The Reform Challenge Perspectives on Parliament: Past, present and future... Text and graphics © Hansard Society 2010

Published by the Hansard Society 40-43 Chancery Lane, London, WC2A 1JA

Tel: 020 7348 1222 Fax: 020 7438 1229 Email: [email protected]

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form by any means, without the prior permission of the Hansard Society.

The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors. The Hansard Society, as an independent, non-party organisation, is happy to invite analysis and discussion of these views.

For more information about other Hansard Society publications visit our website at www.hansardsociety.org.uk

Cover design by Matt Korris Cover image by Diana Stirbu Sub-editing by Virginia Gibbons Design and Layout by Matt Korris

Contents

Preface 1 Peter Riddell Chair, Hansard Society

The Reform Challenge 3 Dr Ruth Fox Director, Parliament & Government Programme, Hansard Society

Parliamentary reform: From here to there 15 Rt Hon John Bercow MP Speaker of the House of Commons

Ermine, Ethics and Engagement - evolution in the House of Lords 23 Baroness Hayman Lord Speaker

Parliamentary reform: the Labour perspective 31 Rt Hon Jack Straw MP Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor

Parliamentary reform: the Liberal Democrat perspective 39 David Howarth MP Liberal Democrat Justice spokesperson

Parliamentary reform: the Conservative perspective 47 Rt Hon Sir George Young MP Shadow Leader of the House of Commons

Preface

Peter Riddell Chair, Hansard Society

This series of lectures came at the end of Audit of Political Engagement was the the most turbulent Parliament in living sharp decline in the number of people memory. The expenses scandal regarding Parliament as an important aggravated, but did not create, a growing institution affecting them. Leading sense of public disenchantment with the parliamentarians are well aware of these world of Westminster. Even before a vote attitudes and many have been arguing for has been cast at the general election, a reform of their procedures for many record number of MPs have decided to years. leave the House of Commons. Last autumn, the Hansard Society hosted The scandals – both in the House of a lecture by Mr Speaker, John Bercow, Commons and the House of Lords – have who made a number of proposals for triggered wide-ranging demands for strengthening the role of backbenchers, reform. The revelations over MPs' and a lecture by the Lord Speaker, misconduct led to legislation ending Baroness Hayman discussing ways in control by MPs over their own expenses which the Upper House had changed and and allowances and the creation of the needs to change further. We decided to Independent Parliamentary Standards take this series further by inviting leading Authority to take over this role. Further representatives of the three main national proposals would also make IPSA parties to give their thoughts on responsible for pay and pensions. In the parliamentary reform in March 2010, in Lords, too, the suspension of two peers the closing weeks before the election over ‘cash for amendments’ allegations campaign started. These lectures came led to a review of its code of conduct and just after the debates and votes by the the creation of a commissioner, similar to Commons to accept the thrust of the the Parliamentary Commissioner for package proposed by a special select Standards in the Commons. Proposals to committee chaired by Tony Wright to reform the system of payments to peers have the chairs and members of select have also been made by the Senior committees elected and to create a new Salaries Review Body, though the House Business Committee to decide on changes will not be completed until after the allocation and timing of non- the general election. government business.

However, the scandals have also These are important changes but all three prompted soul-searching about the role lecturers – Jack Straw, the Lord and effectiveness of Parliament itself. One Chancellor, who has taken a close interest of the most striking, and damaging, in the Commons throughout his career; findings in the Hansard Society's annual David Howarth, his Liberal Democrat

1 shadow who has made a big impact on constitutional issues during his five years in the Commons; and Sir George Young, the Shadow Leader of the Commons, and a long-time champion of Commons reform – each highlighted areas where more needs to happen. There were disagreements – for instance, between Mr Straw and Sir George – over the impact of a reduction in the number of MPs by equalising the size of constituencies, and between Mr Howarth and the others over electoral reform.

But there was agreement by all three on the need to build on the Wright reforms – not only in the internal procedures of the Commons but also, particularly, in trying to re-engage voters with Parliament; to renew the legitimacy of representative democracy. Longstanding proposals for electronic petitions have so far gone nowhere – and need to be addressed. There are now more ambitious proposals for voters to be able to set the agenda by triggering debates and the presentation of bills – though final decisions would still remain with MPs.

It is misleading to believe that the general election and big changes in the membership of the Commons will be enough to restore confidence, let alone trust, in Parliament. Far more needs to be done. These lectures point the way.

2

The Reform Challenge

Dr Ruth Fox Director, Parliament & Government Programme Hansard Society

When only 19% of the British public and cynicism about politicians and an believe Parliament to be one of the two ever-growing disillusionment with and or three national institutions that have disengagement from the political most influence on their everyday life it is institutions they inhabit as a result of clear that Westminster faces a crisis of problems such as MPs’ expenses, war in relevance and legitimacy.1 Iraq, and the financial crisis.

Parliament lies at the apex of our In light of these problems the next democratic system and fidelity to its general election is rightly regarded as a authority is predicated on public crucial test of our democracy and public confidence and consent. Yet 62% of the expectations are higher than normal that public admit they know ‘not very much’ or the new intake of MPs – potentially the ‘nothing at all’ about it;2 only 40% believe largest turnover since the second world it holds the Government to account; and war – will usher in the winds of change at only 27% believe it is ‘welcoming to the Westminster. But if members of the next public’.3 Only a quarter of the public trust Parliament fail to renew the legitimacy of politicians either ‘a great deal’ or ‘a fair representative democracy, to amount’4 and only one in five people say demonstrably change the culture and they would be proud if their child became conduct of Westminster politics, to a politician.5 restore the standards of public service, and to enhance the reputation and And yet the public continue to retain a relevance of Parliament and the heartening faith in the systemic politicians who serve in it, then it is the foundations of our representative subsequent general election in 2014 or democracy. Two thirds strongly believe in 2015 that could prove to be the true the importance of politics, roundly watershed. The extent to which our rejecting the idea that it is a ‘waste of politicians – individually and collectively – time’;6 three quarters of the public are focused on the right parliamentary believe it is their ‘duty’ to vote;7 58% still reforms for the future is therefore critical. believe that voting in a general election gives them a say in how the country is The parameters of reform run;8 60% believe that Parliament is a ‘worthwhile’ institution9 and 75% that a All the parties talk of the need to renew strong Parliament is good for our democratic system in order to regain democracy.10 In the last decade this public trust. Yet, even before the confidence in the core tenets of our expenses scandal, politicians did not political system has provided an essential command public trust. The Audit of bulwark against a rising tide of distrust Political Engagement demonstrates that

3 trust in politicians has not deteriorated related financial scandals in both the much over the course of this Parliament Commons and Lords have engulfed and has certainly not collapsed as a result politicians on all sides of the political of recent scandals. Levels of trust were divide highlights the fact that there is a already low. Only 26% of the public say fundamental governance and leadership they trust politicians today, but that is problem within Parliament that must be down just 1% on the number who said addressed. the same in 2004, though there has been a distinct hardening of attitudes among The prospects for future reform those already inclined to distrust.11 The revelations about MPs’ expenses did not On the 22 February and the 4 March create the trust problem but merely backbenchers on all sides of the House crystallised and magnified it through a supported radical proposals for the daily drip-feed of evocative tales of introduction of House and Backbench duckhouses, moats and non-existent Business Committees, the election of mortgages. select committee chairs and members, and new initiatives to foster public The challenge facing politicians is much engagement in the parliamentary process broader and more complex than one of particularly through a new petitions trust alone. Public faith, confidence in and process. The expenses issues had the satisfaction with the effectiveness of unexpected effect of emboldening Parliament collectively and MPs Members to defy the conventional individually is also part of the mix. And wisdom that the most significant there is no silver bullet to address the parliamentary reforms are generally problems: what is required is a multi- implemented only in the propitious faceted approach to tackle the flaws and environment immediately following a weaknesses, fundamentally overhauling general election and not in the dying key aspects of the work of Parliament. weeks and months of a Parliament. The process and procedures that govern the way legislation is scrutinised and laws These measures, proposed by the House made needs to be reformed in order to of Commons Reform Committee chaired improve its effectiveness. There is by Tony Wright, mark an important new currently a mismatch between the scrutiny effort to restore some potency and mission of Parliament and its capacity to legitimacy to the House of Commons and carry out that mission. The role and enhance the role of backbenchers in function of individual MPs needs to be relation to the executive. It will now be for facilitated to a greater extent than at the Members in the new Parliament to present if the marginalisation of exploit the opportunities they provide. backbenchers is to be addressed and the influence of parliamentarians collectively Looking beyond these reforms, however, vis-à-vis the executive is to be asserted. a number of fundamental questions and Parliament must also communicate and concerns must be addressed if Parliament engage more effectively with the public is to become a more effective and than it does at present for it is strongest relevant institution, the solutions to which when it is responsive to, articulates and lie often as much with the executive as mobilises public opinion. And if the with Parliament. concept of public service in Parliament is to be restored then there needs to be a At a prosaic level, so long as the current new focus on ethical conduct volume of legislation continues unabated underpinned by the principles of public then the capacity of Parliament to life, transparency and accountability. effectively scrutinise it will be limited. Finally, that the expenses and other Although the average number of bills is

4 broadly the same today as previously, the Although an understandable response to number of pages of primary legislation the expenses scandal, it is not axiomatic has increased dramatically: in the 1950s that cutting the cost of politics, as all the for example, just over 1,000 pages of parties appear now to advocate, will legislation were introduced but in recent necessarily enhance and be to the benefit parliamentary sessions the number of of Parliament and our wider democracy. pages has regularly exceeded 3,000, to Cheap democracy is not the same as which then has to be added the good democracy and is not necessarily in thousands of pages of accompanying the public interest. It is one thing to cut delegated legislation. But while the costs by limiting the amount of money volume of legislation to be scrutinised that can be claimed personally by MPs increases, the resources to do it – but it is quite another to initiate measures particularly the availability of that may constrain democratic parliamentary time – have not. accountability and effective scrutiny. Consequently, unless the volume of Reducing the number of MPs by 10% or legislation is restrained then procedural 20% may reduce the overall financial cost reforms will only be able to deliver burden of Parliament. However, unless incremental improvements in scrutiny and such a move is accompanied by a parallel oversight. commitment to reduce the size of the Government’s payroll vote, it will merely The quality of policy preparation and enhance the executive at the expense of legislative drafting – and the direction the legislature by reinforcing the power of that is provided to parliamentary counsel the frontbench in proportion to the by ministers for this – is also vital: for it is overall size of the House of Commons. Parliament that has to accommodate the Furthermore, when we face the worst difficulties posed by inadequate bill economic crisis since the 1930s and the preparation in terms of parliamentary size and scope of the public sector has time and resources. Similarly, regular been inflated by the nationalisation of a ministerial reshuffles and machinery of large portion of the banking sector, government changes impose a burden on downsizing Parliament at a time when its continuity of scrutiny and oversight – for legislative and scrutiny burden is both example in terms of select committee substantial and ever more important, is a organisation and membership – that strategy not without risk. In terms of Parliament is powerless to address on its resourcing, it could be argued that own. Parliament needs more support than ever before – for example, to provide more Several bodies – the Speaker’s expert advisers – in order to properly Conference on Parliamentary carry out its constitutional responsibilities Representation and the Independent in respect of financial scrutiny. Parliamentary Standards Authority foremost among them – have suggested A lesson of reform over the last 13 years in recent months that the sitting times of is that any programme of change requires Parliament should be reformed still clear and energetic political leadership further to better reflect the working hours from within government. The Wright of the majority of the public. But in reality, Committee marks the exception not the such reforms are impractical so long as norm. But executive initiation of reform the demands on parliamentary time presents real problems. Firstly, reform – continue to grow exponentially, driven by or modernisation – can mean different the ever-increasing size of the statute things to different people and can book and a system that facilitates therefore lead in different directions. legislation by tidal wave rather than by Modernisation generally favoured by the pipeline. executive has tended to focus on reforms

5 to achieve greater efficiency in backbenchers about what changes they Parliament’s processing of legislation, actually want to see. Many hope that the whereas modernisation by those new intake of MPs after the general favouring a rebalancing of the election will consequently inject new life relationship between the legislature and into the parliamentary reform agenda. executive has tended to focus on reforms The potentially historic scale of the new to improve the effectiveness of MPs intake of MPs certainly presents a new individually and Parliament collectively. opportunity for these Members will not Secondly, even when valuable reforms are come to the debate with the same introduced there is no guarantee that ingrained outlook as many of the current they will be effective if their exploitation is group of MPs. Having not been there dependent on the initiative of the long, they will not necessarily be wedded executive: both pre-legislative scrutiny to the traditional way of doing things, so and legislative carry-over are important it may be possible to develop a new reforms that have been under-utilised consensus in favour of reform across since their introduction despite frequent Parliament. But paradoxically the scale of expressions of support for them by the the new intake might actually inhibit the Government. potential for reform in the new Parliament. New Members, unsure in their But Parliament and the House of roles and unfamiliar with how Parliament Commons in particular will not be able to works, may find themselves unduly wrest the initiative for reform from the dependent on the party managers for executive unless and until it develops advice and support and therefore less coherent mechanisms and processes to likely or able to challenge them when it implement and review reform itself. comes to issues of reform. In the age of Change in recent years has come through the permanent election campaign, MPs – a number of routes – the Modernisation and the new generation of parliamentary Committee, the Liaison Committee, the candidates in particular – are also more Procedure Committee, or the locally focused on constituency activity Administration Committee to name just a than ever before, to the detriment of their few. But the result is that change role as legislators and parliamentary becomes dependent on the will of those scrutineers. The parties have yet to fully committees to pursue proposals in the confront the irony that despite this face of executive opposition or incessant local focus, MPs are disinterest, or it is reliant on the particular nonetheless perceived to be more out of political influence of the chair to help touch with public opinion than ever secure the proposals. When membership before. Unless the next generation of MPs of the committees changes then embrace the fact that in addition to their momentum in favour of particular local commitments they have a proposals can be lost. And when there is constitutional obligation to hold the major impetus for reform, as there has Government to account on behalf of the been in the last year, then entirely new public then the prospect of many of them committees can be established, as we focusing on parliamentary reform as a have seen with the Wright Committee. priority may be slim indeed. Unless more coherent and effective mechanisms to deliver reform are Priorities for reform provided then the approach to reform may continue to be ad-hoc and often The last three Parliaments have witnessed ineffective. a series of important reforms, many of which were first recommended by the Part of the problem is also that there is Hansard Society. Legislative procedures often a lack of consensus among have been redefined through the

6 introduction of programming, carry-over Conversely its supporters can rightly of bills, pre-legislative scrutiny, and public argue that programming has brought bill committees. The scrutiny process has greater certainty, even rationality to the been reshaped and refocused through legislative process, limiting the ability to significant reforms to the role and filibuster and delay and thus reduce the function of select committees, changes to time available for constructive debate. parliamentary questions, and the introduction of the Modernisation But the problems with programming are a Committee. And the way that Parliament good example of what can happen when conducts its business has been a reform is introduced in isolation, modernised with changes to sitting times decoupled from other reforms intended and the parliamentary calendar, new to accompany it as part of a broad initiatives to facilitate public engagement, package of change. When the Rippon broadcasting changes, and the overhaul Commission recommended the of the management structure. introduction of timetabling, it saw this reform in the context of other proposed But looking to the future what should be changes, particularly greater use of pre- the new priority areas for action and legislative scrutiny, carry-over of reform? legislation, and the introduction of a Business Committee. The latter was long 1. Legislative and scrutiny process resisted and has only just been endorsed i) Programming as part of the Wright Committee package of reforms for implementation after the Programming motions outline the time election. One of its early priorities should that will be spent on each stage of a bill be to review the programming process, as it goes through the legislative process. taking account of the recent study First recommended by the Hansard undertaken by the Procedure Committee. Society’s independent Commission on the Legislative Process (the Rippon ii) Pre-legislative scrutiny Commission),12 the aim was to introduce more certainty into the legislative process Although pre-legislative scrutiny has been and to eradicate, or at least greatly expanded over the last decade, the reduce, the gaps in scrutiny that occurred benefits have not been fully realised. when a bill ran out, resulting in many Between the 1997-98 and 2003-04 clauses being left undebated. In the early parliamentary sessions, 42 bills were years of programming there was political published in draft: in the 2003-04 consensus between the parties but after parliamentary session alone 12 draft bills 2001 this declined and programming were published. However, in subsequent motions are now largely carried by the sessions there has been a marked Government against the wishes of the decline. In the 2008-09 session, for opposition. The process has thus become example, seven draft bills were ever more controversial with two announced but only two were then particular criticisms levelled at it: that it published in time for scrutiny during the strengthens the executive because it session. And though the scope of pre- deprives the opposition of one of its rare legislative scrutiny has been expanded to parliamentary weapons, namely time, and incorporate the Queen’s Speech, of the therefore the ability to obstruct and delay 23 bills announced in the first ever draft legislation; and that the timetable is often programme in July 2007 only one bill was so tight that a lot of legislation is passed then subsequently published in draft (the entirely without scrutiny with many draft Constitutional Renewal Bill) and amendments at Report stage in particular referred for full pre-legislative scrutiny to being unexamined by the Commons. a parliamentary committee.

