Search

In 2013, changes to the regulations regarding school absences meant that head teachers could no longer authorise term-time holidays. As a consequence of this parents who wish to take their children on holiday during term-time are now liable for a fixed penalty notice. This policy has been the subject of a number of legal challenges, most notably in a case heard by the UK Supreme Court in 2017 which upheld local authorities' power to impose fines for term-time holidays. This article examines the legal and political arguments around the extension of penalty notices for term-time holidays. It reviews the various challenges to the policy, focusing on the Supreme Court judgment. The article goes on to make an alternative case for review of this policy based on the manner in which the regulations were changed, arguing that the Secretary of State for Education exceeded his powers by changing attendance regulations without parliamentary approval and in a way that parliament had not intended when legislation governing the use of penalty notices was passed in 2003.

To authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-923X.2009.02064.x Byline: HUGH BOCHEL (1), ANDREW DEFTY (2) Keywords: Conservative party; social policy; David Cameron; House of Lords; House of Commons; public opinion Abstract: Social policy is of key importance to contemporary society, accounting for two thirds of public expenditure and, through provision such as the NHS, pensions, benefits, schools, universities and social care, touching on the lives of much of the population on a daily basis. It has also been one of the areas where the Conservative party have sought to change their image, and to some extent policies, under David Cameron. Drawing upon a range of evidence, including interviews with more than ten per cent of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, this article examines the potential challenges for a Conservative government of either stance, focusing on the extent of possible support for the Conservatives' approach to social policy amongst three key groups: the public, MPs, and members of the House of Lords. Author Affiliation: (1)Professor of Public Policy in the School of Social Sciences at the University of Lincoln. (2)Research Fellow in the School of Social Sciences at the University of Lincoln.

The post-war 'consensus' on welfare was based largely in the perceived agreement of leading politicians of Conservative and Labour parties on the role of the mixed economy and the welfare state. However, from the late 197os economic and demographic pressures and ideological challenges, particularly from the New Right, led to cuts in spending on welfare, increased private involvement and an emphasis on more individualistic and selectivist approaches to provision. Recently some scholars have begun to discuss the emergence of a 'new liberal consensus' around welfare provision. Drawing upon interviews with 10 percent of the House of Commons, this article examines the extent to which a new political consensus upon welfare can be identified. In addition to analysing responses to questions on welfare issues, it considers the extent to which MPs themselves believe there to be some degree of consensus in approaches to welfare. It also considers whether any consensus exists merely in the political language used in relation to welfare issues, or whether there is a more substantive convergence.

Studies of the relationship between ministers and UK intelligence agencies have tended to focus on the government's use of intelligence, while studies of intelligence oversight have focused almost exclusively on the work of parliament's Intelligence and Security Committee. This article examines the role of the executive in the oversight of the UK intelligence and security agencies. It traces the evolution of ministerial accountability for the UK intelligence and security agencies and raises questions about the capacity of ministers to provide effective scrutiny in this area, focusing on ministers' knowledge and understanding of intelligence, ministerial workload and potential conflicts of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Assessing policy success and failure is a significant challenge. This article seeks to address this by utilizing two case studies of legislation from the United Kingdom Parliament, the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 and the Academies Act 2010, so as to develop a nuanced understanding of how and in what ways policies have been successful, or otherwise. Drawing on these two case studies, and the work of a variety of authors, the article illustrates the complex nature of the challenge, but suggests that by identifying "targets", "aims" and "processes" it is possible to make reasonable judgements about the relative success of a policy. It concludes that this framework therefore has considerable potential utility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The establishment of the Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) in 1994 for the first time allowed British parliamentarians access to intelligence agency staff and records. However, as a committee of parliamentarians, but not a parliamentary committee, the ISC was a constitutional anomaly. In 2013, significant reforms reconstituted the ISC as a parliamentary committee, with enhanced powers and an expanded mandate. Drawing on interviews with ISC members and detailed examination of committee business, this article examines the impact of recent reforms. It argues that while reform has had a significant impact on the committee, in a number of respects it remains strongly constrained by government. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]