May Elections 2021 - United Kingdom

 As ever, the House of Commons Library has produced a detailed picture of the election results.

They can be accessed (and downloaded) at https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/parliament-elections/may-2021-elections-results-and-analysis/

A great, impartial, resource.

The Bills in the Queen's Speech

The following Bills were announced in yesterday's Queen's Speech. I have referenced them to the pages in the Government Publication "The Queen's Speech 2021", where further information is available. That document can be downloaded from here.

It might be, that before any bill is introduced (1st Reading) - the name may be altered slightly. When bills are published, a Research Paper from the House of Commons Library is likely to be published. I thoroughly recommend these as useful documents in getting to grips with the proposed legislation.

- Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill (p57)

- Animals Abroad Bill (p132)

- Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill (p131-2)

- Armed Forces Bill (p101)

- Building Safety Bill (p109)

- Charities Bill (p121)

- Counter-State Threats Bill (p96)

- Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill (p147)

- Dormant Assets Bill (p119)

- Electoral Integrity Bill (p141)

- Environment Bill (p128)

- Health and Care Bill (p20)

- Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill (p143)

- High Speed Rail (Crewe – Manchester) Bill (p65)

- Judicial Review Bill (p145)

- Kept Animals Bill (p132)

- Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill (p111)

- National Insurance Contributions Bill (p70)

- Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concerns) Bill (p149)

- Planning Bill (p61)

- Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill (p81)

- Procurement Bill (p74)

- Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill (p66)

- Professional Qualifications Bill (p77)

- Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Bill (p123)

- Skills and Post-16 Education Bill (p50)

- Subsidy Control Bill (p72)

- Telecommunications (Security) Bill (p97)

- (Draft) Downstream Oil Resilience Bill (p68)

- (Draft) Online Safety Bill (p94)

- (Draft) Victims Bill (p89)

A New Tomorrow?

I am convinced that when this crisis is over - we will be in a "1945 situation" - where the systemic failings of our system of government; of our economic structure; of our health & education infrastructure etc - will be recognised - and as in 1945-51, action taken to rebuild learning from these failures.

We've been reminded in the last 50 years how eventually history is forgotten - those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it!!! (all those lessons about the inability of a minimalist state to run a sustainable economy, the value of a robust national health system etc) - but we can for a generation or more build a better system.

Politics matters!

As citizens, we can build our knowledge of key issues - and don't under-estimate the value of understanding procedures (aka - how to get things done in decision making institutions - be they Council or Parliament) - but on issues themselves - the House of Commons Library is an excellent source of well written, non-partisan material on issues

ANYONE can sign up to briefings from the House of Commons Library - https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/subscribe/

In the USA the Congressional Research Service is an excellent source of non-partisan material

https://crsreports.congress.gov

House of Commons Library - A Resource for Citizens

The House of Commons Library is not just a collection of books. It provides a first class research service to MPs. MPs can seek answers to specific questions - but they also produce a range of non-partisan research briefings on a multitude of subjects.

These papers - ranging from short 'Standard Notes' to lengthy, in depth research papers, are made available to the public on the Parliamentary website - and you can subscribe to email notifications about new publications.

Yesterday, I received a number of emails from the Library announcing publication of a number of papers - across all policy areas. As a lecturer in Constitutional Law, I have recommended many of their papers which explain the workings of our Constitution and Parliament. As a researcher, House of Commons Library Papers have provided useful background information - and the starting point for further research. As someone with specific policy interests - they are invaluable for keeping myself informed about the issues.

Do visit http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/offices/commons/commonslibrary/
All their publications are free - and of a very high standard. The page above is easy to use for searching particular issues - and includes a link to sign up for notifications of new (and updated) publications) - https://subscriptions.parliament.uk/accounts/UKPARLIAMENT/subscriber/new?.

Separation of Powers

The US Constitution is built upon the foundation of a separation of powers. Montesquieu (pictured above), amongst others, had highlighted the importance of ensuring that the differing functions of legislating (making law); executing the laws (carrying out the laws and providing day to day administration) ; and judging - both interpreting the laws and deciding in invidual cases - should be in the hands of separate groups of individuals. Hence a member of Congress cannot be at the same time a member of the Executive (serving the President) or a member of the judiciary.

