Categories
Urgent Questions

Dr Sean Haughey

SEAN HAUGHEY

Sean Haughey is a Senior Lecturer in Politics and Irish Studies at the University of Liverpool. He is the author of The Northern Ireland Assembly: Reputations and Realities (2023, Routledge). He is the outgoing Co-Convenor of PSA Parliaments.

Please tell us a little bit about how you entered academia and your academic career

After working as an ESL Teacher in South Korea for a few years, I somehow managed to land a gig at a university in Busan, teaching politics and public speaking. The only requirement for the job was an MA in Politics and some teaching experience, so I was in. I enjoyed the teaching but I enjoyed the perks even more – two months off in winter and three months off in summer, on full pay, with no research obligations, no administration duties or leadership roles, nothing. And, on account of my basic Korean language skills, I was also spared a lot of university bureaucracy. What’s not to love? So, I thought ‘what do I need to do to land a gig like this back home?’. That led me to apply for ESRC funding to do a PhD at the University of Liverpool (where I studied as an undergrad) under the supervision of Professor Jon Tonge (who taught me there). I secured the funding, started the PhD in 2015, and quickly learned that real-life academia is a far cry from my halcyon days in Busan. But by this stage I was in my mid-late 20s and needed to make a go of something. And, to be fair, I did enjoy doing research (then on legislative behaviour in the Northern Ireland Assembly, where I’d worked as an intern as part of my MA in Legislative Studies and Practice from QUB). 

I’ve been at Liverpool ever since. Post-PhD, I was employed on a god-awful temporary contract for six months before securing a permanent Lectureship at the Institute of Irish Studies in 2019. I was promoted to Senior Lecturer earlier this year. It’s not a bad gig, even if the perks are fewer than I anticipated circa 2014.

Which five books/articles (written by someone else) have been most important to you in your academic career?

Hanna Pitkin’s The Concept of Representation (1967) – the first academic text I read, cover to cover, of my own volition. Imagine being able to write like that.

Consociational Theory: McGarry and O’Leary and the Northern Ireland conflict (edited by R. Taylor, 2009) – still the best text on consociational power-sharing in Northern Ireland, bringing together advocates, critics, and agnostics.

Rick Wilford’s 2010 article in Parliamentary Affairs, ‘Northern Ireland: The Politics of Constraint’. Sparked my interest in the NI Assembly. 

Rick Wilford’s 2015 article in Parliamentary Affairs, ‘Two Cheers for Consociational Democracy? Reforming the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive’. Sparked my interest in institutional reform.

Representing the People: A Survey Among Members of Statewide and Substate Parliaments edited by Kris Deschouwer and Sam Depauw (2014). Methodologically useful for my PhD and genuinely an interesting read.

Which people have been most influential and important to you in your academic career?

The late, great Professor Rick Wilford of QUB. He had an incredibly sharp intellect and a brilliant, dry wit. His enthusiasm for legislative studies got me interested in parliaments and played a large part in my choice of PhD proposal. When I graduated from Queen’s, Rick advised me to think about applying for a PhD but I was Korea-bound and didn’t take the idea seriously. But his vote of confidence meant a lot to me and clearly, at some level, the notion stuck in the back of my mind.

Professor Jon Tonge, who taught me during my undergrad at Liverpool, supervised my PhD, and is an antidote to a lot of the cynicism in contemporary academia (and I say that as one getting increasingly cynical). Lots of sage Tonge advice over the years, including: to remember that whilst research is important, we wouldn’t be here without the students; don’t write an email in anger/haste; and don’t Tweet drunk.

Which of your own pieces of research are you most proud of?

I’m not sure I would say proud per se but I was delighted to finish and part ways with my monograph, The Northern Ireland Assembly: Reputations and Realities. The Assembly is up and down like a fiddler’s elbow, so it can be quite a stressful subject to write about.

What has been your greatest achievement in academia?

I think ‘making it’ in academia – i.e. securing a permanent post – is a pretty big deal in itself because the job market is so competitive. It was also pretty cool to appear before a House of Commons Select Committee – that was a real ‘am I actually here?’ moment.

What has been your greatest disappointment in academia?

The rapid pace of neoliberalisation across the sector. It’s increasingly about the money, the managers, the metrics, and ‘the business’. I live in hope that the pendulum will swing back in the other direction eventually but that could be wishful thinking.

