The history of reform of the House of Lords has a long history since the Parliament Act 1911, and since the House of Lords Act 1999 removed the right of all but 92 hereditary peers to sit in the Lords, there has been a number of initiatives to further the debate on reform. The latest proposals are contained in the draft Bill (Cm. 8077, ISBN 9780101807722) published in May 2011, which was referred to the Joint Committee. In this report the Joint Committee acknowledges the controversial aspects of certain of the proposals and the members of the Committee reflect wider differences of opinion, many of the report's recommendations being decided by a majority. The majority supports the need for an electoral mandate, provided the House has commensurate powers. The current functions and role would continue, but the House would probably seek to be more assertive, to an extent that cannot be predicted. The Committee recommends a House of 450 members, 80% elected on a system of Single Transferable Voting (preferably that used in New South Wales, not the one proposed in the Bill) for a 15 year term.The main sections of the report cover: functions, role, primacy of the Commons and conventions; electoral system, size, voting system and constituencies; appointments, bishops and ministers; transition, salaries, IPSA, disqualification. The Committee recommends that, in view of the significance of the constitutional change, the Government should submit the decision to a referendum.
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'.
Following on from previous reports published in 1990 and 1999, this publication examines how the services to support the institution of the House of Commons and MPs are governed, managed and delivered. The objective of the report has been to respect the status and character of the House and to preserve the special qualities of the House Service, while seeking to build organisational and executive capacity and to promote effectiveness, accountability and value for money. Amongst the 56 conclusions and recommendations made, the report seeks to highlight the importance of an independent audit facility, including placing the chairmanship of the Audit Committee in the hands of an external Committee member and instituting a rolling programme of NAO value-for-money audits. It also recommends a revamped role for the Office for the Chief Executive, with responsibility for strategic planning; strengthening the position of the Finance and Services Committee to improve scrutiny of spending proposals and to support the governing role of the Commission; a centralised and professional human resources team to develop the House staff as a collective resource and to overcome the inefficiencies of the present personnel structure; and the creation of further joint Departments between the two Houses in the interests of reducing overhead costs and general efficiency.
This report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons (HCP 282, session 2007-08, ISBN 9780215521675), focuses on regional accountability. The Governance of Britain Green Paper (Cm. 7170, ISBN 9780101717021) put forward proposals for improved democractic accountability and scrutiny of the delivery of public services in the English regions. The Committee, in this report, has concluded that there is clear evidence of an accountability gap at regional level. Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), although accountable to ministers, still conduct many activities that are not subject to a regular, robust scrutiny, and the Committee believes more should be done to monitor the delivery of services. With this in mind, the Committee recommends the establishment of a system of regional select committees, with one select committee for each of the administrative regions in England, with the exception of London. Further, the Committee recommends that up to two regional grand committee meeting should take place in each session for each of the 8 regions. To avoid an adverse impact on House Members' other commitments, membership of regional committees should consist of 10 Members in total. This report therefore sets out a desirability of establishing new structures within the House of Commons to improve regional accountability and Parliamentary scrutiny.
