This Command Paper from the Office of the Leader of the House of Commons sets out a process for post-legislative scrutiny by the Government. The main proposal is that after 3 years any law that has been passed will undergo a review by the relevant Government Department and then Parliament to see how effective the law has been. The publication also includes an appendix with a detailed response to the Law Commission's report on Post-legislative scrutiny (Cm. 6945, ISBN 9780101694520).
To what extent have parliaments a responsibility to monitor how laws are implemented as intended and have the expected impact? Is the practice of Post-Legislative Scrutiny emerging as a new dimension within the oversight role of parliament? What approach do parliaments apply in assessing the implementation and impact of legislation? These are the fascinating questions guiding this book. Case studies offer an in-depth look at how particular countries and the European Union conduct Post-Legislative Scrutiny. The analysis puts Post-Legislative Scrutiny in the context of parliamentary oversight and parliaments’ engagement in the legislative cycle. The purpose of this book is to demonstrate the value of Post-Legislative Scrutiny as a public good, benefiting the executive, legislature and the people in ensuring that law delivers what is expected of it, as well as to respond to the need for greater clarity as to what is meant by the term. In this way, the publication can assist legislatures to think more clearly as to what precisely they understand, and seek to achieve, by Post-Legislative Scrutiny. This book is the result of the co-operation between the Centre for Legislative Studies at the University of Hull and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. The chapters were originally published as a special issue of The Journal of Legislative Studies.
To what extent have parliaments a responsibility to monitor how laws are implemented as intended and have the expected impact? Is the practice of Post-Legislative Scrutiny emerging as a new dimension within the oversight role of parliament? What approach do parliaments apply in assessing the implementation and impact of legislation? These are the fascinating questions guiding this book. Case studies offer an in-depth look at how particular countries and the European Union conduct Post-Legislative Scrutiny. The analysis puts Post-Legislative Scrutiny in the context of parliamentary oversight and parliaments’ engagement in the legislative cycle. The purpose of this book is to demonstrate the value of Post-Legislative Scrutiny as a public good, benefiting the executive, legislature and the people in ensuring that law delivers what is expected of it, as well as to respond to the need for greater clarity as to what is meant by the term. In this way, the publication can assist legislatures to think more clearly as to what precisely they understand, and seek to achieve, by Post-Legislative Scrutiny. This book is the result of the co-operation between the Centre for Legislative Studies at the University of Hull and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy. The chapters were originally published as a special issue of The Journal of Legislative Studies.
According to the Health Committee, more needs to be done to protect the interests of patients who rely on mental health services. The Committee has undertaken a review of the 2007 Mental Health Act (ISBN 9780105412076). Many psychiatric wards are over capacity and there is huge pressure on beds, nevertheless, the Committee was shocked to learn that there is evidence that patients who need hospital treatment are being sectioned unnecessarily in order to access a bed. This represents a serious violation of patient's basic rights and it is never acceptable for patients to be subjected to compulsory detention unless it is clinically necessary. The 2007 Act contained important provisions which introduced Community Treatment Orders (CTOs). These orders allow for patients to be treated in the community whilst still being subject to recall to hospital if their condition deteriorates. The Committee is also concerned that pressure on hospital beds may be driving increased use of CTOs. MPs also examined the function of Independent Mental Health Advocates who help patients take advantage of their rights whilst in hospital. The Committee is in no doubt that a patient's primary advocate should be their clinician and independent advocates, ultimately, provide an important, but supplementary, service
Some former Ministers and senior civil servants argue that Freedom of Information (FOI) is having a 'chilling effect' on policy discussion at the heart of government. The Committee recognised there could be a problem--at least of perception. However the existing provisions of the Act could be used more effectively, including use of the ministerial veto to ensure a "safe space" for high-level policy discussions. The number of FOI requests is growing and some witnesses suggested introducing fees for FOI. However, while FOI imposes costs, it also creates savings when the inappropriate use of public funds is uncovered - or where fear of disclosure prevents the waste of public money. Setting fees could deter requests with a strong public interest and therefore defeat the purposes of the Act. Fees introduced purely for commercial and media organisations could also be circumvented. The MPs recommended: higher fines should be imposed for destruction of information or data and the time limit should be removed on prosecution of these offences; the law should be amended to protect universities from having to disclose research and data before the research has been published; all public bodies subject to the Act should be required to publish data on the timeliness of their response to freedom of information requests; the right to access information must not be undermined by the increased use of private providers in delivering public services and contracts for private providers should be explicit and enforceable in stipulating FOI obligations; where public authorities publish disclosure logs, the names of those requesting information should be included
In most countries, parliament has the constitutional mandate to both oversee and hold government to account. In light of the increased focus on good governance, academics and legislative strengthening practitioners are re-examining parliament's oversight function with a view to increasing public financial accountability, curbing corruption, and contributing to poverty reduction. This volume brings together research from many different perspectives and many different legislative settings worldwide. As the country case studies in section III demonstrate, the accountability mechanisms or oversight tools available to the legislature vary based on constitutionally defined powers of the legislature, institutional arrangements between the branches of government, divisions of authority between national, regional, and local governments, the degree of legitimacy conferred on the legislature, and the resources available to it. The budget process provides critical opportunities. Section II of this volume is devoted to examining budget oversight from the formulation and approval of the budget, to implementation and the ex post examination of the public accounts. Special attention is also paid to mechanisms to assist parliaments such as Public Accounts Committees and independent parliamentary budget offices. This title will be of interest to parliamentarians and parliamentary staff, legislative strengthening practitioners, and students of legislative development.
Transparency in government operations is widely regarded as an important precondition for macroeconomic fiscal sustainability, good governance, and overall fiscal rectitude. Notably, the Interim Committee, at its April and September 1996 meetings, stressed the need for greater fiscal transparency. Prompted by these concerns, this paper represents a first attempt to address many of the aspects of transparency in government operations. It provides an overview of major issues in fiscal transparency and examines the IMF's role in promoting transparency in government operations.
There is growing recognition of the need for new approaches to the ways in which donors support accountability, but no broad agreement on what changed practice looks like. This publication aims to provide more clarity on the emerging practice.