What is the first or most important thing you tell your students about parliaments?

Re the NI Assembly, that its poor reputation is not fully deserved. Re parliaments in general, that they are much more interesting than governments (and, of course, that they are not the same thing as governments).

Where were you born, where did you grow up, and where do you live now?

I was born in Belfast and lived there until I left for university at Liverpool. I had a brief stint back in Belfast for my MA, then five years in South Korea, before returning to Liverpool, where I currently reside.

What was your first job?

A kitchen porter/pot scrubber in a restaurant.

What was the toughest job you ever had?

A three-way toss-up. Either a supervisor at a summer camp in California (a lot of fun but pretty much on the clock 24/7; sleepless nights with homesick, ill, bed-wetting kids etc.), a labourer on a construction site (in the rain, there is not a more miserable job), or a precariously employed academic (thankfully I only had a short stint of this but I was grossly overworked and seriously underpaid).

What would your ideal job be, if not an academic?

If I won the lottery, I’d buy a farm and learn how to herd sheep with border collies.

What are your hobbies?

Not to perpetuate Irish stereotypes, but one of my favourite things to do is to sit in a good pub with friends talking about everything and nothing. To keep off the beer belly (ish), I run three to four times a week, which is a great stress-buster. I’m fascinated by the American Supreme Court and listen to oral arguments (or audiobooks about the court) quite a lot. Love Korean food but have yet to master the art of cooking it.

What are your favourite books?

Dahl’s Danny, the Champion of the World – first book I borrowed from a library, and probably the first novel I read without being asked to by a teacher. Became a regular library-goer after that, so I probably owe a lot to that book.

Recent favourites include Do Not Say We Have Nothing by Madeleine Thien and Young Mungo by Douglas Stuart.

What is your favourite piece of music?

My university anthem was/is ‘Not Nineteen Forever’ by The Courteeners. Brings me right back to Friday nights at Le Bateau on Duke Street.

What is your favourite artwork?

This.

What is your favourite film?

My all-time favourite is The Goonies. Such a classic and still makes me laugh, especially when Chunk gets locked in the freezer with the stiff.

What is your favourite building?

I don’t think I have one. I enjoyed visiting the temples in Kyoto, Japan – but they clearly didn’t impress me that much otherwise I’d remember their names.

What is your favourite TV show?

Schitt’s Creek is a masterpiece and remains my go-to for background comedy when I’m cooking or tidying up. Moira Rose is a hero. I find Alan Carr hilarious, so I’ll watch anything with him in it.

What is your favourite holiday destination?

Kilkenny, Ireland (a long street of picturesque Irish pubs); Seoul, South Korea (fun nightlife and amazing cuisine); Boracay, The Philippines (outstandingly beautiful and the most relaxing place I’ve ever visited)

What is your favourite sport?

Does pub golf count?

What is your favourite restaurant?

My new favourite restaurant is The White Eagle in Anglesey. Exquisite sea food and stunning views of the Welsh countryside.

Hybrid proceedings in Parliament: yes please or no thanks?

Yes please.

Appointed or elected upper chamber?

Perhaps a mix of both, with election gradually replacing appointment.

Restoration or Renewal?

Both.

Cat or Dog?

Dogs. All the dogs.

Trains, planes or automobiles?

Trains when they’re on time, planes when the destination is sunny.

Fish and chips or Curry?

Fish, chips & curry sauce on the side, surely?!

Scones: Cornish or Devonshire method?

As an Irishman, this means nothing to me. Having googled it, surely it is easier to put jam on cream rather than vice-versa?

And, finally, a question asked by 6-year old Viveka: What is your favourite school memory?

Any time a dog got into the playground. Joy. Mayhem.

Categories
News

April 2024 Newsletter

Hello, everyone! We hope you all enjoyed the Annual PSA Conference in Glasgow! Here are some highlights for April 2024!

  1. PSA Parliaments at #PSA24 Highlights
  2. Upcoming Parliamentary Studies Conferences and Workshops
  3. Opportunities to Get Involved
  4. Funding Opportunities
  5. Recent Publications
  6. Recently on the Blog
  7. Overview of Parliaments Map

If you have any notices/messages you would like us to circulate to our group, please let us know.

Best wishes,

Seán, Caroline, Diana, Ruxandra, and Jack.