On the face of it, Britain seems to show a fusion, rather than a separation of powers. The doctrines of ministerial responsibility are based on the principle that Government Ministers will also be members of either the House of Commons or the House of Lords. The Lord Chancellor was for centuries a member of Parliament (almost invariably in the House of Lords); the presiding officer and major player in the Lords; a member of Cabinet and an active judge.

However - it is useful to remember that Montesquieu actually praised Britain as a shining example of 'separation of powers'. It can be fairly described as a major principle of the British system. True fusion of powers ended with the decline of absolute royal power. 

The House of Commons Library have produced an excellent paper on separation of powers. It is available here. Students of UK Constitutional Law (including Open University W201 course) will find that the process of condensing the information in this paper will assist their revision immensely.

What happens now?

As ever, the House of Commons Library can be relied upon to provide impartial, well researched material on a topic of immediate public interest.




Materials are now available about the Referendum and the framework by which Brexit will be brought about.

The following are available by clicking the highlighted link


The Process of leaving the EU

The impact of an EU exit in key policy areas



Tax after the EU Referendum

Pensions after the EU Referendum

Financial Services after the Referendum

Fixed Term Parliaments Act 2012 - and how a General Election might be brought about

House of Commons Library

Regular readers of this blog will know how much I admire the work of the House of Commons Library. With a relatively small budget and staff - it regularly produces high quality research material to better inform the work of our MPs. Fortunately, much of this work is available free to their constituents too (and others! It's a great for students; academics; and anyone interested in a particular subject) through the internet.

The Library has to be politically neutral - it may report opinions - but its role is to inform not to advocate. Advocates though have access to the data and the arguments put forward from all sides.

It's worth bookmarking this page - http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ - it can be searched by subject, or can be used to find a particular paper.

I recommend the Key Issues book. This is now prepared for the start of each parliament and gives an overview of issues likely to come up in that Parliament. Can you afford NOT to read it?

A Lot of nonsense...

gets in the way of a grown up debate about Britain and Europe. Much of it involves either "euromyths" - made up stories or half truths which make the EU look ridiculous; or assertions about what Britain thought she was letting herself into when she joined in 1973.

In recent days I've heard people argue that all Britain wanted was a free trade area - but these "Europeans" have "subverted" that and "forced us" into accepting free movement of Labour, Goods and Capital. We were invited to join originally - but rejected that, to pursue a Free Trade area (which was known as EFTA). That didn't work for us - so we applied - and were rebuffed twice by De Gaulle - to join the "Common Market" (which always had at its core the Free Movement of Persons, Goods & Capital - any economist will distinguish levels of integration  - and such Free Movement distinguishes a mere Free Trade Area from a Common Market).

The other bit of nonsense is that a new political agenda has been forced upon what was originally a purely economic idea. Again this claim has no basis in fact. The objective of an ever closer union - with political objectives was there in the Treaty of Rome back in the 1950s. That's what we signed up for. If we were 'hoodwinked' it is because some people thought that the Europeans didn't mean what they put in their founding treaties.

This week the House of Commons Library published a paper about the "Ever Closer Union" in the EU Treaties and Court of Justice case law. It is available here. As the library paper says (and it is a politically impartial research service) - "The 1957 Treaty Establishing the European Community contained the objective of laying the foundations of an “ever closer union among the peoples of Europe”.

Back to Westminster

Last Tuesday I was on Capitol Hill, popping into a Congressman's office - before taking lunch with a former member of Congress - then to National Airport to fly home. Yesterday I was in the Palace of Westminster - my first visit of the new Parliament.

In the United Kingdom, Parliament's are usually referred to by the date of their election. So most people will refer to this as the "2015 Parliament". But, like Congress, Parliament's can be known by their number. This is the 56th Parliament of the United Kingdom. The first met in 1801, after the formation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. There was no General Election, but its members were those who had sat in the 18th Parliament of Great Britain, which was elected in 1796. Prior to the numbering of Parliaments of Great Britain (from 1707), Parliaments were known as the xth Parliament of the sitting Monarch. Some of the earlier Parliaments even had nicknames - such as the "Parliament of Devils", which was the 21st Parliament of Henry VI (1459), or the "Parliament of Bats" (1426).

