2 Our work during the 2010 Parliament |
8. Our work during this Parliament has been extremely
wide-ranging, but we consider in this chapter our key areas of
work, and in particular those which we believe merit further consideration
in the next Parliament. These are:
possibility of codifyingor not codifyingthe UK constitution;
· Voter engagement
in the UK;
· The Government's
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union
Administration Act 2014;
role in conflict decisions;
· The future
of devolution and local government;
· The transition
to Individual Electoral Registration;
We also describe our more general work scrutinising
the Cabinet Office and the work of the Deputy Prime Minister.
A full list of the reports we have published over the course of
the Parliament is available on page 28 of this report, and details
of our other workincluding visits, debates in the House
and one-off evidence sessionsare available in the Sessional
Returns for the House of Commons, which are published after each
A great deal more informationincluding published correspondence
and transcripts of evidenceis available on our website:
The possibility of codifyingor
not codifyingthe UK constitution
9. Given that this Committee was established to consider
political and constitutional reform, it is only appropriate that
our longest-running inquiry has been into the possibility of codifyingor
not codifyingthe UK constitution.
10. In September 2010 the Committee, in a ground-breaking
innovation, asked the Centre for Political and Constitutional
Studies at King's College London to collaborate on an inquiry
entitled Mapping the path to codifyingor not codifyingthe
UK's Constitution. At our request the Centre for Political
and Constitutional Studies, under the direction of Professor Robert
Blackburn, produced a series of research papers for the Committee,
including a literature review and a comparative study of 23 international
examples of constitutional codification. The last of these research
papers, prepared to inform the Committee's inquiry and the policy
debate on constitutional codification more widely, was delivered
to the Committee in June 2014 and published as an appendix to
the Committee's report entitled A new Magna Carta?.
The paper contained a number of elements:
chapter setting out arguments for and against a codified constitution;
· a chapter setting
out the process that could be adopted in the preparation, design
and implementation of a codified constitution; and
· three illustrative
blueprintsa Constitutional Code, a Constitutional Consolidation
Act, and a written constitutionwhich indicate how a codified
constitution for the UK could take shape.
11. Our partnership with the Centre for Political
and Constitutional Studies at King's College London on the possibility
of codifyingor not codifyingthe UK constitution
could be a model for other committees wishing to develop a sustained
programme of work in a particular policy area.
12. Our work in this area has been to inform debate
on constitutional codification as the 800th anniversary
of Magna Carta and the 2015 general election approaches. As our
report stated, "what we are publishing now represents the
most comprehensive attempt so far to provide different detailed
models of a codified constitution for comparison and consideration".
Following a consultation on our report, A new Magna Carta?,
we produced a further report, Consultation on A new Magna Carta?,
on 9 March 2015.
This follow-up report set out the responses we had received to
our consultation, with a view to informing further debate on the
subject. Annexed to this report was a draft of an accessible written
constitution based on the UK's existing constitutional arrangements,
together with options for reform.
This was produced in order to promote further debate on our constitutional
arrangements and options for reform.
13. Related to our central inquiry on the possibility
of codifyingor notthe UK constitution, we have also
considered related matters such as the constitutional role of
the judiciary if there were a codified constitution.
Our consideration of this issue included not just taking oral
and written evidence, but also visiting the Supreme Court and
meeting its President to discuss this issue.
Voter engagement in the UK
14. At the 2010 general election almost 16 million
registered voters did not turn out, and there were also estimated
to be around 7.5 million people who were not correctly registered
to vote. Together these two figures represent more people than
voted for candidates of the two Coalition parties, and also the
two largest parties. With those figures in mind, in January 2014
we launched an inquiry into voter engagement, to consider the
reasons people did not engage with elections in the UK, as well
as what might get them to do so.