Drawing on reports from committees, evidence from outside observers and academic research, this report concludes that two years after the general election and the Wright reforms, the evidence is "broadly encouraging" - although committees face some obstacles and there is room for improvement. The "old doctrine by which ministers alone are accountable to Parliament for the conduct of their department is being stretched to implausibility and there is a need for a changed approach. It recommends that the Government engage with the Liaison Committee in a review of the relationship between Government and select committees with the aim of producing joint guidelines for departments and committees, which recognise ministerial accountability, the proper role of the Civil Service and the legitimate wish of Parliament for more effective accountability. The report also makes numerous recommendations for Committees, including: that they be forward-looking in scrutiny of departmental performance, devoting less effort to raking over the coals of past events unless there are lessons to be learnt; give more attention to the financial implications of departmental policy and how departments assess the effectiveness of their spending; experiment with different approaches to evidence-taking, broaden the range of witnesses, and make more use of commissioned research; follow up recommendations to ensure that reports have impact and report to the House at least once each Session on what has been done The Committee intends to ask the Backbench Business Committee for time for a debate in the House of Commons on a motion endorsing its conclusions and recommendations
The Committee recognises the appetite in many quarters for fundamental constitutional change and welcomes the Government's renewed focus on constitutional reform and renewal in response to this. It is surprised by the limited provisions in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill, and fears that this may be a missed opportunity to make progress in some areas of reform. Any programme introducing fundamental change should be carefully constructed and aimed at a coherent outcome taking into account the widest possible range of views and allowing sufficient time for consideration and response. The Government's approach to constitutional reform has been ad hoc and piecemeal. Reform must underpinned by a set of constitutional principles based on a proper understanding of the position and role of Parliament in relation to the other institutions of state. The report covers the Parliamentary Standards Bill, House of Lords reform, a written constitution, stronger powers to local government, electoral reform, young people's engagement with politics, freedom of information. The Committee cautions that inappropriate handling of bills and proposals for reform specifically designed to restore public trust may further undermine that trust.
While strong Armed Forces remain the bedrock in safeguarding national interests new kinds of power projection are now required, both to make the use of force ('hard power') more effective and in some instances to replace it with the deployment of what has been labelled 'soft power'. Soft power involves getting what a country wants by influencing other countries to want the same thing, through attraction, persuasion and co-option. The information and digital revolution has transformed international relations and foreign policy, meaning that the UK must win over new and wider audiences to its point of view. The UK must change the way it interacts with other nations and communities, and is well-equipped to do so. Soft power methods of exercising international influence must now be combined with older approaches in order to secure and promote the UK's interests and purposes. To ensure that the exercise of soft power takes its place at the core of government policy-making, the Committee calls for the creation of a new strategic unit at the heart of Government. Its purpose would be to assist the Prime Minister in ensuring all Departments understand the importance of soft power and of upholding the UK's reputation, and in swiftly counteracting any potentially damaging policies or messages. While investing in soft power takes time to produce results, the Committee makes a number of recommendations including that BBC World Service's budget is not reduced any further in real terms and that the British Council is properly resourced to encourage the UK's creative industries
This report emphasises the importance of independent regulation of the system for reimbursing MPs' costs; of the continuing need for transparency and the need for value for money. The Committee concludes that the aims set out for the new system in 2009 were the right ones but have not been sufficiently achieved. In particular, the cost to the taxpayer is too high and the time spent dealing with the system hinders MPs in performing their parliamentary duties, to the detriment of constituents and the country. Proposals made include: separating the administrative and regulatory roles of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA); improving the transparency of IPSA's publication of claims; a cost-benefit analysis of how the accommodation and travel part of the system could be simplified
The depth and pace of EU integration has demonstrated the need for effective democratic parliamentary scrutiny and accountability of Government at Westminster. This is the first major inquiry into the European scrutiny system in the House of Commons for eight years. There is more that the Committee could do to look at the impact of new proposals. There should be a new requirement to appoint ’Reporters' to take the lead within Committees on EU issues, as well as a more coordinated approach to the Commission Work Programme. Whilst the system need not be scrapped as some have said, it must be enhanced. Many problems arise from the fact that new Members are appointed for each document. The Committee argues forcefully for a return to the permanent membership system, new powers and a change of name to reflect the Committees' core purpose: EU Document Debate Committees. The Committee also examined how EU business is taken on the floor of the House, and the procedures which apply to it. They set out a series of recommendations about the way debates are scheduled and conducted and put the case for a new session of ’EU Questions'. They also review working practices and the visibility of the House's scrutiny of the EU in the media. It concluded that now is the time to propose the introduction of a form of national veto over EU legislative proposals, and then to explore the mechanics of disapplication of parts of existing EU obligations, notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972
The Commission's report examines the options for ensuring adequate post-legislative scrutiny of Acts of Parliament, in the light of the recommendation of the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution (in their 14th report, HCP 173-I, session 2003-04; ISBN 0104005416). The main focus of the report is on primary legislation, but it also considers delegated legislation and European legislation. Issues discussed include: existing forms and benefits of post-legislative scrutiny in the UK Parliament and in other jurisdictions (including Canada, Australia, Germany, France and the EU); the experience of pre-legislative scrutiny; and options for post-legislative scrutiny mechanisms. A number of consultation questions are given, and responses should be received by 28th April 2006.