Whilst down there I was able to read some of the excellent material produced by the House of Commons Library - which is also available online. I find the library to be a superb resource - both for academic study of parliament & for following business. More details - and links can be found here.

I didn't go into the gallery for the first day of the committee stage of the European Union Referendum Bill (Day 2 is tomorrow) - but I found the following very useful

Briefing on the Bill
EU exit: impact in key UK policy areas

Recall of MPs Bill

This bill is due to be debated in the House of Commons on Tuesday - where, at the end of the debate the House will vote on whether it be given its Second Reading. The House of Commons Library - which is an excellent non-party-partisan body - has produced a research paper about the bill.

The research paper can be downloaded in PDF format from http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP14-53.pdf

Abolishing Rights?

Yesterday's post dealt with the difficulties that most national constitutions place in the way of Constitutional Reform. The reason is simple - abolishing safeguards against the abuse of powers, or taking away citizens' rights - should only be done if the clear will of the people is for such a change. (Sadly people will vote to destroy their own safeguards and rights - but that's up to them).

In Britain, changes don't need the approval of the people. While legislation is a major source of the British Constitution - it is not the only one. Even then, as Lord Hailsham pointed out in 1976 (significantly, when he was an un-elected member of the House of Lords - in Opposition; he was less concerned about the concept when he held the power) - Britain can be an "elective dictatorship" - great power is concentrated in the hands of people who can have received less than half the votes cast in a general election - and the support of an even smaller proportion of the total electorate.

Two (relatively) recent developments have sought to safeguard rights (the Human Rights Act of 1998) and to give an opportunity to challenge decisions in the Courts on the grounds that a decision has not been taken properly (Judicial Review).

The current government is seeking to reduce the effectiveness of these. Having to abide by the principles that we have argued for others (Britain played a key role in drafting the European Convention on Human Rights), and having decisions made by public officials struck down because they haven't been taken in accordance with the principles of good practice - is inconvenient!

For a politically neutral (they are produced by the House of Commons Library) explanation and analysis of proposals for change - follow these links.

Human Rights Act

Judicial Review

Building Bigger Prisons - is it the answer?

When the prison population grows - how should we respond?

By looking again at our penal policy?
By asking ourselves why so many people are committing offences for which they risk imprisonment? By looking at alternatives to prison?
By considering whether there are more effective ways to dissuade people from committing crimes?
By building more, and bigger prisons?

Sometimes a serious consideration of the objectives of criminal law and of punishment are forgotten whilst a knee jerk reaction sets in. I'd urge all citizens - and our politicians to think about what objectives we as a society should have.

There are some excellent books about the subject. I remember at University studying Ted Honderich's thought provoking book on punishment.




The House of Commons Library has published a standard note - "Building prisons: the bigger, the better?"  It considers the advantages and disadvantages of new, bigger prisons and is available here.

Defamation Act 2013

This post won't be of immediate interest to my new OU students - but former students (and other law students studying Tort) may find the House of Library paper on the Defamation Act 2013 of use.

The Act has been in effect since the beginning of 2014.

The report is available here.

Stop & Search

The House of Commons Library has produced (yet again! - and I have to say, they regularly produce reports of high quality which are VERY useful!) - a report on Stop & Search powers. It's a useful briefing paper for anyone interested in the topic - and relevant to Law Students (especially OU W201 & W200)

The full paper is available at http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn03878.pdf. The summary states:

The police have a range of powers to stop and search people. The most widely used of these is under section 1 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) which accounts for over one million stops and searches per year. This allows the police to stop people or vehicles in public places and search them for stolen goods and other articles. However, like most stop and search powers, this only applies where the constable has “reasonable suspicion” that these articles will be found.

There are two powers which do not require the police to have “reasonable suspicion” of the individual being stopped and searched:

 

• The police can authorise stops and searches under the Terrorism Act 2000. The rules governing these have recently been reformed following a judgement by the European Court of Human Rights that they violated article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to privacy).A separate Library Standard Note (SN/HA/6742) deals with Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (stop and search at airports etc)

 

• Under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, a senior officer can authorise such stops and searches in a particular area if he or she reasonably believes that serious violence may take place or that people are carrying offensive weapons. This provision has also recently been subject to a legal challenge.