15. We produced an interim report in November 2014,
setting out a wide range of proposals for re-engaging the public
with elections in the UKsuch as online voting, making voting
compulsory and making it easier to register to voteand
held a public consultation on the draft conclusions and recommendations
we put forward. This
received an enormous response, with over 16,000 people responding
to the consultation. We produced a final report, based on the
consultation responses, which set out a series of reforms which
political parties should consider for inclusion in manifestos,
and called on the next Government to consider specific changes
including automatic registration of voters, online voting and
holding elections at the weekend.
We also noted the phenomenally high turnout for the Scottish independence
referendum, in which 84.6% of registered voters participated,
which was because the vote was one of significance, the public
was engaged with the question being asked, and every vote was
seen to matter. We concluded that if the electorate is to be re-engaged
by UK elections, action needed to be taken to ensure that the
same things can be said about every election held in the United
16. We have concluded that the current level of
voter engagement in the UK is not satisfactory, and that urgent
action needs to be taken in order to pre-empt a crisis of democracy.
We have recommended that political parties include plans, in their
manifestos for the 2015 general election, for improving voter
engagement. It is to be hoped that the next Parliament will have
occasion to scrutinise a number of proposals recommended by this
Committee, if and when they are brought forward by the Government.
The Transparency of Lobbying,
Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014
17. The Government published, in January 2012, proposals
for introducing a statutory register of lobbyists, with a view
to increasing transparency between lobbyists and senior officials
in government. The
consultation paper proposed a statutory register of third party
lobbyists; those working in-house would be exempt. We considered
the Government's proposals and recommended that the Government
scrap its proposals for a statutory register of third party lobbyists.
Our view was that the proposals presented by the Government would
do nothing to improve transparency and accountability about lobbying.
We took the view that imposing a statutory register on a small
part of the lobbying industry without requiring registrants to
sign up to a code of conduct could paradoxically lead to less
regulation of the lobbying industry.
18. Our initial report, which contained a thorough
examination of the proposals in the Government's consultation
paper, was published on 13 July 2012. We were extremely disappointed
that not only did the Government take more than a year to respond,
but, when we finally received a response, on 17 July 2013, it
was in the form of a letter, just over one page long, which engaged
with none of the detailed points in the original report. 
Our report was intended to help the Government refine and develop
its proposals. To respond to it in that way showed a lack
of respect for both Parliament and the many people who contributed
to our inquiry.
19. Contrary to our recommendation that the Government
scrap its proposals, the Government published the Transparency
of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration
Bill on 17 July 2013, one day before the House of Commons rose
for the summer adjournment. The Bill's Second Reading was scheduled
for 3 September, one day after the House returned. In addition
to the Government's plans for a register of lobbyists, the Bill
also provided for changes to the rules for third-party spending
during election periods and created a new obligation for trade
unions to provide certain membership information on an annual
20. We produced two reports scrutinising the Government's
Bill during the period it was being considered by Parliament.
We deplored the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny and consultation,
and the unnecessarily rushed way in which the Bill was being pushed
through Parliament. We recommended that the Government withdraw
the Bill and support a motion to set up a special Committee to
carry out pre-legislative scrutiny and produce an improved Bill
within six months. We also proposed several amendments to Parts
1 and 2 of the Bill, which we believed would improve it.
21. Since we last reported on this subject concerns
have continued to be raised about the impact of changes to the
rules for third-party spending during election periods.
As required by the 2014 Act, the Government appointed Lord Hodgson
of Astley Abbotts to conduct a review of the operation of the
regulatory regime governing third parties at the 2015 general
election. In terms
of the register of consultant lobbyists, the Government has now
laid regulations providing for certain practical aspects of the
register and registration process to take effect.
The newly appointed Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists has stated
that she expects only 50 to 75 registrants.
22. Related to the issue of transparency around money
in politics, we have consistently called for the issue of party
political financeabout which there is significant public
concernto be addressed.
The Government has failed to make any progress on this issue in
the last five years.
23. We have consistently questioned the usefulness
of the Government's register of lobbyists, and also raised concerns
about the impact of new rules around third party spending during
election periods contained in the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party
Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014. If there
is a desire to increase transparency and reform political spending,
the focus of reform should be on the funding of political parties,
an area which we were disappointed to see no progress on over
the course of this Parliament.