7 Pre-legislative scrutiny by parliamentary Modernisation Committee. committee ought to be the norm for most bills. Where possible, MPs who take part Given that PBCs have opened up in pre-legislative scrutiny should also legislative scrutiny to those outside subsequently become members of the Parliament, the work of the committees public bill committee thereby ensuring should be promoted more widely. Written that specialist knowledge of the evidence is permitted for all PBCs but legislation at draft stage is carried over oral evidence cannot be taken for any bill into formal consideration of the final bill. originating in the House of Lords or which All bills which are subject to carry-over has not been subject to pre-legislative from one parliamentary session to scrutiny. These are unhelpful restrictions: another should have had pre-legislative the House of Lords should establish PBCs scrutiny of the draft bill. Thus the for bills that originate in the Upper House advantages gained by the executive in and where pre-legislative scrutiny has securing greater flexibility in the taken place this should be the starting timetabling and passage of the legislation point for examination by the PBC, would be balanced out by greater regardless of where the bill originated, a parliamentary scrutiny of the bill. Finally, position previously recommended by the as much as possible, draft bills should be Modernisation Committee. accompanied by a comprehensive set of draft secondary legislation as it is these Chairing of PBCs needs to be reviewed in regulations that generally provide the order to enhance their effectiveness. substantive detail of a bill. Improvements might be made by greater involvement of select committee chairs or Pre-legislative scrutiny is not without its a more enhanced role for members of the challenges – not least the time constraints Chairmen’s Panel supported by greater that impact on the legislative process and assistance and briefing from clerks. The the additional burden of work it imposes time between Second Reading and on select committees. Overall however, commencement of a PBC is often the potential benefits to be derived from insufficient and sometimes as little as 24 systematic pre-legislative scrutiny hours. This lack of notice and preparation outweigh the problems, many of which time necessarily impacts on the quality of can be addressed by other procedural PBC deliberations and should be reforms to streamline the legislative reviewed. The new House Business process. For example, the introduction of Committee could play a role here. a new House Business Committee could Timetabling arrangements for PBC provide, on a consensual basis, a hearings should be made more flexible, mechanism for discussion of those bills with greater discretion for chairs to that might be candidates for pre- continue questioning witnesses where legislative scrutiny. they deem it appropriate. Chairs (rather than Whips) should be invested with the iii) Public Bill Committees (PBCs) power to call witnesses and consideration should be given to allowing experts, Introduced in 2007, public bill lawyers or officials, to speak at committees provide more flexible scrutiny committees. of legislation than their predecessor standing committees because they allow iv) Select Committees members to invite evidence from outside bodies during the formal legislative Thirty years after they were founded, process. Now in their third year, the departmental select committees have performance of these committees is ripe extended the range and breadth of for review as previously promised by the scrutiny undertaken in Parliament and

8 have provided an alternative career path for example a Tax Administration or for those MPs with a particular interest in Taxation Committee, or establish more a niche area of public policy. In the last joint committees such as a Joint decade, the work of select committees Committee on Tax Administration has become more focused as a result of involving both MPs and peers. the 2002 adoption of 10 ‘Core Tasks’ setting out their primary objectives. The If legislative scrutiny is to be improved appointment of media officers to support then it is essential that committees are their work has also helped to make them fully resourced. The 2002 introduction of an increasingly visible (and popular) form the Scrutiny Unit to support the work of of parliamentary activity. committees has proven to be an invaluable innovation. But as the In order to provide for greater focus on workload of committees increases so, too, select committee work one half or will the pressure on the resources of the preferably one full day per week should Scrutiny Unit. With fewer than 20 staff, it be set aside in the parliamentary provides select committees with expert timetable for committee work during advice and support on financial scrutiny, which time the main Chamber would not pre-legislative scrutiny, and the evidence sit. This should be determined by the new taking functions of public bill committees. House Business Committee. Given the changing workload of committees, and the need to improve The role of committees in scrutinising scrutiny and oversight of financial matters, public appointments between the there is a case for augmenting the work of announcement of an appointment and the Unit through the creation of a the taking up of a post has also been Parliamentary Finance Office to provide broadened in recent years although they parliamentarians with additional high do not possess the formal power to veto quality research, access to specialist an appointment. But if these hearings are advice and expertise, and further support to be ascribed greater value – both by for collection and analysis of evidence MPs and the public – then their scope, and report drafting.14 purpose and impact needs to be revised. v) Post-legislative scrutiny The Hansard Society has previously recommended the creation of a wider The Government has accepted that Acts range of sub-committees in order to should be reviewed between three and foster expertise.13 For example, to avoid five years after enactment. The burden of overburdening the Treasury Committee, a post-legislative review will fall largely on separate HM Revenue and Customs select committees although at present Committee could be established. the initiation of that review process However, the Wright Committee decision remains with the executive. Given the in favour of smaller overall membership of existing responsibilities that select select committees, while having some committees must discharge it would be distinct advantages, goes against the advantageous if a more flexible approach grain of this sub-committee approach. was taken to both cross-committee work Given the range of work facing select in the Commons and the creation of joint committees – pre-legislative scrutiny, committees with the House of Lords. post-legislative scrutiny as well as their Some form of joint sifting committee regular committee inquiries – it remains could be established to prioritise which to be seen whether this will prove to be aspects of an Act will be reviewed in the right decision. An alternative order to rationalise the post-legislative approach to sub-committees may be to scrutiny process. simply establish several new committees,

9 vi) Chamber -v- Committee work in secondary legislation over the last quarter century: the number of statutory The work of select committees needs to instruments doubled from around 2,000 be better integrated into the activity of per year in the mid 1980s to over 4,000 other parts of Parliament, particularly the per year in 2005. Despite this increase, Chambers. There should therefore be scrutiny of statutory instruments remains greater provision for short debates and wholly inadequate. questions on recently published reports during peak periods in the Chambers to In 2003 the House of Lords established a which ministers should give a preliminary sifting mechanism – the Merits of response. This process should be Statutory Instruments Committee – to managed by the Liaison Committee and determine which statutory instruments are the new House and Backbench Business of sufficient legal or political import that Committees. they merit further debate. This reform has strengthened the role of the Lords and its Reflecting the shift towards greater scrutiny function. A similar Merits of committee work, the core tasks of the Statutory Instruments Committee should Chamber of the House of Commons be established by the House of Commons should now be refined and clarified. The to complement the scrutiny work carried floor of the House remains the main out by peers. Additionally, the affirmative public focus for activity but attendance is resolution procedure for regulations low for anything other than big, set-piece should allow for amendment rather than parliamentary occasions. The extent to just adoption or rejection. which discussion in the Chamber dominates political debate has also viii) Private Members’ Bills (PMBs)15 declined. To improve attendance and influence, the work of the Chamber Private Members’ Bills provide a rare should therefore be refined to reflect its opportunity for individual MPs to initiate emergence as the plenary session of legislation, respond to public concerns Parliament and the place where ministers and help shape the legislative agenda. are held to account on the topical issues Enhancing the positive elements and of the day. outcomes of the PMB process would strengthen Parliament but the current Similarly, in the House of Lords, in order procedure means that few make it onto to make better use of the time available the statute book. Many of the procedural in the Chamber, the Grand Committee devices that can be deployed to destroy a process should become the default PMB derive their potency from the fact mechanism for consideration of all bills. that PMBs are not timetabled. The Wright Committee proposed that the new Greater use should then be made of split Backbench Business Committee should committal of bills in both Houses so that look at this as well as related issues such the most contentious issues might be as the balloting process and the dealt with and voted on in the Chamber shoehorning of consideration of PMBs with the remaining more consensual into Friday sittings when most Members elements of a bill dealt with in committee. are in their constituencies. This should be a priority for the new Parliament. vii) Delegated (secondary) legislation ix) House of Lords Primary legislation often provides only a framework for particular policies, leaving Much of the focus of political debate secondary legislation to fill in much of the about the Lords concerns its composition. detail. There has been a huge expansion But following the introduction of the

10 Wright Committee reforms in the The Hansard Society has long argued that Commons, there is a strong case for petitions and ePetitions should be made reforming Lords legislative procedures to a much more significant feature of the provide a more streamlined bi-cameral work of Parliament in order to better approach to scrutiny. Now that the engage the public and be more Commons is to have a House and a responsive to matters of topical public Backbench Business Committee there is a concern. The Audit of Political case for the Lords to introduce a Business Engagement shows that the public are Committee as well in order to provide more likely to sign a petition than they greater transparency about the decisions are to engage in any other form of governing the agenda of the Upper democratic activity.17 As such, the House. Similarly, select committee chairs introduction of a petitions system would and members might be elected in future, have symbolic as well as practical value in though given that the Lords is a naturally better linking Parliament and the public. less partisan Chamber than the Commons, and that one of its core It is therefore vital that the trial of a new strengths is the external expertise that petitions and ePetitions system is members bring to the work of the House, implemented early in the new Parliament there may be less demand for select and reviewed after an appropriate length committee elections than in the of time. The Hansard Society has Commons. But one area that does need previously recommended that a Petitions to be addressed is the issue of ministerial Committee be established to facilitate a accountability. Cabinet ministers have new petitions system. We remain of the long sat in the Lords (not least the Leader view that this approach – rather than an of the Lords and the law officers) and augmentation of the Procedure there is nothing constitutionally improper Committee – would be best, not least about departmental Secretaries of State because change is best secured when doing the same. However, previously responsibility for reform is owned by other members of Cabinet rank have Members at committee level. answered for the department in the Commons. Today, Commons The Wright Committee indicated support accountability is being effected through for a new ‘agenda initiative’ by which the ministers from outside Cabinet which is procedures applied to local authorities for an unsatisfactory position for the elected ‘petitions requiring debate’ would be Chamber to be in. applied. The Conservative Party has been more specific and suggested that if 2. Public Engagement 100,000 people sign a petition it would i) Petitions make the topic eligible for debate, and if a bill wins the support of a million people The public engagement section of the it could have the chance to be debated Wright Committee report was and voted on in Parliament. Such an disappointingly weak, reflecting the approach will certainly help to regenerate inability of members to reach a consensus public interest in Parliament as an on how and to what degree the public institution: however, conversely, great should be involved in the parliamentary care will be needed to avoid raising process.16 It did, however, recommend a unrealistic expectations about what will new system for petitions, to be happen with proposed petitions or bills. administered by the Procedure The thresholds for action will also need Committee for a trial period, and further detailed consideration: well-organised, consideration of the implementation and well-resourced campaigns may not costing of a system of ePetitions. struggle to raise 100,000 online signatures.

11 ii) Reform parliamentary language Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill be enacted before the general Improvements to the parliamentary election it will take responsibility for MPs’ website, simplification of the order paper pay and pensions as well, whilst losing and other parliamentary papers, and responsibility for the statutory improvements to the explanatory notes commissioner, which will revert back to accompanying bills have all helped make Parliament. If this happens then the case the parliamentary process more for extending IPSA’s remit to include the accessible than ever before. However, a administration of peers’ expenses, as majority of the public continue to find suggested by the Senior Salaries Review Parliament’s style and presentation Body, is strengthened. The House of alienating, the language of process and Lords has recently adopted a new Code procedure obscure and confusing. The of Conduct and the establishment of a Hansard Society’s Puttnam Commission Commissioner for Standards but thus far recommended in 2005 that a it has resisted independent regulation, in comprehensive review of parliamentary large part because peers did not wish to language and procedure be undertaken lose control over matters of members’ but this has never been taken up by conduct. However, if the statutory Parliament.18 Procedural issues are commissioner role is removed from IPSA difficult and there are issues of concern in then this potential area of challenge is relation to language when dealing with removed and IPSA should assume highly complex technical and legal responsibility for peers’ expenses and matters but much more effort could be related financial matters. made to make process and procedures more accessible. The public and new The difficulties that have emerged in Members of the next Parliament would all determining the role and remit of IPSA benefit from an early review in the next illustrate an important wider problem: we Parliament. still have a patchwork quilt of committees, commissioners, authorities and bodies 3. Conduct and ethics presiding over the standards agenda, as a result of which the approach to ethics and The new Parliament provides an the concept of public service remains opportunity to break with the difficulties fragmented. This is compounded by the of the recent past and reassert a new fact that the MPs’ Code of Conduct has collective sense of ethos and mission not been made a statutory document among parliamentarians in both Houses. despite early promises to do so. An MPs and peers must be inculcated with a opportunity to introduce a new, revised clear appreciation of the collective oath of office for MPs, enshrining, for damage that can be inflicted on their example, the principles of public life has institution when mistakes are made. also been missed. However, there remain a number of important areas of unfinished practical Subject to the outcome of current legal business that need to be resolved before action it may be necessary for Parliament it can be said that MPs and peers are truly to clarify parliamentary privilege in the working from a clean slate with regard to future, and consideration should be given matters of financial propriety and to the introduction of a system of recall of conduct. Members by constituents in the event of egregious behaviour. A new expenses system has been designed and will be administered by the 4. Leadership and management new Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA). Should the One of the greatest factors that inhibits

12 parliamentary reform is the absence of realm’.19 At present the House is any clear mechanism or procedure to give managed by the Clerk of the House of effect to proposed change unless it is at Commons with the dual title of Chief the initiative of the executive. The Executive. Clerks are expert professional convoluted way in which the Wright advisers on procedural and constitutional Committee was established and then its matters: their expertise is not in the field proposals dealt with by the House of of management and budgets. A Chief Commons are a perfect illustration of the Executive should therefore be appointed problem. Parliament’s capacity to exert its to take over these administrative and identity distinct from Government will organisational aspects of the House of remain limited as long as this is not Commons. addressed. ii) Speaker of the House of Commons i) Internal administration and the Lord Speaker

The first step must be to wrest some To lead a substantial programme of control of reform from the executive. The reform requires energetic leadership, Modernisation Committee should either vision and commitment. On behalf of be abolished (as it has not met for two Parliament this can be provided through a years it will not be missed) or be strengthened role for the Speaker in both restructured in order to give greater Houses. weight to Parliament with the chairing of the committee passing from the Leader of Having participated in public hustings the House to the Deputy Chair. If and set out his manifesto in the public abolished, reform proposals in future domain, the current Speaker possesses a should be channelled through the mandate to lead reform of the House of Procedure Committee or the Liaison Commons. Similarly, the Lord Speaker is Committee. The future election of select elected by the House, is independent of committee chairs will strengthen the latter the executive and eschews partisanship. so it should play a more proactive role in Both offices should be empowered to the reform debate than has hitherto been embody the institutional ethos and the case. The House of Commons integrity of their respective Chamber, to Commission members should also be act as a forthright defender of the rights elected by secret ballot thereby making of their members, and to perform an the body that is responsible for the important ambassadorial and educational administration and services of the House function, linking Parliament with the more accountable to it and more people it serves. In the last year both independent of frontbench control. Speakers have made a great deal of progress with this agenda but there Although the 2007 Tebbit review changes remains scope to augment their have significantly improved the internal leadership role. organisation and function of the administration of Parliament, there Conclusion remains significant scope for further improvements as the problems with the The public expects that the general Parliamentary Fees Office amply election will herald change at demonstrate. In 2005 the Puttnam Westminster. If that is to happen then it is Commission recommended that the crucial that all Members of the new administration of the House should be Parliament – individually and collectively – headed by a Chief Executive are focused on parliamentary reforms that ‘experienced in the management of will genuinely restore its relevance to complex organisations in the public people’s lives and improve people’s faith

13 in it. What will be needed is political will, 15 For an account of why and how Private from frontbenchers and backbenchers, Members’ Bills should be reformed, see A. government and opposition; a blueprint Brazier and R. Fox, ‘Enhancing the backbench for action; the adoption of clear MP’s role as a legislator: the case for urgent processes and procedures to implement reform of Private Members’ Bills’, Parliamentary Affairs, Vol. 63 (1), January reform and then, when appropriate, to 2010, pp. 201-211. review progress and make further changes where necessary. Reform should 16 See House of Commons Reform Committee be an ongoing process to respond to the (2008-09), Rebuilding the House, HC 1117, changing political, economic, social and chapter 5. technological landscape, not an 17 Hansard Society (2010), Audit of Political occasional knee-jerk reaction to problems Engagement 7 (London: Hansard Society), as they emerge. p.81.