1. PSA Parliaments at #PSA24 Highlights

We were happy to see so many of you attending our panels at the 74th Annual Conference of the Political Studies Association, which took place at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow from 25-27 March 2024. A big thumbs up for the local organisers and big thank you for those attending our panels and AGM. Here are some of the highlights from the conference.

Knowledge and specialisation in parliaments

We had one panel on the first day of the conference. This was focused on knowledge and specialisation in parliaments. The first paper, by Stephen Bates (Birmingham), Caroline Bhattacharya (Helsinki), and Stephen McKay (Lincoln) looked at patterns of MPs taking specialist or generalist career pathways in the UK House of Commons between 2001-2019. The second presentation outlined results from research done by Marc Geddes (Edinburgh) and Jack Liddall (Cambridge) on how Select Committees in the UK House of Commons gather evidence, and from whom. The third paper, by Vicky Ward (St Andrews) and Mark Monaghan (Loughborough niversity), unpacked how parliamentary officials understand and practice ‘impartiality’ in parliamentary research services. Concluding the panel, Cherry Miller (Helsinki) explored how parliamentary diplomacy is interpreted and practiced by the UK and EU member states.

Speech and Presence in Parliaments

We kicked off day two of the conference with a panel on speech and presence in parliaments. Kiwi Ting (Reading) began by presenting his latest research on House of Commons debates during the Covid-19 pandemic, comparing whether virtual speeches are more or less ‘influential’ than speeches made in person. This led to some excellent questions about what actually constitutes ‘influence’ in a speech, and the different ways in which parliamentary scholars could measure this. Next up we had Coree Brown Swan (Stirling) who used maiden speeches to analyse how Scottish National Party MPs rhetorically construct and define their (outsider) role in the House of Commons. For linguists this was an especially fascinating paper, but unfortunately Corree could not be persuaded into donning her best Scottish accent when discussing an array of Scottish colloquialisms! Paul Lam (National Tsinghua University) presented a very timely paper, which used social network analysis to explore the role of clientelism and brokerage in Hong Kong’s ‘reformed’ electoral system. Paul’s paper received lots of questions, particularly about the potential for comparison between Hong Kong and other regimes experiencing democratic backsliding. The panel ended with a paper from Sebastian Ludwicki-Ziegler (Sterling), who compared the role of Parliamentary Assistants (PAs) in the Scottish and Finnish parliaments, and left us in no doubt that PAs do a lot for their MPs – in person and via WhatsApp(!) – and, by extension, make a crucial contribution to wider parliamentary systems.

Exploring Participation and Public Engagement

Our third panel focused on participation and public engagement in parliaments. We had two great methodological contributions, one from Prof. Cristina Leston-Bandeira and Dr. Blagovesta Tacheva (Leeds) providing extremely useful insights on how to engage seldom-heard groups in political research, and  the other one from Dr. Alex Prior and Dr. Samuel Johnson-Schlee (London Southbank)  and Dr. Ryan Swift (IPPR) exploring go-along research in the UK Parliament.  The other two papers explored parliamentary public engagement in Latin America, by Dr. Khemvirg Puente from the National Autonomous University of Mexico), and the added value of citizen engagement in the EU, by Mr. Paul Kindermann from the London School of Economics.

Accountability and Scrutiny

Our final panel of the conference included research on accountability and scrutiny. Kento Ohara (Oxford) presented the theoretical framework of his PhD research, looking at how parliamentary reform referring to executive accountability could be measured. Next, Nathaniel Sablan and Matthew Flinders (Sheffield) outlined the main themes of a new research project investigating the work of Select Committees in the UK House of Lords. The final paper, by Steven Barnett (Westminster) and Judith Townsend (Sussex), explored patterns of legacy publisher influence on UK media policy.

AGM

We also held our AGM on the second day and we were delighted with the excellent turnout and the useful discussions and feedback. We said farewell to Seán, who stepped back from his co-convenor role, and we welcomed Ruxandra as co-covenor, who stepped up from her Treasurer and Membership Officer role. We wished Seán all the best in his new research endeavors and called out for any interest in the treasurer and membership officer role.

There is a lot we took away from our discussions and feedback. As a team we will consider and further deliberate on some of the issues raised (future of our Annual Conference, social events at the PSA Conference etc) and we will let everyone know what decisions we come at.