The Cabinet Manual and related
24. In 2011 we produced a report looking at lessons
learned from the process of government formation after the 2010
We have more recently considered government formation in the context
of preparations for the 2015 general election and the formation
of any subsequent administration.
This work has focused on the need for clarity around the role
of an incumbent Prime Minister and Government following an election
which returns no clear majority, the subsequent appointment of
a new Prime Minister, and the role of the civil service in supporting
party talks about the formation of an administration. We have
also looked at the roleor lack thereofwhich Parliament
and newly elected MPs will have in discussions about the formation
of a new administration.
25. Related to our consideration of the process for
Government formation has been our scrutiny of the Cabinet Manuala
document which sets out the main laws, rules and conventions affecting
the conduct and operation of government.
We welcomed the creation of the Cabinet Manual, as it was a clear
result of a desire to be more transparent about how Government
works. We made some practical suggestions for specific improvements
to the text, with a particular focus on the chapters covering
government formation, Ministers and Parliament, and also recommended
that reference to Parliament's role in decisions on committing
British forces to armed combat be included. We have more recently
revisited this work, and recommended that the Manual be revised
at least every Parliament, on the basis that a document which
is not regularly updated to reflect relevant developments will
Parliament's role in conflict
26. Over the course of this Parliament we have published
a series of reports looking at Parliament's role in conflict decisions.
The legal authority to commit armed forces to conflict abroad
is provided by a prerogative power exercised by Ministers (and
conventionally by the Prime Minister) on behalf of the Sovereign.
There is no statutory requirement to involve Parliament in the
use of this power, but in recent years a convention has developed
that the House of Commons should have the opportunity to hold
a debate on conflict decisions. The Government acknowledged this
convention on 10 March 2011, and stated: "We propose to observe
that convention except when there is an emergency and such action
would not be appropriate. As with the Iraq war and other events,
we propose to give the House the opportunity to debate the matter
before troops are committed."
The Foreign Secretary went further than this when, on 21 March
2011, he said that the Government would "enshrine in law
for the future the necessity of consulting Parliament on military
27. Since these statements have been made there have
been two occasions on which Parliament has been consulted on proposals
to commit armed forces to conflict abroad. On 29 August 2013 there
was an event of great significance for this convention, when the
House of Commons considered a motion which included the possibility
of taking military action in Syria.
The motion was defeated by 272 to 285,
and the Prime Minister told the House that the Government would
The Prime Minister's decision to follow the views of the House
in this matter was particularly significant: although the Government
has only acknowledged a convention that the House should have
the opportunity to debate conflict decisions, on this occasion
the Prime Minister not only gave the House the opportunity to
debate the matter, but deferred to the view it expressed. On 26
September 2014 the House was recalled to consider a motion which
included support for the use of air strikes, but not the deployment
of ground troops, to support efforts against ISIL in Iraq.
The House of Commons supported the motion by a vote of 524 to
43. On both of these
occasions the convention to consult the House was followed, but
the decision as to whether or not military action was taken was
ultimately made by the Prime Minister.
28. We have consistently stated that there is a need
to formalise and clarify Parliament's role in conflict decisions,
and called on the Government to make a clear statement of how
it intends to honour the Foreign Secretary's commitment to "enshrine
in law for the future the necessity of consulting Parliament on
military action". In our last report on this subject we considered
formalising Parliament's role in conflict decisions via a parliamentary
resolution, as an interim step towards enshrining Parliament's
role in law, and produced a draft resolution for consideration
by the Government.
To date the Government has not responded to our latest report
on the subject, although in a Westminster Hall debate in June
2014 Rt Hon Greg Clark MP stated that the Cabinet Manual would
be updated to include a reference to the events in the House of
Commons on 29 August 2013.
This is an issue of the utmost importance, and one which we feel
has not been given sufficient consideration by the Government.
