The Cabinet Manual sets out some important "rules of the game" on constitutional issues that are of public interest, such as when the sitting Prime Minister at a general election who is unlikely to command a majority in the Parliament just elected should tender his resignation. Cabinet Manual provides a source of information on the laws, conventions and procedures that affect the operation and procedures of the Government. The Committee says that well before the forthcoming election, the Cabinet Secretary should set out the Government's view of the constitutional principles that will underpin the continuance in office or otherwise of an administration following a general election. Revision of the Manual is important: a document which is not regularly updated to reflect relevant developments will lack authority. The Committee believes the Manual should be revised at least every Parliament, and especially on the arrival of a new administration. The Cabinet should publish, and keep updated, a list of matters which need to be amended when the Manual is nest revised, and should mark up the online version of the Manual at places where revisions are expected.
The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee publishes its own draft parliamentary resolution setting out the process that should be followed to consult Parliament on conflict decisions, to serve as an interim step towards putting Parliament's role in war making decisions on a legal footing. The Committee has repeatedly called on Government to make progress on the Foreign Secretary's commitment in 2011 to "enshrine in law for the future the necessity of consulting Parliament on military action". The key points of the report are as follows: (1) The debate in the House of Commons on 29 August 2013 regarding Syria and the use of chemical weapons highlighted the important role Parliament plays in conflict decisions; (2) The Government needs to make a clear statement of how it intends to honour the Foreign Secretary's commitment of 2011, and give a specific Minister responsibility for making progress on this.; (3) A parliamentary resolution would serve as a useful interim step towards enshrining Parliament's role in law, by embedding the current convention and clarifying some of the ambiguities that exist under current arrangements.
Opinion polling has consistently indicated the likelihood of an election result with no overall majority. This means it is likely there will be a negotiation period for the formation of a potential coalition Government or a Government supported on a confidence and supply arrangement. This inquiry was to provide guidance to the public on what to expect in the government formation process in a Parliament with no overall majority. The key issues are that: the negotiation period in 2015 is likely to be longer than in 2010; a Prime Minister who is unlikely to be able to form a new administration is nevertheless likely to remain in office until it is clear that another administration can form a Government which can command the confidence of the House of Commons; if there is no parliamentary majority to support the current administration, it will nevertheless continue in office on a caretaker basis until a new government is formed. The Committee believes it is wrong that Parliament may not have its first meeting after the election until after a new administration has been appointed. They consider that it is wrong in principle that the decision on the date of Parliament's return should be in the hands of the Prime Minister, and recommend that the date of Parliament's first meeting after a General Election should be put on a statutory basis. Parliament should return as soon as possible, and in any case the Prime Minister should set the date for Parliament's return following the General Election for Monday 11 May 2015.
The Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee was established in June 2010 to consider political and constitutional reform. Over the last five years the Committee has scrutinised the Government's substantial programme of political and constitutional reform - which included fixing the term of a Parliament, bringing forward proposals for recalling MPs, establishing a register of third party lobbyists and implementing Individual Electoral Registration. The establishment of a dedicated select committee to consider these matters has brought additional parliamentary scrutiny to a substantial part of the Government's programme. Should the next Government plan to take forward constitutional reform, a select committee be established to examine the Government's proposals, to keep the progress of any political and constitutional reform under regular review, and to continue the work this Committee has undertaken. The Committee has also highlighted the extent to which it has engaged the public with it's work through consultations and increased use of social media, online surveys and informal events. This public engagement is one of it's greatest innovations, and something which it encourages other committees to adopt in the future
Further Government response to HC 923, session 2010-12 (ISBN 9780215559586). Earlier response published as HC 1477, session 2010-12 (ISBN 9780215561473)
The report discusses the impact of Queen's and Prince's Consent on the legislative process. It notes that Consent is a matter of parliamentary procedure and could be abolished by means of addresses to the Crown, followed by a resolution of each House. If the House authorities decide that Consent is needed for a Private Member's Bill, the Government should as a matter of course seek Consent to remove any suggestion that the Government is using the Consent process as a form of veto on Bills it does not support. When the Queen or the Prince of Wales grant their Consent to Bills, they do so on the advice of the Government but the process of Consent is complex and arcane and its existence undoubtedly fuels speculation that the monarchy has an undue influence on the legislative process. Consent serves as a reminder that Parliament has three elements and its existence could be regarded simply as a matter of courtesy between the three parts of Parliament. The Committee says the process should be simplified and recommends that Consent should no longer be signified personally by a Privy Counsellor; that the requirement for Consent is published as soon as the Bill is printed; and that Consent be signified at Third Reading in both Houses, in all instances. The latter change would make it more difficult for the Government ever to use the process of Consent as a way of curtailing debate on Private Members' Bills it did not like.