2. Upcoming Parliamentary Studies Conferences and Workshops

Women in Legislative Studies Conference

The 2024 Women in Legislative Studies Annual Conference will be held 20-21 September 2024 at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in Madison, WI. All women and non-binary scholars studying legislative politics or legislative-adjacent topics are welcome.

The application deadline is 30 April. You can apply to attend, present, chair and/or act as a discussant here.

Westminster Foundation for Democracy: Post-legislative scrutiny (PLS) clinic on public consultation and participation

On the 19th of April (9:00 – 10:15am UK time) the Westminster Foundation for Democracy is organising an online event on the topic of public consultation and participation in the context of post-legislative scrutiny in parliaments.  

You can find all info on the content, speakers and the registration link here.

3. Opportunities to Get Involved

Call for written submissions for the Welsh Parliament / Senedd Reform Bill Committee

The Reform Bill Committee would like to hear diverse views on the Senedd Cymru (Electoral Candidate Lists) Bill. If passed, the Bill will introduce an integrated statutory gender quota to the Closed List Proportional Representation electoral system expected to be introduced by the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill.

Further information, including the terms of reference for our work and how you can share your views, can be found on the consultation webpage. The closing date for written evidence is Friday 12 April 2024.

Scottish Parliament Fellowship Scheme

This Academic Fellowship Scheme, which is managed and hosted by the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe), enables academics to work on projects with the Parliament in support of this purpose. They are  are now inviting bids via this application form for the following topics: 

There is also an Open Call whereby requests for fellowship proposals are considered from academics on any topic relevant to parliamentary business, in particular original, analytical or primary research. Applicants for the open call  should email a one-page document outlining their proposed project, and also send a cv to academia@parliament.scot

Deadlines:

  • Topic Areas (see above): Friday 3 May 2024 at 5.00pm.
  • Open Call: Friday 26 April 2024 at 5.00pm.

For further information including eligibility requirements, application process and answers to some frequently asked questions see:

Guide to the Scottish Parliament Academic Fellowship Scheme

4. Funding Opportunities

UKICE small grant fund: Apply now

UK in a Changing Europe (UKICE) is offering support for small-scale projects (max. 6 months) that explore the topics of political behaviour and public opinion in the context of party politics (e.g. voter responses to campaigns, Brexit and electoral choice, immigration and vote choice, polling methods and accuracy). ESRC will fund 80% of the full economic cost, which should not exceed £30,000. The deadline for application is 30 April. You can find out the eligibility criteria and details of the call here.

5. Recent Publications

If you would like your published research to be featured in this section, please email Caroline with details.

6. Recently on the Blog

If you have an idea for a blog on some aspect of parliamentary study, please get in touch with our new communications officer, Jack. We will be posting more blogs from those who presented at our Annual Conference last November, so watch this space!

7. Overview of Parliaments Map

We have one new contribution to our Overview of Parliaments Map:

  • Ecuador by Pablo Valdivieso Carrillo – PhD candidate at University of Oxford has written on the Ecuadorian Parliament

For anybody who wishes to cover any of the countries not yet covered in our map, contact our communications officer Jack.

Categories
Blog

Refinement Is All You Need: Shaping the Future of Parliaments with AI

By Alberto Mencarelli.

In the landmark paper “Attention Is All You Need” (Vaswani et al., 2017), the concept of transformers fundamentally changed the landscape of AI, particularly in how machines understand and generate human language through mechanisms like Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPT) and Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG). These breakthroughs not only represent significant technological strides but also strikingly parallel the intricate processes in parliaments. Just as transformers learn and adapt by absorbing and synthesizing vast amounts of information, so do parliamentary systems refine legislative measures by assimilating diverse data and viewpoints, underscoring a shared theme of progressive enhancement and complex data integration in both realms.

The essence of this analogy lies in the conceptual similarity between the AI ‘attention’ mechanism and the parliamentary ‘refinement’ process, where both prioritize and contextualize information to produce nuanced outcomes. The refinement process in parliaments evolves through stages: from committee to plenary, and across chambers in bicameral systems – each procedural step meticulously crafted to enhance output. In parliamentary terms, refinement involves a multifaceted iterative process that ensures broad deliberative bases, adversarial but inclusive consideration of diverse views, and the  scrutiny of legislative provisions based on data-driven assessments. The similarity between AI systems and parliamentary processes shows that both share a fundamental approach:  just as AI uses attention and retrieval mechanisms to process information, parliaments use iterative, knowledge-based methods to develop legislation. Thus, the dynamics of generative AI not only mirror, but also offer new perspectives on traditional methodologies of parliamentary activity, suggesting a unique intersection between technology and governance.