29. Although it is
unambiguously the case that a convention has developed whereby
the House of Commons should have the opportunity to hold a debate
on conflict decisions before action is taken, unless there is
an emergency, there is still no formal process through which the
House of Commons is consulted, or legal requirement for consultation
to occur. We have consistently called for this convention to be
formalised, and for the Government to explain how it would fulfil
the Foreign Secretary's statement of March 2011 that the Government
would "enshrine in law for the future the necessity of consulting
Parliament on military action". The Government has yet to
respond to our latest report on this subject. We
recommend that the relevant Committee in the next Parliament consider
how the convention on consulting Parliament on decisions regarding
armed conflict has developed over the 2010 Parliament, and report
on how, if at all, the convention should be formalised.
The future of devolution
30. There are few issues of greater constitutional
significance than the distribution of power and funding across
the United Kingdom, and the relationships between different levels
of government. We have considered devolution and the role of local
government extensively over the course of this Parliament, particularly
focusing on how power and financial responsibility could be decentralised.
We have considered the possibility of codifying the relationship
between central and local government, looked at arrangements for
local government abroad, and most recently have considered the
future of devolution following the Scottish independence referendum.
As part of this work a draft code for the codification of the
relationship between central and local government was produced
by an academic, Professor Colin Copus, at the Committee's request.
31. As one means of considering the future constitutional
settlement across the UK, we have examined the possibility of
holding a constitutional convention.
When we began the inquiry, few people were discussing whether
there was a need for a constitutional convention, but by the time
we reported there was much more interest in the matter, as reflected
by the press coverage that our report received. Our work on a
constitutional convention for the UK, and on the future relationship
between central and local government, has been influential in
shaping Government policy on devolution. The Leader of the House
invited the Chair to submit a memorandum on the Committee's work
in this field to the Cabinet Committee for devolved powers. In
the Government's subsequent Command Paper on The Implications
of Devolution for England the proposals by the Conservative
Party on further devolution appear to recognise the possibility
of a constitutional convention or commission after the general
election. The Liberal
Democrat 2010 election manifesto included a commitment to set
up a constitutional convention, and the party has stated more
recently that the "the time is right for a Constitutional
Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP announced on 19 September 2014 Labour Party
proposals for a constitutional convention for the UK, "to
address the need for further devolution in England and political
reform of Westminster".
32. We have just completed an inquiry into the future
of devolution after the Scottish independence referendum, as part
of which we considered what the future constitutional settlement
across the UK should look like in light of the result of the referendum.
This has involved visits to Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast: the
evidence taken and the discussions held in the course of these
visits has given us a broader overview of the Government's strategy
for devolution across the whole of the UK. We have also conducted
a short pre-legislative scrutiny exercise on several of the clauses
for a draft Scotland Bill published by the Government on 22 January
2015, producing a
report which assessed their constitutional significance and made
recommendations for any Bill to be introduced in the next Parliament.
The transition to Individual Electoral
33. Electoral registration is currently in a state
of transition. Great Britain is moving from a system of household
registrationwhere eligible voters at the same address are
registered by the head of the householdto a system of Individual
Electoral Registrationwhere each eligible elector will
need to register to vote individually. This is by far the most
significant change that has been made to electoral administration
during the course of the 2010 Parliament.
34. We have scrutinised this change over the course
of the Parliament, conducting pre-legislative scrutiny on the
Government's White Paper and draft Bill on Individual Electoral
Registration (IER) in 2011, holding a number of evidence sessions
looking at the readiness for the transition to IER, and considering
the ongoing transition process as part of our wider work on voter
35. Under transitional arrangements the current electoral
registers include both individuals registered under the new Individual
Electoral Registration system, and also those registered under
the previous household registration system.
The Electoral Administration and Registration Act 2013 provides
for this to be the case until December 2016, but enables the Government
to bring forward the end date for the transitional arrangements
to December 2015 if it so chooses.
A decision to bring forward the end date would have to be made
between the beginning of June and end of August 2015. The Electoral
Commission has estimated that the 2014 electoral registers for
England and Wales contained between 2 and 2.5 million entries
which would be removed when transitional arrangements end.