 

Both these have proved particularly controversial, but stop and search powers generally have long been at the centre of tensions between Black people and the police. Overall, Black people are stopped and searched around seven times more than White people. In 2010 the Equality and Human Rights Commission published a report examining some of the explanations which have been given for this disproportionality. Stops and searches were cited in a number of reports on the August 2011 riots in England as being a cause of resentment.

 

A Metropolitan Police review has resulted in recent changes to policy in London, including a more intelligence-led and targeted approach. In July 2013, the Home Secretary, Theresa May, announced a public consultation into the use of stop and search powers. Responses are currently being analysed. There were media reports in January 2014 that the Prime Minister was blocking plans by the Home Secretary to restrict the use of stop and search.

Recall of Parliament

It has been announced that Parliament will be recalled on Thursday to discuss Syria. This will be the 27th recall of Parliament since 1948. The House of Commons Library published a paper on recalls - available here.

In summary

"Under Standing Orders, the Speaker of the House of Commons determines whether the House is to be recalled on the basis of representations made by Ministers.

Under the previous Labour Government, Members argued that they, rather than the Government, should be able to make representations to the Speaker to recall Parliament. The Labour Government announced proposals to effect this change but the proposals were never implemented.

 

In 1994, the House of Commons introduced an allowance to meet any costs incurred by Members in attending the House of Commons when it was recalled. The responsibility for meeting the expenses of Members has now transferred to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. IPSA first made explicit provision for meeting expenses incurred in the event of a recall of Parliament in the MPs’ Scheme of Business Costs and Expenses that came into force on 1 April 2012.

 

The Standing Orders of the House of Lords and of the devolved legislatures in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast provide for early recall if the circumstances require it."

What do our MPs do with their time?

When I first visited Westminster, MPS might get a few items of mail a day. Some progressive MPs would hold regular 'surgeries' where constituents could come to meet them to ask for help in solving a particular problem.

I've seen volumes of post sky-rocket - and almost all MPs now do regular surgeries. I was pleased that after my (unsuccessful) runs for Parliament - the sitting MP upped the level of opportunities that his (sadly, not to be mine) constituents had to see him.

...and then there are emails. Free to send, and easier to send than 'snail-mail'. From zero these have become a major part of MPs' workload.

Lobbying groups make a major contribution - and the standard email about a particular campaign are easily recognised. The House of Commons this week issued a Standard Note about a particular email which keeps popping up.

"Members may be contacted by constituents complaining at the perceived contrast between generous government spending on foreign aid and inadequate domestic benefits and services, citing a forwarded chain email.

 

This viral email, sometimes given the title ‘Something to think about’ alleges that “We’re broke and can’t help our own Pensioners, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless, etc”. It cites figures for international aid to various countries – and also Hamas – while making claims of governmental neglect of various domestic groups.

 

The House of Commons Library first became aware of the email in early 2013, but it has been circulating on the internet in some form since at least 2010, and appears to have originated in the US.

The figures quoted in the email, which are often without any indication of currency, do not resemble actual UK international aid figures.

 

This note gives details of the email, some actual UK foreign aid figures, and information on state support available to those groups named in the email."

 

Interestingly the originators and re-publishers of this email don't seem to realise that dealing with and answering emails consume a lot of public money. 

The implications of withdrawal

One of my OU students joked at a recent tutorial that he now hoped Britain would leave the EU - since that would remove half the work for the W200 course.

Alas, that's not on the cards. For him, the exam will be on the 8th October - and withdrawal won't have happened by then.

But even if Britain were to withdraw - we couldn't ignore EU Law. It will continue to impact on our trading with other EU countries (which makes up a large majority of our trade). Norway has never joined - but is greatly affected - and must abide by EU law - though it has no say in the making of EU Law.

This week the House of Commons Library (which is an excellent, independent, research body) published a paper about leaving the EU. http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP13-42.pdf. It's well worth reading. The Times wrote "Britain would face a huge bill from the EU and may still have to obey many of its rules should voters opt to leave Europe, an independent analysis has warned."

The summary states -

"The Treaty on European Union provides for a Member State to leave the EU, either on the basis of a negotiated withdrawal agreement or without one. If the UK were to leave the EU following a referendum, it is likely that the Government would negotiate an agreement with the EU, which would probably contain transitional arrangements as well as provide for the UK’s long-term future relations with the EU. There is no precedent for such an agreement, but it would in all likelihood come at the end of complex and lengthy negotiations.