In its report, the Committee recommends that "the Government should as a first step bring forward a draft detailed parliamentary resolution, for consultation with us among others, and for debate and decision by the end of 2011". The Committee points out that "much work in this direction has already been completed, and the process for decision should be relatively swift". The Committee welcomes the Foreign Secretary's commitment to enshrine Parliament's role in law, but says this is likely to be a longer-term project. Concerns around the feasibility of a statutory solution would need to be explored and resolved. The Committee also recommends that Parliament's current role in conflict decisions should be clearly described in the Cabinet Manual. The Manual, when published, is intended to be a single source of information for Ministers, civil servants and others on how government works. The issue of Parliament's role in decisions to commit British forces to armed conflict abroad was an area in which considerable work was carried out before the 2010 general election, particularly in the context of the war in Iraq, but without any concrete result. In its recent report on the constitutional implications of the Cabinet Manual, the committee commented on the "surprising" omission from the draft Manual of any mention of Parliament's role in decisions to commit troops to armed conflict. The issue became topical once again in the context of the ongoing military action in Libya.
The Magna Carta has its 800th Anniversary next year, and the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, in this report, launches a major consultation into the shape of our democracy today. The Committee has been working on a major project with King's College London to develop several different visions of what a democratic settlement for the UK could look like. The research lays out three different models - including one fully fleshed out, complete constitution - and sets out some of the arguments for and against codifying the constitution. The UK has a mass of common law, Acts of Parliament, and European treaty obligations, and a number of important but uncertain and unwritten 'conventions' that govern administration, but the full picture is unclear and uncertain to electors in our democracy. It has become too easy for governments to implement political and constitutional reforms to suit their own political convenience. A written constitution would entrench requirements for popular and parliamentary consent and give primacy to the sovereignty of the people. The case against a written constitution is that it is unnecessary, undesirable and un-British. The UK's unwritten constitution is evolutionary and flexible in nature, enabling practical problems to be resolved as they arise and individual reforms made. A written constitution could create more litigation in the courts and politicise the judiciary. There is no real popular support or demand for a written constitution. Given these polarised views, the Committee is launching the consultation to get input from all quarters on the possibilities.
In July 2014 the Committee published three blueprints for constitutional codification, including a full written constitution, and asked the public to send in their comments on the drafts. Some 3,000 people engaged in the consultation exercise, through written submissions, surveys and social media: the Committee has asked the author of the three blueprints, Professor Robert Blackburn of King's College London, to review the comments and to update his drafts. Responding to calls for a clearer and more accessible text for debate on a written constitution, the Committee today publishes a draft summary constitution, with options for reform, which it hopes will stimulate further debate on constitutional issues. The Committee was appointed for the lifetime of the present Parliament to consider political and constitutional reform issues. It strongly recommends that a similar committee be set up in the new Parliament to take its work forward; if not, it recommends that an existing committee with a remit to consider constitutional issues should carry on its work.
