LESSONS FROM ABROAD How Parliaments Around The World Engage With Their Public A report for the Group on Information for the Public, UK Parliament Acknowledgements This report was written by Dr Ruth Fox. The research was undertaken by Dr Diana Stirbu who also produced an early draft of the report. Our thanks go to Matt Korris and Dr Andy Williamson for their advice and to Nicola Atkins, Amy Drake, James Easy, Josh Niderost and Laura Thornton for their research assistance. We are grateful to the staff of the UK office of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the UK Parliament Overseas Office for facilitating meetings and contacts with staff in legislatures around the world. We would also like to thank the Sergeant-at-Arms, Jill Pay, and her staff for providing an opportunity for members of the research team to meet with attendees at the 2009 Sergeant at Arms annual conference held at Westminster. Finally our thanks to Rob Clements, for his assistance and advice with regard to the utilisation of the resources of the European Centre for Parliamentary Research and Documentation. This research was supported by the Group on Information for the Public, UK Parliament. Hansard Society, 40-43 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1JA Tel: 020 7438 1222. Fax: 020 7438 1229. Email: [email protected] Copyright © 2010 Hansard Society. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form by any means, without the prior permission of the Hansard Society. For more information about other Hansard Society publications visit our website at www.hansardsociety.org.uk CONTENTS Case Study Menu 2 Introduction 4 Parliament and public engagement 4 Structure And Methodology 8 Information Provision 12 Websites 12 Public information and social inclusion 12 Institutional dynamism: committee pages 14 Profiling elected representatives 16 An on-line one-stop-shop 17 Print media and broadcasting 20 Advertising 20 A media venture? 21 Broadcasting 23 On-site information kiosks 24 Parliament As Public Space 26 Visits 26 Socially inclusive visitors tours 26 Thematic tours 27 Tours beyond Parliament 28 Open days/nights 30 Exhibitions and democracy museums 31 A Festival of Politics 33 Visitor centres 34 Facilitation Models 37 On-line forums 37 Future forums 41 Public engagement entrepreneurs 44 Outreach 48 A regional presence 48 Mobile presence: an outreach bus 50 Ambassadorial outreach 51 Partnerships With Civil Society 53 Education 58 Role-play 58 Internship schemes 61 Seminars and academic outreach 65 Strategic Objectives And Organisation 68 Lessons From Abroad | 1 CASE STUDY MENU • Swedish Riksdag website 13 • US Congressional Committee webpages 14 • Participation portal: Parliament 2.0 – Catalonia 17 • Advertising committee activities in the national media – Australia 20 • About the House Magazine – House of Representatives, Australia 22 • About the House TV - House of Representatives, Australia 24 • Thematic Tours – German Bundestag 27 • ‘Behind the Scenes’ Tours – Parliament of New South Wales, Australia 27 • A ‘Little Lunch Sitting’ for Mature Age Groups – Australian Parliament 27 • High Teas – Queensland Parliament, Australia 28 • Canada’s Parliament Hill tours and related events 28 • Germany’s Path of Democracy 29 • 40 Days of Open Day – The Federal Assembly, Swiss Parliament 30 • The ‘Little Night Sitting’ – Parliament of New South Wales, Australia 30 • Citizen’s Day – Danish Folketing & Estonian Riiggikogu 31 • ‘Milestones – Setbacks – Sidetracks’ – German Bundestag’s Historical Exhibition 32 • On the Way to the Modern Parliament – Chamber of Deputies, Czech Republic 32 • Democracy Has A History – Austrian Parliament 33 • Festival of Politics – Scottish Parliament 33 • United States Capitol Visitor Center 35 • Senador Virtual – Senado, Republic of Chile 37 • Thursday On-line Chats With MPs – German Bundestag 40 • www.mitmischen.de – German Bundestag 40 • Committee for the Future (TVK) – Eduskunta, Finland 41 • Scotland’s Future Forum – Scottish Parliament 42 • e-Agora – European Parliament 43 • Danish Board of Technology (DBT) – Folketing, Denmark 44 • Parliamentary Democracy Offices (PDOs) – South Africa 48 • Regional Info-Spots – Riksdag, Sweden 49 • Outreach Bus - National Assembly for Wales 50 • Infomobil des Bundestage - German Bundestag 50 • Llwydd’s Tour – National Assembly for Wales 51 • Presiding Officer’s Summer Work Programme and Blog – Scottish Parliament 51 • President’s Google Tour Map and Social Networking – Catalonia 51 • Step Up Cymru – National Assembly for Wales 53 • Community Partnership Programme – Scottish Parliament 54 • ‘Understanding & Influencing Your Parliament’ Conference – Scottish Parliament 56 • Politician for a Day – Folketing, Denmark 58 • MiniTing – The Storting, Norway 60 • Parliamentary Information & Research Service Internship Program – Canada 61 • Legislative Internship Programme – British Columbia, Canada 62 • House of Commons and Senate Page Programmes – Canada 63 • Parliamentary Assistants Programme – House of Representatives, Australia 63 • Congressional Page Programme – USA 64 • About the House seminars – House of Representatives, Australia 65 • ‘House Calls’ – House of Representatives, Australia 66 • Service Charter – House of Representatives, Australia 70 • Communication Strategy 2009 – Folketing, Denmark 