The Committees report examines parliamentary scrutiny of legislation, focusing on the process for dealing with primary legislation (i.e. the scrutiny of parliamentary bills). This examination is carried out in the light of the Rippon Commission report on the topic (Making the Law produced by the Hansard Society Commission on the Legislative Process) which was published in 1992. Topics discussed include the mechanisms for pre-legislative and post-legislative scrutiny, the growth of legislation, the dissemination of information and ways of gauging public opinion through consultation. Conclusions drawn by the Committee include concern over the growth in the number and complexity of bills being presented to Parliament without adequate expansion in the capacity to deliver effective scrutiny. The report contains a number of proposals designed to help engender a culture shift away from this unsustainable volume of legislation, towards a culture of justification which encourages government to adopt a more disciplined approach to the introduction of bills based on the objective of effectiveness rather than quantity.
The volume of EU legislation and the significance of its impact means that it is essential for the House to have an effective means of scrutiny. Although the current system has its strengths, there are weaknesses in that it tends to be seen as a minority activity, of interest to only a few members. The Committee hope that the recommendations of this report will reinvigorate the consideration of EU business. They want to see a system that: examines the negotiating stance adopted by the UK Government; examine EU proposals at an early stage; provide a free flow of information; be well integrated with the other activities of Parliament.
This report makes recommendations to improve the process by which Members learn and develop their careers. If implemented the recommendations would mean: extending the period between a General Election and the date of first sitting, to allow for a longer period of induction; allocating part of most question times to topical questions; extra debates on topical matters on a weekly basis; shorter debates on most general issues and some legislation; a weekly half-hour slot for debating Select Committee Reports; more comprehensible motions; shorter speeches; greater flexibility on time limits on speeches; and the reintroduction, on a trial basis, of Private Members' Motions in Westminster Hall.
Following a two-year absence the Science and Technology Committee was re-formed in October 2009 to conduct cross-departmental scrutiny of science and technology. This report summarises the Committee's work of this session. It also reviews the historical landscape of science scrutiny in Parliament across the work of predecessor committees, and documents the impacts they have had on policy and the culture of scientific debate within Westminster. The Committee highlight several inquiries and reports that have had significant impact in informing legislative decisions and holding government to the standard of evidence based policy making.
This report, from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, presents the first inquiry into the Governance of Britain, all issued as Command Papers and published in 2007: (Cm. 7170, ISBN 9780101717021; Cm. 7175, ISBN 9780101717526; Cm. 7192, ISBN 9780101719223; Cm. 7210, ISBN 9780101721028; Cm. 7231, ISBN 9780101723121; Cm. 7235, ISBN 9780101723527; Cm. 7239, ISBN 9780101723923). It considers Parliament's role in scrutinising the proposed legislative programme, including arrangements for publication and debate as well as wider consultative strategies. The Committee has set out a number of conclusions and recommendations, including: the Committee believes that the use of plain English in the Draft Legislative Programme is to be commended, and the Government should consider extending the approach to programmed Bills on a trial basis; that the Government's main non-legislative plans should be included in the Draft Legislative Programme, alongside the list of proposed bills, in order that a full programme of government is available for scrutiny; that there is a benefit to be derived from the presentation of the Government's legislative programme as a whole and that the Draft Legislative Programme should be published earlier in the year, preferably before Easter, so that select committee scrutiny and public consultation can be carried out more effectively; that the Draft Legislative Programme should be the subject of a separate debate in Parliament.
All-Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs) are groups of Members, from both Houses, who may or may not be supported by outside organisations, and are established for a wide range of purposes. There is a Register of such groups, overseen by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. There has been increasing concern that APPGs pose a reputational risk to the House in several ways: they may provide access for lobbyists; they put pressure on resources; and their output is confused with that of official select committees. But APPGs also provide: forums for cross-party interaction which is not controlled by the whips, interaction between the Members of the Commons and the Lords; and a forum for parliamentarians, academics, business people, the third sector and other interested parties; time and space for policy discussion and debate; and a means for back bench parliamentarians to set the policy agenda. There is a longstanding dilemma about the regulation of APPGs: they are essentially informal groupings, established by individual Members, yet the more restrictions and requirements that are placed on them, the more they appear to be endorsed by the House. The House of Commons Commission has already decided to withdraw the passes of APPG staff. The Committee proposes a package of reforms: ensure that Members' responsibility for APPG activity is clear and accountable; ensure transparency not only about external support, but also about the activities funded by such support; and far greater clarity about the status of the various types of informal work that Members carry out.
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
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
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.