Since 1945, turnout for general elections in the UK has fallen from a high of 83.9% in 1950 to a low of 59.4% in 2001. Turnout for the 2010 general election was 65.1% higher than the previous two general elections, but still the third lowest since the introduction of universal suffrage. Turnout at the last general election was also low compared with turnout at the last parliamentary elections in other European Union countries. There is also evidence that a significant number of people in the UK are not registered to vote, with the most recent estimates indicating that the electoral register was between 85 and 87% complete. This would mean that approximately 6.5 million people are missing from the electoral register. In light of this, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee agreed to conduct an inquiry into voter registration and turnout in the UK.
The report discusses the impact of Queen's and Prince's Consent on the legislative process. It notes that Consent is a matter of parliamentary procedure and could be abolished by means of addresses to the Crown, followed by a resolution of each House. If the House authorities decide that Consent is needed for a Private Member's Bill, the Government should as a matter of course seek Consent to remove any suggestion that the Government is using the Consent process as a form of veto on Bills it does not support. When the Queen or the Prince of Wales grant their Consent to Bills, they do so on the advice of the Government but the process of Consent is complex and arcane and its existence undoubtedly fuels speculation that the monarchy has an undue influence on the legislative process. Consent serves as a reminder that Parliament has three elements and its existence could be regarded simply as a matter of courtesy between the three parts of Parliament. The Committee says the process should be simplified and recommends that Consent should no longer be signified personally by a Privy Counsellor; that the requirement for Consent is published as soon as the Bill is printed; and that Consent be signified at Third Reading in both Houses, in all instances. The latter change would make it more difficult for the Government ever to use the process of Consent as a way of curtailing debate on Private Members' Bills it did not like.
The Committee supports the aims of increasing transparency in lobbying and effectively and fairly regulating third-party campaigning, but finds that the Government's bill is seriously flawed, because of inadequate consultation and a lack of pre-legislative scrutiny. Moreover, the definition of "consultant lobbying" is so narrow that not only would it exclude in-house lobbyists, which was the Government's intention, but it would also exclude the vast majority of third-party lobbyists and particularly the larger organisations. Many companies undertake lobbying as part of a wider communications and public relations business, and they spend very little of their time meeting directly with Ministers and Permanent Secretaries, meaning they could argue they were exempt from registering. The register should be expanded to include in-house lobbyists, and to cover the provision of advice on lobbying, as well as direct contact with Ministers and Permanent Secretaries. Special Advisers and Senior Civil Servants should be included in the list of people with whom contact counts as lobbying. Part 2 of the Bill, on non-party campaigning, and particularly the definition of spending "for electoral purposes" is confusing. The Committee urges the Government temporarily to withdraw the Bill and support a motion in the House to set up a special committee to carry out pre-legislative scrutiny, using the text of the existing Bill as a draft. The special committee should be charged with producing an improved Bill within six months.
House of Lords reform is a large and thorny issue on which it has proved very difficult to get political consensus. This inquiry focused on the incremental changes that could possibly be achieved outside the wider reforms that are doubtless required. Creating the power to remove Peers who have actually broken the law of the land and to remove persistent non-attendees will enjoy widespread support and would indicate that the unelected chamber was not opposed to sensible reform. Establishing a consensus about the principles that should determine the relative numerical strengths of the different party groups in the House of Lords, and for codifying such principles, is probably the most contentious of all the issues considered, but it is also the most crucial to any further progress. The Government and political parties in the Lords need to set out their positions on this matter and to engage in dialogue that will establish a consensus before the next General Election, so that both Houses can act upon an agreed reform
The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee published online its second report on the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, in time for consideration of Lords amendments by the House of Commons on 22 January. The haste with which Lords amendments were returned to the Commons is yet another example of the way in which this Bill has been rushed through Parliament. The timetable that the Government has imposed for this Bill indicates contempt for Parliament and a lack of belief in the value of parliamentary scrutiny. Part 2 of the Bill, on third party campaigning remains problematic, but the Committee continues to have serious concerns about the very narrow scope of Part 1, on lobbying. Without the changes recommended in the Committee's original report (7th report of session 2013-14, HC 601-I, ISBN 9780215062352) to broaden the register, Part 1 of the Bill will do little to increase transparency about who is lobbying whom and for what purpose. Despite significant changes to the Bill, the Committee would still like further amendments: Part 1 to include Senior Civil Servants within the list of people with whom contact counts as lobbying; in Part 2, the maximum expenditure limits for third party campaigning to be restored to their current levels in England, Scotland and Wales (the Committee is content with the proposed increase in the limit for Northern Ireland; the reporting and accounting requirements in Part 2 of the Bill to be made less bureaucratic.
The Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee was established in June 2010 to consider political and constitutional reform. Over the last five years the Committee has scrutinised the Government's substantial programme of political and constitutional reform - which included fixing the term of a Parliament, bringing forward proposals for recalling MPs, establishing a register of third party lobbyists and implementing Individual Electoral Registration. The establishment of a dedicated select committee to consider these matters has brought additional parliamentary scrutiny to a substantial part of the Government's programme. Should the next Government plan to take forward constitutional reform, a select committee be established to examine the Government's proposals, to keep the progress of any political and constitutional reform under regular review, and to continue the work this Committee has undertaken. The Committee has also highlighted the extent to which it has engaged the public with it's work through consultations and increased use of social media, online surveys and informal events. This public engagement is one of it's greatest innovations, and something which it encourages other committees to adopt in the future
The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee publishes its own draft parliamentary resolution setting out the process that should be followed to consult Parliament on conflict decisions, to serve as an interim step towards putting Parliament's role in war making decisions on a legal footing. The Committee has repeatedly called on Government to make progress on the Foreign Secretary's commitment in 2011 to "enshrine in law for the future the necessity of consulting Parliament on military action". The key points of the report are as follows: (1) The debate in the House of Commons on 29 August 2013 regarding Syria and the use of chemical weapons highlighted the important role Parliament plays in conflict decisions; (2) The Government needs to make a clear statement of how it intends to honour the Foreign Secretary's commitment of 2011, and give a specific Minister responsibility for making progress on this.; (3) A parliamentary resolution would serve as a useful interim step towards enshrining Parliament's role in law, by embedding the current convention and clarifying some of the ambiguities that exist under current arrangements.
Further Government response to HC 923, session 2010-12 (ISBN 9780215559586). Earlier response published as HC 1477, session 2010-12 (ISBN 9780215561473)
In 2012 the House of Commons introduced a new 'core task' for all select committees that focused on public engagement as a distinctive and explicit factor of their work. This report focuses on how the select committees have responded to the new core task. Three core conclusions emerged: a) there has been a significant shift within the select committee system to taking public engagement seriously and this is reflected in many examples of innovation; b) this shift, however, has not been systematic and levels of public engagement vary significantly from committee to committee; and c) a more vibrant and systematic approach to public engagement is urgently needed but this will require increased resources, a deeper appreciation of the distinctive contribution that select committees can make and a deeper cultural change at Westminster. This report therefore details innovations in relation to the use of social media, the structure of inquiries and innovative outreach. Public engagement has not yet been fully embedded into the culture of parliament but there is evidence of significant 'cracks and wedges' that can now be built-upon and extended during the 2015-20 Parliament. Clearly the focus of the committee and the topic of the inquiry will have some bearing on the approach to engagement adopted but a more expansive and ambitious approach across the board is to be encouraged. This report leads to a ten-point set of inter-related recommendations but they can all be connected in the sense that the existing social research demonstrates a clear desire on the part of the public to 'do politics differently'.
In Transparency Of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning And Trade Union Administration Bill (HL 62), the Select Committee on the Constitution raises significant concerns about the content and handling of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill. The Bill, which regulates lobbying and sets rules on expenditure by persons or bodies other than political parties at elections, is due for its second reading in the Lords on 22 October 2013. The report says that effective parliamentary scrutiny is of manifest importance for legislation of constitutional significance. The Committee questions whether the significant lowering of the cap on expenditure at general elections by third parties is justified, given the fundamental constitutional right to freedom of political expression. There has been a lack of consultation by the Government on the proposals, including with the Electoral Commission, as well as the lack of
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.