The Government published a draft Bill on the Recall of MPs, with the aim of restoring faith in the political process after the expenses scandal. But the restricted form of recall proposed could reduce public confidence in politics by creating expectations that are not fulfilled. Under the Government's proposals, constituents themselves would not be able to initiate a recall petition. Furthermore, the circumstances that the Government proposes would trigger a recall petition are so narrow that recall petitions would seldom, if ever, take place. The Committee believes that the new House of Commons Committee on Standards, which will include lay members, already has the sanctions it needs to deal with MPs who are guilty of misconduct, including recommending the ultimate sanction of expulsion from the House of Commons in cases of serious wrongdoing. The Committee argues that the option of expulsion must be actively considered and that the House must be prepared to act. The Committee recommends: that the Government replace the requirement for a single designated location for signing the recall petition with a requirement for multiple locations; that people with an existing postal vote should automatically be sent a postal signature sheet in the event of a recall petition; that constituents in Northern Ireland should have the same options for signing a recall petition as constituents elsewhere in the UK, rather than being restricted to signing by post
The Sewel Convention seeks to ensure that the UK Parliament legislates on devolved matters only with the express agreement of the Scottish Parliament, and consent is also required for legislation on reserved matters if it alters the powers of the Scottish Parliament or Scottish Ministers. Following on from a report by the Scottish Parliament Procedures Committee on the operation of the Convention (SP paper 428, 7th report, session 2 (2005) (ISBN 1406113220) published in October 2005), the Committee's report focuses on ways of improving the communications procedure between the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments, and how MPs could be better alerted that a particular Bill before Parliament had been subject to a Sewel motion in the Scottish Parliament. Recommendations made include: the introduction of a formal process whereby the Scottish Parliament notifies Westminster when a Sewel motion has been passed and the 'tagging' of all relevant public Bills; and the need for an explicit statement on explanatory notes to Bills as to which parts of the UK the provisions will affect. The report also recommends the further consideration of the need to establish a 'Super' Scottish Grand Committee, composed of Scottish MPs, MSPs and Scottish MEPs, to discuss matters of mutual interest.
There has been a huge in increase in the constituency workload over the past few years adding to the pressure on Members of Parliament. Each Member has a different way of working which means in considering sitting hours there are no mainstream options which are necessarily right or wrong. The evidence suggests that the current balance of about 150 days over 34 weeks per year is broadly correct and should remain approximately as is. The Committee recommends that the House should be given the opportunity to vote on whether the House should continue to sit in September from 2013 onwards. There is widespread recognition that there is no scope for any diminution in the time available to the House for debate and scrutiny of legislation. The current pattern of 8 sitting hours on each sitting day between Monday and Thursday should therefore also continue, subject to future decisions concerning Friday sittings. Suggestions were heard that the House should sit normal working hours but that could be ill-suited to the transaction of other important Parliamentary business and needs of Members whose constituencies are some distance from Westminster. The House should be enabled to come to a decision in respect of each different day. The Committee is also currently considering whether consideration of private Members' bills should be moved from Fridays; and programming of legislation. The proposal of 'injury time' to compensate for time spent on oral statements was deemed undesirable but the Committee suggests that there should be a mechanism for backbenchers to question a Minister between 11.00 and 11.30 on Wednesdays
Constitutional processes following a general Election : Fifth report of session 2009-10, report, together with formal minutes, oral and written Evidence
The draft Bill and White Paper were included in Cm. 7342-I,II,III (ISBN 9780101734226) which follows the Green paper issued in July 2007, Cm. 7170 (ISBN 9780101717021) and various other Governance of Britain papers
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.
