Author: psaparliaments

Categories
Blog

Democratic innovation through AI in parliaments

By Franklin De Vrieze.

As well as debating and adopting new legislation aimed at establishing a sustainable legal framework for the governance of AI, parliaments are also exploring and experimenting with the application of AI in their own operations. New AI guidelines by Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD) can inform their efforts.

According to the 2024 AI Index Report by Stanford University, the global legislative landscape has seen a significant increase in AI-related laws over recent years. From 2016 to 2023, parliaments in 127 countries passed a total of 123 bills mentioning AI in various contexts. These laws address a variety of issues, including educational reforms, non-discrimination in AI algorithms, and the establishment of AI training programs. This trend highlights the increasing recognition of the need for regulatory frameworks to manage the development and deployment of AI technologies responsibly.

The legislative measures aim to ensure that AI advancements benefit society while mitigating potential risks of AI being manipulated or misused. Therefore, parliaments need to ensure that the adoption of AI is guided by stringent policies, ethical testing, and comprehensive training, as highlighted in WFD’s recent policy brief, “A Democratic Approach to Global Artificial Intelligence (AI) Safety.”

Current applications of AI in parliament

Parliaments have started exploring and experimenting with the application of AI in their own operations. As Dr. Fitsilis from the Hellenic Parliament argues: “the rise of AI is expected to play a significant role in transforming legislatures from paper-based organisations into data-driven institutions”.

The Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) has shared insights on “Use cases for AI in parliaments”, highlighting the growing integration of AI in parliamentary functions.

  • Firstly, AI is increasingly used for transcription and translation, managing records of debates, and subtitling video content. For example, Estonia’s Parliament automates stenography, while Italy’s Senate leverages AI for translating documents. Finland’s Parliament uses AI to summarise documents and create podcast audio, and Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies uses AI to transcribe audio and video files. These tools save time, enhancing productivity and allowing staff to focus on more complex tasks.
  • Secondly, AI is introduced to assist in drafting legislation and amendments and analysing large volumes of text to identify key themes and insights. This can help in creating more comprehensive and well-informed legislative documents. For instance, the Italian Chamber of Deputies uses AI to receive, store and number amendments according to presentation time (voting order) and uses AI to compare amendments to identify similarities. Brazil’s Chamber applies AI to interpret and group amendments, while Italy’s Senate uses it to ensure compliance with drafting rules, ensuring consistency, accuracy and adherence to legal standards.
  • Thirdly, AI supports public engagement by analysing public submissions. Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies uses AI to categorise citizen comments on bills, while Italy’s Senate employs AI to facilitate natural language queries about bills, enhancing accessibility and user experience. This means AI systems are helping citizens interact with parliamentary activities, such as answering questions about legislative processes or providing information on parliamentary sessions.
  • Fourthly, AI is employed in classification systems to manage large data volumes. Italy’s Chamber of Deputies uses AI to categorise plenary session reports, while the European Parliament applies it for automatic text classification with predefined labels.
  • Finally, AI powers chatbots and user support, improving access to parliamentary processes. Italy’s Chamber of Deputies provides a chatbot for querying parliamentary proceedings, and Estonia’s Parliament uses AI to subtitle live broadcasts for the hearing impaired. AI also automates tasks like schedule management and responses to common queries, while enhancing cybersecurity.

Lessons learned

Based on the lived experience of AI in parliament, there are already a few lessons learned on the governance of AI in parliaments, in line with WFD’s new Guidelines for AI in Parliaments..

Parliaments need to adopt a cautious, step-by-step approach to integrating AI, particularly with generative AI technologies. Initial experimentation should occur in controlled environments to mitigate risks before wider implementation. Such approach is emphasised in WFD’s guidelines, highlighting the importance of pilot projects and controlled rollouts to manage potential risks effectively​.

AI systems must be developed and used in accordance with ethical principles to prevent biases and ensure fair representation. WFD’s guidelines stress the importance of developing AI systems that adhere to ethical standards, preventing misinformation and stereotyping​.

Establishing clear governance structures and transparency measures is crucial. This involves setting up auditing processes, maintaining transparency about AI usage, and ensuring that AI systems can be held accountable for their outputs. The WFD guidelines recommend comprehensive transparency measures and accountability frameworks to build trust and credibility in AI applications within parliamentary functions.

Parliaments benefit from sharing experiences and best practices regarding AI implementation. Collaborative efforts, such as those facilitated by the IPU’s Centre for Innovation in Parliament, help build a collective understanding of effective AI governance. The new Global Community of Practice on Post-Legislative Scrutiny helps facilitate dialogue on applying AI in legislative scrutiny processes, as argued by Dr Marci Harris from POPVOX Foundation.

As AI technology evolves rapidly, parliaments must remain flexible and continuously update their policies. This includes partnering with academic institutions and other stakeholders to stay ahead of technological advancements and their implications. The WFD guidelines highlight the importance of ongoing education and adaptation to ensure that both parliamentarians and parliamentary staff are equipped to handle the evolving AI landscape​.

Conclusion

By building on their existing digital infrastructure, parliaments can harness the benefits of AI while ensuring accountability and protecting democratic values. The WFD Guidelines for AI in Parliament provide a comprehensive framework for this endeavour​. Parliaments may take proactive steps to pilot these guidelines, document use cases, and share best practices globally. This will not only strengthen their role as guardians of accountability but also ensure that AI serves the public good, enhances governance, and upholds the principles of democracy.

  Europe’s first political tech summit in Berlin The summit, taking place on Saturday, 25 January, will bring together the global political tech ecosystem—spanning countries and political parties—under one roof. Westminster Foundation for Democracy will lead a panel on “Democratic innovation through AI in parliaments”. Together with the German and Hellenic Parliaments and other tech experts, the panel will explore the potential of AI in fostering innovation and resilience in parliaments worldwide, balancing technological opportunities with ethical and cultural complexities. Info and registration: https://www.politicaltech.eu/  

About the authors

Franklin De Vrieze is Head of Practice Accountability at Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD).

Categories
News

January 2025 Newsletter

Hello, everyone! We want to wish you all a very Happy New Year! 2025 looks like a busy year for parliamentary scholars already. We have lots of exciting calls for you in this first newsletter of the year.

  1. PSA General Conference, Birmingham, 14-16 April 2025
  2. PSA Academic Prizes
  3. PSA Parliaments Members Survey
  4. Calls for Papers
  5. Opportunities
  6. Upcoming Events
  7. Urgent Questions
  8. Recent Publications
  9. On the Blog
  10. 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,

Caroline, Diana, Ruxandra, Jack and Lauren

1. PSA General Conference, Birmingham, 14–16 April 2025

The outline programme for the PSA 75th Annual International Conference has been released, and we are happy to host six panels. We are looking forward to seeing many of you in Birmingham.

