2007, four experts on the role of Parliament debated what needs to be done to enhance the role of Parliament. The speakers briefly set out some main points for discussion before taking questions and comments from the floor. The meeting was chaired by Peter Riddell, Chair of the Hansard Society.

Alex Brazier, Director of the Hansard Society Parliament and Government programme, opened the meeting by outlining the Hansard Society's response to the Government's Green Paper The Governance of Britain. He stressed that the Hansard Society has consistently advocated that Parliament's powers should be strengthened and that it should achieve a more equitable and influential relationship with the Executive. As the central, sovereign body at the heart of our representative democracy, Parliament's independence and effectiveness is the benchmark by which the health of our political system should be judged. While welcoming the Green Paper, he had some caveats - firstly, that the Government should do more to promote the role of Parliament in the reform process and, secondly, that it is crucial that the proposed changes are fully and regularly explained to the public and that their views are sought. An informed and interested population is essential to the health of democracy.

He stressed that what was needed was cultural as well as procedural change and that MPs must play their part. He said that reforms since 1997 have not shifted power at all because there was no end point set out. If there was one reform above others which the Hansard Society would like to see implemented, it would be the formation of a petitions committee. Mr Brazier stressed that while direct democracy techniques have a part to play, they are not a solution in themselves. What is needed is a strong, independent Parliament which has a more equal relationship with government and a more open relationship with citizens.

Michael Wills MP, Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice, paid tribute to the work of the Hansard Society and stressed that there was a lot of consensus across the political parties that constitutional reform is important. He said that there has been an increase in the power of the Executive and that Parliament has been downgraded for too long. A ‘great chunk' of the proposed constitutional reform bill is to address the powers of Parliament. He stressed the need to reform the second chamber and the need for greater participation by citizens. He gave examples of direct democracy such as participatory budget making at local level and the proposed Citizens' Summit to deliberate on a statement of Britishness, but underlined that the result of this Summit would go to Parliament. He said that we must respond to changes, but keep Parliament at its heart. Parliamentary democracy and the role of Parliament is precious and although technology makes different forms of democracy possible, we must resist the lure of an electronic, plebiscitary form of democracy.

Rt Hon Theresa May MP, Shadow Leader of the House, agreed that we must cherish and maintain our representative democracy. Direct democracy has a role to play, but we must retain and enhance our representative democracy. She said that there must be a shift in the balance between Parliament and the Executive. She concentrated on two issues - engaging people and strengthening representative democracy. On engaging people, she stressed that we must show people that politicians and what they do are worth engaging with. She highlighted three areas for change: secondary legislation, post-legislative scrutiny and scrutiny of European legislation. Secondary legislation often gets no debate and primary legislation is now often drafted vaguely so that secondary legislation is required. We must look at the amount of secondary legislation and how we handle it. Post-legislative scrutiny is vital as Parliament rarely goes back to see if Acts have achieved the aims they set out to achieve. There is very little scrutiny of European legislation and this needs to be changed. If we enhance representative democracy, we will get better legislation.

Lord Tyler, Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Constitutional Affairs, agreed with a lot of what the previous speakers had said. He stressed that constitutional reform is not very high profile, but that Parliament itself is often in the news - usually the hot topics are whether there is corruption and why people don't bother to vote. He said that the perception of Parliament was crucial. Party funding must be sorted out because it is critical to restoring the reputation of Parliament. There is a connection between the reputation of Parliament and whether people perceive their votes to be important. There is a disconnection between the voting system and the voters. We can tinker with little improvements, but we need to do more to reinvigorate our democracy. He stressed that a Business Committee would be an important change - the House of Commons should be controlling that part of House business which is not Government business. If the House of Commons is to regain authority, the Green Paper proposals are not enough - we need a more critical analysis to the problems and solutions to address these problems.