The Challenge for Parliament: Making Government Accountable. The Report of the Hansard Society Commission on Parliamentary Scrutiny

Publications / Reports

The Challenge for Parliament: Making Government Accountable. The Report of the Hansard Society Commission on Parliamentary Scrutiny

1 May 2001

This is the influential 2001 report of the Hansard Society Commission on Parliamentary Scrutiny, chaired by former Leader of the House Lord Newton of Braintree. It urged a step-change in the rigour and importance afforded Parliament's scrutiny work, aimed at putting Parliament at the apex of the system which holds government to account.

Commission work

The Hansard Society Commission on Parliamentary Scrutiny was established in September 1999 with an 18-month brief to examine "how Parliament carries out its role as scrutineer of the words and actions of the executive and assess whether the structure and processes are in need of change". The Commission examined the ways in which the two Houses of Parliament pursue accountability, as well as the many non-parliamentary ways by which government is scrutinised, such as through the courts, judicial inquiries, regulators and inspectors.

The Commission was funded by the Nuffield Foundation. It was chaired by the Rt Hon Lord Newton of Braintree, and its members were:

Zeinab Badawi
Rt Hon Alan Beith MP
Professor Alice Brown
Lord Burns GCB
Anna Coote
Professor Robert Hazell (vice-chair)
Robert Jackson MP
Kate Jenkins
Margaret Moran MP
Greg Power (secretary)
Steve Richards
Peter Riddell (vice-chair)
Dr Ann Robinson
Jill Rutter
Professor Colin Seymour-Ure
Lord Sawyer

Clerk to the Commission was Alex Brazier, who drafted its report along with Greg Power.

The Commission published a consultation paper which was distributed to every MP and peer plus around 800 individuals and organisations. The Commission took written evidence and held a series of private meetings and seminars, including with the-then Leader of the House of Commons, Rt Hon Margaret Beckett MP; the-then shadow Leader of the House, Rt Hon Sir George Young MP; the-then Liberal Democrat spokesperson on constitutional affairs, Robert Maclennan MP; ministers and former ministers; the Liaison Committee and select committee members; whips and backbench MPs; the Clerks of both Houses; senior civil servants; and experts on European matters. It also visited the Scottish Parliament and received help and advice from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-Parliamentary Union, as well as from several clerks of the Westminster Parliament.

During summer 2000, the Commission also conducted a survey of MPs' attitudes to Parliament, supported by the-then Speaker, Rt Hon Betty Boothroyd MP. Responses were received from 179 MPs.

The Commission met at least every two months. It also formed three sub-groups which met once a month. These covered the role of the chamber, the role of select committees, and financial accountability, and had some of their interim conclusions reflected in three discussion papers published during the Commission's lifetime.

Findings and recommendations

In its report, published at the start of the 2001 Parliament, the Commission found that "Parliament has been left behind by far-reaching changes to the constitution, government and society in the past two decades", with the central question of Westminster's scrutiny of the executive left unaddressed, and serious gaps and weaknesses evident in the working of accountability. The Commission declared that "Parliament must adapt quickly if it to retain its centrality to British politics and be effective in holding government to account".

The Commission laid out seven principles that should guide reform of accountability as exercised through Parliament. These principles were supplemented by detailed recommendations. The seven principles were:

Parliament at the apex. The central theme of the report was that Parliament should be at the apex of a system of accountability also constituted by independent regulators, commissions and inspectors.
Parliament must develop a culture of scrutiny: changes in the attitudes and behaviour of politicians were as important as changes in the working of Parliament.
Committees should play a more influential role within Parliament. In particular, the committees' role "needs to be more closely defined, so that each has a set of core responsibilities and a set of certain pre-agreed and public goals". Also, "chairing a select committee needs to be recognised as a political position comparable to being a minister ... [and] the committees should be given the staffing and resources needed to oversee the areas for which they are responsible".
The chamber should remain central to accountability. As the "public face of the House of Commons and therefore the main means of informing and persuading the wider electorate ... the chamber should be more responsive to issues of public concern".
Financial scrutiny should be central to accountability. Financial scrutiny "underpins all other forms of accountability" and thus "should be central to the work of the Commons".
The House of Lords should complement the Commons, with the unelected chamber contributing especially on issues which cross departmental boundaries, and on ethical, constitutional and social issues for which the Commons has insufficient time.
Parliament must communicate more effectively with the public, through reforms to sitting hours, procedures, the structure of staff support and the use of technology.