The early-bird registration is open until 21 February 2025. For Early Career Network members, daily rates are available. More information here.

2. PSA Academic Prizes

The PSA awards a number of prizes for dissertations, professional contributions, research and teaching. The deadline for nominations is on 24 January 2025.

More details on the nomination process can be found here.

3. PSA Parliaments Members Survey

Thank you to everyone who has already filled in our members survey. We are gathering your viewpoints to plan our priorities and activities.

We are still looking to hear from our members until 24 January 2025. It should only take a couple of minutes to fill in the form.

4. Call for Papers

Conference of the Standing Group on Parliaments, 2–4 July, Barcelona, University of Barcelona

The ECPR Standing Group on Parliaments is hosting its 9th flagship conference this summer in vibrant Barcelona, offering an invaluable experience for anyone studying or researching in the field.  The Call for Panels and Papers now open and inviting proposals on national, sub-national, or international parliaments. Submissions  focusing on under-researched regions are strongly encouraged.

Panel and paper proposals deadline: 12 February 2025. 

Registration deadline: 19 March 2025.

For more information please click here.

4th Global Conference on Parliamentary Studies, Athens, 13 June 2025

The Hellenic OCR Team and Széchenyi István University, in cooperation with International Journal of Parliamentary Studies and Brill invite thought leaders to address the challenges and opportunities of our time, where technology, media and geopolitical shifts intersect with democratic governance. The conference theme is: “Reinventing Democracy for the 21st Century”.

Submissions are welcome from scholars at all career stages (including PhD students and post-doctoral researchers), as well as practitioners with relevant academic backgrounds such as law, political science, social sciences, informatics and engineering.

Abstract submission deadline: 28 February 2025. Submit your abstract here.  

More information about the event can be found here.

5. Opportunities

Updated guidance: contributing your research to POSTnotes and briefings

The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) have simplified and updated its guidance for researchers to share their expertise and provide contributions to POST’s work, such as POSTnotes and briefings for parliamentarians.
Researchers can feed into POST research projects by following the instructions on the contributing to POST research as an expert webpage. Contributions can be emailed to post@parliament.uk within specified deadlines. 

Call for evidence: The Speaker’s Conference on the security of candidates, MPs and elections (UK Parliament)

On 14 October 2024 the House of Commons agreed a motion to establish a committee, to be known as the Speaker’s Conference, to consider: the factors influencing the threat levels against candidates and MPs, and the effectiveness of the response to such threats. 

The committee is currently accepting written evidence from anyone with answers to the questions in the call for evidence. You can submit evidence until Friday 7 February 2025.

6. Upcoming Events

ECPR General Conference 2025, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 26–29 August 2025 

The ECPR Standing Group on Parliaments endorsed Section S08 on Advancing the Study of Parliaments: Structures, Actors and Processes at a Crossroads.

This section seeks to advance our study of parliaments as critical institutions in representative democracies, and to examine how the role and importance of parliaments has evolved over time. It focuses on the structures and organisational aspects of parliaments, as well as key actors and their relationships within and outwith these institutions (such as individual parliamentarians, parliamentary party groups, administrative staff or external stakeholders), and the processes and practices inside these political arenas. 

For more information please see here.

7. Urgent Questions with Richard Whitaker

For those of you who have missed our latest Urgent Questions with Prof. Richard in the December newsletter, worry not! You can still read it here.

8. Recent Publications

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

9. On the Blog

We would love to have more contributions on our blog. If you have an idea for a blog on some aspect of parliamentary study, please get in touch with our communications officer Jack.

  • Westminster Hall: Parliament’s Best Kept Secret?, by Cristina Leston-Bandeira and Louise Thompson. This blog is based on a paper presented by the authors to the Annual Conference of the PSA Parliaments group in November 2024 at the Senedd Cymru in Cardiff.

10. Overview of Parliaments Map

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

Categories
Blog

Westminster Hall: Parliament’s Best Kept Secret?

By Cristina Leston-Bandeira and Louise Thompson.

This blog is based on a paper presented by the authors to the Annual Conference of the PSA Parliaments group in November 2024 at the Senedd Cymru in Cardiff.

Photo credit: UK Parliament / Jessica Taylor: https://ukparliament.shorthandstories.com/cet-westminster-hall-debates/index.html

On 30 November 1999 Labour MP Phyllis Starkey made history, being the first MP to introduce a debate in Westminster Hall, the new parallel debating chamber for the House of Commons.  Agreed to by MPs initially as a temporary ‘experiment’ for just one parliamentary session through which to debate topics put forward by backbench MPs and by select committees, Westminster Hall has recently celebrated its 25th anniversary. It rarely attracts much attention, though recent reforms such as the introduction of debates on e-petitions, have put it more firmly into the media spotlight. 

Despite its 25 year history, we still know little about this parallel chamber – no comprehensive research has been undertaken and internal parliamentary reviews have been very limited. Has it added value to parliamentary business, as hoped when first introduced by the first Modernisation Committee in 1999? Drawing from pilot research we have undertaken over the past few months (including analysis of parliamentary debates and interviews), we take a  closer look at the business taking place in Westminster Hall debates to identify four main ways in which these can add value to the House of Commons.

1. It discusses very specific types of topics

    Although debates taking place in Westminster Hall are wide ranging, they tend to fall into two main areas. Often they are used by MPs to raise ‘hyperlocal’ issues of the sort that would not typically be selected for debate in the main chamber because they only affect a particular constituency.  Recent examples of this type of debate include dental healthcare in East Anglia and support for the hospitality sector in Eastleigh.  Westminster Hall is also a place where very emotive topics can be debated. These are often on health-based issues which have affected their constituents, such as Helen Hayes’ recent debate on lobular breast cancer. Tabled in memory of one her constituents, Heather Cripps, Hayes pushed for better awareness of the symptoms and more research into its treatment. Members of Heather’s family attended the debate and sat in the public gallery. Debates such as this one showcase a much more human side to parliamentary politics and as such, Westminster Hall can be an arena which acknowledges the grief and pain of constituents and their families.

    2. It is a place where MPs have fewer time constraints

    One of the real benefits to talking in Westminster Hall is that there is far less pressure on time. MPs introducing a debate have longer to talk and, although time limits are sometimes imposed for particularly well attended debates, other contributing MPs will generally have more time to make their speeches. One MP told us that it gave them time ‘to breathe’, allowing them to develop their points and have less choppy debates.  The MP introducing the debate will also get the right of reply to the minister’s response, something which they wouldn’t get in an adjournment debate in the main chamber.