71 • Communicating the 3rd Assembly – National Assembly for Wales 71 Lessons From Abroad | 3 INTRODUCTION Successive Hansard Society reports for the House of Commons and the Group on Information for the Public (GIP) have clearly identified the difficulties that exist in engaging the public with the work of the Westminster Parliament and provided evidence of the lack of knowledge about Parliament’s work and functions in a number of critical areas. The Removing Barriers to Engagement report, for example, made clear that the two ‘overarching barriers to political and parliamentary engagement are lack of knowledge about and interest in politics, along with low participation and satisfaction levels.’1 Similar difficulties face every parliament across the globe to varying degrees. This study explores how other legislatures around the world are responding to the challenge of how to engage with their citizens, highlighting examples of potentially transferable ideas and initiatives. It provides a menu of ideas for GIP to consider for adoption by the UK Parliament in order to meet its strategic public engagement goals. Even allowing for differences in public engagement practice as a result of different political systems, the advantages (or disadvantages) resulting from smaller legislatures and citizen bodies, and cultural differences, it is clear that the Westminster Parliament is at the cutting edge of public engagement. The number of case study examples in this report, (most of which are less ambitious in scope than anticipated when this study was embarked upon), is a consequence of the fact that many legislatures are someway behind Westminster in developing a broad range of innovative public engagement initiatives. It has become clear over the course of the last eighteen months however, that the pace of change with regard to public engagement is rapid, and Westminster cannot therefore afford to be complacent and rest on its laurels if it is to maintain its role and reputation as an innovative leader in this field. Indeed, given the pace of development in public engagement in other legislatures we would suggest that GIP/the Hansard Society might consider revisiting this study again on a periodic basis in order to maintain a watching brief on innovation in parliamentary public engagement around the globe. Parliament and public engagement One of the House of Commons Management Board’s six strategic goals for 2010-11 is that the public should feel ‘respect and trust for the House of Commons as an institution’, asserting a new commitment that officials have an obligation to serve the public as much as they are there to serve MPs.2 To this end the House has identified a number of core tasks in its 2006-11 strategic plan that will enable it to deliver on this goal. With regard to public engagement these tasks are ‘to promote public knowledge and understanding of the work and role of Parliament through the provision of information and access’3 and ‘strengthening 1 A. Brazier, S. Kalitowski & M. Korris, (2008), Removing Barriers to Engagement (London: Hansard Society), p.6. 2 House of Commons Management Board (2010), Corporate Business Plan 2010-11, p.4. 3 House of Commons Management Board (2010), Corporate Business Plan 2010-11, pp. 4-5. the reputation of the House of Commons with the public’ has been identified as a priority for the year.4 A further core task, ‘to maintain the heritage and integrity of the Palace of Westminster and other buildings, objects and documents for the benefit of future generations,’ also feeds into the broader public engagement agenda.5 At the start of the new parliament the House of Commons Management Board has released a new Strategy for the House of Commons Service 2010-15. Its goal is that in five years the Commons will ‘be valued as the central institution in our democracy: effective in holding the Government to account, scrutinising legislation, and representing the diverse views of the electorate. It will be seen both in the UK and abroad as a model of good practice and innovation, and will cost less money’.6 To achieve this the Management Board proposes that the organisation will work at every level to earn respect for the House of Commons by ‘encouraging public participation in parliamentary business including the work of select committees and the legislative process, developing our outreach and education services and making the House more welcoming to the public’ and ‘engaging proactively with the media to encourage full and accurate reporting of House matters’.7 To make the House more effective it will work to develop ‘new ways to represent the diverse views of the electorate’ and, particularly relevant in the context of this study, it will seek to make the House more efficient by ‘supporting and learning from the experience of other Parliaments’.8 Finally, to ensure that members, staff and public are well-informed it will seek to give the public ‘the information needed to understand and appreciate the work of the House and its Members, by continuing to develop our information, education and outreach services and opening the new Education Centre at Westminster.’9 The strategic objectives of the House of Lords dovetail with those of the Commons. Two of the four strategic objectives identified in the 2010-15 Strategic