The Electoral Commission will be publishing a report in June 2015
which will provide advice to the Government on whether it considers
it appropriate to bring forward the end date for transitional
36. We have previously recommended that, unless the
electoral registers are substantially more complete than at present
by May 2015, the Government should not bring forward the end date
for the transitional arrangements for IER. We have also recommended
that the relevant select committee continue to scrutinise the
ongoing transition to IER in the next Parliament.
37. We recommend that the relevant select committee
consider, when the Electoral Commission publishes its report in
June 2015, the adequacy of the transition to Individual Electoral
Registration at that point, and take a view on the appropriateness
or otherwise of any steps taken by the Government to bring forward
the end date for transitional arrangements to Individual Electoral
38. In September 2011 the Fixed-term Parliaments
Act 2011 received Royal Assent. The Act set the date of the next
general election for 7 May 2015 and provides for subsequent elections
to take place on the first Thursday in May every five years. Provisions
were made for early elections in the event that at least two-thirds
of all MPs voted in favour of an early election, or if there was
a vote of no confidence in Her Majesty's Government which was
not followed, within 14 days, by a vote of confidence.
Fixing the term of the Parliament and removing the ability of
a Prime Minister to call an election at a time of their choosing
is a significant constitutional development. Nevertheless, the
Government introduced the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill without
publishing its proposals in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny.
39. In the absence of formal pre-legislative scrutiny,
we undertook rapid scrutiny of the Bill, reporting in time to
support the House's consideration at Second Reading.
Members of the Committee tabled amendments at Committee stage
which generated debate on the proposed role of the Speaker in
determining whether or not a decision of the House amounted to
a vote of no confidence which might lead to an early Dissolution.
The Government subsequently did not contest a Lords Amendment
re-wording clause 2 of the Bill to remove the Speaker from having
to make such possibly contentious decisions.
40. Although we had some criticisms of the way in
which the Government legislated for fixed-term Parliaments, we
have found the move to fixed-term Parliaments to be a positive
development, though one which, perhaps, has not been taken full
advantage of in this first instance. We have produced two "post-legislative"
reports on the impact of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011,
considering the impact on both Government and Parliament.
As part of this work the Chair met several Permanent Secretaries
informally to discuss the impact of fixed-term Parliaments. We
found that the establishment of fixed-term Parliaments makes it
easier for Governments to plan for the medium-term and might also
facilitate better planning over longer timeframes than a single
five-year Parliament. With respect to the impact on Parliament,
the fixing of the normal parliamentary term now means that it
is possible for the Liaison Committee, and every other select
committee, to plan a programme of work over a number of Parliamentary
41. Our scrutiny on this subject not only held the
Government to account in relation to its policy of fixing the
term of the Parliament, and informed the legislative process of
considering the relevant Bill, but also sought to inform future
Governments and Parliaments so that more effective use can be
made of fixed-term Parliaments in the future.
Scrutiny of the Cabinet Office
and Deputy Prime Minister
42. The Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for
leading the government's political and constitutional reform agenda,
and the Civil Service office which supports this agendathe
Constitution Groupis part of the Cabinet Office. Although
we have had occasion to work with a range of Departments on some
of inquiries, particularly those into devolution and fixed-term
Parliaments, it is the Cabinet Office with which we have had a
closest relationship over the course of this Parliament.
43. We believe that our work has increased the accountability
of Ministers, and, through them, civil servants in the Cabinet
Office. One of our most important roles is our scrutiny of the
policy responsibilities of the Deputy Prime Minister. We have
taken evidence regularly from the Deputy Prime Minister, as well
as other Ministers responsible for work on political and constitutional
issues, to scrutinise the Government's programme of political
and constitutional reform, and also its strategy for making progress
on its commitments.