18 Hansard Society (2005), Members Only? Notes: Parliament in the Public Eye (London: Hansard Society), pp.63-64. 1 Hansard Society (2010), Audit of Political 19 Engagement 7 (London: Hansard Society), Ibid., pp.84-88. p.96.

2 Ibid., p.68.

3 Ibid., p.95.

4 Ibid., p.89.

5 Ibid., pp.94-95.

6 Ibid., p.46.

7 Ibid., pp.74-75.

8 Ibid., pp.85-86.

9 Ibid., p.41.

10 Hansard Society (2008), Audit of Political Engagement 5 (London: Hansard Society), pp. 32-34.

11 Hansard Society (2010), Audit of Political Engagement 7 (London: Hansard Society), p.29.

12 Hansard Society (1992), Making the Law: The Report of the Hansard Society Commission on the Legislative Process (London: Hansard Society), chapter 7.

13 See for example, A. Brazier and V. Ram (2006), The Fiscal Maze. Parliament, Government and Public Money, (London: Hansard Society), pp.22-24.

14 Ibid., pp.69-71.

14

Parliamentary Reform: From here to there

Rt Hon John Bercow MP Speaker of the House of Commons

24 September 2009

Thank you very much for that introduction accompanied the initial set earlier this Peter. It is an enormous pleasure to have year and the creation in permanent form the chance to address this society which I of the Independent Parliamentary have so enjoyed working with in the past Standards Authority. and which I hope and expect to work with further in the future. It is also a particular It would thus be naïve not to anticipate honour to have Peter Riddell in the chair that allowances will return again to the here as he is living proof that the phrase headlines. It is also my view, which I ‘distinguished journalist’ is no more an expressed on the day of my election as oxymoron than that of ‘respected Speaker in June, that unless his parliamentarian’. Thank you for inviting conclusions appear manifestly me. inappropriate, which I do not expect, Sir Christopher Kelly's findings are destined The core of my remarks today will to be the blueprint on which a new concern parliamentary reform with a solution is very closely based. If anyone in special focus on the role of the the House thinks that denial, delay or backbench MP in the House of dilution is a serious option that Member is Commons. deluded. A new settlement has to be fair to Members. However, still more crucially, It would be strange, however, if I did not it has to be, and to be seen to be, fair to say anything at all about the vexed issue taxpayers. A scheme which fails in the of Members and their allowances. As an court of public opinion will surely founder. omission it would be less Hamlet without the Prince than Macbeth minus all the In truth, the question of payment and Scotsmen. The recess has, broadly allowances has had a toxic quality from speaking, brought some relief from the the outset. A brief look at the debate on publicity surrounding expenses, a self- this in 1911 is very instructive. The motion inflicted wound I readily concede, that to create a salary for Members was has been deeply damaging to the moved by David Lloyd George, then standing of the House of Commons. In Chancellor, at a date, which I should short order, though, we will have the acknowledge in case the historians in this recommendations on future audience catch me out, was smack bang arrangements from Sir Christopher Kelly in the middle of August. I am not sure and his colleagues, the completion of an that sitting in that month would be inspection of past claims overseen by Sir realistic today but, as an aside, I see no Thomas Legg, the release of another set reason why September must be deemed of expenses with, we have pledged, sacred too. dramatically less black ink than that which

15 Lloyd George was well aware that his be subjected to independent proposal was not a populist cause. So his corroboration. strategy for presenting it in the House was intriguing and it demonstrates that The motion passed comfortably in the anybody who thinks that ‘spin’ was a end perhaps because of self-interest but crude late 20th century invention is sorely more because the opposition to it was mistaken. He advanced three core less than entirely coherent. Some insisted arguments to the Chamber. The first was that it was wrong in principle for a that the payment was not an innovation Member of Parliament to be paid while but a return to tradition. The thesis here others asserted that the sum of money on was that as Members had been directly offer – £400 per annum – was far too low paid out of local authority rates in the to attract the calibre of parliamentarian past and indirectly through holding minor that was wanted. At least one leading offices after that, all that was being figure made both of these, seemingly suggested was a reversion to, and I incompatible, statements in the same quote, ‘the wholesome practices of speech. I cannot today resist quoting ancient times’ which indicated that the from one of those opponents, George Liberals were ‘the real custodians of the Sandys, MP for Wells. old traditions of the country’. This was a clever analysis, but perhaps partly ‘Who is this new system going to devalued by the fact that the method of attract?’, Mr Sandys asked. ‘It is highly direct payment to which he referred had probable that it will attract the class from been abandoned in the 1650s and the whom the professional politicians are indirect structure in the 1780s. usually recruited in other countries, namely, unsuccessful barristers, needy Undeterred, Lloyd George moved on to journalists, and the jack-of-all-trades and his second and third assertions. The masters of none whom we find so largely second was that the Prime Minister, Mr represented in other legislatures.’ Asquith, had raised the matter during the preceding general election campaign and Thank goodness that nothing remotely so the government had a mandate for it. like that prediction was to transpire in As other Members spotted, Mr Asquith practice. had actually mentioned it in one sentence in one speech in front of one set of The really interesting and, in modern voters, which surely must have stretched terms, extremely relevant element of that the doctrine of mandate to its maximum debate involved the character of elasticity. Finally, the Chancellor claimed parliamentary representation. that the Parliament to which he was speaking had a far more weighty Friends and foes of salaries clashed with workload than those of the previous striking passion over whether payment century. This was undoubtedly correct would render a backbench MP a more or and a very strong argument but he could less independent political actor, more or not resist adding to it by informing the less vulnerable to the authority of the House of a private conversation which he, Whips Office (this was a major concern 98 Lloyd George, had held with William years ago) or more or less deferential to Gladstone in which the Grand Old Man the Government of the day. That had told him that in his day a Member of discussion has become only more intense Parliament was expected to deliver only with the passage of time. It seems to me one speech between one general election that there are subtle links between and another. This was a fascinating insight parliamentary compensation and but as Gladstone had died some 13 years parliamentary reform and that it would be previously it was hardly one which could wrong to consider the matter of what a

16 Member of Parliament should earn or be in the House of Commons. Backbenchers allowed to make a claim for and not what become figures of real significance only it is that MPs actually do in the House of when either the parliamentary numbers Commons. overall, or on a contentious measure, are so tight that literally every vote counts. At In my opinion there are three main realms all other times, there must be many a in which parliamentary reform needs to backbencher who has felt akin to the happen. The first is in the rights and soldiers at the Somme, turfed out of the duties of the backbench MP as an trenches on the orders of distant masters individual player. The second lies in the to charge towards the enemy. The role of collective rights and duties of MPs when the backbencher as inquisitor in the they act in committee, notably the Chamber and as a legislator in his or her departmental select committee system own right has undoubtedly diminished. which has become such a vital part of Most backbenchers have responded to Westminster life since 1979. The third this by throwing themselves resides in the institutional rights and wholeheartedly in a different direction as duties of the House of Commons as a advocate and de facto ombudsman on whole, whether its agenda should be behalf of their constituency and overseen by a Business Committee of its constituents. This is an absolutely own creation and whether there are admirable function but one which leaves powers which have been ceded to the other important themes incomplete and executive that should be restored. which may, by accident rather than design, have contributed to the near The second and third of these are universally recognised erosion of local immensely important, and I shall have government and politics in this country as something to say about them on another MPs invade terrain that was once occasion. And of course they are relevant considered the property of councillors. to the inquiry which Tony Wright and his colleagues are conducting and on which We need a better balance than this. We they will report in November. I need MPs to be fearless champions of confidently expect that Report to be both their electors and of their own interests in constructive and innovative. and through the Chamber as well as by post and in emails. We need the What I do want to focus on with intensity backbencher to move from the is the role of the backbencher. I have parliamentary version of the stalls to spent the clear majority of my time in centre stage. Westminster on the backbenches, not least because every time anyone was kind If there is any one measurement by which enough to appoint me to the frontbench I I would want my time as Speaker to be managed to encounter an issue of assessed it is that the backbench MP felt, principle and resign from it. I am also the and emphatically was, more significant in first Speaker for some time to have been the House than he or she was before I neither a Deputy Speaker nor a minister. I had the incredible honour of being think I have a reasonable understanding dragged to the Chair. That is my personal of the backbencher's lot in life and agenda. appreciate that, to borrow from Gilbert and Sullivan, it is often not a happy one. I have already sought to introduce a number of changes in this respect and I The dissatisfaction that manifestly exists is have announced some more which will be hardly surprising. The backbench MP has, implemented very shortly. over several decades, perhaps even from before 1911, found himself marginalised These include:

17 Establishing a brisker style of dealing with House, most of whom will be Oral Questions to bring more backbenchers, through a secret ballot. backbenchers into this vital part of the This is worthwhile in itself but it may also House’s work. have the more subtle effect of binding all those who sit in the Chair more closely to I think this is especially valuable when the backbenchers. Prime Minister is making a significant policy statement to this House. When This is, I hope, a reasonable Gordon Brown made a Statement on downpayment for five sitting weeks but Building Britain’s Future in June, I called more has to be done. I want to make 10 more than 40 questions on it. I wanted all further practical suggestions here which, backbenchers to know that if they had a rather grandly possibly, I would like to sentiment they wanted to air in the think of as constituting a backbenchers’ Chamber and were in their places at the Bill of Rights. The first five of these relate appointed hour, they would have a to parliamentary inquisition. The second decent chance of being called to speak. five of them to parliamentary legislation.

I have been ready to grant Urgent Let me start with those changes which I Questions much more frequently. These think would enhance the noble art of provide a real backbench opportunity and inquisition. I believe the House of they also demonstrate the House Commons would be improved for engaging with the most topical issues – backbenchers by the following. and not at the behest of the Government of the day. I have allowed an average of First, I would like the House to restore about one Urgent Question a sitting week cross-cutting questions to Westminster since becoming Speaker and, subject to Hall on subjects which cover the there being Urgent events to have a responsibilities of two or more Question about, I would not want to fall departments. The increasing complexity much below that mean. of modern administration means that ever larger numbers of important issues do not I have announced the experiment of a fit squarely or exclusively into one tracking system for Written Questions, in Whitehall silo but sprawl more widely due course to be made available on the than that. The backbencher would benefit internet. I am aware that ministers have from the House meeting this challenge. many, many demands on their time but I want to encourage a culture in which Second, I think the House would benefit Questions posed by backbench MPs are from reassigning one of the two weekly considered to be a special priority. This Ten-Minute Rule Bill slots to another type can only enhance the status of Members of backbench opportunity. This would be of Parliament. a maximum of 20 minutes in prime time, and we could be imaginative about how it I am also planning to preside at some could be used. Perhaps a backbencher Friday sittings. I want to show through could raise an issue, with very brief having the Speaker in the Chair that interventions from other members and a Private Members’ Bills are not a relic or a five-minute response from a Minister. Or parliamentary appendix, but an integral an individual MP might ask a Question of aspect of the business of the House. the Government which did not meet the fairly strict criteria for Urgent Questions. I have also argued that the selection Or perhaps the chairman of a select method for those who serve as the committee could make a brief statement Deputy Speakers should be transferred on a high-profile report published that from ‘the usual channels’ to the whole morning, and get an immediate reaction

18 from the Government. I think we are backbenchers have no means of directly limited here only by our own creativity! questioning prominent ministers of the Crown because they happen to sit in the Third, I think we need to contemplate House of Lords to be less than further reform in the process of satisfactory. That is even more true at a scrutinising delegated legislation and time when the Cabinet contains the European business to allow backbenchers esteemed Lord Mandelson, whose a louder voice in both these areas. There empire is of a scale not seen since the are a number of avenues which could be death of Alexander the Great, and the explored here. In an average year there thoughtful Lord Adonis who presides over are more than 10,000 pages of delegated the country's transportation network. I legislation, and our means of scrutinising suspect that both of these individuals that legislation is severely limited. We would concede that they should be could establish a sifting committee for responsible to backbench MPs and would these statutory instruments with the right be more than willing to participate in an to demand a debate on statutory experiment in which they were made instruments deemed to be highly available publicly through Westminster significant. The debates could take place Hall, as one option, and I intend to in committee – with a change I will consult on how we might take this suggest in a moment – or, exceptionally, forward. on the floor of the House. I move on now to the matter of the For SIs debated in committee, we might backbencher as a legislator. I feel strongly model the process on those for European that the erosion of this aspect of an MP’s Committees (questions to the minister role is one we should all want to see followed by debate), and also hold reversed. I have, therefore, five debates on substantive motions – not propositions which I think would add merely that ‘the Committee has value. considered’ the SI concerned. We could allow the European Scrutiny Committee First, we need to supplement the the authority to require a limited number resources of the Public Bill Office to offer of debates on the floor of the House to additional support to Members who are be held within a specific time on successful in the Private Members’ Bill important EU documents. And we could Ballot. The Office does a great job in introduce the European Committee helping Members with the process of format to the floor of the House, with scrutiny, and especially the drafting of questions to the minister followed by amendments and some bills. But they are debate. not at the moment equipped to provide the sort of specialist bill drafting support Fourth, I would favour the restoration of which is available in many other Private Members’ Motions so that the legislatures. individual MP has the right to put a proposition to the House and have it Second, we could remove the voted on. I am reliably informed that the Government's present monopoly of House of Commons is almost alone decision as to whether a Private among lower chambers of Parliaments in Members’ Bill can go into a Public Bill democracies old and new in having no Committee, substituting with a sort of taxi such arrangement and that strikes me as a rank system which would keep two or very strange anomaly indeed. three Private Members’ Bill PBCs available. Finally in this section, and on the matter of anomalies, I find the fact that Third, we could allow a maximum of three