This report reviews progress since 2009 on the recommendations of the Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons - known as the Wright Committee after its Chair, Dr Tony Wright - and looks forward. It concludes that: Commons select committees are more effective, and election of select committee chairs and members by MPs in a secret ballot, instead of being appointed by the whips, as recommended by Wright, have brought greater transparency and democracy; the Backbench Business Committee, another suggestion of Wright, has been a success, giving backbenchers the chance to decide the subjects of debates covering about a quarter of the House's time; another key Wright recommendation - a House Business Committee which would give backbenchers an influence on the rest of the House's agenda - can be and should be introduced without delay. The Coalition Agreement said in 2010 that the Committee would be established by the third year of this Parliament; the House's petitions procedure is failing to meet public expectations. There is too much confusion between the roles of Government and Parliament. The Committee argues that there is still a case for the establishment of a petitions committee and recommends that officials work up a detailed and costed proposition which could then be put to the House for its endorsement
This report builds on work undertaken in the previous Parliament. It contains three sets of recommendations which share a common aim of improving the effectiveness of parliamentary scrutiny. Firstly the Committee recommends that select committees be allowed to table in their own amendments to bills and motions on the floor of the House. Secondly it is recommended that during this Parliament Members and opposition spokespeople be encouraged to table explanatory statements on amendments to bills and that the Government use this facility to provide explanatory statements to clarify the origin of amendments and new clauses proposed on report. Thirdly the Committee recognises that whilst written parliamentary questions are a vital part of parliamentary scrutiny, there is a danger that their value is being eroded by the record numbers being tabled which also imposes significant costs on the public purse. The Committee therefore proposes a three month trial of applying a daily quota of five and an earlier deadline of 6.30 pm from Monday to Thursday and 2.30 pm on sitting Fridays to questions for written answer submitted electronically. They also recommend that, to assist Members, the Government deliver all answers to parliamentary questions to the Member concerned by email at the same time as the answer is delivered to the House
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.
Domestic violence is the largest cause of morbidity worldwide in women aged 19-44, greater than war, cancer or motor vehicle accidents. According to the British Crime Survey, 1 in 4 women and 1 in 6 men in the UK will experience domestic violence at some point in their lives. The vast majority of serious and recurring violence is perpetuated by men towards women. Domestic violence accounts for 16 per cent of all violent incidents reported to or recorded by the police. Around 2 women a week are killed by their partner or former partner. Domestic violence is estimated to have cost the UK £25.3 billion in 2005-06. Home Office figures suggest there are around 12 "honour" killings each year, but the total is likely to be far higher. The Government's Forced Marriage Unit deals with 5,000 enquiries and 300 cases of forced marriage each year. 30 per cent of these concern under-18s, and 15 per cent are men. The Committee concludes the Government approach to all forms of domestic violence is disproportionately focused on criminal justice responses at the expense of effective prevention and early intervention. There are also serious concerns about the amount of refuge space for those fleeing violence, and the provision of domestic violence services is a "postcode lottery". Availability of Probation Service perpetrator programmes is so poor some courts cannot use them as sentencing options. The Department for Children, Schools and Families should introduce an explicit statutory requirement for schools to educate children about domestic and "honour"-based violence and forced marriage. Front-line professionals - teacher, health professionals, visa entry clearance officers, police, judges and magistrates - who come into contact with victims should receive accredited training to enable them to identify abuse and refer the victim to appropriate support.
