Category: Blog

Categories
Blog

The benefits of bringing academics and practitioners together: Writing the second edition of Exploring Parliament

By Cristina Leston-Bandeira, Alexandra Meakin and Louise Thompson.

The following blog post is about Exploring Parliament, which was published by Oxford University Press in April 2025 and will be launched at the Institute for Government on 15 May 2025. You can sign up to watch online here.

Over the last three years we have been working with a fantastic team of 38 academics and 35 parliamentary practitioners to create the second edition of the Exploring Parliament textbook. Like its predecessor, the book has collaboration at its very heart. The chapter topics stem from a roundtable discussion between academics and officials at the PSA’s Annual Conference back in April 2022 and wherever possible academics were paired with practitioners in order to write each chapter. Our aim was to create a fresh perspective on a wide range of aspects of the UK Parliament, including its relationship with the devolved parliaments; one which was grounded in key academic concepts and research, but enriched with the real-life details that only those who walk the corridors of Westminster can provide.

In this blog post, we reflect on the process of creating this new edition. We asked a small group of our contributors how they found the experience of working on the book and the benefits for academics of working with practitioners, and vice versa.  

Putting a spotlight on less studied aspects of Parliament

Some of our authors were returning contributors who had previously written in the first edition of the textbook, while others were new to the process.  Although our academics tended to write on topics which they have researched for a long time, our practitioners appreciated the chance to explain how parliament works to a different type of audience and to include examples which students may not have heard about before. In particular, those writing on the devolved parliaments highlighted the utility of a book which appreciates that Westminster works alongside other devolved institutions:

 “it was an opportunity to explain Parliament’s work—particularly the House of Lords—using examples that students and other readers may not have come across before” (Rosanna Barry, House of Lords)

“So often books, reports and studies on parliament in the UK focus on the UK Parliament alone, forgetting that the UK has four legislatures… As someone working in a devolved legislature it can be a frustrating experience to read work that doesn’t reflect your own experience or makes recommendations and conclusions that aren’t relevant or practical in a devolved or sub-nation state context…The opportunity to write a chapter about the work of parliaments in the UK from a devolved perspective, albeit on a UK-wide issue wasn’t something we couldn’t pass up. Any chance to raise awareness of the work of the four different legislatures in the UK is really welcome” (Nia Moss, Senedd)

“At times, textbooks on British politics tend to be quite Westminster centric and I was actually very happy to see how a book and Westminster Parliament itself considers the wider context, which I think is very important” (Prof Diana Stirbu, London Metropolitan University)

Collaborations between academics and practitioners

Academics and practitioners work in roles with very different expectations around the research and writing process. Practitioners for instance tend to write in a more factual style, in a much faster paced environment with shorter deadlines. Academics on the other hand typically have a much longer writing process and are more used to explaining concepts to a student audience.  Bringing the two groups together was an enjoyable experience (for most!), adding a fresh dose of reality to the academics’ writing and allowing practitioners the chance to write for a very different type of audience:

“The combination of academics and Parliament practitioners is a great one, as it combines our political science with a sense of how things really are. My co-author was also a quants whizz with a great head for figures, so could help me on that, where I am (erm) not so expert.” (Ben Worthy, Birkbeck)

“It was a great experience: we brought different skills, perspectives and experiences to the process and that meant we worked really well together as we could complement each other’s way of thinking and working. I feel like I learnt a lot!” (UK Parliament official)

“Working on this chapter was a change of speed. Initially we had a long time to produce a first draft, followed by shorter more intensive bursts of effort during the editing process.” (Rosanna Barry, House of Lords)

 “Although I probably write tens of thousands of words a year in my role in the Senedd, none of these words are particularly ‘academic’. I think I used the phrase ‘I’m not an academic’ more times in conversations with the book’s editors, as a means of forewarning them, than they’ve ever heard before. … We work in a fact paced environment where you have moved on to probably the ten ‘next things’ you need to do before what you worked on last week was even published. We’re busy dealing with the next issue on our desk before we have had time to reflect on last week’s problem. Being forced to take a step back and really reflect on the issue, the work that’s been achieved and the challenges that remain was a privilege I don’t often get afforded and it’s what I enjoyed most” (Nia Moss, Senedd)

“I learned such a lot from [my co-author] about the procedures and protocols and about how the conventions work in practice.” (Ruth Dixon, University of Oxford)

“not being too precious about one’s own writing was helpful. We allowed each other to keep and toss content and re-draft, as this is where there seems to be a lot of difference in how academics and practitioners write” (Ekaterina Kolpinskaya, University of Exeter)

Writing in an accessible manner

Textbooks require a very different type of writing to standard academic journal articles or parliamentary briefings. Both groups of authors needed to think about how to condense what were often very broad topics into short, succinct chapters which provided enough description to explain how processes work, but also contained some analysis of why things happen and the impact they have:

“Bearing in mind that this is a textbook, it was a useful discipline to stick to explaining clearly the normal course of events, without quibbles or little-used variations or historical footnotes” (Liam Laurence-Smyth, House of Commons)