19 hours for any Second Reading debate These 10 suggestions are, I hope, solid after which the Question could be put, enough in their nature, to make a subject to modest safeguards. There difference if they were to be introduced might be the risk that a Government together. I am not pretending that they could use its weight of numbers to curtail would instantly transform the working and hence crush debate. This would lives of every single backbench MP, any obviously be undesirable. There are more than I anticipate that Sir Christopher numbers of devices which could be Kelly's recommendations will lead to the deployed to avoid this. One would be to whole population placing photographs of make it known that the Chair would not their local MP upon their mantelpiece, as accept a closure. If, however, a closure appealing as such a vision might be to motion were accepted and agreed by the incumbents. Yet reform does not have to House, you could have two or three be revolutionary to be worth attempting reserve candidates for debate or simply and my strong sense is that reformers have the remaining bills already put down across the party spectrum have very for that day. We need to find a far better similar agendas. There was not much, in balance between cutting a debate my judgment, in the Conservative Party improperly and extending a debate Democracy Taskforce report led by Ken artificially. Neither the guillotine nor the Clarke, Sir George Young, my new filibuster is an ideal parliamentary colleague on the House of Commons technique. Commission, and Andrew Tyrie towards which most MPs in the Labour, Liberal Fourth, we could have the option of a Democrat and other parties would not Report Committee for Private Members’ have some sympathy. Bills. At the moment, the Report stage of a Private Members’ Bill is too often the This leads me, in my final section, to ask continuation of a guerrilla war which often why reform to assist backbenchers has has little relevance to the actual content not taken place in the past and whether of the bill. Taking this stage off the floor there are grounds to conclude that it of the House would both focus it more could be delivered now. There are, in my clearly on the content of the bill and free opinion, three reasons why we have not time for more substantial debates on escaped the status quo thus far and three Second and Third Reading. reasons why the chances of our doing so over the next year are encouragingly Finally, there is the matter of the timing of high. when Private Members’ Bills or Private Members’ motions should be taken. I am The three reasons why reform has stalled interested to discern whether colleagues at previous moments are, to my mind, as believe that the status of Private follows. Members’ legislation would be enhanced if it were possible to move the bills from One, that reforms designed to assist the Fridays where they sit now to, say, backbencher have long had a ‘St Wednesdays, putting them more squarely Augustine’ quality to them. Make me in the heart of a sitting week rather than virtuous but not yet. They have been seen their present somewhat isolated berth. as worthy but without the sense of This would not be, I should stress, a urgency that forces worthwhile change to device for ending Friday sittings – there is occur. All too often, warm words about a wealth of other business we could reform have been speedily followed by locate there – but it strikes me that it is at the relegation of the issue to the least worth a discussion as to whether backburner. change would be desirable. Two, some in the respective Whips

20 Offices (who have a very important role to enthusiastic assistance of the senior undertake) have feared that backbenchers Officers of the House. with the capacity to exercise more influence in the House would inevitably Third, the office of Speaker can now, I be more independent in their voting hope, be an advocate of, and a catalyst habits as well. This is impossible to prove for change. I am very fortunate in being one way or the other but I would just float the first Speaker to be elected after an the notion that people, including open campaign for the post, with formal backbench MPs, might be easier to manifestos, hustings and a secret ballot, engage with when they are more content in short the basic infrastructure of a with their role in life and the character of conventional democracy, and I regard their employment than if they are that as an enormous asset for me and discontented on both counts. The those who come after me. It allows the instinctive ‘small c conservatism’ of the Speaker to fulfil that vital umpire role with cynics who mutter privately that, once a more rounded view of it. A diligent empowered, backbenchers will get above umpire in cricket, one observes, concerns themselves, cannot be credibly defended himself not only with the conduct of play in public. It should be abandoned and but with the state of the pitch and he replaced by a mindset that champions the would take a dim view of the cause of backbench initiative. parliamentary equivalent of ball- tampering. The pitch at Westminster is Third, the Speaker in the past has not felt currently prepared to the disadvantage of able to act as an advocate for such the backbench MP and I hope to be able changes. This was partly due to a very to establish a consensus that we may narrow view of the ‘Umpire’ function of need a heavy roller to correct this. the presiding officer but mainly because the method of election or, more often I would like to return, if you will indulge selection did not allow for the Speaker of me in concluding, to 1911. It will very the day to claim anything akin to a soon be the centenary of that mandate for making a speech such as this monumental statute, the Parliament Act, offering today. and this strikes me as an enticing target to look to in completing a reform process I think we do now have the conditions in which would include not just a which change to support the backbencher programme for backbench MPs but also is viable. reform of the select committees and of the authority of the whole House, which I One, there is a sense of crisis about the have deliberately not touched upon in standing and the purpose of the House of any detail to this audience. If any good is Commons which extends beyond the to come of the grim expenses affair, it immediate argument about how to must be that it serves as a vast electric organise a set of allowances. shock which forces the House to look at itself and what it does across the field in a Two, all of the main party leaders, the full and fresh fashion. Leader of the House and her Shadow, and those MPs outside of the main Back in 1911, to finish today, Lloyd parties, are publicly committed to reform George, as I said, opened the debate on as never before. This is hugely welcome the payment of MPs but it was his fellow and it presents a superb opportunity for Cabinet member, Herbert Samuel, then serious and significant change. And in Postmaster-General, who closed it. Lloyd passing I might say that, although of George and Samuel were to fall out in the course they maintain a proper discretion, 1920s and 1930s, indeed Lloyd George I know that we shall have the creative and was to remark caustically of Samuel who,

21 like me, was of Jewish heritage that ‘when they circumcised Herbie, they threw the wrong bit away’, but on August 10, 1911 they were allies in the Chamber. Samuel stood before the House at the despatch box and declared:

‘The strength of the House of Commons lies above all else in its representative character; the more it is the real mirror of the nation the greater its authority will be. The House of Lords is more picturesque, the Privy Council contains perhaps a greater number of illustrious names, the Government Departments have within their ranks a greater number of experts on the details of government, but this House is strong, and stronger than all of them all because it is the Commons House, and the more it can be made truly representative of the whole body of the nation, the greater will be its authority for the masses of our countrymen.’

Three cheers to all that. We know that the House of Commons has to change if it is to renew and assert itself against a sometimes over-mighty executive. We have an opportunity to be decisive agents of change. We must take that opportunity in the interests of public trust, effective representation and better government.

22

Ermine, Ethics and Engagement - evolution in the House of Lords

Baroness Hayman Lord Speaker

9 December 2009

At the height of the global economic externally. Parliamentarians are deeply meltdown, Rahm Emmanuel warned demoralised. The majority have not been President Obama not to risk letting ‘a individually at fault and there is indeed an serious crisis go to waste’. Well, we have element of collective punishment at work. had a serious crisis of our own in But then there has been an element of Westminster this year. In the toxic collective failure in our neglect to address political climate created, reactions have the systemic flaws and weaknesses which seemed incoherent and unconsidered. have been so clearly exposed this year. Some would argue, more focused on Why we need to have that confidence party political interests than on the future rebuilt is not simply a matter of applying of Parliament, and that we have actually emotional arnica to soothe badly bruised made the situation worse, rather than political egos. Rather we need self- taken advantage of the opportunities for confidence to adopt the steely constructive change. determination necessary to put our own Houses in order, to sort out the mess in To say that we need to rebuild public which we are now mired. And to do that, trust and confidence in Parliament has we need – to return to Obama – a belief become a cliché but that doesn’t stop the that ‘yes we can’. task being one of overwhelming importance. Tonight, I want to talk about The key, I would argue, lies in taking that task from the House of Lords control of our own destiny. In proving that perspective – about what has been the self-regulation which is so achieved so far, (and I’d argue that that fundamental to parliamentary democracy has been a great deal), and about what can be made to work in line with 21st still needs to be done. But first I think it century expectations of openness, must be recognised that it is not only transparency and accountability. In a external confidence that has been brilliant maiden speech in the House of undermined. The firestorm of public Lords two weeks ago, Jonathan Sacks, contempt unleashed when both individual the Chief Rabbi, spoke of the necessity of and institutional behaviour has been put ‘keeping faith with our past whilst under scrutiny and found wanting has also honouring our obligations to the future’. damaged Parliament’s confidence in Achieving that balance in an institution as itself. old, and as steeped in tradition, as the House of Lords, is a real challenge and And if we are not only to survive this pervades the issues I am talking about crisis, but to come out of it stronger, we tonight. need to tackle the task of rebuilding confidence within Parliament as well as Let me start with the change in the ethos

23 and ethics of the House brought about in drawing on a centuries-old precedent, turn by changes in the membership which suspending the Members concerned. But began in 1958 with the Life Peerages Act it was also obvious that we needed to re- and accelerated in the decade since the examine all our arrangements in relation 1999 House of Lords Act. to conduct and make sure that our rules were clear and defensible – 21st century First and most obviously, these changes – proofed. To ensure that they did not the departure of the hereditary peers, the inhibit the contribution of members with 282 new appointments over the last 10 current external experience – which really years – have brought a greater sense of would have been to undermine the whole professionalism to the House. That basis of this House – but did give public absolutely does not mean that we are assurance of the propriety of the now a House of professional politicians. behaviour of Members. Indeed, one of the greatest strengths of the Lords, [and one of the reasons that I Significantly, the new code of conduct believe those who understand the House that has emerged from this process, starts are so positive about it], is the fact that so off with a description of the role and many members are NOT party politicians. functions of this House as a parliamentary The experience and expertise here is chamber and with the explicit expectation deep and diverse and goes far wider than that every Member should contribute to conventional politics. What I do mean by its work. It then sets out the ethical professionalism is a more workmanlike principles, as well as the specific rules, approach to the legislative role, which that should guide peers. Over-arching all brings with it the sense of expecting else is the commitment that Members support to enable one to do the job well should always base their actions on – of proper induction, of offices, of IT consideration of the public interest – and equipment. And of governance personal honour. Each Member is to be arrangements which are responsive to required to sign up to the new code when members’ needs. they join the House, and again when they are sworn in at the beginning of a new The other change comes from the fact Parliament. that membership is no longer as it was in the past, literally a birth right. That pre- But, honouring the Chief Rabbi’s ordained passport to Parliament no precepts, whilst the mechanics may be longer applies, and the disappearance of new, the principles are not. Every day in that sense of the right to be here puts the parliamentary prayer read in the added emphasis on a culture of House before we start our work, there is a responsibility being integral to collective undertaking to ‘lay aside all membership of the House. private interests, prejudices and partial affections’. As the Report put it, ‘this This cultural change was very clearly House does not need to invent new articulated in the Eames Report, debated principles, but to reinvigorate old ones’ and agreed in the Lords a week ago. Lord and in Onora O’Neill’s wise words to be Eames had chaired a group looking at the ‘heavy on focus’. The code does not try to code of conduct for Members in the wake legislate in detail for every particular of the episode last year when four circumstance, not least because the Members of the House were accused and defence of ‘what I did wasn’t against the two found to have broken the House’s rules’ has become completely devalued – rules in relation to paid advocacy. Even today’s equivalent of ‘only obeying under the old system, the House found a orders’ – and something that the public way both of having a thorough has found most difficult to swallow from investigation of the allegations and, parliamentarians.

24 Crucially, the Report recognised that if telegram from the Queen. self-regulation is to survive and flourish in the future, it has to be commensurate But all those arguments for doing nothing with the environment and expectations of disappeared this year with the scrutiny to Britain in the 21st century. And that which the scheme, and every Member of involves an element of external validation. the House who has used it, has been So for the first time this House is to have subject, and in the wake of the expenses an independent Commissioner for debacle in the Commons. This House Standards with the responsibility of recognised in May that the system was investigating complaints against not sustainable and we took action. We Members – not only of breaches of the commissioned the Senior Salaries Review code of conduct – but also a range of Body to report. They have now done so other issues, significantly the rules and their conclusion said simply what I governing financial support available. think we knew in our hearts: that ‘the previous system did not meet the That financial system – the missing e- standards of governance, precision and word in my title, ‘expenses’ – has been transparency now demanded for the use the other area of controversy this year. of public funds’. There have been specific allegations of misbehaviour against a small number of For many Members, I know, the changes Members and a much larger sense of in the new scheme pose great difficulties unease about the system as a whole, and that they feel the pendulum has which has undermined the reputation swung too far from under-regulation to both of the House and of individuals. The over-prescription aimed against those current system has evolved over the last who work very hard for no salary. But I 50 years in a series of small ad-hoc steps hope Members will also see that the new rather than through any coherent design. scheme gives us the opportunity for a It is now manifestly unfit for purpose, new start, and is central to protecting the having failed to provide any clarity over reputation of the House as a whole, as what has constituted reimbursement for well as that of individual peers. actual expenses and what was an allowance, and having been regulated I would emphasise again that if self- with the lightest of touches. The system regulation is to be acceptable and meet was an accident waiting to happen and the challenges of 2009, it must involve an happen the accident did. engagement with the outside world. We must demonstrate that self-regulation In the past a variety of forces had doesn’t mean no regulation, it doesn’t militated against change. The system was mean ‘soft’ regulation, and it doesn’t simple, cheap and easy to administer mean regulation solely by Members in the involving little bureaucracy. The argument interests of Members. I believe it would was made that there was no point in be fatal to this institution if we retreated undertaking the difficult task of devising a into our gilded bunker and ignored the new system for what was seen to be a views of those outside – even, transitional House. We were all always challengingly, when we feel they are waiting for the Government Godot of unfair – whom we serve through our work comprehensive reform of the Lords that and who fund us to do so. Like it or not, has been ‘just around the corner’ since the whole political class has been tried in 1911. Next year it will be a century since the court of public opinion and found that reform was first promised. Surely, as wanting. Regardless of our view of the David Steel recently remarked, the only role of the media in all this, we have to time in history that a political pledge has show that both corporately and qualified to receive a congratulatory individually we understand what has

25 happened – that we actually do ‘get it’. commented, ‘It’s 90% of politicians that give the other 10% a bad name’. I believe it’s essential that the House next week accepts the recommendation from But no-one could say the current situation the leadership on all sides; that we act is a comfortable one. And that 19th speedily on the SSRB report in order to century outrage resulted in the seismic implement a completely new system in change of the 1832 Reform Act. Those of time for the new Parliament. us born in 1948 and ’49 are told we are the golden generation – the beneficiaries But we do need to look at the detail very of the Beatles and the Pill, and the death carefully both before and after of deference. But, in the still of the night implementation. One of the dangers of 40 years on from the swinging ‘sixties, I new arrangements both in the Commons suspect I’m not alone in wondering and in the Lords is that in our desire to whether that deference has been tighten financial controls, we drive from replaced by a cynicism so corrosive that it politics those who do not have private runs the risk of destroying institutions and incomes. We do not want a House of values, for individuals and for institutions, Lords in which only the retired or the which are central to our liberal independently wealthy can participate. So democracy; and in preferring a world monitoring the effect of the new system where respect is a possibility, and where and involving the House of Lords respect is given when it has been earned Appointments Commission in that – where journalists’ default position is not monitoring and a thorough review is in always and automatically ‘what is that my view essential. One of the strengths of lying bastard lying to me about tonight?’ the House in its current form has been the increasing diversity in its current And if I ask myself how Parliament could membership. We simply must not, to legitimately earn that respect, my answer strangle metaphors, throw out that is that putting our internal House in order particular baby with the bathwater in – on conduct and expenses – is absolutely which our dirty linen has been washed. necessary but absolutely not sufficient. We also have to find ways of doing our I have spoken so far this evening on the job as parliamentarians better. And to put areas of internal governance where we more effort into engaging with the public are taking steps to rebuild trust and about what that job is, and arguing our confidence. And that absence of that trust case that it is central to a functioning and confidence is a feature of the current democracy. It is ironic and a little disengagement of the public from depressing that at a time when Parliament Parliament could only be denied by those has put more resources than ever in its who haven’t read a newspaper or turned history into communication with the on a television during 2009. But we have outside world, it is still such a struggle to to keep some sense of historic connect. There is a tremendous amount perspective. Politicians have seldom been going on and as the House of Lords loved or come top of the pollsters’ ‘most Information Committee Report, ‘Are the trusted professions’. You only have to Lords Listening?’ showed, plenty of new read Tristram Hunt’s piece in the proposals fizzing around. Yet despite all Guardian today, on the horrific reputation the initiatives and innovations, all the of Parliament in the early 19th century, effort, all the expenditure, all the new and what John Russell described as, ‘the media gizmos, we actually have a greater growing want of confidence in public disconnect between public and politicians men’ when introducing the first reform bill than I can ever remember in 40 years in in 1831, to know that Henry Kissinger politics. spoke for generations of sceptics when he