44. To support our scrutiny of the Cabinet Office's
functions related to political and constitutional reform, we commissioned
research from the National Audit Office on expenditure relating
specifically to the Government's programme of political and constitutional
reform. The bulk
of the expenditure of the Constitution Group is accounted for
by Individual Electoral Registration, which we have considered
in detail over the course of the Parliament.
OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CABINET
45. As a Committee we have always tried to have a
constructive relationship with the Government, and have undertaken
to engage positively with those proposals which we have considered.
That said, we have not always been entirely satisfied with the
Government's approach to taking forward political and constitutional
reform, or to engagement with this Committee. Two areas where
our relations with the Government have been particularly unsatisfactory
are its repeated failure to publish Bills in draft, for pre-legislative
scrutiny, and also the unacceptable delays in responding to many
of our reports.
46. The Government has stated that it is committed
to simplifying and improving the quality of legislation, and that
it would improve quality by publishing in draft for pre-legislative
scrutiny where possible.
Our report on the quality of legislation concluded that pre-legislative
scrutiny was one of the best ways of improving legislation and
ensuring that it meets the quality standards that Parliament and
the public are entitled to expect.
However, there have been several instances where we have had occasion
to criticise the Government for failing to publish Bills in draft
for pre-legislative scrutiny. A number of these Bills, such as
the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill and the Parliamentary Voting System
and Constituencies Bill, provided for substantial constitutional
change. In our report on the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill we stated:
The Fixed-term Parliaments Bill is ill-thought
through, rushed and does not appear to provide a satisfactory
solution, which ideally should be one around which there can be
political consensus. It is unacceptable that a Bill of this legal
and constitutional complexity has not been the subject of any
prior consultation or pre-legislative scrutiny.
We took a similar view in relation to the Parliamentary
Voting System and Constituencies Bill.
47. Government responses to select committee reports
should be received within two months of a report's publication.
However, the Government has consistently taken far longer than
this to respond to our reports, and on occasion has not responded
at all. Our latest report on Parliament's role in conflict decisions
was published on 27 March 2014 and we are yet to receive a response.
The quality of the responses we have received from the Government
has also been extremely variable. Some responses, such as the
one to our interim report on voter engagement,
have responded helpfully to the recommendations set out in our
report, while others, such as the one to our report on introducing
a statutory register of lobbyists,
can only be described as cursory and insubstantial.
48. We have made every effort to have a constructive
relationship with the Government, and particularly the Cabinet
Office, during the 2010 Parliament. However, our ability to effectively
consider political and constitutional reform has been restricted
by the Government's failure to either consult fully on or publish
in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny proposals for political
and constitutional reform. We recommend that the next administration
commit early in the next Parliament to making pre-legislative
scrutiny of Bills a standard part of the legislative process.
SCRUTINY OF ASSOCIATED PUBLIC BODIES
49. In addition to our scrutiny of the Cabinet Office
and Government ministers, we have also monitored the work of the
Electoral Commission and the Parliamentary Boundary Commissions.
Over the course of this Parliament we have had occasion to take
evidence from the Electoral Commission on a wide range of issues,
including the transition to Individual Electoral Registration,
voter engagement more broadly, and our scrutiny of the Government
proposals for non-party campaigning. This has meant a considerably
greater level of contact between the Electoral Commission and
Parliament than has been the case in previous Parliaments. The
Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission has remained responsible
for oversight of the management of the Commission.
Jenny Watson, Chair of the Electoral Commission, told us on 2
March 2015 that our interest in the Electoral Commission's work
and the wider health of our democracy had been "a very important
point of accountability" for the Commission.
We have also had occasion to take evidence from the Boundary Commissions
in relation to our recent inquiry into the future of reviews of
parliamentary constituency boundaries.
50. The Electoral Commission has told us that
our scrutiny of its work during this Parliament has been "a
very important point of accountability". It is important
that this is not lost during the next Parliament, particularly
given the ongoing transition to Individual Electoral Registration.
We recommend that in the next Parliament a Committee take
responsibility for scrutinising the work of the Electoral Commission,
and particularly the ongoing transition to IER. This should supplement
the role of the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission.