In the digital age, turning data into meaningful action is the cornerstone of progress. Generative AI, with its sophisticated attention mechanism, offers a new lens through which to examine the complexities of parliamentary discussions, identifying connections, trends, and implications that may elude human analysis. This does not mean replacing the human process, but rather enriching it, providing political actors with advanced tools to address contemporary challenges with a deeper understanding.

Linguistic Foundations: Bridging Parliaments and Large Language Models

At the core of both parliamentary procedure and Large Language Models (LLMs) lies a deep appreciation for the nuance and power of language, serving as the foundation for creating, disseminating, and negotiating knowledge.

The parallels between the linguistic dynamics of parliaments and those of LLMs are striking and suggest a natural synergy. Both domains achieve their goals through the meticulous refinement of language, optimizing their outputs to meet pre-defined objectives. This common linguistic underpinning presents a compelling case for the integration of LLMs into parliamentary processes. Such a union promises to enhance the clarity, precision, and accessibility of communication – a cornerstone upon which effective governance is built.

Leveraging AI can streamline legislative workflows and inspire explorations at the intersection of technology and parliamentary practices. By integrating technology and linguistics, we unlock innovative opportunities that could dramatically transform how parliaments and legislatures operate.

Ensuring Diversity, Inclusivity and Depth in AI-Augmented Parliamentary Processes

In recent years, pioneering experiments in some parliamentary settings have laid the groundwork for a more integrated approach to the use of AI tools (see this Popvox Foundation report for an updated overview of current international experiences). Real-time captioning of parliamentary proceedings, automated classification and transcription of policy documents, and the early stages of conversational document search are at the forefront of this integration. The leading parliaments include the U.S. Congress, whose House Subcommittee on Modernization issues regular flash reports on AI strategy and implementation (most recently in December 2023), the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies, which has developed the Ulysses artificial intelligence suite, and the Estonian Parliament. But other parliaments have launched or plan to launch pilots in the coming months, as in the case of the Italian Chamber of Deputies, which recently adopted a report.

Parliaments are on the cusp of a transformative journey, blending deep-rooted traditions with cutting-edge AI technology. While still early days, a promising path is unfolding. As AI rapidly evolves, it’s crucial for parliaments worldwide to share best practices and develop common approaches. This collaboration is key to tackling the challenges of this significant shift.

AI’s advanced language models can revolutionize how laws are made. These models are not only adept at producing well-crafted text but also at ensuring laws reflect a broader range of societal objectives and values. Such tools could make legislation more inclusive, weaving minority perspectives into the legislative narrative. By enhancing the drafting phase, AI could lead to laws that represent a more diverse range of opinions, softening the impact of decisions made by slim majorities.

The implications of generative AI in parliamentary contexts are profound, offering numerous possibilities for its application, such as:

  • Predictive Analysis: AI can forecast voting outcomes based on historical data, aiding in strategic negotiation planning.
  • Deliberative Refinement: Through quantitative analysis of debate intensities and MP motivations, AI can foster a more inclusive deliberative process. Projects like Inclusive.AI and the latest research highlights AI’s role in enriching democratic deliberation by capturing a broad range of opinions and value preferences. In an effective parliamentary AI system, the technology should not just simplify the aggregation of viewpoints but also ensure that the depth and variation of these viewpoints are preserved.
  • Moderation and Persuasion: AI moderation tools can enhance the quality and inclusiveness of debates, especially in committees or remote settings. According to empirical evidence, LLMs have the potential to enhance conversational persuasiveness and provide real-time, evidence-based recommendations that can improve participants’ perception of feeling understood in conversations. This, in turn, has the potential to improve the quality of conversations and reduce political divisiveness, without altering the content of the conversation (Argyle et al., 2023).
  • Data Analysis and Policy Simulation: Generative AI has the capability to analyze vast amounts of data from diverse sources and formats to identify pertinent variables, causal relationships, trends, and anomalies. This capability can be utilized to simulate alternative policy scenarios and predict the potential effects of public policies, while considering various factors and uncertainties.
  • Participatory Democracy: AI can gauge public opinion on legislative proposals, capturing not just the majority view but the intensity of support or opposition.
  • Hybrid Proceedings Facilitation: With the shift towards hybrid parliamentary models, AI offers tools for virtual participation, document sharing, real-time translation, and even emotional tone recognition, enhancing session efficiency and accessibility of hybrid sittings by addressing the challenges of virtual engagement.