    3. Its layout facilitates ‘physically close’ scrutiny

    Although the main House of Commons chamber can seem small and crowded at busy times, Westminster Hall is a much more intimate atmosphere. During its first ever debate, then Minister Peter Hain described it as ‘the first non-confrontational Chamber that Westminster has experienced in 800 years of political sparring’.  MPs are seated in a horseshoe seating area more akin to select committees, with all MPs and ministers at the same level.  This means that MPs sit much closer to the responding government minister. And the public gallery is within touching distance of them, with no screens acting as a barrier. MPs speak of being able to ‘look the minister in the eye’ and this can put ministers under considerable pressure, particularly during high profile debates.  The close proximity of the public gallery can be particularly powerful, facilitating conversations before and after debates and allowing the minister to see the faces of those impacted by government policy as they deliver their speech.

    4. It offers a kinder parliamentary culture

    The combination of a more intimate seating area and the more sensitive topics often debated there can facilitate a very different culture to the often adversarial Commons chamber. MPs and officials who participate regularly in Westminster Hall speak of a kinder etiquette, epitomised by DUP MP Jim Shannon’s regular notes to MPs to congratulate them on their debate and ministers going out of their way to thank every contributing Member in their responses. Although debates can occasionally become heated, the absence of any divisions and the location of Westminster Hall away from the limelight of the main chamber tends to inhibit overt partisanship in favour of a more collegiate atmosphere. 

    Debates in Westminster Hall can feel more remote to onlookers than those in the Commons chamber, but they offer something quite different. MPs have described it to us as ‘gold dust’ and ‘parliament’s best kept secret’, a chamber which is especially useful when campaigning on behalf of constituents. With the new Modernisation Committee hoping to look at how to make backbench debates more effective, this Parliament could bring opportunities to entrench the value of Westminster Hall in parliament’s work even more fully.

    About the authors

    Cristina Leston-Bandeira is Professor of Politics at the University of Leeds. Louise Thompson is Senior Lecturer in Politics at the University of Manchester.

    Categories
    News

    December 2024 Newsletter

    Hello, everyone! The end of the year is nearly here – how time flies!!! We held our Annual Conference in November and we are now wrapping up 2024 with our last newsletter of the year. We have some nice conference highlights for you and the usual interesting news.

    1. PSA Parliaments Annual Conference: Highlights
    2. Our UG Essay Competition Winners
    3. PSA Parliaments Membership and Survey
    4. Opportunities
    5. Calls for papers
    6. Urgent Questions
    7. Recent Publications
    8. On the Blog
    9. 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,

    Caroline, Diana, Ruxandra, Jack and Lauren

    1. PSA Parliaments Annual Conference: Highlights

    Last month, we held our Annual Conference and were absolutely delighted to welcome close to 50 participants for the main event. It was great to see so many familiar faces as well as new ones.

    On Thursday, 21 November, WISERD hosted us at Cardiff University for our early-career workshop. We then gathered at the Senedd for our traditional drinks reception with a special keynote by the Deputy Presiding Officer David Rees MS. This was followed by an informal dinner on the other side of the bay.

    On Friday, 22 November, the main conference took place in the beautiful Pierhead Building, featuring three exciting panels with very high-quality presentations throughout (as we were told by several attendees afterwards). We heard about a wide range of topics and had engaging discussions with many great questions form the audience. Massive thanks to the Senedd Cymru and their research unit for hosting us and sponsoring the lunch.

    Please see here for all the highlights!

    2. Our UG Essay Competition Winners

    At the conference, we also announced the winners of our annual undergraduate essay competition. We received many excellent submissions and the winning essays displayed an outstanding level of analysis. We thank Stephen Holden Bates (University of Birmingham) for being our external judge this year!

    The winner is Colin Wilson who was nominated by Philip Cowley of Queen Mary University of London. He wrote a “Parliamentary Studies Research Portfolio” with three mini-studies.

    The runner-up is Lola Clugston, nominated by Stephen Elstub of Newcastle University, for her essay on “Enhancing the Impact of Select Committees in the UK Parliament: A Focus on MP Engagement”.

    We are thrilled to award both students their well-deserved prizes of £100 and £50 and wish them best of luck for their postgraduate studies! Thank you and congratulations also to the nominating academics!

    You can read the judging panel’s feedback and both essays here.

    3. PSA Parliaments Membership and Survey

    PSA Parliaments membership

    If you like what we do and want to support our activities, please consider becoming a member of the UK Political Studies Association (PSA) if you have not already, and join us officially there. Or, if you think one of your colleagues would benefit from a PSA membership or from just receiving our newsletter, please spread the word (all information available here). Our membership figures (PSA members and newsletter subscribers) determine our budget and, thus, the activities we can offer.

    The PSA is currently looking into revising its membership structure and assessing the potential of introducing a new affiliate category. We, as a Specialist Group, are supportive of this idea and believe it may allow more of our non-PSA members, especially practitioners, to get involved. We will keep you updated.

    Members Survey

    We are conducting this survey to gather more viewpoints and wishes regarding our activities and events. This will help us to align our work closely with the expectations of our members while considering our limited resources. The results will be used to inform our planning process and guide us in setting our priorities for the next couple of years.

    Thank you for taking the time to fill this in!

    4. Opportunities

    Call by Modernisation Committee: Reminder

    We want to remind you that the new Modernisation Committee has launched a call for written submissions to hear from different groups, including academics. This is a great opportunity to feed your research findings into parliamentary reform.

    The deadline is 16 December 2024 and all the details can be found here.

    The UCL Public Policy team has provided useful tips on giving written and oral evidence to select committees here.

    PSA Women & Politics Specialist Groups Mid-Career Researcher Mentoring Programme 

    Are you a mid-career member of the PSA? The PSA Women & Politics SG is hosting a Mid-Career Researcher (MCR) Mentoring Programme tailored specifically to the needs of women in academia following a research track. This initiative responds to a critical need to address the career development of scholars beyond their first promotion, offering tailored support to navigate the challenges unique to mid-career professionals. 10 places are available, with bursary support provided towards travel and accommodation for each participant 

    Location: PSA office, Camden, London  | Dates: Thursday 23 January and Friday 24 January 2025 

    Apply to register by 5pm Monday 2nd December. 

    Find out more, including how to apply, here.

    5. Call for Papers

    4th Global Conference on Parliamentary Studies, Athens, Greece, Friday, 13 June 2025

    This is an opportunity  for academics, researchers and practitioners to explore “Reinventing Democracy for the 21st Century”. Set in the birthplace of democracy, this unique gathering invites thought leaders to address the challenges and opportunities of our time, where technology, media and geopolitical shifts intersect with democratic governance. 

    The conference is jointly organized by the Hellenic OCR Team and Széchenyi István University.

    Submit your abstract by 28 February 2025, and learn more about the event here. 

    6. Urgent Questions with Richard Whitaker

    Our popular Urgent Questions feature is back! Richard Whitaker, Professor of Politics at the University of Leicester and currently a Parliamentary Academic Fellow, has told us why the NHS is responsible for him choosing an academic career, about his passion for working in Parliament and – a familiar theme to our loyal readers – music.