Plan are ‘to make the House and its work accessible to the public’ and ‘to maintain the House’s buildings and collections, having regard to the heritage they represent’.10 A core task to deliver these objectives in the Lords is therefore to ‘facilitate public access to, and understanding and knowledge of, the work of the House of Lords, its heritage and collections’.11 The House is particularly focused on delivery against its identified performance indicators of outreach and access, namely: improvement in user satisfaction ratings for the website; improved public awareness of the role of the House of Lords reflected in surveys of public engagement; increased levels of satisfaction ratings for outreach events under the House outreach plan; and increased press and media coverage for the work of the House and its 4 House of Commons Management Board (2010), Corporate Business Plan 2010-11, p.8. 5 House of Commons Management Board (2010), Corporate Business Plan 2010-11, p.4. 6 House of Commons Management Board (June 2010), New Parliament: Strategy for the House of Commons Service 2010-15, p.1. 7 House of Commons Management Board (June 2010), New Parliament: Strategy for the House of Commons Service 2010-15, p.2. 8 House of Commons Management Board (June 2010), New Parliament: Strategy for the House of Commons Service 2010-15, pp.2-3. 9 House of Commons Management Board (June 2010), New Parliament: Strategy for the House of Commons Service 2010-15, p.3. 10 House of Lords (March 2010), House of Lords Business Plan 2010-11, HL Paper 71, p.10. 11 House of Lords (March 2010), House of Lords Business Plan 2010-11, HL Paper 71, p.11. Lessons From Abroad | 5 committees.12 To this end a priority list of tasks with deliverable objectives and an identified timeline is set out in the Business Plan addressing press advice and press liaison; promotion of the work of the House of Lords via on-line media; publications; outreach and education; a strategic review of the target audience; and exhibitions.13 Finally, the Group on Information for the Public co-ordinates the over-arching public engagement strategies of both Houses on a bi-cameral basis. Its goals are: • To inform the public about the work and role of Parliament; • To promote Parliament as an institution and describe why it should be valued; and • To listen to the public by seeking and responding to feedback.14 In drafting this report we have taken account of GIP’s focus and the ambitions of both the House of Commons and Lords with respect to public engagement in the future. Both Houses of Parliament have made significant investment in their public engagement strategies in recent years, hence why they are ahead of the game compared to many legislatures across the globe. However, it is likely, indeed perhaps certain, that public engagement work like all other aspects of parliamentary activity will be affected by the austerity drive in public expenditure, as highlighted in the recent announcement by the House of Commons Commission that it is to cut an additional £12 million (5%) from the House budget for the current financial year, with spending reduced by 9% through to 2012- 13.15 Investment in public engagement, and the need to innovate in this field, must, however, remain a key priority. The most recent Audit of Political Engagement 7 report demonstrates a significant decline in the perceived impact of Parliament on people’s everyday lives. When asked about their knowledge of ‘politics’, their ‘local council’, ‘the Westminster Parliament’ and ‘the role of MPs’, the public report that they know least about Parliament. A clear majority – 62% – say they know ‘not very much’ or ‘nothing at all’ about Westminster.16 Yet a clear majority of the public (60%) nonetheless believe that Parliament ‘is worthwhile’. Though they are critical of the behaviour of MPs, most believe Parliament remains an essential institution for the governance of our society. Fewer people, however, believe that it ‘holds government to account’ (just 40% say it does this), or that it ‘is working for you and me’ (just 38% agree).17 And public dissatisfaction with how Parliament works unsurprisingly rose by 5% to 38% between December 2008 and December 2009, reflecting the impact of the expenses debacle.18 12 House of Lords (March 2010), House of Lords Business Plan 2010-11, HL Paper 71, p.29. 13 House of Lords (March 2010), House of Lords Business Plan 2010-11, HL Paper 71, pp.30-32. 14 Group on Information for the Public (2008) Engaging the Public: Business Plan 2008-09, p.1. 15 ‘House of Commons Commission to extend budget savings’, press release, 23 June 2010, http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2010/06/house-of-commons-commission-to-extend-budget-savings/ 16 Hansard Society (2010), Audit of Political Engagement 7 (London: Hansard Society), p.68. 17 Hansard Society (2010), Audit of Political Engagement 7 (London: Hansard Society), p.95. 