Integrating AI into parliamentary processes could mark a major shift towards more efficient and inclusive governance.. By leveraging AI’s capabilities, parliaments can navigate the complexities of modern governance, ensuring that legislative processes are both reflective of and responsive to a broader range of societal needs and perspectives.


AI in Parliaments: Opportunities, Risks, and the Democratic Balance

As we contemplate the integration of AI into parliamentary processes, it becomes apparent that this endeavor is both promising and fraught with complexities. The ethical and the procedural implications of these tools for parliaments can shape entirely new functions and attributes. The potential of AI to enhance efficiency and decision-making is counterbalanced by significant ethical and operational challenges. Concerns regarding privacy, data protection, and the transparency of AI-driven decisions highlight the need for rigorous scrutiny. Furthermore, the importance of maintaining accountability in the face of AI’s potential errors or biases cannot be overstated. The task of customizing AI to complement political processes, while ensuring that its decisions remain accessible and understandable to the general public, underscores the critical balance between innovation and the foundational values of democracy. A notable challenge is the risk of AI being manipulated or misused, particularly in an age characterized by advanced cyber threats. In this regard, it seems crucial that parliaments strive to ensure that the introduction of AI tools in their processes is accompanied by maintaining full control over the AI technologies deployed in order to establish sufficient levels of technological sovereignty.

Parliaments are thus confronted with a pivotal challenge: to adopt AI through the development of stringent policies, the conduct of ethical testing, and the provision of comprehensive training. The stakes are significant, as failure to effectively integrate AI could result in falling behind in the ongoing technological revolution, potentially compromising the resilience and adaptability of parliamentary ecosystems.

Embracing AI in parliaments thoughtfully yet boldly requires striking a balance between innovation and democratic integrity, safeguarding the core values of these vital institutions.

About the author

Dr Alberto Mencarelli is a parliamentary official in the Italian Chamber of Deputies. He gained his PhD in constitutional law from Sapienza University of Rome.


Categories
Blog

Evidence on Stage? Comparing committee hearings in the UK House of Commons and German Bundestag

By Marc Geddes.

Parliamentary and legislative committees perform a range of roles, such as the scrutiny of legislation or accountability of government. Increasingly, committees are holding public hearings, which can be really important for MPs to gather relevant knowledge and evidence to support their work and fulfil committee tasks. In recent research, I spent time in the UK House of Commons and German Bundestag and interviewed MPs and staff to get a better understanding of whether committee hearings are important information-gathering tools. Given that these are often official and formal routes for parliaments to listen to stakeholders, these are prestigious and important and can be seen as ‘evidence on stage’.

In the House of Commons, the parliament has two committee systems. For scrutinising legislation, temporary bill committees are made up of 30 or so members, appointed by parliamentary parties, to go through proposed laws via public meetings with an optional evidence-gathering stage. For scrutinising policy and holding government to account, permanent select committees exist to shadow government departments. Made up of small groups of MPs – usually around 11 members – and elected by the party colleagues, they are often independent-minded spaces. Select committees conduct policy scrutiny through inquiries that include open calls for written evidence and public hearings with a variety of witnesses (e.g. scientists, business or trade union leaders, interest groups, etc.). Committee members deliberate in private to identify key conclusions and recommendations, to which government must respond (but is not forced to accept). Analysis has shown that around 40 percent of recommendations are accepted.

In the German parliament, permanent committees mirror government departments (plus some cross-cutting ones, such as a Petitions Committee). Committees are tasked with both examining legislation and with scrutinising policy. Committee size varies depending on the topic, but they are in general much larger than UK committees. For example, the Committee on Work and Social Affairs has 49 members. Members are appointed by parliamentary parties and take on the role of rapporteur, i.e. they are allocated specific portfolios within the committee’s wider remit. For example, in the Committee on Work and Social Affairs, one MP from each party will have responsibility for migration issues, another for pensions, etc. In general, Bundestag committee meetings are private but, especially since the 1980s, they have increasingly made use of public hearings. These can be used to invite experts to give evidence as part of scrutiny of legislative or policy proposals.