    Watch out for the yellow jumper! You can read all of Rick’s answers here.

    7. Recent Publications

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

    8. On the Blog

    We would love to have more contributions on our blog. If you have an idea for a blog on some aspect of parliamentary study, please get in touch with our communications officer Jack.

    9. Overview of Parliaments Map

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

    Categories
    News

    Annual Conference: Highlights

    Our 2024 annual conference kicked off on Thursday, 21 November in Cardiff University’s sbarc|spark building, a state-of-the-art facility that provided an inspiring backdrop for our early-career workshop. Our gratitude to WISERD for hosting us. Jack Liddall (University of Cambridge / University of Edinburgh) presented a paper on parliamentary oversight of intergovernmental relations in the UK. Lauren Martin (University of Sheffield) shared her research on the interactions between citizens and the UK Parliament during e-petitioning campaigns. Both papers offered novel insights based on primary interview data and document analysis. We are extremely grateful to the discussants, Jo Hunt (Cardiff University), Larissa Peixoto Vale Gomes (University of Edinburgh), Stephen Holden Bates (University of Birmingham) and Richard Whitaker (University of Leicester), who devoted time to providing thoughtful and encouraging feedback.

    Our Co-convenor Diana Stirbu welcomed many of our conference participants at the evening drinks reception, where old acquaintances were reconnected and new ones made. We were in for a treat, as our guest speaker the Deputy Presiding Officer David Rees MS delivered an engaging keynote address on the evolution of the Senedd with first-hand insights into the decision-making processes that led to the reforms for the 2026 elections. He encouraged us to examine the developments in the Senedd closely and feed into future discussions, reminding us that a full review is due to be conducted after the elections. After the drinks reception, we headed to the other side of Cardiff Bay to the Duchess of Delhi for an informal dinner, providing an opportunity for further catching up over delicious Indian food.

    On Friday, 22 November, the setting of the Senedd’s Pierhead Building was more than fitting for our first panel of the conference which explored ‘25 years of devolved parliaments and current developments in the UK Parliament’. The panel, which was moderated by Jack Liddall, our Communications Officer, gave us a tour around the UK’s legislatures as panellists presented on a wide variety of issues facing parliaments and parliamentarians. Josh Hayman presented research which he has worked on alongside Sara Moran (both from Senedd Research). Their work on ‘25 years of Welsh law-making’ has also been collated into a comprehensive report. This report was available in hard copy for our members at the conference at the stall set up by the Study of Parliament Group Wales. Richard Whitaker (University of Leicester) spoke to his recent research on skeleton bills in the Scottish Parliament, UK Parliament and Senedd (and also touched on the legislative process in Northern Ireland). Ekaterina Kolpinskaya (University of Exeter) then rounded off our panel with a discussion on disability inclusion practices in the House of Commons (on behalf of herself and Mike Winter from PACAC). We are delighted that Ekaterina’s work, which is available here, also features in our latest PSA Parliaments blog.

    Following a delicious platter of Welsh cakes and other assorted pastries we kicked off with our second panel of the day, ‘Parliamentary procedures and reform’ (chaired by our Treasurer and Membership Officer Lauren Martin), which saw us transported back to Westminster (not actually). Louise Thompson (University of Manchester) and Cristina Leston-Bandeira (University of Leeds) presented their pilot research on Westminster Hall as an alternative to the House of Commons Chamber. Ruxandra Serban (University College London) then presented co-authored research with Meg Russell (UCL Constitution Unit) about Urgent Questions in the UK House of Commons between 1992 and 2024. We finished up by hearing from Tom Fleming who presented research conducted with Hannah Kelly (both of UCL Constitution Unit) on the extent to which the House of Commons has enough control over its own procedures.

    The first two panels gave us plenty to discuss during the lunch break. We enjoyed a lovely buffet, which was kindly sponsored by the Senedd Research unit. After this, we held an annual general meeting. We announced the winners of our undergraduate essay competition: The winner is Colin Wilson who was nominated by Philip Cowley of Queen Mary University of London, and the runner-up is Lola Clugston, nominated by Stephen Elstub of Newcastle University. The judging panel’s laudatory feedback and the essays can now be accessed here. We then also used the opportunity to gather some feedback and ideas on future activities of PSA Parliaments.

    The third panel explored different aspects of effectiveness and influence in parliaments and was chaired by our Co-convenor Ruxandra Serban. Greg Power (Global Partners Governance) discussed research on the impact of legislative turnover, particularly in terms of loss of parliamentary expertise and its potential effects on how parliaments work. Alex Prior (London Southbank University) and Louise Thompson (University of Manchester) presented new research on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association — its objectives, strategies, and impact. Our last presenter was Kiwi Ting (University of Reading), who looked in detail at the effects of virtual participation on MPs’ influence in parliamentary debates at Westminster during Covid-19.

    For those not ready to bid farewell yet, we headed over to the Senedd for a private tour of the building, getting fascinating behind-the-scenes glimpses into the work of Welsh parliamentarians. The Heart of Wales in the Senedd chamber has cracked recently but we are not suspicious and are curious to follow how Welsh parliamentarism will develop pre- and post-2026.

    Categories
    Urgent Questions

    Professor Richard Whitaker

    RICK WHITAKER

    Rick Whitaker is a Professor of Politics at the University of Leicester. He is currently a Parliamentary Academic Fellow, working with staff in the Commons Library, select committees and Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. From January 2023 until September 2024, he was the Thematic Research Lead for Parliament, Public Administration and the Constitution in the UK Parliament.

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

    I did an undergraduate degree in Politics and Contemporary History having never studied politics before. I immediately got higher marks in politics than in history modules and found the subject deeply fascinating, (not that I don’t love history too!). When I came to the end of my undergraduate degree I felt like I still needed to learn more and was, by that point, really interested in comparative European politics. So I took an MA (Econ) degree in European Politics and Policy and part-way through the year, started working up a PhD proposal under the guidance of Professor David Farrell who became my PhD supervisor. After failing at the last stage in the process of getting on the NHS management training scheme, I started a PhD after my MA. Towards the end of my doctoral study, I was lucky enough to get a temporary job as a lecturer at the University of Salford, where I had studied as an undergraduates.

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

    These are all books that were really important to me in the early stages of figuring out how to be a political scientist in the world of legislative studies.

    Richard Corbett, Francis Jacobs and Michael Shackleton, The European Parliament (various editions). This for me was the Bible of the European Parliament, central to understanding how it works.

    Gary Cox and Mathew McCubbins (1993) Legislative Leviathan. The centrality of party to their understanding of how the US Congress operates and how it is organised internally drew me into the world of understanding committees in legislatures.

    Arend Lijphart, Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries. This is a classic comparative politics book and important, for me, for understanding how to situate legislatures and executives in a comparative context.

