PSA ParliamentsBy Mark Egan
What makes a parliament effective? What are the factors which make parliaments better at making laws or representing the people? These issues were discussed during the PSA Parliaments and Legislatures annual conference in October 2016. I spoke from the perspective of a parliamentary practitioner with experience of the UK and Jersey about the additional challenges faced by small parliamentary bodies in achieving the Holy Grail of effectiveness.
By Marc Geddes
I have been Communications Officer for the PSA Specialist Group on Parliaments for almost two years, and I have loved it. It has allowed me to engage with a range of academics, researchers, students and practitioners to help disseminate their research whilst also promoting the study of parliaments and legislatures across the UK. The main way that I have sought to do this is through our website, and especially through our blogs, which cover topical issues or overviews of legislatures. But why does this even matter? Why should parliamentary and legislative scholars be blogging? There are at least three reasons, and each relates to the audience that we are trying to engage: the public, practitioners, and academics.
By Daniel Gover and Michael Kenny
It is now just over a year since the House of Commons adopted a new set of procedural rules known as ‘English Votes for English Laws’ (or EVEL). Put simply, EVEL provides MPs representing constituencies in England (or England and Wales) with the opportunity to veto certain legislative provisions that apply only in that part of the UK. (For a reminder of how the process works, see here.) Introduced with some fanfare by the Conservative government following the 2015 election – and criticised heavily by its political opponents – these procedures have quickly faded from public view. But, one year on, what lessons can be drawn from how EVEL has operated so far?
By Isabele Mitozo
Over the last two decades, the web has become a facilitator for information access. Institutions, especially representative ones, have used that means to communicate with citizens. Parliaments, more specifically, have tried to improve the use of digital platforms to go further and open up the process of law construction.
On 31 October 2016, the House of Commons agreed, without debate, to approve the draft Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (Continuation) Order 2016. If agreed by the Lords, the order will continue in force the Home Secretary’s powers under the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, namely to impose, via a ‘TPIM’, a range of duties, obligations and restrictions on suspected terrorists. That power was due to expire on 13 December 2016, five years after its enactment, because of the incorporation in the legislation of a sunset clause – a legal provision that provides for the expiry of a law or part of a law at a later date. Unless the House of Lords defies parliamentary convention and does not approve the continuation order, it is unlikely that the TPIM powers will now expire. This does not necessarily mean that the sunset clause has failed; after all, it may be that the TPIM powers are an important and useful part of the UK’s counter-terrorism regime and warrant extension. The imposition of six new TPIMs by the Home Secretary in the past three months suggests that the government believes this to be the case.
By Andrew Defty
The weekly Prime Minister’s Questions is undoubtedly an important mechanism for holding the government to account. The requirement that the Prime Minister must come to the chamber of the House of Commons on a weekly basis to answer questions about government policy and administration provides a valuable, and rare, opportunity for individual MPs to scrutinise government.
Please note that this blog piece was originally published on the UK Constitutional Law Association’s blog, and is available here.
Legislation is complex, but it is also essential to the functioning of our political system. A great deal of primary and secondary legislation hits the statute book every parliamentary session. Even the so-called ‘zombie parliament’ of the 2014-15 session saw 25 bills passed into law, with around one government bill being passed every five sitting days. MPs and peers therefore have a difficult job to do, scrutinising a deep and fast flowing stream of legislation every session. And it is important to get it right. Effective legislation requires not just accurate wording within the text of a bill, but an understanding of how that bill will work in practice and the difference it will make to people’s lives. Involving the public in legislative scrutiny can therefore add much value to the process, bringing an alternative perspective to the pros and cons of legislation.
Reporting on new research that looks at the way parliamentary staff wish academics would engage with Parliament, Katharine Dommett argues that researchers would benefit from not only rethinking where and how they target research, but also the very form academic research should take.
By Richard Reid [1]
Prior to the 2016 federal election held on 2 July, the Australian Coalition government demonstrated a rare degree of collaboration with the Australian Greens and passed changes to reform the electoral process for the Senate. This post seeks to explain the reform and its intentions, and its complete failure in the wake of Australia’s double dissolution election. Further it argues that the debate about Senate reform should go much further than these changes, and the whole structure of the Senate’s composition should be opened up for debate in an effort to increase, rather than decrease, the representativeness of the Australian Senate.
By Alex Dobson, Emily Rainsford and Oliver Sidorczuk
Even when a choice seems quite straightforward, like in the recent European Union referendum, elections can seem confusing, with complex jargon and an increasing number of parties to consider. With the continuing decline of voting according to traditional party ideologies and identities, combined the worryingly low voter turnout amongst young people in particular – just 43% in 2015 General Election – the need for mechanisms to engage voters has never been greater.