Introduction
Executive summary
The changing role of Parliament: New forms of accountability
Building a culture of scrutiny in th eCommons
Reforming the select committees
Restoring the centrality of the Commons chamber
Parliament and financial scrutiny
Scrutiny, accountability and the second chamber
Two-way communication: Parliament and the outside world
Parliament at the apex
Conclusions and recommendations
Appendices
- Appendix 1 - The theory and practice of parliamentary accountability
- Appendix 2 - Written evidence submitted to the Commission
- Appendix 3 - Meetings of the Commission
- Appendix 4 - Survey of MPs: The effectiveness of Parliament, parliamentary roles and workloads
- Appendix 5 - Survey of the subject-matter of House of Commons Select Committee Reports; Sessions 1997-98 and 1998-99
- Appendix 6 - Financial Procedures
Bibliography
Index

Latest / Highlights

News / Parliament Matters Bulletin: What’s coming up in Parliament this week? 19-23 May 2025

Stella Creasy MP and Richard Tice MP will lead a backbench debate on the EU–UK summit. The Foreign Affairs Committee will hold a joint session with its Ukrainian counterpart on Russian misinformation. MPs will question the Defence Secretary, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Northern Ireland Secretary. Scrutiny of seven Government bills will continue in both Houses. Debate topics in the Commons will include an e-petition on transgender self-identification, and support for local pubs. On the Committee corridor, highlights include sessions on the security of undersea cables and the accessibility of the parliamentary estate. Michael Gove will be formally introduced to the House of Lords as its newest member.

Submissions / Status and rights of independent MPs in Parliament – Our evidence to the House of Commons Procedure Committee

Our evidence on the status and rights of independent MPs has been published by the House of Commons Procedure Committee. Our submission summarises the direct and indirect references to political parties in the Standing Orders and whether they might apply to groupings of independent MPs, analyses whether small parties and independent groupings face disadvantages, particularly in relation to committee membership, and considers whether parliamentary publications should distinguish between the many different kinds of independent MP.

Blog / The Planning and Infrastructure Bill: What happens when detail is deferred?

The Hansard Society has long raised concerns about the Government's increasing tendency to present undeveloped legislation that lacks detailed policy and grants ministers broad delegated powers to fill in the gaps later. This practice undermines effective parliamentary scrutiny, by preventing MPs and Peers from fully assessing how powers may be used, (or misused), in the future. The weak system for overseeing delegated legislation—especially in the Commons—exacerbates the problem. Several powers in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill currently before Parliament highlight these ongoing issues.

News / Assisted dying bill: Special series #12 - Parliament Matters podcast, Episode 93

Is Kim Leadbeater's Assisted Dying Bill now "over the hump?" The Bill's supporters got it though its first day of Report Stage consideration in the House of Commons unscathed, with comfortable majorities in every vote. So, with debate on the most contentious set of amendments disposed of, will it now coast through its remaining scrutiny days in the Commons? Please help us by completing our Listener Survey. It will only take a few minutes.

Submissions / Evidence to the House of Commons Modernisation Committee: Priorities and strategic aims

In response to the Modernisation Committee's call for views on 17 October 2024, we submitted evidence outlining key areas we believe the Committee should prioritise. Our submission recommended a focus on: strengthening legislative scrutiny, with particular emphasis on reforming the delegated legislation system; enhancing financial scrutiny, especially in relation to the Budget and the Estimates; addressing strategic gaps in parliamentary scrutiny; making more effective use of parliamentary time; and reviewing the Standing Orders, language and rituals of the House of Commons.