26 It’s not simply a result of the expenses • We are adopting proposals for new furore. Underpinning public anger is, I formats for holding Lords’ believe, a diminished sense of what Secretaries of State to account – an Parliament is and what it is for. A vague issue also being explored by the but persistent feeling of under- Commons. performance. The ‘what did the Romans ever do for me?’ question. I suspect this And Members here, too, are interested in may reflect the combined effect of a taking more control over the agenda of decline in shared constitutional the House. What we need now, I believe, understanding and the predominance of is to take up the idea that has been put governments with large majorities since forward for a committee of our own, so 1979. This has led to a blurring in the that we can take a comprehensive and public mind between Parliament and coherent approach to our own Government. And this is where we need ‘Strengthening Parliament’ agenda. Many the help of the Hansard Society and will say that we already do as good a job others in this room tonight, to recreate an as any second chamber in the world, understanding of the difference between scrutinising legislation, holding the executive and Parliament. A large part government to account, playing to the of what I mean by doing our job better is strengths of our expert and diverse about both Houses being more assertive membership in committee and enquiry. I and explicit in our job of holding the am proud of the performance, but this is executive to account. Tony Wright’s not a time for resting on our laurels. strengthening Parliament committee in Rather it is a time to meet Roy Jenkins’ the Commons has in its recent report, aspiration of, ‘rising to the level of ‘Rebuilding The House’ adopted this events’. approach, setting out a series of proposals aimed at creating ‘an effective And in taking on that aspiration, we need and vital House of Commons, improved to explore how we achieve a bicameral by stronger accountability, that is also the approach. Parliament comprises two best antidote to the disengagement and Houses and we need to look at ways in anti-politics that characterises our age’. which we can complement and add value to each other’s work, not just providing In the Lords we also have no shortage of checks and balances. When one House good ideas as to how we could up our changes its way of working, it has an game. Many were apparent in the recent effect on the other – timetabling of debate on the Queen’s Speech when legislation in the Commons leading to the Robin Butler, Jeff Rooker, Bruce Grocott, Lords taking on its line by line scrutiny Paul Tyler and others came up with a role, is a prime example. Close working range of proposals: between the Commons and the Lords needs to go beyond the current joint • The use of select committees for all committees. Too often, relations between bills that start their life in the Lords the two Houses are not an example of • The certification of bills leaving the creative tension, but simply a failure to Commons of which parts had not take a whole Parliament approach. received any scrutiny; Sometimes the Palace of Westminster • A new role for the Lords in feels divided into colour coded territories, undertaking post-legislative inhabited by rival gangs, though whether scrutiny; we in the Lords are the Sharks or the Jets, • For sharpening up Question Time I couldn’t say. Some of this is down to a and for new select committees on lack of mutual understanding. While it is regulators and on treaties; hard to escape knowledge of the

27 Commons in the Lords, where many what expectations can be fulfilled before members have come from the Lower we raise them; perhaps more robust in House, the same is not true of the green our defence and explanation of benches. I think there is a real opportunity representative democracy. here, when we see large numbers of new members coming into the Commons after And in all of this public engagement the next election. I know the Hansard work, we have to evaluate and make sure Society is to be involved in the induction that we don’t just make, in Mr Speaker’s process of those new MPs and hope very phrase, ‘the super-informed’ into the much to ensure that the work of the Lords ‘über-super-informed’. The recent will be included in that induction, as the Hansard Society report into Parliamentary basis for a more productive relationship engagement and participation is worth between the two Houses. Improved reading in full. Its conclusion that the induction, and indeed our current joint public’s views on political engagement committee work is a start, but beyond and participation are ‘complex, that we need to look at mechanisms to sometimes contradictory and rarely ensure the two Houses work together on uniform’ is a salutary reminder that it is strategic issues affecting Parliament as a not clear exactly what needs to be done. whole. Interestingly, the two proposals that Another part of this agenda of doing our emerge most strongly from that report job better relates to public engagement. are education in schools about Unless the public understands what we’re parliamentary democracy and a petitions meant to be doing and what we are committee – where I think we should actually doing, it will be hard for them to explore the possibilities. Petitions have a feel confidence that we are doing it well. long history, but that history has always involved eliciting a response from Public engagement has become one of Government. Perhaps we in the Lords the motherhood and apple pie could look at how we could deliver a aspirations of the last few years. Perhaps response from Parliament – giving the we need to be a bit more precise about public, as well as parliamentarians, a what we actually mean by the phrase, chance to set the agenda. ‘public engagement’. There is better information for the public, (perhaps the Finally, a word on composition, not the simplest task to tackle) with a huge traditional elected / appointed debate, amount available and accessible and the but the issue of length of service. The parliamentary website key, with important honour of a life peerage is for one’s developments like the BBC’s Democracy lifetime. But with the membership of the Live site which we launched in the House House currently at 740 and with the of Lords last night. Then there is potential to rise to over 800 after the interaction with the public – select election, we cannot avoid the question of committees meeting outside London, the size of the House. That means we inquiries holding online consultations, have to start asking whether, for the YouTube videos and Lords of the Blog – parliamentary legislative aspects of a and I’m sure someone in Parliament, peerage, the job of being a legislator, life although not in this room, I hope, is should always mean life. tweeting somewhere, even as I speak. I spoke before of the greater sense of Then there is the much more thorny issue responsibility the House was developing of public influence and participation. A about the contribution that Members delicate area in which to tread where I were expected to make. Frances D’Souza, think we need to be much clearer about Convenor of the Crossbench Peers, took

28 up this theme and related it to the issue address the failings of the past – both of non-attendance in her contribution to individual and institutional, and the work the debate of the Eames Report. She we still need to do to build a stronger and asked if we needed to create a culture more effective Parliament. where Members felt they should retire if they could not make a contribution to the It will take, I suspect, the symbolism of an work of the House. Of course, retirement election and a new Parliament for the has not been a possibility in the past – public to accept that change has really although people could take leave of happened. But whether that symbolism, absence. But the Constitutional Reform that sense of a fresh start is sustained will and Governance Bill proposes to change depend on the quality of work we put in that and introduce such an ability to retire now to re-invigorate our Parliament. The – alongside the possibility of expelling great danger, I believe, is that the Members who have criminal convictions historian of 50 years hence will reach the or who have grossly abused the code of judgement that it was on our watch that the House. the reputation of British parliamentary democracy was damaged beyond repair. It might be that over time, a culture Professor Peter Hennessy said to me that developed in which there was an at the height of the horrors, he had expectation that those who could not gleaned some small comfort from the fact make a full contribution, [and I don’t that the British public on this subject was mean that to be a full-time contribution, still shockable. To his mind that meant but a contribution appropriate to their that the reputation of Parliament was still circumstances], should retire. And we redeemable. If we are to achieve that could explore the proposal by Lord redemption, there is much work for all of Harries of Pentregarth (who, as a retired us to do in the months and years ahead. bishop, has some actual experience denied the rest of us and was a member of the Wakeham Commission). He suggested fixed term appointments for ‘parliamentary peers’ which could reduce the size of the House in the future. That might also help with the problem of what happens to the frontbench goats when they become backbench sheep.

For too long I would argue, a range of issues has been kicked into the long grass until the day of all-singing, all-dancing reform. This approach has not served us well on expenses and it doesn’t serve us well in this area either. In line with my theme of shaping our own destiny, we should now take a close look at the Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill and the opportunities it offers the House to progress.

I finish where I began with the turbulent and destabilising political ecology of 2009. I have outlined some of the steps we have already taken in the Lords to

29

Parliamentary reform: The Labour perspective

Rt Hon Jack Straw MP Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor

9 March 2010

Thank you Peter, powerless is, as I intend to show tonight, complete nonsense. But the institution is And thank you to the Hansard Society for far from perfect. Changes in recent inviting me to deliver this lecture on decades have, contrary to the prevailing parliamentary reform. It coincides with a orthodoxy, strengthened the legislature moment of significant change in the against the executive. But the balance House of Commons following acceptance remains tilted in the Government’s favour. of key recommendations from the Wright Committee report on parliamentary That is not axiomatically a bad thing. A reform, which the Prime Minister set up in strong executive that is able to steer its the wake of the expenses scandal. These business effectively through Parliament is have the potential to shift power away one of the essential and positive from party managers and towards characteristics of the British political backbenchers, and in so doing will process. It means that things get done. strengthen the legislature against the Contrast that with the US system, where executive. an American President with a clear mandate is being blocked from giving 40 The Hansard Society has long million citizens healthcare by the campaigned for these changes and their Congress. Given the strength of enactment is, in part, a tribute to your opposition which Nye Bevan encountered endeavours and those of your fellow in 1947, the NHS would almost certainly reformers. Parliamentary reform can be never have been approved had we had seen as dry and difficult to understand, the US system. and as such tends not to gain much media attention. But it’s vitally important, But I am not so blind as to believe our and you deserve credit for keeping the system is perfect, or that the issue alive. parliamentary reforms of the past 13 years have all been for the better. The reforms Parliament matters. It is the legislative enacted in this period have, on balance, body which provides and sustains the been beneficial. But we have not, I think Government of the day; and at the same you will all agree, reached parliamentary time it is charged with holding that nirvana. The task now is to use the current Government to account between momentum for parliamentary and elections. It sits at the apex of the constitutional reform to build on these democratic system and still is, in the reforms so as to strengthen the role of crunch, the cockpit of the nation. Parliament and close the gulf which has opened between it and the British public. The view that Parliament is irrelevant or

31 Myths Alternative Vote, and you find the leading Liberal, Sir Herbert Samuel MP, However, before I look back at the commenting that in his 40 years’ parliamentary reforms since 1997, and connection with Parliament, he had never ahead to the changes we might see in the known a time when it had not been said future, let me begin by exposing a few that ‘the House of Commons is not what myths. it once was’. [Commons Hansard 2 June 1931]. It is common to hear that Parliament has never been more supine, more And half a century later, in 1976, Lord emasculated than during the period of Hailsham suggested that we lived in an this Labour Government. ‘elective dictatorship’.

The Conservative MP, Douglas Carswell, There has never been a golden age of for example, recently wrote that ‘As Parliament. The institution has always Parliament has lost the ability to hold been criticised for being supine. those with executive power to account, executive power has grown unchecked’. Yet as someone who was working as a special adviser when Lord Hailsham gave And the Daily Telegraph’s Deputy Editor, that famous speech, I would argue that Benedict Brogan, reported on last year’s the charge held more weight back in election of John Bercow by saying that those days. ‘the next Speaker must contribute to the building of public confidence, as well as In the mid-seventies the Government reversing Parliament’s supine uselessness really did boss the Commons and was in the face of an overweening executive.’ shielded from all kinds of scrutiny. There were no proper select committees; These are serious charges, because they parliamentary proceedings were covered imply that Parliament is failing to in the newspapers but not broadcast on discharge one of its two core functions – TV; neither Parliament nor Government to scrutinise the executive and hold it to were subject to Freedom of Information account. Furthermore, this is said to be a legislation; the power of the Whips was recent failure. such that Governments suffered rebellions less frequently; and the House Both charges are wide of the mark. of Lords was a docile body predominantly comprised of unelected mainly First of all, take off the rose-tinted Conservative hereditary peers. If a spectacles. Parliament’s supposed minister got fed up with repeated written weakness and unpopularity is an enduring questions they could – and did – block theme. further questions as well as answers by misuse of the claim that an answer would At his trial in 1895, when Oscar Wilde was involve a ‘disproportionate cost’ – and the asked whether the house of ill repute he Table Office of the Commons enforced had frequented in Little College Street the block. was in one of London’s more sordid, disreputable areas, he replied that it Parliamentary Reform since 1997 stood near the Houses of Parliament. The Court Report dryly observed that his Since 1997, a number of reforms have retort was met with laughter. transformed that situation, building on the critical development of 1979/80, Jump forward to 1931, and a debate in which was the creation of a system of the Commons on the merits of the select committees.

32 Perhaps the most significant of the post- again in a moment. 97 changes has been the removal of the vast majority of hereditary peers from the So, scrutiny of Government today is far House of Lords in 1999, which has more substantial than it was in the past. transformed the way that Chamber operates. No party can any longer call The need for further reform – upon a majority. The size of the Lords is Programming smaller, but it is more independent and active. It is also, as Meg Russell of the But although there has been a shift in the Constitution Unit has shown, far more balance between executive and likely than ever before to defeat the legislature in favour of the latter, the Government in votes. Government is still dominant. As I have said, the fact of a strong executive is not But alongside reform of the Lords there necessarily a bad thing. But it needs to be have also been significant improvements matched by a strong Parliament. And to the House of Commons which have there are elements of executive power similarly put a stronger check on the and control that do need attention. executive. These include: One area to which critics can point with • The introduction of Westminster Hall as some justification has been the negative a secondary Chamber for MPs to effects of the stricter timetabling of bills – scrutinise Government and hold known as programming. debates; • strengthening of the role of select It should be said that the system which committees including the creation of a existed prior to programming was hardly Scrutiny Unit to provide expert support; fantastic. It led to macho and unproductive filibustering which with • the Prime Minister’s bi-annual contentious bills would eventually result appearance before the Liaison in much less scrutiny of equivalent Committee; legislation than happens today. A • the establishment of the principle that ‘guillotine’ was provoked after 80 hours in parliamentary votes must precede standing committee; so with that target, military action; consideration of a bill’s clauses rarely got • the introduction of topical out of single figures. parliamentary questions and reduced notice for tabling of oral Parliamentary But I accept that under the old system Questions; there was generally more time at Report • a great increase in the day-to-day Stages and for committees on the floor of supervision of the Government through the House. And I also accept that the written parliamentary questions, Opposition as a whole, and individual reinforced by the powers to MPs and backbenchers from both sides, had more citizens alike in the Freedom of power to disrupt Government business in Information Act; the days before programming. That was • the Human Rights Act, with its own an important weapon in its armoury. Joint Committee of both Houses; • pre and post-legislative scrutiny and So I hope that reform of programming is draft bills; and something that can be progressed, and I • new public bill committees that enable know that the Hansard Society has expert witnesses to give evidence on published useful proposals in this regard. bills immediately before and as part of their line by line scrutiny. I refer to it Before I leave the issue of procedural reform I would like to expand on one of

33 the changes that I was able to deliver as thought they already knew: that MPs are Commons Leader – the replacement of a bunch of scoundrels who are in it for Standing Committees by Public Bill themselves. Committees, which allow for a legislative committee to cross examine ministers and It isn’t actually true in the vast majority of take evidence from independent experts. cases, but it’s very hard for an MP to make that case at the moment. It is still early days but, as a report by the Constitution Unit found, the initial signs Thankfully, there are independent voices are promising. I suggest that the Hansard speaking up on our behalf, as the Chair of Society and others with an interest in this the Hansard Society did a couple of area keep an eye on this aspect of the weeks ago in his Parliamentary Affairs legislative process, because as Professor lecture entitled: ‘In Defence of Politicians Cowley has said, if we get the Public Bill – In Spite of Themselves’. Committees right they have ‘the potential to do more to improve the quality of the But it is going to be a long haul to win parliamentary scrutiny of bills than any back the trust we have lost, let alone that other Commons reform in the last 20 we never had. What, then, can years’. Parliament, politicians and political parties do to turn this around? Connecting Parliament with the public There are no magic bullets. The problem Beyond procedural change, it is striking of political disengagement predates the how much the culture of the Palace of expenses scandal and has deep, complex Westminster has changed over the past roots bound up with social and economic decade: in the numbers of visitors it changes over many years. It is a welcomes, the facilities provided for them phenomenon experienced in many and in the information both Houses comparable societies. But there are, I provide on their work. And the Commons believe, some parliamentary and and Lords Chambers are no longer constitutional reforms that might help, considered sacred territory. The UK Youth and I want to focus on three interlinked Parliament has now sat in both. areas: Commons reform, Lords reform and wider reform of the political system Much of the credit for this transformation that would have an impact on Parliament. should go to the House authorities and in particular to the House Librarian, John On the Commons, the most immediate Pullinger, who has pursued this outreach issue is to respond to the expenses agenda with a passion. scandal. Action is already underway in this regard through the creation of a new The expenses scandal Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, which will end the discredited It is all the more unfortunate, therefore, system of self regulation and become the that the expenses scandal has struck at independent arbiter on MPs’ expenses, this moment. It has acted like a political pay and pensions. tsunami, washing through Parliament and sweeping many people before it. More broadly, the Wright Committee reforms will help to deliver a deeper For me, the damage of the expenses cultural change in the workings of the scandal is not so much that it shattered Commons by empowering backbenchers. any more positive perceptions about Its key proposals, now passed, include: Parliament and politicians – rather, it is that it confirmed what many people • select committee chairmen to be

