On cover and title page: House, committees of the whole House, general committees and select committees. On title page: Returns to orders of the House of Commons dated 14 May 2013 (the Chairman of Ways and Means)

Since 1945, turnout for general elections in the UK has fallen from a high of 83.9% in 1950 to a low of 59.4% in 2001. Turnout for the 2010 general election was 65.1% higher than the previous two general elections, but still the third lowest since the introduction of universal suffrage. Turnout at the last general election was also low compared with turnout at the last parliamentary elections in other European Union countries. There is also evidence that a significant number of people in the UK are not registered to vote, with the most recent estimates indicating that the electoral register was between 85 and 87% complete. This would mean that approximately 6.5 million people are missing from the electoral register. In light of this, the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee agreed to conduct an inquiry into voter registration and turnout in the UK.

This report is principally about the governance, structure and accountability of the veterinary profession as conferred by the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966. The profession must meet modern day standards of quality of service, and have the transparent and accountable disciplinary procedures demanded by the public. There is general agreement that aspects of the Act require modernisation, and that the disciplinary procedure is in urgent need of updating. But the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) does not have the support of the majority of the profession for its proposals on compulsory practice standards and compulsory continuing professional development. The RCVS has not yet formulated a detailed plan for how a new Council might be structured. Nor is there a clear vision of how "para-professionals" and those administering complementary and alternative therapies to animals ought to be regulated under a new Act. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has said that there is no funding available for work on a White Paper to update the Act until at least 2011. These next three years must be used by the profession as an opportunity to decide what it wants, and to iron out internal differences. The RCVS should analyse the costs of its proposals both for those practising and for the consumer. Any new Act should not overload the profession with unnecessary legislation, but it must safeguard the health and welfare of animals and also protect them, and their owners, from those who offer potentially dangerous treatments without sufficient knowledge or training.

This report follows the Committee's report of September 2013 on private Members' bills. Since then they have received a Government response, which is published as an appendix to this report, and discussed recommendations further with the Leader of the House. This report sets out a revised package of recommendations for reform of the private Member's bill process. The revised proposals include that: the House should agree to a convention that the question on second reading of a private Member's bill should be put to the House at the end of a full day's debate, in the same way that the House expects the question to be put on second reading of a Government bill; Bills which have not been published should be clearly identified in the Future Business section of the Order Paper; Pages should be provided on the Parliamentary website where draft private Members' bills can be made available online for scrutiny and comment which should be done on a pilot basis in the 2014-15 session; a bill need not be brought in immediately after leave is granted under the ten minute rule; the risk of a single Member monopolising the limited opportunities for debate of private Members' bills should be reduced by providing that a private Member may present no more than one bill on any one day; the deadline for publishing a private Member's bill should be brought forward to the Wednesday of the week prior to the day of second reading; Private Members' bills should be called "backbench bills"

The floods that occurred across several areas of the country in June and July 2007 were on a scale not seen for sixty years. Thirteen people lost their lives; thousands of people lost either their electricity, water supply or both; and 44,600 homes were flooded. Some £3 billion worth of damage was caused, and 7,100 businesses were flooded. The 2007 floods revealed that most organisations-including Government-have focussed on river and coastal flooding, and much less so on surface water and groundwater flooding. But two thirds of the summer 2007 flooding was caused by surface water flooding, often after intense heavy rainfall overwhelmed drainage systems. No organisation currently has responsibility for surface water flooding, at either the national or local level. The Committee believes local authorities, advised by the Environment Agency, should be given a statutory duty for surface water drainage in their area. Only allowing paving over of front gardens with porous materials, and the development of sustainable drainage systems (SUDs) are supported. The announced increase in expenditure on flood risk management from £600 million in 2007-08 to £800 million by 2010-11 looks inadequate to cope with both the traditional and new risks the country faces. The summer floods exposed the vulnerability of the nation's critical infrastructure to flooding. The Government should re-examine the current statutory duties on utilities in relation to emergency planning. A specific duty should be placed on utilities to ensure their critical assets are protected from flooding and that they have adequate business continuity plans in the event of a flood. The Government must implement the findings of the current Pitt Review into the floods in a robust and transparent manner.

Cattle TB is one of the most serious animal health problems in Great Britain today, with the number of infected cattle doubling every four and a half years, and nearly 20,000 being slaughtered in 2006. The cost of the disease to the taxpayer (£80-100 million a year) and to the farming industry is unsustainable. The introduction of a new system of valuations for slaughtered cattle has proved inequitable in many cases. The final report from the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB concluded that badger culling could not meaningfully contribute to the future control of cattle TB in Britain. This conclusion was contradicted by Sir David King, the then Government Chief Scientific Adviser (though he had not discussed findings with the ISG). The Committee believes there is no simple solution that will control cattle TB. The Government should adopt a strategy that includes: more frequent cattle testing; the evaluation of post-movement cattle testing; greater communication with farmers on the benefits of biosecurity measures; the deployment of badger and cattle vaccines when they become available in the future; and continued work on the epidemiology of the disease. Under certain well-defined circumstances it is possible that badger culling could make a contribution towards the reduction in incidence of cattle TB in hot spot areas. Any cull should be licensed by English Nature and: be done competently and efficiently; be coordinated; cover as large an area as possible (265km² or more is the minimum needed to be 95% confident of an overall beneficial effect); be sustained for at least four years; and be in areas which have "hard" or "soft" boundaries where possible. Crucial gaps in the knowledge about cattle TB and the way it spreads remain, and more research is needed. Defra needs more funding from the Treasury to pay for the Committee recommendations.