    Keith Krehbiel, Information and Legislative Organisation. The combination of rational choice theory with interview material and empirics make this a fascinating study of legislative organisation.

    Amie Kreppel, The European Parliament and Supranational Party System: A Study in Institutional Development. This was crucial for understanding how the European Parliament could be studied in a theoretically and methodologically sophisticated way.

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

    All those who taught me as an undergrad at the University of Salford and on my MA at the University of Manchester. They developed and nurtured my fascination with politics and political science. Beyond that I’d say (in alphabetical order of surnames): Phil Cowley for teaching me how to write (I’m still learning though), my PhD supervisor David Farrell for encouraging and mentoring me and showing me how to be a political scientist, Simon Hix for showing how the EU can be analysed through the lens of comparative politics, Philip Lynch for his astonishing grasp of detail and huge knowledge of British politics (and willingness to work with me early in my career), and Shane Martin for his work on legislatures in a comparative context and wonderful research questions.

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

    My book on the European Parliament’s committees brought together a lot of research from over quite a time period. I need to write another one!

    What has been your greatest achievement in academia?

    Having the chance to work in one of the institutions I study (the UK Parliament) for nearly two years has been a wonderful experience for which I will be ever thankful.

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

    That they vary hugely beyond the minimal definition that they give assent to laws.

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

    I was born in Stockport and I grew up in Bramhall. I now live in Nottingham.

    What was your first job?

    Apart from a paper round and some gardening work, my first job was working in the carpets and rugs department (on a Sunday) in Lewis’s – now long gone – department store in Manchester.

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

    Working as a parliament specialist in the Commons Library or being a professional musician. 

    What are your hobbies?

    Music. I play piano and keyboards and I am the accompanist for a choir in Beeston where I live. I used to play in bands during my PhD and when at school. A good friend gave me the chance to do this again as part of a wedding band this year, which was so much fun. I could really do with an excuse to keep doing this!

    What are your favourite music albums?

    I have quite varied musical tastes from progressive rock, through jazz, classical and including dance and pop music. In short, I love music. It is hard to pick one favourite album but among those I could not do without are Tears for Fears’ album The Seeds of Love, Going for the One by Yes, Oscar Peterson’s Mellow Mood and Jacob Collier’s Djesse series. 

    What is your favourite artwork?

    I don’t claim to have a good knowledge of art but I love Salvador Dali’s paintings for the way he bends reality and juxtaposes objects in bizarre ways.

    What is your favourite sport?

    I am a lifelong Formula 1 fan. I love the cars and the speed and the overtaking, when it happens.

    Hybrid proceedings in Parliament: yes please or no thanks?

    Yes please.

    Appointed or elected upper chamber?

    Elected but in a way that creates differences with the Commons (such as representing different parts of the UK in a quasi-federal system).

    Restoration or Renewal?

    Renewal.

    Cat or Dog?

    Both.

    Trains, planes or automobiles?

    Trains, when they are working properly.

    Fish and chips or Curry?

    I can’t choose, I love them both!

    Scones: Cornish or Devonshire method?

    Cream first, whichever method that is!

    And, finally, a question asked by 6-year old Viveka: What was your favourite toy as a child?

    The earliest favourite toy I can remember is a Fisher Price garage. Beyond that, it is hard to choose between the Scalextric set we had and my first (sort of) ‘keyboard’, a Casio VL-Tone.

    Categories
    Blog

    Disability inclusion in the House of Commons in the spotlight

    By Dr Ekaterina Kolpinskaya.

    This blog draws on the author’s time in a POST Fellowship at the UK Parliament. See the full report here: https://hass-cornwall.exeter.ac.uk/research/voice-participation-governance/hoc-work-environments/

    Over the past couple of years, I have been exploring disability inclusion practices for Members of the UK House of Commons as a Parliamentary Academic Fellow with the Centre of Excellence for Procedural Practice of the House of Commons. Working from within the institution, I have examined written rules and guidelines on accessibility, observed these practices in real life, and interviewed members of the House and MPs staff, as well as several Members and peers. The aim of this research is to understand how accessible the House of Commons is to disabled Members, and what adjustments have been made – and could be made – to improve working environment for disabled politicians, i.e., having physical or mental health impairment which has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

    The importance of disability inclusion and better descriptive representation has increased substantially with the growing presence and visibility of disability in British society in recent years. Among the population, almost one in four (24%) or 16 million Britons report being disabled, including experiencing mobility issues, low stamina, breathing difficulties, fatigue, and increasingly, reporting symptoms of depression, anxiety or stress. By contrast, only 8 MPs (or 1.2%) declared having a disability in the 2019-2024 Parliament, with the number increasing to 12 MPs (just under 2%) after the 2024 General Election. This discrepancy – although there is significant under-reporting of disability among Members – presents a challenge for the efforts to normalise disability in public life and counter ableist stereotypes, including among voters (though there are encouraging developments) and political parties. Equally, it hinders effective substantive representation of interests of disabled Britons based on first-hand experiences of disability, potentially feeding into their – already – low satisfaction with political institutions and trust in them.

    By examining accessibility provisions and practices that facilitate work of disabled Members, this study addresses the demand side of parliamentary under-representation of disabled people and reflects on disability inclusion of disabled politicians elected to the House of Commons – a unique workplace environment. That is because Members of Parliament are not employees but elected office holders and are therefore excluded from the provisions of the Equality Act 2010; likewise, The House of Commons is not a ‘public authority’ for purposes of the Act. While these legal exclusions exist, in practice, the authorities of both Houses of Parliament act as if the legislation applies[1], reasonable adjustments for disabled Members are made routinely upon request.

    This resonates with a special constitutional status of MPs, whose work no one should dictate or constrain[2] as they are accountable to their electorate. Their parliamentary parties, more experienced Members, and the House staff facilitate their work by explaining what opportunities this job presents but they do not define expectations meaning that Members are independent in choosing their priorities and activities as MPs. The unpredictability of the role can be challenging for some disabled Members, as management of disabilities often relies on establishing daily routines[3]. However, it can be beneficial for others, as differently from 9-to-5 jobs, MPs’ schedules can be adapted to accommodate their medical needs[4].

    This unique institutional environment, the nature of the role of an MP and often conflicting needs stemming from different disabilities[5] steer the House away from a ‘catch-all’, systematic approach to making disability-relating adjustments for Members and favours ad hoc, individual solutions that result in a complex patchwork of remedial measures aiming to improve work environments for disabled MPs. This approach stands out when considering adjustments to procedural norms and practices that concern Members of the House specifically, while unicameral and bicameral services provided for all passholders (including the House and parliamentary staff, peers, MPs and their staff) are more comprehensive. The latter stem from a strong institutional commitment to improving accessibility (e.g., the House’s Inclusion and Diversity Strategy) and the ongoing efforts to enhance working conditions of House and MPs’ staff (e.g., consolidation of the House services[6], the Speaker’s Conference on the employment conditions of Members’ staff), including as part of the Restoration and Renewal Programme (R&R). There are several examples of good practice with regards to disability inclusion in the House of Commons (and the UK Parliament), namely a good range of support services provided at the unicameral and bicameral levels, as well as by external stakeholders such as the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority – with support from informal and partisan networks, i.e., ParliAble and political parties, respectively.

