House of Commons - The work of the Committee in the 2010 Parliament

The work of the Committee in the 2010 Parliament - Political and Constitutional Reform Contents

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:

· The possibility of codifying—or not codifying—the UK constitution;

· Voter engagement in the UK;

· The Government's Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014;

· Government formation;

· Parliament's role in conflict decisions;

· The future of devolution and local government;

· The transition to Individual Electoral Registration;

· Fixed-term Parliaments.

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 work—including visits, debates in the House and one-off evidence sessions—are available in the Sessional Returns for the House of Commons, which are published after each parliamentary Session.[8] A great deal more information—including published correspondence and transcripts of evidence—is available on our website: www.parliament.uk/pcrc.

The possibility of codifying—or not codifying—the 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 codifying—or not codifying—the 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 codifying—or not codifying—the 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?.[9] The paper contained a number of elements:

· a 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 blueprints—a Constitutional Code, a Constitutional Consolidation Act, and a written constitution—which 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 codifying—or not codifying—the 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 800^th 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.[10] 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.[11] 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 codifying—or not—the UK constitution, we have also considered related matters such as the constitutional role of the judiciary if there were a codified constitution.[12] 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 UK—such as online voting, making voting compulsory and making it easier to register to vote—and held a public consultation on the draft conclusions and recommendations we put forward.[13] 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.[14] 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 Kingdom.

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.[15] 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.[16] 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. [17] 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 basis.

20. We produced two reports scrutinising the Government's Bill during the period it was being considered by Parliament.[18] 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.[19] 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.[20] 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.[21] The newly appointed Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists has stated that she expects only 50 to 75 registrants.[22]

22. Related to the issue of transparency around money in politics, we have consistently called for the issue of party political finance—about which there is significant public concern—to be addressed.[23] 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 matters

24. In 2011 we produced a report looking at lessons learned from the process of government formation after the 2010 general election.[24] We have more recently considered government formation in the context of preparations for the 2015 general election and the formation of any subsequent administration.[25] 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 role—or lack thereof—which 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 Manual—a document which sets out the main laws, rules and conventions affecting the conduct and operation of government.[26] 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 lack authority.[27]

Parliament's role in conflict decisions

26. Over the course of this Parliament we have published a series of reports looking at Parliament's role in conflict decisions.[28] 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."[29] 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 action".[30]

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.[31] The motion was defeated by 272 to 285,[32] and the Prime Minister told the House that the Government would act accordingly.[33] 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.[34] The House of Commons supported the motion by a vote of 524 to 43.[35] 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.[36] 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.[37] 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.[38] 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.[39]

31. As one means of considering the future constitutional settlement across the UK, we have examined the possibility of holding a constitutional convention.[40] 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.[41] 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 Convention".[42] 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".[43]

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.[44] 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,[45] producing a report which assessed their constitutional significance and made recommendations for any Bill to be introduced in the next Parliament.[46]

The transition to Individual Electoral Registration

33. Electoral registration is currently in a state of transition. Great Britain is moving from a system of household registration—where eligible voters at the same address are registered by the head of the household—to a system of Individual Electoral Registration—where 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 engagement.[47]

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.[48] 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.[49] 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.[50] 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 arrangements.

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 Registration.

Fixed-term Parliaments

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.[51] 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.[52] 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.[53] 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.[54]

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.[55] 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 sessions.

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 agenda—the Constitution Group—is 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.[56] 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 OFFICE

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.[57] 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.[58] 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.[59]

47. Government responses to select committee reports should be received within two months of a report's publication.[60] 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,[61] 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,[62] 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.[63] 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.[64] 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.[65]

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.

Public appointments

51. Two public appointments which fall under our responsibility—the Chair of the House of Lords Appointments Commission and the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists—have 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 candidate—Lord Kakkar—for 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.[66]

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.[67]

8 House of Commons Sessional Returns, Parliament website Back

9 A new Magna Carta?, Fourth Report of Session 2014-15, HC 463 Back

10 Consultation on A new Magna Carta?, Seventh Report of Session 2014-15, HC 599 Back

11 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

12 Constitutional role of the judiciary if there were a codified constitution, Fourteenth Report of Session 2013-14, HC 802 Back

13 Voter engagement in the UK, Fourth Report of Session 2014-15, HC 232 Back

14 Voter engagement in the UK: follow up, Sixth Report of Session 2014-15, HC 938 Back

15 Introducing a statutory register of lobbyists, HM Government, Cm 8233, January 2012 Back

16 Introducing a statutory register of lobbyists, Second Report of Session 2012-13, HC 153 Back

17 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

18 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

19 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