The full impact of a UK withdrawal is impossible to predict, but from an assessment of the current EU role in a range of policy areas, it is possible to identify issues and estimate some of the impacts of removing the EU role in these areas. The implications would be greater in areas such as agriculture, trade and employment than they would in, say, education or culture.

As to whether UK citizens would benefit from leaving the EU, this would depend on how the UK Government of the day filled the policy gaps left by withdrawal from the EU. In some areas, the environment, for example, where the UK is bound by other international agreements, much of the content of EU law would probably remain. In others, it might be expedient for the UK to retain the substance of EU law, or for the Government to remove EU obligations from UK statutes.

Much would depend on whether the UK sought to remain in the European Economic Area (EEA) and therefore continue to have access to the single market, or preferred to go it alone and negotiate bilateral agreements with the EU."

Playing away from Home

When all government powers were held by one person (Kings - who made the law; carried it out; and personally judged in disputes) - the developing institutions sat where he was. If the King was in Oxford, Parliament met at Oxford.

With time the powers drained from the King to the institutions themselves. They gained permanent places to meet - so today we have the Houses of Parliament; the Supreme Court Building (formerly known as Middlesex Guildhall); the Royal Courts of Justice - and 10 Downing Street.

For most of the 20th Century Cabinet meetings were held in no 10, but recently the Cabinet has "played away from home." A recent House of Commons Library paper lists these meetings.

It can be accessed here.

Separation of Powers

The US Constitution is built upon the foundation of a separation of powers. Montesquieu, amongst others, had highlighted the importance of ensuring that the differing functions of legislating (making law); executing the laws (carrying out the laws and providing day to day administration) ; and judging - both interpreting the laws and deciding in invidual cases - should be in the hands of separate groups of individuals. Hence a member of Congress cannot be at the same time a member of the Executive (serving the President) or a member of the judiciary.

On the face of it, Britain seems to show a fusion, rather than a separation of powers. The doctrines of ministerial responsibility are based on the principle that Government Ministers will also be members of either the House of Commons or the House of Lords. The Lord Chancellor was for centuries a member of Parliament (almost invariably in the House of Lords); the presiding officer and major player in the Lords; a member of Cabinet and an active judge.

However - it is useful to remember that Montesquieu actually praised Britain as a shining example of 'separation of powers'. It can be fairly described as a major principle of the British system. True fusion of powers ended with the decline of absolute royal power.

The House of Commons Library have produced an excellent paper on separation of powers. It is available here. Students of UK Constitutional Law (including Open University W200 and W201 courses) will find that the process of condensing the information in this paper will assist their revision immensely.

Improving the quality of scrutiny

Yesterday I mentioned the work of the Congressional Research Service (CRS). Along with the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) and the GAO (Government Accountability Office), they provide a service enabling members of both Houses of Congress to improve the quality of their scrutiny - a key role for legislators.

In the UK we have the House of Commons and House of Lords Libraries. The first is the best resourced of the two - and yet its counterpart in Congress - provides an excellent service to legislators. It's reports (Research Papers and Standard Notes) are publicly available here. In addition they provide an individual service to MPs - answering questions and providing specific research. The House of Lords Library is a smaller operation. It's Library Notes can be accessed here.

The National Audit Office carries out similar functions to the GAO. A description of their work can be found on DirectGov. "The National Audit Office works on behalf of Parliament and the taxpayer to hold government to account for the use of public money and to help public services improve performance. The National Audit Office is independent of government and has comprehensive statutory rights of access to the bodies it audits." It works specifically with the Public Accounts Committee, but its reports are an invaluable aid for other select committees. The reports are available here.

Select Committees and Public Bill Committees are assisted by the Scrutiny Unit, which consists of a small number of specialists. They are also useful in advising committees about external sources of specialist advice. Their reports can be accessed here.

The reports mentioned in this post are of course important for the work of Parliament and Congress - but they are publicly available - and I have found them to be useful for background reading - and for specific issues which I am researching. They can be very useful tools if you are a student, researcher, or wish to be one step ahead of others in your knowledge of particular subjects.