The Committee supports the aims of increasing transparency in lobbying and effectively and fairly regulating third-party campaigning, but finds that the Government's bill is seriously flawed, because of inadequate consultation and a lack of pre-legislative scrutiny. Moreover, the definition of "consultant lobbying" is so narrow that not only would it exclude in-house lobbyists, which was the Government's intention, but it would also exclude the vast majority of third-party lobbyists and particularly the larger organisations. Many companies undertake lobbying as part of a wider communications and public relations business, and they spend very little of their time meeting directly with Ministers and Permanent Secretaries, meaning they could argue they were exempt from registering. The register should be expanded to include in-house lobbyists, and to cover the provision of advice on lobbying, as well as direct contact with Ministers and Permanent Secretaries. Special Advisers and Senior Civil Servants should be included in the list of people with whom contact counts as lobbying. Part 2 of the Bill, on non-party campaigning, and particularly the definition of spending "for electoral purposes" is confusing. The Committee urges the Government temporarily to withdraw the Bill and support a motion in the House to set up a special committee to carry out pre-legislative scrutiny, using the text of the existing Bill as a draft. The special committee should be charged with producing an improved Bill within six months.

House of Lords reform is a large and thorny issue on which it has proved very difficult to get political consensus. This inquiry focused on the incremental changes that could possibly be achieved outside the wider reforms that are doubtless required. Creating the power to remove Peers who have actually broken the law of the land and to remove persistent non-attendees will enjoy widespread support and would indicate that the unelected chamber was not opposed to sensible reform. Establishing a consensus about the principles that should determine the relative numerical strengths of the different party groups in the House of Lords, and for codifying such principles, is probably the most contentious of all the issues considered, but it is also the most crucial to any further progress. The Government and political parties in the Lords need to set out their positions on this matter and to engage in dialogue that will establish a consensus before the next General Election, so that both Houses can act upon an agreed reform

The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee publishes its own draft parliamentary resolution setting out the process that should be followed to consult Parliament on conflict decisions, to serve as an interim step towards putting Parliament's role in war making decisions on a legal footing. The Committee has repeatedly called on Government to make progress on the Foreign Secretary's commitment in 2011 to "enshrine in law for the future the necessity of consulting Parliament on military action". The key points of the report are as follows: (1) The debate in the House of Commons on 29 August 2013 regarding Syria and the use of chemical weapons highlighted the important role Parliament plays in conflict decisions; (2) The Government needs to make a clear statement of how it intends to honour the Foreign Secretary's commitment of 2011, and give a specific Minister responsibility for making progress on this.; (3) A parliamentary resolution would serve as a useful interim step towards enshrining Parliament's role in law, by embedding the current convention and clarifying some of the ambiguities that exist under current arrangements.

In Transparency Of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning And Trade Union Administration Bill (HL 62), the Select Committee on the Constitution raises significant concerns about the content and handling of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill. The Bill, which regulates lobbying and sets rules on expenditure by persons or bodies other than political parties at elections, is due for its second reading in the Lords on 22 October 2013. The report says that effective parliamentary scrutiny is of manifest importance for legislation of constitutional significance. The Committee questions whether the significant lowering of the cap on expenditure at general elections by third parties is justified, given the fundamental constitutional right to freedom of political expression. There has been a lack of consultation by the Government on the proposals, including with the Electoral Commission, as well as the lack of

While it accepts that there may be a pressing need to reform non-party campaigning, the report Legislative Scrutiny: Transparency Of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning And Trade Union Administration Bill (HL 61, HC 755) calls on the Government to pause the passage of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill to allow for further scrutiny and for further consultation with the Electoral Commission, the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement and relevant stakeholders. The report recommends that there be more careful consideration of the potential impact on campaigners' rights to free speech and freedom of association. The Committee welcomes the Government improvements made to Part 2 during its passage though the Commons, but suggest that concerns remain. The Joint Committee express concerns regarding: the lack of clarity about the practical effects of the provision in this Part of t

Many of the Prime Minister's powers are obscure "prerogative" powers, which are not well understood or defined. More of these prerogative powers should be codified in statute to make them more transparent and increase accountability to Parliament. Government should also consider consolidating the existing Prime Ministerial powers in one place - the way the role has evolved means there is no single and authoritative source of information on the powers. There is widespread agreement that the Prime Minister's role has increased in recent decades-including in policy making. Coalition government has to some extent constrained the powers of the Prime Minister but this might not persist under single-party government. The need for support by a majority of Members of Parliament and the Cabinet acts as a check and balance on the Prime Minister. However, these political mechanisms are not effective on a "day-to-day" basis. The Liaison Committee has the potential to be a very effective mechanism for Parliament to hold the Prime Minster to account, and should continue to improve the way it works. The Government should consider a role for Parliament in the investiture of the Prime Minister, or the Government, after a general election. Some consider that accountability of the Prime Minister would be strengthened by direct election by the public, US style. The Government could also consider the creation of a combined Department for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, with a departmental Select Committee specifically to scrutinise that Department