34 elected by the House at the start of consensus for the destination – a smaller every Parliament; wholly or mainly elected Second • members of select committees to be Chamber – and the method – phasing the chosen by their parties in a secret change in over three Parliaments. ballot; • the creation of a Backbench Business AV and Boundary Reform Committee in time for the next Parliament to timetable non- On the question of wider constitutional government business; and reform I want to end by looking at some rival policy proposals that the main • the establishment, during the next parties have put forward, which would Parliament, of a House Business have a significant bearing on Parliament if Committee comprising the backbench they were enacted. business committee and

representatives of Government and One concerns the electoral system, where Opposition. the Labour Government is currently

legislating to allow the British people a On the House of Lords, the time has referendum on whether to switch from come to complete the process of reform First-Past-The-Post to the Alternative Vote that we began in 1999. Little more than a for elections to the House of Commons. decade ago one House of Parliament was numerically dominated by Members who I am a big supporter of FPTP but I believe sat there solely by birthright – to whom there are two reasons why the time has merit or election as the route to the come to move to AV. legislature were entirely alien. We stopped that, but now we need to take The first is the fact of multi-party politics. the next and final steps. The two-party system of the 1950s is

gone for good and the electoral system The Constitutional Reform and needs to react to that. The second is the Governance Bill already contains crisis of trust in politics following the provisions to end the system of by- expenses scandal. We need an electoral elections which still allows new hereditary system that secures legitimacy for the peers to enter the House by virtue of their public. I have in principle long supported hereditary title; to ensure there is a robust the Alternative Vote, by which voters rank disciplinary regime in the Lords; and will candidates in order of preference, and enable Members of the House to be now believe we need to actively move to expelled, suspended or disqualified. And it. it will, for the first time, allow peers to resign from the House and disclaim their Crucially the Alternative Vote would peerage. enable us to retain the single Member

constituency link, which is one of the Beyond that, we will soon publish central merits of the current system – proposals for a fully reformed Second both because it delivers effective Chamber. I have worked long and hard representation and allows MPs to be held on reform of the Lords. I know just how directly to account. But AV would many battered and ruined plans to reform maximise the chances that every MP is it are strewn along the way. This is reform elected with the support of over half of whose time has come. But it is a once in a the voters in their constituency. In an age generation change so we need to get it of multi-party politics, it could both right. And that means making it a top enhance the legitimacy of MPs, and priority in a new Parliament. The good therefore Parliament, and enable the news is that there is a clear cross-party public to express a greater range of

35 preferences. Cutting 65-80 seats by crudely equalising registered voters would But as with any constitutional change of disproportionately reduce representation this magnitude, it could only be made in urban areas and would also with the endorsement of the electorate. disadvantage Scotland, Wales and This is in keeping with Labour’s approach Northern Ireland. And it would hit every to all significant constitutional reforms island community. Orkney and Shetland since 1997, which have been made either would be amalgamated with a large part on the basis of cross-party support or of the Highlands. The Isle of Wight would through popular endorsement in a be amalgamated with a large part of referendum. Hampshire.

Sadly, recent parliamentary debates on The non-partisan cross-party Electoral the Constitutional Reform and Reform Society has said the ‘Conservative Governance Bill reveal that the proposals mean that most constituencies Conservative party would abandon that will pay less regard to what most voters approach if they were elected to think of as community and natural Government. boundaries, and change more frequently, destabilising the link between MPs and Both parties acknowledge that there is a constituents.’ It noted that the ‘United need to tackle the crisis of low public trust States has rigorous requirements for in the political process. But while Labour arithmetical equality of population in has proposed to ask the British people congressional districts, but the worst whether they wish to change the electoral gerrymandering in the developed world. system, as one means of increasing the Equal-sized constituencies cannot legitimacy of the democratic process, the produce fair votes by themselves’. Conservative party proposes – in the name of ‘economy’ – to cut the number Another point makes the Conservative of MPs by 10% without testing the will of proposal completely bogus. There is a the people in a referendum and without suggestion that the size of the Commons any proper effort to seek any kind of has somehow increased exponentially. cross-party consensus. That is not true.

The apparently virtuous call to cut the The size of the Commons has increased cost of politics is actually camouflage for by 3% – 21 Members – since 1950. The a dangerous, destructive and anti- size of our constituencies has increased democratic piece of gerrymandering. by 25% over that period. The work load Their proposal is not about cutting the from constituencies of Members of cost of politics; it is about advantaging Parliament, even in this time that I have the Conservative party. Boundaries drawn been in the House, has dramatically on the basis of registered electors, rather increased. The consequence of the than the population as a whole, already Conservative proposals would be to distort the electoral map because detach Members of Parliament from their registration rates are lowest among constituencies more, and to add specific groups congregated in specific considerably to their work load. That can locations. According to the Electoral only mean that the level of service to Commission's recent estimate, most of constituents would decline at a time when the three million-plus people who are we should be increasing it. eligible to vote but who are not registered are to be found in our inner In stark contrast to Labour’s agenda for urban areas. moving towards a new politics on the basis of popular consent, the

36 Conservatives aim to butcher scores of in criminal justice policy, and why we’ve constituencies for sordid political ends. I used deliberative events to ask people don’t think that’s the right way to go their views on proposals for a statement about significant constitutional change, of values and a Bill of Rights and and I don’t think it’s any way to build Responsibilities. public confidence in Parliament and the political process. But it would be a serious mistake to try to hand decision making power over to the Conclusion – Representative ‘body politic’ at large. For one thing, as Democracy the Californian experience shows, direct democracy risks undermining stable Nor, in conclusion, do I believe that we government. But it paradoxically also risks would build public confidence and distorting the democratic process by engagement in the political process by amplifying the voices of those already moving away from the system of adept at making themselves heard, at the representative democracy and towards a expense of the more socially marginalised system of ‘direct democracy’ where MPs groups. are simply delegates and plebiscites become a regular feature. The Hansard Society’s own series of Audits of Political Engagement underline If you want to see where that can lead, my concern that political participation is look to the United States and specifically socially skewed – finding that older and to California, where the practice of wealthier people participate more than holding ballots on the state budget has the young, the poor and those from brought one of the richest and most particular ethnic minorities. powerful states in the Union to the brink of bankruptcy. I am certainly not convinced that the creation of new and increased The New York Times recently reported opportunities for participation will that the Californian initiative ‘in which necessarily tackle that disjuncture. Indeed legislators or independent groups ask in all likelihood it will tend to make it voters to mandate how the state’s money more pronounced, as new avenues of is spent or not spent — has become at engagement attract the already engaged times an exercise in fiscal self-defeat, with more than the disengaged. So we need voters moving to earmark money for one to beware that in our desire to tackle one special program one year, only to democratic deficit we don’t create contemplate undoing their own will a few another. elections later’. The entire system has been plunged into crisis and the state is Direct democracy mechanisms may make almost ungovernable. Or look at it easier for minorities to contribute to Switzerland, where they’ve just had a political debates, but at the same time plebiscite on legal representation for they make it harder for them to influence animals, following a successful one to ban political decisions – as more and more the building of minarets. issues would be decided by majority votes. As a consequence, direct I believe that existing political structures democracy – in its purest form – runs the need to allow more direct public risk of increasing voter apathy and involvement in the decision making disengagement among those citizens process. That’s why I use residents’ open- who are already marginalised. In so air meetings in Blackburn. It’s why in the doing, it will increase political inequality, Ministry of Justice we are pioneering and with it inequality in other areas. policies to give communities a greater say

37 So let me conclude by nailing my colours firmly to the mast of representative democracy. I remain convinced that this offers the best means of balancing and accommodating competing interests and best ensures that the interests and rights of minorities are not lost to sight.

When, therefore, we evaluate the case for major constitutional reform in the future, our judgement should be based on the extent to which such changes support and enhance, rather than undermine, the representative system – which has Parliament at its apex.

38

Parliamentary reform: The Liberal Democrat perspective

David Howarth MP Liberal Democrat Justice spokesperson

15 March 2010

We should start by saying what relationship between the individual parliamentary reform is not. First and Member of Parliament and his or her foremost, it is not the same as reform of party – a relationship of loyalty and the whole of politics, since that would support for its aims and ideals, but also of require reform not only of Parliament but patronage, discipline and, above all, of Government too, and of local campaign finance – is crucial to the way government and of the political parties, Parliament works, and, again, is especially party funding, and of the something in need of reform if Parliament judiciary and of the media. But is to restore its reputation. Parliamentary parliamentary reform is related to reform reform is connected to reform of the of all of those other institutions and is judiciary, and more generally to reform of therefore part of the overall reform of the relationship between politics and law, politics. It is related to reform of the because if we are to move to a political Government because the domination by system based more on the rule of law, the Government of Parliament, especially and less on crude majoritarianism, as I of the House of Commons, is one of the want to see, Parliament and the judiciary crucial facts, and, in my view, one of the will have to develop a new understanding crucial defects, of our political system. It each other's role, and to replace the is related to the reform of local current mutual misunderstanding. government because another one of the crucial facts about our political system, And finally, parliamentary reform is and, again in my view, one of its crucial related to the position of the media defects, is that it is too centralised, and because one of the reasons Parliament one of the causes and the effects of that has come to be seen as less important, centralisation has been the growing and why it has lost its standing as the confusion of the role of Member of cockpit of the nation, is that a media Parliament and that of local councillor, voracious for instant decisions and which in turn has helped to create public unceasing 24 hour entertainment has very confusion about what Members of little room for a deliberative assembly Parliament are for. One of the aims of that conducts debates over hours and parliamentary reform must be to clarify takes months to make decisions. That is and strengthen the national role of why, for example, Parliament rarely Members of Parliament, but that cannot receives media coverage beyond the happen without a restoration to local dramatic, noisy and irrational exchanges government of the powers and prestige of prime minister's questions, and even that rightfully belong to it. And that – in parliamentary terms – short parliamentary reform is related to the session has to be severely edited to make reform of the political parties because the it appear both snappy and even more

39 confrontational. On this point, however, I make clear what I think the fundamental am a reactionary. It is the media that problem is with our present political should reform, not Parliament. The 24 system. For it seems to me that we in media has not changed human nature Britain are on the edge of a crisis of and it has certainly not increased human legitimacy in our political institutions. It is capacity for making good decisions at not merely that our institutions are speed. Quick decisions might be what the unrepresentative or ineffective or unjust, media need to keep their audiences, but although they are all those things. It is they still tend to be bad decisions. that they command so little respect that they are losing authority. The lack of And so parliamentary reform is not by respect is evident in many survey results. itself political reform, but it is closely A 2009 IPSOS-MORI poll found that trust related to political reform and cannot be in whether politicians are telling the truth understood outside that context. But has fallen to 13%.1 A PoliticsHome survey parliamentary reform is also not of the same year discovered that only something else; it is also not the same as 12% of the population trust the state to reform of society, or economic or social keep their personal information safe.2 reform. Those who say that parliamentary And according to a 2010 Edelman survey, reform is irrelevant to the everyday only 35% of the ‘well-informed’ public concerns of those who are worried about (educated to degree level, top quartile their jobs, their families and their souls do earnings) trust the government ‘to do have a point. Parliamentary reform is what is right’, a fall of 6% in one year at a unlikely by itself to create a single job, time when trust in almost every other except perhaps in the administration of developed country is rising and leaving the House itself or in academia, and it is elite trust in Government in the UK about unlikely by itself to lead to better public 10% lower than that in other services or to lower taxes, although I democracies.3 As the Hansard Society’s would suggest well-scrutinised laws have latest Audit of Political Engagement a better chance of being effective laws shows, this is not at all a temporary blip than those whose contradictions and caused by the expenses crisis, since there vagueness are allowed to pass has not been much trust in politics unchallenged. But that does not make it apparent since the Hansard Society’s irrelevant. The health of our democracy – survey began in 2004 (that is, after the or rather its state of ill-health – is an start of the Iraq War), although the important question in itself. As a liberal, I expenses crisis does seem to have always turn to political questions first, increased the proportion of the before I turn to the economic and the population with no trust in politics at all.4 social. For liberals, the distribution of political power is always an issue of the That report also shows a gradual decline first rank. I know that is not what socialists in the proportion of citizens who believe think, or what conservatives think. They that the political system works well. The both think that the state of politics is a only surprise is perhaps that as many as secondary question, and that politics is 28% still believe that the system does never really more than an expression of work well, but whether that survives the social or economic conflicts, conflicts that general election is another question. One they both think of as more fundamental of the most telling results in the Hansard than political conflict. That is one of the Society survey was to the question, would reasons liberals are different. We do not you be proud of a child of yours who think that we have to justify an interest in became a national politician, to which political reform in terms of anything else. only 22% answered yes. Another telling result is that three times as many people But before going into specifics I should believe that the media has an important

40 effect on their lives than believe that which politics and the media have both Parliament has such an effect. reduced themselves to branches of the entertainment industry – processes too The point at which loss of respect shades complex to go into in great detail here, into a collapse in authority cannot be but which have to do with the unfortunate identified with precision, but it is clear coincidence of the media’s desperation to that a political system that is despised, maintain revenues in the face of new whose leading participants are seen as sources of information and entertainment motivated by personal greed and and the political system’s equally selfishness and whose relevance to daily desperate attempts to manipulate the life is doubted cannot for long retain media for political ends, attempts that much of a claim on the loyalty of the have resulted in the political system population. We are left with a state becoming subservient to the very power apparatus reduced solely to the legal that it sought to control and harness. system and the administrative structure, and even they are vulnerable to attack by Second, it is important to realise that the media organisations that see no inherent types of individuals involved in Parliament value in legality and procedural regularity will not fundamentally change after the when they come into conflict with their election. I know that the Conservatives commercial interests – as we have seen have been trying to give the impression both in the mobile phone tapping scandal that their candidates are all drawn from and the Jon Venables affair. outside politics – that they are local doctors and ‘ordinary people’ – but that is Collapse of state authority is a problem in far from the truth (and the fact that the itself for liberals, who, unlike libertarians, Conservatives are raising false believe that state authority is expectations makes the problem worse). I indispensible for the achievement of have been looking at the backgrounds of social justice. But it is even more of a Conservative PPCs in seats in which a problem, a practical problem, in the Conservative MP is not standing again, middle of an economic crisis, especially plus those in newly created seats one whose origins lie in banking – the generally expected to elect Conservative part of the economic system in which, MPs and those in the seats in which the more perhaps than any other, the Conservatives are second to Labour that institutions of the market are ultimately they need to win to gain an overall dependent on the credibility of the state. majority. In those seats, about 170 in total, 38% of Conservative PPCs have at The optimistic view, promoted largely by some point in their lives until now been those political parties and their media political professionals – researchers, supporters who have most to gain from it, special advisers, Conservative Party is that a general election will bring the employees, think-tankers, lobbyists and legitimation crisis to an end, that a bout so on. 38% is, interestingly enough, also of democratic participation and the ritual the percentage of Labour MPs in the humiliation of a number of Members of 2005-10 Parliament who had been Parliament will restore authority to the political professionals at some point political system. I do not believe that it before being elected. Perhaps even more will, for three reasons. important from the point of view of trust, and the kind of political system we are in First, the origins of the loss of respect for the process of creating, nearly 30% of politics are more deep-seated than the Conservative target PPCs have worked in expenses crisis and a few discredited the media manipulation professions – individuals. Its origins in my view lie in the marketing, advertising, PR – or directly in processes that produced a situation in the media. That is 10% higher than the