51. Two public appointments which fall under our
responsibilitythe Chair of the House of Lords Appointments
Commission and the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyistshave
been made this Parliament and we have conducted pre-appointment
hearings in relation to both. In July 2013 we held a pre-appointment
hearing with the Government's preferred candidateLord Kakkarfor
the role of Chair of the House of Lords Appointments Commission.
We were satisfied that Lord Kakkar had the professional competence
and personal independence required for the post of Chair of the
House of Lords Appointments Commission and supported his appointment.
52. Following our scrutiny of the Government's original
plans for a statutory register of lobbyists, and our detailed
examination of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning
and Trade Union Administration Bill, we held a pre-appointment
hearing with the Government's preferred candidate for the role
of Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists, a post established under
the legislation we had scrutinised. We set out our views on the
suitability of the candidate, Alison White, and on the general
inadequacy of the legislation, in our report, Pre-appointment
hearing: Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists.
8 House of Commons Sessional Returns, Parliament website Back
A new Magna Carta?, Fourth Report of Session 2014-15, HC 463 Back
Consultation on A new Magna Carta?, Seventh Report of Session
2014-15, HC 599 Back
This annex has also been published as a separate document: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/political-and-constitutional-reform/The-UK-Constitution.pdf Back
Constitutional role of the judiciary if there were a codified constitution,
Fourteenth Report of Session 2013-14, HC 802 Back
Voter engagement in the UK, Fourth Report of Session 2014-15,
HC 232 Back
Voter engagement in the UK: follow up, Sixth Report of Session
2014-15, HC 938 Back
Introducing a statutory register of lobbyists, HM Government,
Cm 8233, January 2012 Back
Introducing a statutory register of lobbyists, Second Report of
Session 2012-13, HC 153 Back
Introducing a statutory register of lobbyists: Government Response to the Committee's Second Report of Session 2012-13,
Sixth Report of Session 2013-14, HC 593 Back
The Government's lobbying Bill, Seventh Report of Session 2013-14,
HC 601-I, and The Government's lobbying Bill: follow-up, Tenth
Report of Session 2013-14, HC 891 Back
Impact of the Lobbying Act on civil society and democratic engagement,
The Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement, January
2015, The Lobbying Act - A Waste of Time and Resources, nfpSynergy,
February 2015 Back
HC Deb, 28 January 2015, HCWS229 [Commons written statement] Back
HC Deb, 26 February 2015, HCWS314 [Commons written statement] Back
Statement from the Registrar, Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists,
February 2015 Back
Political party finance, Thirteenth Report of Session 2010-12,
HC 1763 Back
Lessons learned from the process of Government formation after the 2010 General Election,
Fourth Report of Session 2010-12, HC 528 Back
Government formation post-election, Tenth Report of Session 2014-15,
HC 700 Back
Constitutional implications of the Cabinet Manual, Sixth Report
of Session 2010-12, HC 734 Back
Revisiting the Cabinet Manual, Fifth Report of Session 2014-15,
HC 233 Back
Parliament's role in conflict decisions, Eighth Report of Session
2010-12, HC 823, Parliament's role in conflict decisions: an update,
Eighth Report of Session 2013-14, HC 649, Parliament's role in conflict decisions: a way forward,
Twelfth Report of Session 2013-14, HC 892 Back
HC Deb, 10 March 2011, col 1066 [Commons Chamber] Back
HC Deb, 21 March 2011, col 799 [Commons Chamber] Back
HC Deb, 29 August 2013, col 1425 [Commons Chamber] Back
HC Deb, 29 August 2013, col 1547 [Commons Chamber] Back
HC Deb, 29 August 2013, col 1555 [Commons Chamber] Back
HC Deb, 26 September 2014, col 1255 Back
HC Deb, 26 September 2014, col 1360 Back
Parliament's role in conflict decisions: a way forward, Twelfth
Report of Session 2013-14, HC 892, Annex Back
HC Deb, 19 June 2014, cols 157-8WH [Westminster Hall] Back