18 Hansard Society (2010), Audit of Political Engagement 7 (London: Hansard Society), pp.87-88. But at the start of a new Parliament, one of the more worrying trends must be the finding that there has been a significant decline in the perceived impact of Parliament on people’s everyday lives. Of eight institutions – the media, local councils, business, the civil service, the European Union, the Westminster Parliament, the Prime Minister, and the Cabinet – Parliament ranks sixth in terms of having the greatest impact. Only 19% say it is one of the top three institutions that have the most impact on their lives, marking a significant decline from the 30% who said the same in the first Audit in 2004.19 This suggests that while the events of the last few years, particularly the expenses scandal, have had a modest impact on the proportion of the public dissatisfied with Parliament as an institution, there may have been a bigger change in the relevance Parliament is seen to have on people’s lives, at least in relation to other institutions. The 11% decline in Parliament’s perceived influence over recent years is matched by an 11% rise in the perceived influence of the media.20 Worryingly, only 27% of the public believe that Parliament ‘is welcoming’ to them.21 In several discussion groups conducted in November 2009 in London and the East Midlands to help inform the Audit research, it became clear that many members of the public think primarily about Parliament in terms of what politicians are there to do – for example, to debate issues and vote. Their perceptions of Parliament are directly shaped by their response to the behaviour of MPs and for many the ‘yah boo’ adversarial culture of partisan debate and the unrepresentative nature of the House of Commons is deeply unappealing. For the majority of the discussion group participants, their view about whether Parliament is welcoming was directly related to their perception that politicians fail to listen to the public and that Parliament as a building is closed off from ordinary people. But the Audit suggests that there may be a clear link between familiarity and favourability: those who claimed to know at least ‘a fair amount’ about Westminster were significantly more likely to view the institution positively than those who had very limited knowledge, if any, of it.22 This suggests that if more members of the public knew more about Parliament then the institution might be better regarded. The Audit results indicate that there remains much to be done to improve levels of public knowledge about Parliament but that improving familiarity as a route to enhanced favourability may be the best strategic approach to restore the reputation and influence of Parliament in the long term. As such continued improvement in the public engagement field is essential in the long-term if the reputation of Parliament with the public is to be repaired and fostered in the future. We hope that this report will make a contribution to the future development of Parliament’s public engagement agenda and assist it in developing innovative, effective ideas and initiatives for the future. 19 Hansard Society (2010), Audit of Political Engagement 7 (London: Hansard Society), p.96. 20 Hansard Society (2010), Audit of Political Engagement 7 (London: Hansard Society), pp.96-97. 21 Hansard Society (2010), Audit of Political Engagement 7 (London: Hansard Society), pp.95-96. 22 Hansard Society (2010), Audit of Political Engagement 7 (London: Hansard Society), pp.40-42. Lessons From Abroad | 7 STRUCTURE AND METHODOLOGY For this study we deployed a mixed methods approach, combining an in-depth review of parliamentary documentation, a comprehensive literature review, analysis of parliamentary websites, survey submissions, and semi-structured interviews with parliamentary officials. For the purposes of this research we have defined public engagement in its broadest sense. It is the range of activities whose primary function is to raise awareness of the parliament amongst the public and to facilitate a two-way flow of information, ideas and views, between them, requiring both listening and interaction on the part of both the institution and the citizen. Mindful of Parliament’s strategic objectives and goals with regard to public engagement, the areas we explored focused primarily on: • Information provision: education and training materials; website presence; • Parliament as public space: visitor facilities; access tours; exhibitions; • Education: activities and initiatives on- and off-site for teachers, students and the wider community; • Outreach: civil society links, community partnerships and social inclusion initiatives to engage with hard-to-reach groups; • Procedure: innovations to parliamentary procedure to facilitate greater engagement with the public; • Facilitation: support platforms for parliamentarians and/or officials to engage with the public, particularly through e-forums or other on-line, digital democracy mechanisms; • Media: initiatives with print media, broadcasting and new media platforms – both promotional and partnership work; • Organisational structure: leadership and institutional models for delivery of public engagement strategies, and resourcing of engagement work. Inevitably some case studies we highlight in this report have elements of cross-over work, encompassing more than one of the above areas. We chose not to investigate the issue of petitions and e-petitions as the Wright Committee recommended that a petitions system be trialled in the House of Commons for a period through the auspices of an augmented Procedures Committee, and the House has already undertaken a number of studies of petition systems.