41 figure for the whole of the present House centrifugal forces that threaten to break of Commons (though I should note in up the United Kingdom? I suppose those passing the proportion of media who believe in the myth of Margaret professionals in the present House is Thatcher, that she triumphed over highest in my own party). Max Weber said consensus politics and ruthlessly carried in his great essay Politik als Beruf that through necessary reforms that never modern democracy was inextricably commanded popular support, will look linked with modern lawyers.5 That is no forward to another bout of ‘strong longer true. In the House of Commons government’, by which they mean social now, lawyers are vastly outnumbered by rupture combined with countervailing political and media professionals and they repression, but those who see more will be again in the next Parliament. I clearly will fear this country is about to be cannot see how a Parliament of marketing subjected to period of political and social professionals and full-time politicos will division just at a time when there is the regain the public’s trust for very long, highest possible premium on unity and perhaps no longer than the time it takes co-operation. people to work out, for example, that the scientific claims of the average cosmetics That is why the most fundamental reform advert are bogus. of Parliament that we need is reform of the electoral system for the House of Third, and perhaps most fundamentally, Commons. We need a system that retains the First-Past-The-Post electoral system the individuality of Members of time after time results in the election of Parliament, so that they are not mere Governments that are overwhelmingly creatures of their party – which means unpopular on the day they are elected. In that we should reject party list systems – other democracies Governments start but we also need a system that produces popular, because they have at least the tolerable proportionality in terms of good will of voters for parties that add up result, that produces a Parliament that is to a majority, or to near a majority, of the representative in the most fundamental electorate. It is only later that they sense, namely representative of the become unpopular. In our system, political views of the country. There is one however, Governments are regularly system that achieves both of those elected whose policies have just been objectives, the single transferable vote in rejected by three fifths of the voters, and multi-member constituencies, and it is in the case of the present Government, therefore that system that we support. and perhaps the next one, by nearly two Introduction of STV would also allow us to thirds of the voters. Such a Government reduce the number of MPs, by about lacks real authority from the start. It lacks 20%, without having the effect that would consent. It lacks legitimacy. It is not so follow from reducing the size of the much an elected Government as a junta House under First-Past-The-Post of propelled into power by an unpopular making the Commons even more minority. Imagine, for example, a unrepresentative. Government elected on 6 May with between 35 and 40% of the popular vote But we only support the reduction of the committed to immediate heavy cuts in number of MPs because we are public spending and to tax breaks for the committed to the maximum amount of rich, a set of policies rejected by all the devolution of power to local level. If, as other parties. In what way does that we envisage, there will be democratically Government have real authority? Will it, elected local bodies that set health policy for example, be able to carry the public and policing policy, and if local councils with it against a wave of public sector have far more freedom to organise strikes? Will it be able to resist those themselves to act in whatever way they

42 think beneficial for their areas, there standing order 14(1) gives the should be less for MPs to do. More Government control over all of the time generally, it is important that we find ways of the House by virtue of being the of counteracting the tendency for MPs to Government, not by virtue of having a undermine local government by setting majority. If, on the day the next themselves up as super-councillors. The Parliament meets, the Labour Party has best way of doing that is to ensure that been reduced to third place in the when a constituent writes to an MP to Commons, but Gordon Brown has intervene on their behalf, as often as refused to accept the result and has not possible the MP will have to write to a resigned, he would be just as entitled to local representative, not to a national control the agenda of the House as he is minister, to get anything done. now. He would even be able to keep reform of standing order 14(1) itself off Electoral reform for the Commons will the agenda for as long as he retained transform the way the Commons looks to office. His successor would have the same the public. If no single party has a power even if he or she lacked a majority. majority, that itself will open up the range of issues that will be debated and Standing order 14(1) has to go. Henry decided on. Parliament would be an Porter said in an article in the Guardian important locus of public attention simply that no MP could give an account of the because the results of votes would be history of standing order 14. That is not more uncertain and the public would see strictly true, since I could. But I am, you Parliament as more relevant and worth will be pleased to hear, not going to caring about. There are many proposals embark on a detailed history here. I for enabling members of the public to would, however, like to point out that ensure that particular topics should be standing order 14 came into being in its debated in the House, and I support the present state only in 1963, at a period general principle that if a very large when very few people questioned the two section of public opinion wants party duopoly, when backbench Parliament to discuss a matter but rebellions were very rare and when Parliament refuses to do so, there should backbenchers were not expected to be be a petition mechanism so that the hyper-activists. No one at the time public can force the issue. But a more thought it was a big deal to cede all representative Parliament would mean parliamentary time to the Government that those occasions would be rarer than because the distinction between the they are now. Government and Parliament was at that time near to an all-time low. None of the Lack of single party control would also conditions of 1963 now apply. The transform parliamentary procedure and duopoly is gone, no matter how much the start to undermine the Government’s Labour and Conservative parties fantasise stranglehold on the agenda. A about its return. Backbenchers are under Government without a majority would not pressure to find ways of raising issues that be able to force through Programme voters are worried about, and they are Motions, it would lose control of public more inclined to rebel – although, bill committees and statutory instrument admittedly, that tendency might committees, and it would even lose disappear in a House without a large control of the Committee of Selection, majority and no longer populated more which chooses members of such by those who have lost ministerial office committees. But it would not by itself end than by those who aspire to it. But the government control of the agenda of the distinction between Government and Chamber of the House of Commons Parliament is back, and procedures of the itself. That is because the infamous House need to recognise that fact.

43 comment often attributed to Gladstone What should replace standing order 14 that Parliament’s only role is to hold those (1)? I was a member of the Wright who govern to account. It is also, in as far Committee and fully support its proposal as a large assembly plausibly can, to set for a House Business Committee (as I the broad limits of policy. That is what the support its other proposals, on electing public think we do already, and are select committees and their chairs and on surprised to find that we don’t do. The opposition business for example). I crucial battleground here is expenditure. support the full recommendation of the Parliamentary control of supply has been Wright Committee, not just the reduced to a joke. No debate is allowed Backbench Committee, which the and half a trillion pounds gets voted Government and the Conservatives have through in an instant. Parliament has less conceded in principle and about which real control on expenditure than a parish they were forced by the House to give council. That needs to change, and the jurisdiction over not just 15 days a year place to start is to give the new, elected, but over approximately one day a week (a select committees a power to call in proposal that, combined with Private specific spending decisions before they Members’ Bills on Fridays, just about gets are made. us back to the position before the Second World War). I support putting the whole Reform of the electoral system for the of the time of the House at the disposal Commons will also increase the pressure of the House it itself via a House Business for democratising the Lords. The Liberal Committee. But I also support the Party has supported the reconstitution of Committee’s mechanism for making the the Upper House on a popular basis for House Business Committee work, that the 100 years. We inserted that policy into Backbench Committee would meet with the preamble of the Parliament Act 1911, representatives of the Government and which we intended as an interim measure. the opposition parties to try to reach a We continue to believe that the right to consensus, but when no consensus is make laws should be based on election, possible, the Chairman of Way and not selection, and are dismayed that the Means would act as an arbitrator, and it leader of the Conservative Party says that would be the Chairman of Ways and Lords reform is not a priority for him and Means (who, of course, will, as a Deputy that Jack Straw has only come round to Speaker, in the future be elected by the the idea of an elected Upper House when whole House by secret ballot) who would it is too late for him to do anything about propose the forthcoming business to the it. We recognise that for the public Lords House in the form of a motion. A majority reform is a lower priority than almost Government that objected to the motion every other proposal for political reform could organise its troops to amend it, but that is put to them, but that is the result, that would have to happen in the open. we believe, of a situation in which the By the way, one consequence of giving Lords look more successful in standing up this additional task to a Deputy Speaker to the Government than the Commons, is, in our view, that the House will need and, perhaps oddly, look more politically four Deputy Speakers, not just three, as at representative than the Commons. If the present. Commons becomes more democratic and representative, the position of the Lords But we need to go much further than the will come to look more and more Wright Committee if we are to restore the unsatisfactory. prestige of the Commons. In particular, the Commons needs to increase its role in We support the idea of electing the Lords deciding policy, not just in reviewing the for long terms, to help preserve their Government’s policy. I disagree with the independence, but we believe that their

44 independence should not be absolute and that they should be subject to a recall mechanism if they are found to have been corrupt or utterly incompetent. We also believe that a recall mechanism should apply to Members of the House of Commons who have been found to have been corrupt.

These reforms would not in themselves transform public trust in the political system. Perhaps there is nothing that can be done fully to reverse the corrosive effects of the political and media culture that British society has developed. But we can pull back from the brink of a full-scale crisis of legitimacy if we at least commit ourselves to elect a politically representative Parliament that controls its own agenda and has some say in how the country is governed. That doesn’t seem too much to ask.

Notes:

1 Ipsos MORI (2009), Trust in People, http://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/ Polls/poll-trust-in-professions-topline- 2009.pdf

2 Big Brother Watch (2009), Big Brother State Survey, http:// www.bigbrotherwatch.org.uk/home/big- brother-state-survey-28-october- 2009.html

3 Edelman (2010), Trust Barometer, http:// www.edelman.co.uk/trustbarometer/files/ edelman-trust-barometer-2010-uk- highlights.pdf

4 Hansard Society (2010), Audit of Political Engagement 7 (London: Hansard Society).

5 ‘Der moderne Advokat und die moderne Demokratie gehören seitdem schlechthin zusammen‘, Politik als Beruf (Duncker & Humblot, Munich and Leipzig, 1919), p 24.

45

Parliamentary reform: The Conservative perspective

Rt Hon Sir George Young MP Shadow Leader of the House of Commons

18 March 2010

Thank you, Peter, for that introduction – necessary reforms. The challenge before and thank you also to the Hansard Society us is to implement them in the little time for inviting me to speak to you this that remains before the election; and then evening. to build on them in the next Parliament. The House has suffered something of a I’ve had the good fortune to be closely cardiac arrest; our task must be to revive involved with the Society over many it and ensure that it becomes the beating years, including as a former Vice heart of democratic life. President. Everyone who works in politics knows what a tremendous contribution it What’s gone wrong? makes both to the public’s understanding of Parliament and to the way Parliament I’m not suggesting that there is a mythical works. It not only monitors the health of golden age to which Parliament can our democracy – it’s also on hand to return. I agree with Jack Straw that no prescribe the right medicine when the such time ever existed. Governments of body politic is under the weather. We’ve all colours and from all ages have sought seen that recently, with the unexpected to erode Parliament’s authority and but welcome progress that has been compromise its ability to assert itself. The made introducing the reforms of the enduring tension between the executive Wright Committee on the Reform of the and the legislature lies at the centre of Commons; issues on which the Hansard British politics. Society has been campaigning for many years. But we risk looking at least complacent, at worst fully detached, if we fail to I’m particularly delighted to be winding recognise that the current public mood up this series of three talks on relates to a widespread sense of parliamentary reform. If you put all the dissatisfaction with the way Parliament speeches from the different parties does its job. together, you can see where we agree; where we disagree; and work out how, in Trust – or the lack of it – plays its part. the next Parliament, things might be Last week, newspapers reported the different if the Conservatives win. headline finding from the Hansard Society’s annual Audit of Political The last few weeks have seen the House Engagement as ‘expenses scandal does of Commons make some big – and not cause collapse in trust’. MPs rushing positive – decisions to change the way it to read the good news will have been operates. Given the disastrous year disappointed. Underneath the headline Parliament has endured, these are was the depressing realisation that the

47 70% who said they distrusted politicians young families, it will seem a less seven years ago haven’t changed their intimidating place of work. mind. Suspicion has just hardened into cynicism. There have been other successes. Westminster Hall – for which I was the What concerned me more was the sole and lonely cheerleader on indifference with which an increasing Conservative benches – has opened up number of people appear to view greater opportunities for backbenchers to Parliament. This message is strikingly raise constituency issues. Public Bill conveyed by the finding that just one in Committees are a considerable five people think Parliament is one of the improvement on Standing Committees institutions that have the most impact on benefiting from formal evidence sessions their lives – a sharp decline from previous before the detailed scrutiny. years. The Prime Minister's appearance before To borrow from Oscar Wilde, the only the Liaison Committee twice a year is thing worse than Parliament being talked another welcome innovation, which has about, would be for Parliament not to be provided a more reasoned forum for talked about. The House depends for its scrutinising the Prime Minister than the relevance on the strength of its hurly-burly of Question Time. Though I relationship with the electorate. When it say in passing that they have not in my speaks to the concerns of the nation, the view reached their full potential. Two and Chamber is lively and constructive; but a half hours interrogation of the country’s when it retreats into itself, debate Prime Minister by the country’s top becomes ritualistic and purposeless. It is inquisitors should elicit more information this sense of purpose which Parliament than it has done to date about what has lost. And in a moment I will outline makes Prime Ministers tick and, if it was our proposals to make it more relevant more effective, it would get more and effective. coverage than it does at the moment. As a former participant, I take my share of Labour’s record the blame for this.

It would be unfair to lay the blame for this While Parliament needed modernising, it state of affairs entirely at Labour’s door. certainly needed strengthening; and too often the measures that modernised it, I was shadow Leader of the House in their weakened it. Lasting reform can only take first term; and now I am shadow Leader in place when there is agreement between what I hope will be their last. This has the competing interests in the House – given me a good perspective on their but too often the Government proceeded approach to reform. And it’s not all been on the basis that what was good for it, bad. was good for everyone. That has sadly not been the case. Under the banner of modernisation, real improvements have been made to the The main vehicle for reform – the working practices of the House. Our Modernisation Select Committee – sitting hours are more sensible and more initially managed to foster a sense of reflective of the patterns of modern life. collaborative engagement. But instead of No one wants to return to all-night being chaired by a senior backbencher, to sittings to tramp the lobbies in their speak with the authority of Parliament, it dressing gowns. We work now in a more has instead been led by a Cabinet balanced and professional environment. Minister, who acts under the direction of To prospective MPs who are women with the Government: a clear conflict of

48 interest that we have promised to end. business that existed before. As a The Leader of the House is the member seasoned campaigner for a stronger of the Cabinet charged with delivering Parliament, you will forgive my the Government’s legislative programme scepticism. through the House of Commons. It is a constitutional affront that that same Constitutional Reform person should also chair the Committee which decides how the House of Too often the Government offers words Commons will scrutinise that programme. of support, and then fails to act on them. The initial spark of enthusiasm for one Inevitably, having such a powerful morning’s good headline never seems to executive presence on the Committee burn as brightly the following day. has led to a divisive approach to reform. Instead of the process being owned by You only have to look as far as Labour’s the House – as it should be – it has been flagship Constitutional Reform and at the whim of the Government. When it Governance Bill to see the divorce has suited the Government, reforms have between the rhetoric and the reality. In made progress; when it doesn’t, they the week that Gordon Brown entered don’t. Downing Street in 2007, he announced plans for a ‘new British constitutional We have seen how ready the Government settlement’1 to thrust power into the are to push through unwelcome hands of Parliament and the people. I proposals, even using the casting vote of welcomed his statement. the Leader of the House to introduce the unpopular regional select committees – But what happened? A bill was published which we propose to abolish. in draft form; it was put before a joint committee for urgent consideration; the I witnessed this at first hand as a former committee completed its work in haste at member of the Modernisation the request of the government by July Committee, when for the first time in my 2008 – and then the bill was lost without 35 years in the House the Government trace into the legislative Bermuda broke with all-party consensus to force Triangle for a whole year. Having just through a report on programming. The about made it through the Commons low minority report that I produced with my on fuel, it will now be glimpsed below the Conservative colleagues to protest clouds by their Lordships at Second against these changes was voted down. Reading on 24 March before being The Government simply deployed its downed in thick fog in the remaining days majority both in the Committee, and then of this Parliament. on the floor of the House, to introduce what was in effect an automatic guillotine There has been little or no progress on on all Government legislation. nine of the 12 areas where Brown pledged action – such as a Commons The then Leader of the House Margaret vote to trigger dissolution – to transfer Beckett argued that the guillotine was a power from the executive. Rather than way to cut down on late sittings and allow strengthening parliamentary MPs to invest more time in their families. accountability, the bill itself was so tightly But it was heartening last week to hear programmed in the Commons that at Jack Straw publicly accept that least 28 clauses – about a third of the bill programming had undermined effective – were not debated at all. And although scrutiny. I hope that Labour will now this was designed to reinvigorate follow my pledge to return to the more democracy, the last minute insertion of a collaborative approach to timetabling