    In addition to this comprehensive and well-resourced provision, there have been improvements to physical access and infrastructure of the debating Chambers and of the House of Commons Committees – with an overall goal of making working environment more inclusive and enabling full participation of disabled parliamentarians. That said, several challenges remain.  

    Firstly, while communication about services has improved, a lack of awareness of available health and wellbeing services, particularly with regards to early intervention, remains, and valuable peer networks and targeted support (e.g., from the Workplace Adjustments Manager) especially by Members can be underused, which resonates with MPs’ heightened concerns over public image and anonymity. Members with less visible disabilities such as dyslexia and dyspraxia may be particularly likely to struggle through on their own, while they would benefit from appropriate targeted support (e.g., specialised software, documents in a different format) put in place early.[7] There is also scope to strengthen triangulation of support and the multi-agency approach to identifying and delivering individual disability support on and off the estate with input from the Members’ Services, the PDS and their network of accessibility champions, the IPSA, and political parties (while adhering to GDPR and data protection regulations).

    While improving accessibility is one of the priorities of the R&R programme, there is limited accessibility in parts of the estate, as pointed out by interviewees and campaigners. This has a knock-on effect for Members trying to get to debating Chambers and around buildings[8] and leads to their disproportionate dependence on assisting staff[9]. Challenges for physical accessibility, including to debating Chambers, necessitate Members to have permanent assistance, which increases their visibility as disabled politicians often making them reluctant to request it[10]. Even aids as basic as infrared hearing loops (a device worn on a lanyard around one’s neck to amplify sound) are under-used by Members who do not want to display such a visible marker of disability[11], which may open them for attack or mockery from other Members. While such instances were condemned by the House,[12] they did happen and may make other disabled Members wary of visibility.

    Equally, Members’ assessments of how procedurally accessible for disabled Members the House of Commons is are mixed. Some point out that they are ‘incredibly hostile and quite frankly, ableist’ and ‘on occasion [prevent them] from representing … constituents’. Others – while disagreeing with certain practices (e.g., bobbing, conduct during PMQs, lack of allocated or reserved sitting) – pointed out that there is much good will in the House (and among the Speaker and his Deputies), once their attention is engaged.[13] In particular, ad-hoc, case-by-case adjustments to etiquette and courtesies observed in the Chambers are made frequently upon request and with support from the Speaker (or of the Deputy Speaker in Westminster Hall). This does not require a collective buy-in of the House or a cost-benefit analysis that would accompany a more systematic, far-reaching adjustments (e.g., reflected in Standing Orders and affecting the workings of the House). It also reflects the need to consider each adjustment within the context of other adjustments and needs of Members.

    Overall, there is a sense that the House of Commons wants to be inclusive and accessible to disabled Members, but it is a busy place where partisanship trumps collegiality, and it is very difficult to organise.[14] Additionally, disability-related concerns – in addition to being complex and not sometimes in conflict with each other – are often outweighed by considerations of institutional efficiency and effectiveness and trade-offs with required resources and associated costs, as shown by discussions of retaining elements of remote participation and the R&R programme.[15] Considering the small number of visibly disabled Members and Members who self-identify as disabled, the House mostly adapts existing systems on a case-by-case basis (on demand) rather than designs a comprehensive system.[16] For example, there is a provision for individual adjustments in the debating Chambers in Erskine May 21.6.  This reinforces the need for individual Members to adapt to the ways of the House, not the other way around.[17]  

    The pace of institutional change and adaptation – especially if it aims to be sustainable and lasting – is slow. Development of unicameral and bicameral services, semi-formal workplace networks and a multi-agency approach to supporting disabled politicians, as well as improvements to accessibility in some parts of the parliamentary estate are examples of good practice and a significant step forward for the institution. Likewise, technical solutions and aids provided by parliamentary services and the IPSA improve daily lives and work of disabled Members significantly. However, these successes are more modest when it comes to adjusting procedural norms and practices that rely heavily on consensus within the House that in turn requires cross-party collaboration and a more collegiate and less adversarial culture of interactions between Members from the opposite sides of the aisle.

    [1] Interview 35, 11 August 2023

    [2] Interview 27, 15 December 2022; Interview 19, 16 March 2023; Interview 21, 31 March 2023

    [3] Interviewed by Ekaterina Kolpinskaya on 19 May 2023; Interview 10, 16 August 2023; Interview 14, 24 April 2023

    [4] Interview 21, 31 March 2023; Interview 7, 24 May 2023

    [5] E.g., low light is beneficial for those with ADHD but challenging for visually impaired Members.

    [6] Interview 20, 03 February 2023

    [7] Interview 40, 13 April 2023

    [8] Interview 1, 13 July 2023; Interview 18, 17 July 2023; Interview 16, 24 May 2023

    [9] Interview 1, 13 July 2023

    [10] Interview 1, 13 July 2023

    [11] Interview 34, 06 June 2023

    [12] Interview 7, 24 May 2023

    [13] Interview 14, 24 April 2023

    [14] Interview 13, 24 April 2023

    [15] Interview 3, 02 March 2023; Interview 27, 15 December 2022

    [16] Interview 5, 03 July 2023

    [17] Interview 7, 24 May 2023

    About the author

    Dr Ekaterina Kolpinskaya is a Senior Lecturer in British Politics at the University of Exeter.

    Categories
    News

    November 2024 Newsletter

    Hello, everyone! Our Annual Conference is fast approaching, so please remember to register. We also have, as per usual, lots of news for you this month.

    1. Reminder: PSA Parliaments Annual Conference, Cardiff
    2. Opportunities
    3. Calls for papers
    4. Events
    5. Recent Publications and Resources
    6. 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,

    Caroline, Diana, Ruxandra, Jack and Lauren

    1. Reminder: PSA Parliaments Annual Conference, Cardiff

    Our Annual Conference is fast approaching! We have a great line up of panels and an exciting schedule. If you are planning to attend, please register by 11 November, to help us plan attendance and catering. We look forward to seeing you in Cardiff!

    Timetable

    Thursday, 21 November 2024

    Friday, 22 November 2024

    • 9 am–3.30 pm: Conference in the Pierhead Building
    • 4–4.30 pm: Tour of the Senedd

    For more details, updates and the full conference programme, please visit our website.