This report considers the Commission's 2011 Communication on the Global Approach to Migration and Mobility and the UK's participation in EU asylum and immigration measures. As countries in Europe face an ageing population and a declining birth rate, legal third country immigration into the EU will be needed to keep the economy on track and retain Europe's competitiveness in a global market. While Member States should retain primary responsibility for their own migration policies, the EU also has a role to play. As the majority of irregular migrants enter the EU with authorisation and then overstay their visas, rather than crossing the EU's external border by boat or land routes illegally, the EU should adopt a more effective approach in preventing irregular migration. The EU also has a role it can play in refugee management and building capacity in the asylum systems of countries of origin and transit. Moreover, migration policy cannot and should not be the sole concern of interior ministries and a more integrated approach with development and foreign affairs ministries - at the national and EU level - would help maximise the EU's development aims. The reduction of trade barriers with non-EU countries and measures to facilitate remittances, mitigate the effects of brain drain and assist diasporas to contribute to their countries of origin would also be beneficial. The Committee also considers the position of international students in the UK: they should not be subjected to the Government's policy objective of reducing net migration.
The House of Lords Constitution Committee have today published their 4th report of the 2009-10 session on 'The Cabinet Office and the Centre of Government' (HLP 30, ISBN 9780108459320) in which they suggest that power within the cabinet has become increasingly centralised to the Prime Minister and recommend that structures of accountability should be reformed to mirror that change. The Committee expresses support for the principles of collective responsibility but recognise that increasingly the Cabinet Office has become responsible for overseeing the delivery of government policy across departments. They stress that accountability mechanisms within the UK constitution are not set up to reflect this new reality with parliamentary and select committee scrutiny based on individual Ministers reporting to Parliament for activities within their departments. The Committee also considers the role of the Minister for the Cabinet Office, and state that the responsibilities of the post are currently poorly defined. They recommend that the Government reassess the functions of the Minister for the Cabinet Office to ensure that the postholder's responsibilities accurately reflect the strategic role the Cabinet Office plays in delivering government policy. The report goes on to consider the approach taken to changes to the machinery of government and the change in the role and function of the Lord Chancellor which took place during Tony Blair's time as Prime Minister. The Committee states that the process of change involved ’wholly inadequate' consultation both within government and with the senior judiciary, and further states that there was "no justification for failure to consult on these important reforms". The Committee recommends that in future the Cabinet Office should play a formal role in investigating any machinery of government changes, particularly those with constitutional implications.
The report of the Leader's Group examining the working practices of the House of Lords and the operation of self-regulation was published today (Tuesday 26 April). Recommendations in the report include changes to enable the Lords better to fulfil its core functions of scrutinising government, testing out and reviewing legislation, and debating important issues. The report also suggests ways in which the House of Lords could make the most of its unique strengths and resources, including its Members' skills and experience.
The Lisbon Treaty contains provisions which are intended to "encourage greater involvement of national parliaments in the activities of the European Union and to enhance their ability to express their views on draft legislative acts ... as well as on other matters which may be of particular interest to them". This report examines these provisions. The referendum on the Treaty in the Republic of Ireland took place during the course of the inquiry. The "no" vote in Ireland raised the question of whether to continue: it was decided to do so for two main reasons: the first is that, irrespective of the Lisbon Treaty, the principle of subsidiarity will remain an important part of EU and Community law; and the second is that the UK will retain its right to decide whether to opt into European legislation on visas, asylum and immigration under Title IV of the present EC treaty. The conclusions on the provisions of the Lisbon Treaty on subsidiarity include: the substance of the subsidiarity Article in the Lisbon Treaty is the same in its effect as the existing Article in the EC Treaty; examination of EU proposals for compliance with the principle of subsidiarity is a long-established and fundamental part of the scrutiny process of the European Scrutiny Committee of the House of Commons; whether a proposal does or does not comply is a matter of political judgement and is unlikely to be capable of an entirely objective assessment.
Accountability to the House of Commons of secretaries of state in the House of Lords : Third report of session 2009-10, report, together with formal minutes and written Evidence
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.