Prospects for codifying the relationship between central and local government,
Third Report of Session 2012-13, HC 656-I, The relationship between central and local government: international comparisons,
Oral evidence taken on 27 January 2014, HC 977, Future of devolution
after the Scottish referendum, Eleventh Report of Session 2014-15,
HC 700 Back
Prospects for codifying the relationship between central and local government,
Third Report of Session 2012-13, HC 656-I, Appendix: Illustrative
draft code for central and local government Back
Do we need a constitutional convention for the UK?, Fourth Report
of Session 2013-14, HC 371 Back
The implications of devolution for England, First Secretary of
State and Leader of the House of Commons, Cm 8969, December 2014 Back
Liberal Democrat Manifesto 2010, accessed 23 March 2015 Back
A Constitutional Convention for the UK; a dynamic new political settlement for England and for Britain,
Labour Press, 19 September 2014 Back
The future of devolution after the Scottish referendum, Eleventh
Report of Session 2014-15, HC 700 Back
Scotland Office, Scotland in the United Kingdom: An enduring settlement,
Cm 8990, January 2015, p 11 Back
Constitutional implications of the Government's draft Scotland clauses,
Ninth Report of Session 2014-15, HC 1022 Back
Individual Electoral Registration and Administration, Tenth Report
of Session 2010-12, HC 1463, Data-matching pilots for individual electoral registration,
Oral evidence taken on 25 April 2013, HC 1109-I, Readiness for Individual Electoral Registration,
Oral evidence taken on 7 November 2013 HC 796, and Individual Electoral Registration - April 2014,
Oral evidence taken on 10 April 2014, HC 1188, Voter engagement in the UK,
Fourth Report of Session 2014-15, HC 232, Voter engagement in the UK: follow up,
Sixth Report of Session 2014-15, HC 938, Individual Electoral Registration 2015,
Oral evidence taken on 2 March 2015, HC 1024 Back
Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, Part 2, Schedule 5,
Para 5 Back
Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013, Part 7, Schedule 5,
Para 28 Back
Analysis of the December 2014 electoral registers in England and Wales,
Electoral Commission, February 2015 Back
Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, Section 2 Back
Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, Second Report of Session 2010-12,
HC 436 Back
Committee of the Whole House Amendments as at 16 November 2010,
Committee of the Whole House Amendments as at 24 November 2010,
Committee of the Whole House Amendments as at 1 December 2010 Back
HL Deb, 16 May 2011, cols 1146-78 [Lords Chamber] Back
The role and powers of the Prime Minister: The impact of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 on Government,
Fourth Report of Session 2013-14, HC 440, Fixed-term Parliaments: the final year of a Parliament,
Thirteenth Report of Session 2013-14, HC 976 Back
NAO briefing: Constitution Group, National Audit Office, April
HL Deb, 17 January 2011, cols 2-3 [Lords Chamber] Back
Ensuring standards in the quality of legislation, First Report
of Session 2013-14, HC 85 Back
Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, First Report
of Session 2010-12, HC 422 Back
Departmental evidence and response to select committees: guidance,
Cabinet Office, para 68 Back
Voter engagement in the UK: Government Response to the Committee's Fourth Report of Session 2014-15,
Fourth Special Report of Session 2014-15, HC 1037 Back
Introducing a statutory register of lobbyists: Government Response to the Committee's Second Report of Session 2012-13,
Sixth Report of Session 2013-14, HC 593 Back
The Chair of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee
is a member ex officio of the Speaker's Committee but has not
taken up his position on that Committee. Back
Q1, Individual Electoral Registration 2015, oral evidence taken
on 2 March 2015, HC 1024 Back
What next on redrawing parliamentary constituency boundaries?,
Eighth Report of Session 2014-15, HC 600 Back
Pre-appointment hearing: The Chair of the House of Lords Appointments Commission,
Fifth Report of Session 2013-14, HC 600-I Back
Pre-appointment hearing: Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists, Third
Report of Session 2014-15, HC 223 Back