    2. Opportunities

    Call by Modernisation Committee

    The new Modernisation Committee has launched a call for written submissions to hear from different groups, including academics, about ideas how to:

    • drive up standards; 
    • improve culture and working practices; and 
    • reform Parliamentary procedures to make the House of Commons more effective. 

    The deadline is 16 December 2024 and all the details can be found here.

    The UCL Public Policy team has provided useful tips about giving written and oral evidence to select committees here.

    Call by the Electoral Matters Committee of the Parliament of Victoria (Australia) 

    The Electoral Matters Committee of the Parliament of Victoria (Australia) is calling for written submissions on possible changes to the electoral structure for the Victoria’s Upper House. Submissions can address any of the following questions:

    1. Should Victoria be divided into regions to elect members of the Upper House, or should all members be elected by the state as a whole?
    2. If there should be regions, how many regions should there be and how many members should each region elect?
    3. How many members of the Upper House should there be in total?
    4. Are there other changes to the way that members are elected to the Upper House that should be considered?

    Submissions are due by 3 February 2025.

    For more information or to make a submission, please visit the Committee’s webpage or contact the Secretariat at emc@parliament.vic.gov.au.

    3. Call for papers

    ECPR Joint Sessions Workshop: Beyond Parliamentary Recruitment: Gender and pathways to Power and Influence”, Charles University, 20-23 may, 2025

    The workshop “Beyond Parliamentary Recruitment: Gender and Pathways to Power and Influence” is sponsored by the Standing Group on Parliaments and welcomes submissions that focus the complex interplay between gendered structures and resistances to greater diversity and inclusion. 

    Deadline for abstract submissions is November, 21. 

    Global Political Marketing and Management Conference 5-7 August 2025

    The 2025 conference will be the first event for the Global Political Marketing and Political Management network and will be held at the University of Dundee – see the conference website:  The call for paper/presentation proposals and registrations are now open. Contributions are welcome from academics and practitioners from any discipline, organisation and role as long as it is relevant to Political Marketing and Political Management, including discussion of the parliamentary workplace including MPs staff and HR as well as well being, so will be of interest to your members. 

    Please send your proposal to gpmmnetwork@dundee.ac.uk by 1 December to be in the first round of those considered for the conference.

    4. Events

    The Study of Parliament Group’s 60th Anniversary Conference – Westminster, 5 and 6 December 2024

    Registrations are now open for the 60’s Anniversary Conference of the Study of Parliament Group. The Conference programme has been published on the SPG website and is attached to this email. Tickets are £25 for two days or £20 per day for SPG Members. Included in the ticket price is lunch and refreshments (including coffee and tea). All tickets are available through Event Brite.

    Save the date! – 9th Conference of the ECPR Standing Group on Parliaments: 2-4 July 2025, University of Barcelona

    The conference will bring together senior and junior scholars of the field. The academic program will be complemented by a social program including a visit to the Catalan parliament! The conference conveners will soon be inviting proposals for individual papers and entire panels consisting of preferably four (or five) papers.

    5. Recent Publications and Resources

    Publications

    Book

    Other Publications and Resources

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

    6. On the Blog

    We would love to have more contributions on our blog. If you have an idea for a blog on some aspect of parliamentary study, please get in touch with our communications officer Jack.

    7. Overview of Parliaments Map

    We do not have any new contributions for our Overview of Parliaments Map this month but we are really looking forward for more.

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

    Categories
    News

    October 2024 Newsletter

    Hello, everyone, happy beginning of the academic year! Exciting times for us at the PSA Parliaments group as we are finalising arrangements for our Annual Conference in November. We have, as per usual, lots of news for you this month.

    1. Registration is now open for our PSA Parliaments Annual Conference
    2. PSA Annual Conference: Call for papers closing soon
    3. Opportunity: Parliament for Researchers session with the House of Lords
    4. Calls for papers
    5. Events
    6. Recent Publications and Resources
    7. On the Blog
    8. 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,

    Caroline, Diana, Ruxandra, Jack and Lauren

    1. Registration is now open for our PSA Parliaments Annual Conference

    We have now opened the registration for our PSA Parliaments Annual Conference, which will take place between 21and 22 of November 2024.

    We are extremely grateful to the Welsh Parliament | Senedd Cymru, who are hosting and co-sponsoring our full day Conference on Friday 22 November at  the iconic  Pierhead Building, and have also kindly provided the Senedd Foyer for our annual Drinks Reception on Thursday 21 November in the evening. We are also very grateful to Cardiff University and WISERD for hosting our Early Career Researchers Workshop at Sbark|Spark – Cardiff University’s state of the art Social Science Research Park. 

    Registration

    You can now register here until 11 November: Registration form

    We are very excited that the Senedd will host our annual conference on 21-22 November in Cardiff.

    Timetable

    Thursday, 21 November 2024

    Friday, 22 November 2024

    • 9 am–3.30 pm: Conference in the Pierhead Building
    • 4–4.30 pm: Tour of the Senedd

    More details, updates and the full conference programme, please visit our website.

    2. PSA Annual Conference: Call for papers closing soon

    The 75th PSA Annual Conference, “What Next?”, convened by the University of Birmingham and Aston University, will take place from 14-16 April 2025. Abstracts should be submitted to the Ex-Ordo website by 18 October. Detailed instructions can be found here.

    If you would like to present in one of our panels, please select “Parliaments” in the ‘Topics’ section, when submitting your abstract.

    For our PSA Parliaments panels, we are open to papers on any aspect of parliamentary and legislative studies. We particularly encourage papers on the UK Parliament, the 2024 General Election as a critical juncture for the UK Parliament, 25 years of devolved parliaments, comparative parliamentary studies, representation, scrutiny and accountability.

    More information can be found on our website.

    3. Opportunity: Parliament for Researchers sessions with the House of Lords

    Two new Parliament for Researchers training sessions, in collaboration with Members of the House of Lords, will take place in October 2024. Every session will include an introduction to engaging with Parliament for researchers of all academic backgrounds, and a chance to hear from a Member of the House of Lords on the value of academic research in Parliament. Each session will also explore a specific theme related to the participating member’s expertise and may be of particular interest to researchers working in related disciplines. 

    These training events are suitable for early career researchers, PhD students, researchers who are new to engaging with the UK Parliament as well as those who would benefit from a refresher.

    Register for the next upcoming session:

    Details for future sessions will be shared here.

    4. Calls for papers

    IPSA Annual Conference 2025, Seoul, South Korea

    The Call for Papers for the 28th IPSA World Congress of Political Science, to be held in Seoul, South Korea from 12-16 July 2025, is now open! Paper and closed panel proposals on any political science-related subject are welcome.

    Please note the Research Committee Track on Legislative Specialist (RC08), which might be highly relevant for parliamentary scholars. View all Tracks Open to Submissions.

