Suchergebnisse

In November 2006 the House of Commons approved a series of changes recommended by its Select Committee on Modernisation that altered the procedures by which parliament scrutinises government bills. The committee stage of the legislative process in the House of Commons, the stage where bills are examined in detail, was overhauled in the interests of achieving enhanced scrutiny and a more informed and accessible legislative process. Standing committees, as were, were re-named 'public bill committees' and endowed with the power to call witnesses and receive written submissions from interested and expert bodies external to parliament, in the course of their scrutiny of a bill. To a limited extent, these committees have become more like select committees. The introduction of public bill committees was an important innovation in the way the House of Commons scrutinises legislation. But it has not been subject to any evaluation. We encouraged Jessica Levy to pursue her Masters dissertation at UCL on this topic. It was a good dissertation, so she was later invited to develop it - following further research - into a report for the Constitution Unit. This is the result. The report draws on a series of almost 30 interviews with many of the key players in public bill committees to date – government and opposition spokespersons, backbenchers, clerks and witnesses – and an examination of documents relating to all such committees in the 2006-07 and 2007-08 sessions. It is the first comprehensive study to review the work of the new committees. Public bill committees have been described as 'a step and a half in the right direction.' In this report Jessica sets out many of their benefits, and also recommends a series of further improvements. If her recommendations are accepted, these important new committees will be moving more strongly in the right direction and making a real contribution to the scrutiny of legislation.

In this paper the increasing intensity of intermunicipal and interstate economic competition in the USA is noted. It is argued that the federal structure of the USA, the present political climate, and the mobility of capital combine to produce a situation of positive feedback leading to everincreasing subsidies. The situation constitutes a classic prisoner's dilemma. Decreased competition would be in the interests of all units of government. However, there is no way that a state or local government can opt out of the competition unilaterally and no mechanism by which collective action can be taken to reduce the intensity of competition. Also considered in this paper are the aggregate effects of local economic development programs in terms of taxes and public expenditures, efficiency, and equity, and several less commonly discussed considerations.

THE RECENT CHANGES IN THE ELECTORAL LAW IN FRANCE HAVE REVIVED OLD DEBATES ABOUT THE MERITS OF DIFFERENT ELECTORAL SYSTEMS. THIS ARTICLE EXAMINES THE WAYS IN WHICH TERRITORY AND SPACE HAVE FIGURED IN THESE DEBATES. THEY ARE FOUND TO BE CENTRAL, NOT JUST TO THE TECHNICAL ISSUES, BUT TO THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS OF REPRESENTATION, POWER AND LEGITIMACY. TERRITORY IS THE MOST UNIVERSAL OF ORGANIZING PRINCIPLES FOR ELECTIONS AND WAYS OF IMPROVING ITS USE ARE PROPOSED. THE ARTICLE DEMONSTRATES THAT SPACE IS BOTH AN INSTUMENT AND AN OBJECT.