At first glance, both parliaments seem reasonably similar. But this masks considerable differences. In the UK, committees are supported by a secretariat of procedural and policy specialists, who write briefing papers for all members, suggest witnesses and analyse written evidence. Witnesses are usually identified on the basis of suggestions from members and especially the committee’s chair, in consultation with the advice from parliamentary officials (including the secretariat but also the House of Commons Library and the Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology). Bundestag committees, meanwhile, are also served by a secretariat, but their role is to offer procedural advice only. Witnesses are instead nominated by parliamentary parties, often via group leaders and rapporteurs, who’s own staff will undertake research and identify experts. The number of witnesses depends on the size of the parliamentary party. Witness lists are published, inclusive of the party that nominated them, so it is fully transparent who invited whom.

The two approaches by the House of Commons and the Bundestag push evidence-gathering in different directions. In the former case, hearings are usually organised in a non-partisan way, especially for select committees. In the latter, given the inbuilt party political considerations, the process sharpens political divisions. These differences are reinforced through other practices. Briefing packs in the House of Commons are produced by the parliamentary administration and shared with all members; these often serve as agendas and give suggestions for issues to probe. Witnesses are often given oral briefing by the inquiry manager so that the witness can adequately prepare. In the Bundestag, briefings are handled by the rapporteur within each parliamentary party, often in close collaboration with the party leadership teams. Witnesses are usually briefed by the relevant party, too, in terms of the kinds of points and questions the party wants to get across.

These dynamics mean that committee hearings in both parliaments operate differently. Questioning in the House of Commons can be very political, but it is rarely directly partisan. Indeed, many hearings – especially with experts – tend to be thematic and open-ended, which may be directed a the panel in general or at specific witnesses, and without time limits (though the chair may play an active role in directing questioning). Committee hearings in this context can allow for robust questioning of political and policy positions, and allow MPs to gather information and expert opinion on a range of issues. In the Bundestag, meanwhile, questioning dynamics are very different. MPs usually focus their questions only on witnesses that they have invited, and usually have a set amount of time to both pose a question and receive an answer (in committees I’ve observed, this was often three to five minutes). Consequently, hearings do not develop thematically or where responses can build on one another; there is no dialogue. The end result is that hearings are often used by MPs to confirm existing knowledge, legitimise pre-existing political positions, or criticise the government.

Given the often assumed centrality of committees, and the growing prevalence of hearings, understanding how these function and work on a daily basis is critically important. What does this mean for committee hearings as evidence on stage? In both settings, it is clear that expertise is used, but used differently. Borrowing from the work of Christina Boswell, it seems that committee hearings in the UK case are used more ‘instrumentally’, i.e., for their problem-solving functions, while in the German case to ‘substantiate’ and ‘legitimise’ policy positions.

What I have found so far is notably different to what we might expect. Given the UK’s wider adversarial political culture, replicated in many dynamics in the House of Commons (not least prime minister’s questions), and Germany’s consensus-seeking political system characterised by coalition governments and bargaining, we would have perhaps expected committee work to echo such cultural differences. And yet, they operate in opposing ways. We can explain this at least in part due to their parliamentary structures, whereby the German Bundestag is organised with reference to its parliamentary party groups and the UK House of Commons gives primacy to the individually elected representative.

However, there are deeper underlying issues at play. First, with respect to the parliamentary administration, for example, MPs in the UK are a lot more positive about the service provided by officials who are seen as trusted and impartial. In my interviews, German MPs were a lot more sceptical of the idea of neutrality, with many questioning whether anybody can ever be neutral. Second, MPs view their roles in the institutions differently. In the House of Commons, MPs are either part of the frontbench or backbench; and if the latter, they see themselves as independent-minded and with the freedom to focus on anything they want. In the Bundestag, MPs are allocated policy portfolios on behalf of their parliamentary parties, and so see themselves as becoming specialists and advocate for their party in respective debates and committees. This suggests a more general point of difference between the two parliaments, which have developed within different parliamentary traditions and therefore have developed different structures and organisational methods to achieve those results.

About the author

Dr Marc Geddes is Senior Lecturer in Politics at the School of Social and Political Science, University of Edinburgh, and Visiting Fellow, Institute for Parliamentary Research (IParl). His past area of research expertise focuses on parliamentary committees in the UK House of Commons. Since 2024, he has begun a new research project to compare how parliaments across Europe gather, analyse and make use of different types of knowledge to fulfil their democratic functions.