    Paper and Closed Panel Submission Deadline: 5 November 2024 

    Global Political Marketing and Management Conference 5-7 August 2025

    The 2025 conference will be the first event for the Global Political Marketing and Political Management network and will be held at the University of Dundee – see the conference website:  The call for paper/presentation proposals and registrations are now open. Contributions are welcome from academics and practitioners from any discipline, organisation and role as long as it is relevant to Political Marketing and Political Management, including discussion of the parliamentary workplace including MPs staff and HR as well as well being, so will be of interest to your members. 

    Please send your proposal to gpmmnetwork@dundee.ac.uk by 1 December to be in the first round of those considered for the conference.

    5. Events

    Please note the following UCL Constitution Unit events:

    6. Recent Publications and Resources

    Publications

    Open access book

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

    7. On the Blog

    If you have an idea for a blog on some aspect of parliamentary study, please get in touch with our communications officer Jack.

    8. Overview of Parliaments Map

    We do not have any new contributions for our Overview of Parliaments Map this month but we are really looking forward for more. Our last entry was:

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

    Categories
    Blog

    The real cost of MPs’ security to constituency representation

    By Neil Matthews and Sean Haughey.

    The abuse of MPs, both online and offline, is becoming a more prevalent feature of British political life. In the most egregious cases, abuse has escalated into violent and even fatal attacks on MPs. In response, MPs are adopting new security measures at the constituency level to protect themselves from harm. These measures range from the subtle (e.g. no longer advertising the details of surgeries) to the not-so-subtle (such as the wearing of stab vests). We know how these developments are impacting MPs personally, not least in terms of their mental health. We also know about the associated financial ramifications, with the costs of MPs’ security skyrocketing in recent years. But what about the implications for representation and democracy? Are MPs able to perform their representative role just as well amid stricter security protocols? Or are costs incurred to representative democracy when constituency service is securitised?

    The security-accessibility trade-off

    All security systems come with costs attached. When MPs tighten constituency service security the most obvious cost incurred pertains to accessibility. This security-accessibility trade-off manifests in one of two ways: either through a reduction in opportunities for constituents to meet with their MP, or through the adoption of security protocols which complicate access pathways. In terms of reduced opportunities for constituent-MP engagement, take for instance those MPs who have stopped holding surgeries in public venues (e.g. shopping malls) because of security concerns. Consider also the MP who, after repeated incidents of verbal abuse, admits that he no longer socialises in his own constituency. These examples of retreat from the public square are problematic, because it is through even the most innocuous and impromptu interactions – in the local pub or supermarket for instance – that MPs develop their constituency antennae, learning about the issues which matter to their constituents:

    ‘We try to be, as constituency MPs, recognisable, available, accessible to all. A successful constituency MP is the person who people feel they can go to in the pub or, as frustrating as that sometimes is, come up to you when you’re doing your shopping.‘

    Access to MPs can be complicated by security in a number of ways. Some MPs, for example, have replaced “drop-in” surgeries with appointment-only meetings, a formality which likely results in some constituents being turned away. We also know that, on the advice of police, some MPs have discontinued in-person surgery appointments, instead offering online meetings only. Whilst this might expedite access to MPs for the digitally confident citizen, it will disincentivise engagement for those without the requisite skills. What is more, the value and quality of online meetings – relative to in-person meetings – is open to question. The social scientific evidence underlines the therapeutic value of in-person meetings between MPs and constituents. These in-person meetings are key to the development of “co-presence”, and help build a “human bridge” through which constituents feel listened to. These benefits could be much harder to attain when the interaction occurs through a screen. Similarly, with face-to-face meetings, that personal touch and sense of intimacy is likely compromised by the presence of security guards.

    The symbolic costs

    Public spaces articulate political and cultural messages. What messages, then, are conveyed to the public when MPs adopt airport-style (or even prison-style) security at their constituency offices? Think bulletproof glass, CCTV, reinforced doors, panic buttons and so on. Whilst these measures may reassure MPs and their staff, the effect on constituents could be quite the opposite, perhaps marking the space as somehow unsafe, where visitors need to be on their guard. Research into other sites that have been securitised suggests as much, whereby defensive urban architecture (designed to mitigate terrorist attacks) has had a chilling effect on public democratic culture, eliciting a range of subjective emotional responses from pedestrians: fearfulness, suspicion, paranoia, and exclusion. Some of the security measures at constituency offices could be eliciting a similar response from constituents. Take, for instance, the MP who tells his constituents they should “be prepared to be searched” when they arrive at his surgery:

    ‘We are following security guidance, as a result Security Operatives and/or the Police will be screening constituents attending face to face surgery appointments. Please bring along photo ID, leave bags and coats at home where possible, as they will not be permitted in the meeting toom and will need to remain outside the meeting space and be prepared to be searched.‘

    (Guidance provided on Julian Smith MP’s website for constituents)

    For the architect, Stephen Flusty, places and spaces bearing the features of security – searches of person or property, say – warrant being labelled as “jittery”. They are marked, in other words, by a tense and nervous atmosphere. We might ask then: how many of the constituency offices in the UK are showing signs of the jitters?

    Security and trust: a Catch-22?

    Security measures at the constituency level could, then, be counter-productive, in that MPs may be undermining the very representative connections they seek to protect. Up until now, the linkage between MPs and constituents at the local level has been held up as a positive exception to what has otherwise been a story of increasing political disengagement across western democracies. But what if new security measures at the local level are making engagement more difficult, placing distance (figuratively and literally) between MPs and constituents?

    Amid a general crisis of representation, in which people in the UK typically feel unrepresented by Westminster, there is a risk that the mitigating power of constituency service will be diminished if MPs become (or are perceived to be) harder to reach – or are less present – at the local level. Moreover, if perceptions of disconnect between politicians and the public is a driver of political distrust, and that distrust in turn fuels abuse of politicians, the security steps MPs are taking to mitigate this threat could in fact be exacerbating it.

    Importantly, the securitising trend affecting British political life appears set to deepen. The Speaker of the Commons, Lindsay Hoyle – a long-time advocate for greater protections for MPs – has called for a transformation in parliament’s “security culture”. To a similar end, the outgoing Conservative government signed-off on a £31m package to bolster the constituency-level security of MPs; while the recently published Walney review recommends even greater bolstering. Understanding how such enhanced security shapes  the character and delivery of representative democracy in the UK – and the myriad costs it brings to bear on both politicians and the public – warrants greater attention.

    This blog post was first posted by LSE blogs. It draws on research by the authors published in Parliamentary Affairs. All views expressed are the authors’ own.

    About the authors

    Neil Matthews is Senior Lecturer in Politics at the School of Sociology, Politics and International Studies at the University of Bristol.

    Sean Haughey is Senior Lecturer in Politics at the Institute of Irish Studies at the University of Liverpool.