49 referendum on AV was a pre-election appeared reluctant to see. And it was stunt that serves only to undermine it. only after I threw our weight behind the creation of a House Business Committee This has not been, as the Prime Minister that Harriet Harman conspicuously predicted, ‘an important step forward’ – reversed her previously stated opposition but rather, as the former Lord Chancellor and indicated that she would support it. Lord Falconer pertinently called it, a ‘constitutional retreat’. The Government failed to recognise that the harder they tried to resist, the more Wright Reforms effectively their own actions made the case for the executive relinquishing its The Government was also in headlong iron grip on the business of Parliament. retreat on Commons reform – though I’m As the Labour MP Martin Salter pleased to say they are now finally memorably put it, ‘The power of these running, if you’ll excuse the pun, in the shadowy forces at work behind the right direction. scenes demonstrates more clearly than ever why the Wright Committee The vote on Wright was doubly significant recommendations need to be because the proposals that the House implemented in full, and that the clammy overwhelming endorsed on 4 March were fingers of the Whips and Government not dictated by the Leader of the House business managers are prised once and and pushed out by the Modernisation for all off matters that are for Parliament Committee. Instead, they were rather than for party’.2 introduced by a committee whose chairman, Tony Wright, is a well- Reformers from across the House should respected backbencher and whose be delighted by the results of the votes a members were elected by their peers, not fortnight ago. It was a March Revolution – nominated by the Whips. Instead of a definitive victory for Parliament over the enabling the Government to break the executive. The decisions that the House consensus on reform – as it has previously took to elect select committee chairmen done – a consensus in the House broke and members, create a Backbench the Government. Committee and lay the path towards a more collaborative way of handling our Harriet Harman implausibly argued during business were necessary and long the debates that the Government was overdue. always on the front foot. But while they have dragged their feet, it was the The challenge now is to put these reformers, supported by the sensible changes into practice. I was Conservatives, who have been pushing particularly struck by the words of Tony the pace of reform. Wright during the debate when he warned that setting up new structures is We opposed the Government’s attempts easy, but it is more difficult to make them to restrict the terms of reference, which work. As he said: ‘In a way it is easy when would have strangled the House Business we can blame the Government for Committee at birth. We pressed them for everything, but from now on we shall time to debate the report after it was have to attend to ourselves and take published. We forced them to give the responsibility for ourselves. If we do not House a vote on all of the proposals. We do that, this is not going to work; it will called for the establishment of the be sunk.’3 Backbench Business Committee at the beginning of the next Parliament – We now have just nine or so days in the something even the Wright Committee remainder of this Parliament to

50 implement the decisions. There is no independent; increase its role in national room for error within such a tight debate; sharpen its tools of scrutiny; and timescale. strengthen its accountability to the people it serves. Harriet Harman said today that she will find time to debate all of the necessary Conservative proposals changes to Standing Orders. But there is a growing concern that this may not Many of Parliament’s current problems happen before dissolution. Such a delay stem from the over-interference of the would jeopardise the ability of the executive. The Government is formed Backbench Committee to be up and from Parliament – it doesn’t own it and it running in time to set the first topical shouldn’t have so much say over how the debate of the new Parliament. House is run. We are committed to abolishing the Modernisation Committee What’s next? and will return its agenda to a revitalised Procedure Committee, chaired by a The big question that remains is: what senior backbencher, elected by secret should happen next? Given Parliament’s ballot of the whole House. self-inflicted wounds, have we done enough to stop the bleeding? But the new rules on electing the heads of select committees will also lend new My answer is emphatically, no. authority to the Liaison Committee – Parliamentary reform is not a single day’s whose chairman should now take a work. To many people, it may seem a greater lead than before in charting the painfully slow and arcane process, but direction of reform. Other than their when the circumstances are right – as landmark report ‘Shifting the Balance’ in they are now – it has the opportunity to 2000, they have focused more on their transform not just Parliament, but the way evidence sessions with the Prime Minister we do politics as well. than spelling out their vision for the House in greater detail. In the future, I I want to make it clear to you tonight that, believe they should do that. if we win the election, the Conservatives will not rest on the achievements of the To help them meet this challenge, we will last few weeks. But we will use the break the monopoly on statements momentum created by the Wright Report, currently held by ministers and hand to build on the consensus that has been the Liaison Committee a quota of 12 established and feed off the energies of a statements a year, which can be drawn on new generation of MPs. to enable select committee chairmen to launch their reports to the House and Yes, there will be other big priorities for answer questions on them. So when the next government – not least paying select committees have got something down the national debt. But we know that important to say, such as today’s report urgent action is needed to cut the from the Defence Committee on the democratic deficit too. Just as we will need for a comprehensive approach to rebalance our finances to get growth securing peace after military operations, it back into the economy, we will also won’t be buried in a press release and rebalance the power between relegated to a few columns in a government, Parliament and voters to newspaper; but broadcast live to the bring confidence back to politics. nation in prime time.

So let me outline a number of areas This will help the House become a where we will help make Parliament more platform for debating the issues of the

51 day. And we’ll go further. Too often the breathing space to be able to undertake Chamber can seem like a sea of green its scrutiny in a measured and considered benches, particularly during thinly manner, without forcing it to attended Opposition debates. So we will hyperventilate. allow the Opposition to trade the time allocated on those debates to force the We will start from the premise that there Government to give topical statements should be fewer bills, more thought- on the issues of the day – again in prime through and better prepared for their time. journey through the House. I applaud the work of the Better Government Initiative As the Wright Report observed, all too in this area and their principles will inform often MPs themselves do not see the our approach, should we win the election. point of making the House the primary focus on their activities. But our proposals Legislation is too often drafted on the will seek to transform this by replacing hoof; which forces Parliament to do the long and turgid debates with short and heavy lifting that should have been done punchy statements that will get far at an earlier stage by officials. In the greater air time. You only have to 2007/ 08 session, the Government tabled compare the amount of media interest well over 5,000 amendments to its own that was shown in Tuesday’s statement on bills. It is absurd to expect the House to BA with the equally topical but less take the hit for inadequate preparation in gripping debate later that afternoon on Whitehall. higher education to understand the impact. Parliamentary theatre can be as We’ll abolish the automatic guillotine for gripping as the real thing – but we need Public Bill Committees, as I said earlier, to make better use of the stage. which will give backbenchers more time for proper scrutiny. And we need to look Backbenchers aren’t in Parliament just to closely at the Report stage of bills where talk – they’re there to scrutinise legislation real issues of timing remain. I’m in favour and improve the law. While we give them of more split committee stages, where more of a voice, we must also sharpen some of the committee stage is taken on their teeth. the floor of the House, so that more backbenchers would have an opportunity Making law is a two-sided process: the to contribute at an earlier stage of the bill executive should keep a handle on the – as well as stricter time limits on volume of legislation that it tries to pass, speeches so that some of the pressure is while the legislature needs to have taken off timing. enough time to give proper attention to every part of every bill. At the moment it’s More effective mechanisms such as these going wrong in both respects. There is will help to make the Commons better at currently too much legislation, produced holding the Government to account – too often, with too little effect. And while which in turn will build public confidence the Government churns out bills like press in what MPs do. releases, there has been no effort to give the Commons the time and the tools it Lords Ministers in the Commons needs to examine them in detail. The work of MPs has for decades We all know what happens when our stretched only as far as the committee brains don’t get enough oxygen. Time is corridor and the Chamber of the the oxygen of Parliament. At the moment, Commons. But over the last three years, the sheer volume of legislation is we have had to confront a new beast on suffocating the House. We will give it the the political landscape.

52 These stubborn, independent and wily requiring ministers who sit in the Lords to creatures initially bred in great numbers – respond to debates where responsibility and in one case spent his time acquiring for that particular issue rests with them. vast tracts of territory across Whitehall. The Committee will publish their report But these animals are evasive too; and on Monday; and I hope they will agree while they have been allowed to roam with me that it is time to tether the goats. free and unrestrained, there is currently no means of bringing them to heel. Cutting the size of Parliament

These are, of course, the Goats – those Our proposals will help to make ministers appointed from outside Parliament a more formidable inquisitor Parliament to sit in the Lords and form of the Government; and a more relevant Gordon Brown’s famous Government of force for the public. All the Talents. But we cannot start work on cutting the Since July 2007, there have been ten democratic deficit without acknowledging peerages awarded to individuals so that that the first priority of the new they can function as ministers including Government will be to tackle the financial two secretaries of state: Lord Mandelson, deficit. who needs no further introduction, and Lord Adonis, at Transport. We all know that whoever is in power after 6 May is going to have to make This is not a new development – there some difficult decisions on spending. have been nine secretaries of state sitting These won’t just be taken by the in the Lords since 1979. What is unusual is Chancellor; or even the Cabinet; they will for their departments to be accountable require the collective will of Parliament. to the Commons only through junior And at a time when we are calling for ministers. Under Conservative restraint from the public and the private governments, there was typically another sector, it’s vital that Parliament leads by minister of Cabinet rank who handled example and does everything it can to departmental business in the Commons. search for efficiencies.

There is no such equivalent today. Lord Over the last 13 years, the cost of politics Mandelson delegates Commons work to has doubled. But we haven’t seen double Pat McFadden; Lord Adonis to Sadiq the benefits. So just as we try to achieve Khan. Both are doubtless competent more with less in the public sector, so we ministers. must in Parliament.

But it is frustrating that at a time of There are too many MPs. The House of economic fragility, with industrial strikes Commons is the largest lower house of brewing, that the Cabinet ministers with any major Western democracy. Even the responsibility for industry and transport world’s largest democracy, India, makes are unaccountable to the House. do with 545 MPs. By comparison, the UK has 20% more MPs but just 1/20th of their I have made clear in a submission to the population. Procedure Committee that the current state of affairs must now end and a way This is why we have pledged to create a should be found for Lords ministers to be smaller House of Commons. If we win, we cross-examined, like the rest of their will introduce legislation to instruct the peers in the Cabinet, by MPs. Boundary Commission to reduce the number of MPs by 10% in time for an We should start in Westminster Hall, election in 2014. By May 2015 the House

53 of Commons could have 585 members – Our task now must be to drive much a cut of around 65. wider cultural reform in Westminster – not just cleaning up politics, but transforming These proposals will have the potential to it. That is why we are committed to a save over £15 million a year. And it will substantial shift of power from the centre give an even more valuable political down to the local; from Whitehall to signal during this time of fiscal restraint: communities; and from bureaucracy to that we are all in this together. democracy.

And on this, the public are right behind This will not weaken Parliament – it will us. strengthen it. We have nothing to fear from binding ourselves more closely to Far from being anti-democratic, we will the electorate we represent. It may be a help reduce the inequities in the electoral challenge; but in the end, I predict, it will system at the same time as we bring be a success – for Parliament and for the down the costs. At the moment, the people. electoral maths is skewed. In 2005, Labour polled 70,000 fewer votes in England than the Conservatives, yet won Notes: 92 more seats. 1 Hansard, 3 July 2007, col. 815. Jack Straw has accused us of gerrymandering. It’s a claim that’s hard to 2 M. Salter, ‘Harriet Harman bottles it on swallow given their recent conversion to Parliamentary reform’, The Daily the Alternative Vote. If AV had been used Telegraph, 4 February 2010, http:// in 2005, it would have delivered more blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ seats for Labour than the first-past-the- msalter/100025048/harriet-harman- post system, even though the party only bottles-it-on-parliamentary-reform/ secured 36% of the popular vote. 3 Hansard, 4 March 2010, col. 1082. What’s more, leading academic experts have said that our proposals would make 4 V. Bogdanor (2009), The New British little change to Conservative Constitution (Oxford: Hart Publishing). representation.

On our direction, the Boundary Commission will ensure that every constituency is roughly the same size. This will address the disparities that exist between constituency populations – and give each vote an equal value. What could be more democratic than that?

Conclusion

I want to end on a broader reflection. Society has changed, but Parliament has not. As the constitutional expert Professor Vernon Bogdanor has said, power has not been handed to people, it has merely passed ‘between elites’.4

54

Recent Hansard Society publications

The Hansard Society’s annual Audit of Political Engagement measures the pulse of the nation on politics and the political system. The Audit this year has a special focus on MPs and Parliament, raises a number of topical issues in the context of MPs’ expenses and the forthcoming general election, and provides longer term reflections on the level of continuity and change charted in the Audit findings over the course of this Parliament.

It shows that while the MPs’ expenses scandal has affected the public's satisfaction with and perception of MPs and the Westminster Parliament, there has not been a change in the level of trust people say they have in politicians or politics. Click here for more.

Digital Citizens and Democratic Participation shows that for Britons who are already online, the internet has made it easier to take part in civic and political activities and that half of them prefer to use the internet to take part in democratic life.

With over two thirds of the British population online, this report explores how people use the internet to connect with their elected representatives and also the trends in online digital engagement across civic and political life. The research draws on a national survey of individuals who were already online and the second was a sample of ‘digital leaders’ – people with a strong interest in social media and politics. Click here for more.

There has been increasing speculation that the next UK general election might produce a parliament in which no single party holds a majority of seats – a ‘hung parliament’. It is over 30 years since the last hung parliament so what would be the modern day consequences for Parliament, the political parties, individual MPs, and the public? Would a hung parliament strengthen Parliament and better reflect the wishes of the electorate or would it render government indecisive and unstable?

This edited collection of essays from distinguished commentators, academics and parliamentarians discusses the implications of a hung parliament and presents a range of different views on the subject. Click here for more. Hansard Society The Hansard Society is the UK's leading independent, non-partisan political research and education charity. We aim to strengthen parliamentary democracy and encourage greater public involvement in politics.

Co-Presidents: Rt Hon John Bercow MP, Speaker of the House of Commons, Rt Hon the Baroness Hayman, Lord Speaker. Vice Presidents: Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP, Rt Hon David Cameron MP, Rt Hon Nick Clegg MP. Council: Peter Riddell (Chair), Andrew Lansley CBE MP (Vice Chair), Lord Putt- nam of Queensgate CBE (Vice Chair), Lord Tyler (Vice Chair), John Sharkey (Hon Treasurer), Roshana Arasaratnam (Asst Hon Treasurer), Richard Allan, Laurence Bard, Dianne Bevan, Edward Bickham, Dawn Butler MP, Rob Clements, Mark D’Arcy, Hilton Dawson, Paul Evans, Prof Ivor Gaber, Oonagh Gay, Gavin Grant, Andy Hamflett, Prof Robert Hazell, Sheena McDonald, Joyce McMillan, Floyd Mil- len, Austin Mitchell MP, Prof Lord Norton of Louth, Gerald Shamash.

The Hansard Society has five main programmes of work: Citizenship Education, Parliament and Gov- ernment, eDemocracy, Study and Scholars and Hansard Society Scotland. The Hansard Society also produces the well-established academic quarterly Parliamentary Affairs in association with Oxford University Press.

As a registered charity, the Hansard Society relies on funding from individual donations, grants from charitable trusts and foundations, corporate sponsorship, and donations from individual parliamen- tarians from Westminster and the devolved institutions who contribute to our Parliamentary Patrons scheme. Our network of members and supporters come from all major political parties and from the public, private and third sectors. Those who support and work with us do so because we are inde- pendent and non-partisan, and our projects and programmes of work have genuinely made a differ- ence to the democratic processes in the UK and beyond.

Recently, Hansard Society projects and activities have been funded and supported by: BBC Parliament Learning and Teaching Scotland Bircham Dyson Bell LLP Luath British Bankers’ Association McGrigors LLP British Council Scotland Microsoft Clifford Chance Ministry of Justice ComRes National Assembly for Wales Corporation of London Nuffield Foundation DLA Piper Open Society Foundation Department for Children, Schools and Families Oxford University Press Department of Energy and Climate Change Parliamentary Education Service E.ON UK Political Studies Association Educational Institute of Scotland PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Ellwood & Atfield Sciencewise Foreign and Commonwealth Office Scotland Office FTI Consulting Scottish Enterprise House of Commons Scottish Parliament House of Lords Standard Life IBM UK Ltd The Electoral Commission IDeA UK Office of the European Parliament Law Society of Scotland Woodnewton Associates

For further information visit our website at www.hansardsociety.org.uk The Hansard Society is an independent, non-partisan educational charity. We aim to strengthen parliamentary democracy and encourage greater public involvement in politics. www.hansardsociety.org.uk

ISBN 978 0900432 64 4