“It’s easy to get lost, especially with something like trust in politics, which is hugely complex and nuanced. My co-author was great at picking out the key drivers, nature of the problem and possible solutions. They helped keep me out of what my teacher at A-levels called the ‘waffle bog’, a place where I find myself far too often.” (Ben Worthy, Birkbeck)

What worked well was being able to reflect on our practical and ‘real world’ experience of how interparliamentary relations is working on the ground. It really helped to focus on what the key message/story of the chapter should be. It hopefully helped to ensure that those reading it will get a real sense of what the genuine issues from people working on the issue day in and day out are rather than just a theoretical perspective.” (Nia Moss, Senedd)

The ongoing relevance of the book in the 2024 Parliament

The book was written shortly before the 2024 General Election and as such the case studies used are from previous Parliaments. Nevertheless, it has quickly become apparent how relevant the book’s themes are in the current Parliament:

“In some senses, 2024 was the ultimate trust (or distrust) election, so the chapter speaks to how the government faces in huge challenge, in somehow winning back or convincing hugely distrustful and cynical voters, against some very strong anti-elite, anti-system head winds. Can a government win back trust (relatively quickly) by delivering on promises? And what happens if they don’t?” (Ben Worthy, Birkbeck)

“Private Member’s Bills became a hot topic at the end of 2024 when the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was introduced by backbencher Kim Leadbeater.  We had already completed our chapter by the time the bill was introduced, but I think that our explanation of the stages of a PMB will help anyone trying to understand the complex procedures.” (Ruth Dixon, University of Oxford) 

“Our chapter is relevant for the 2024 parliament as it sets the scene of multilevel presentation and parliamentary activity across the UK. It is important for all MPs and especially to new MPs to be aware of the broader parliamentary context across the UK, to understand the differences and similarities between the different systems” (Prof Diana Stirbu, London Metropolitan University)

“Our chapter also speaks strongly to the principles and core aspirations of the ongoing efforts to make Parliament more accessible – for politicians, other passholders and visitors – both as part of the R&R programme and through the efforts of the Modernisation Committee and the work of the Speaker’s Office” (Ekaterina Kolpinskaya, University of Exeter)

“One of the Modernisation Committee challenges in the 2024 Parliament is to improve accessibility by demystifying parliamentary language. My chapter, and Exploring Parliament as a whole, is committed to bringing clarity to the inevitable complexity of legislative activity.” (Liam Laurence-Smyth, House of Commons)

It has been a real privilege to edit the second edition of Exploring Parliament. We have had the opportunity to work with a fantastic set of authors who have demonstrated the real value in bringing academics and practitioners together. We echo the views of one of our contributors who told us that “it was genuinely one of the most enjoyable things I did last year”.

About the authors

Cristina Leston-Bandeira is Professor of Politics at the University of Leeds. Alexandra Meakin is Lecturer in British Politics, also at the University of Leeds. Louise Thompson is Senior Lecturer in Politics at the University of Manchester.  Exploring Parliament was published by Oxford University Press in April 2025 and will be launched at the Institute for Government on 15 May 2025. You can sign up to watch online here.

Categories
Blog

A Snapshot of Gendered Membership Patterns in the Scottish Parliament’s Committee System

[i]

By Stephen Holden Bates.

The Scottish Parliament’s Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee (SPPA) is currently running an inquiry on committee effectiveness with a number of usual (and sometimes unusual) suspects appearing to give evidence. One theme of the inquiry is the structure of committees with SPPA already agreeing that “as a minimum, there should be no single sex committees”. Below I offer a snapshot view of the gendered membership patterns found in the Scottish committee system[ii]. Female MSPS are underrepresented, although sometimes only by a relatively small amount, across the system as a whole in all positions except those which are most junior, where they are overrepresented. Female MSPs are also unevenly spread across the committees. This unevenness, I argue, is problematic and unlikely to be solved unless more radical reforms than currently proposed by SPPA are implemented, such as those recommended in the Scottish Parliament’s 2023 Gender Sensitive Audit (GSA) Report.

Female MSPs in the Committee System

In April 2025, the proportion of committee convenors (chairs) who were female was 37.5% and the proportion of Deputy Convenors was 33.3%, while 42.7% of non-government MSPs were female. Compared to the data published in May 2024 by the Scottish Parliament as part of its commitment to ensuring equal representation and participation, the April 2025 figures show a decrease in female Convenors (from 53%) and an increase in female Deputy Convenors (from 21%).

With regard to members and substitute members (MSPs who cover for committee members of the same party when they are unavailable), the proportion of committee places and substitute positions across the whole system filled by female MSPs was 40.2% and 50.9% respectively.

Given the number of committees and committee positions and the relatively small size of the Scottish Parliament, many MSPs have to sit on more than one committee. When substitute positions are excluded, the average male and female MSP sits on 1.35 and 1.29 committees respectively, suggesting that male MSPs have the (slightly) heavier committee workload. However, when substitute positions are included, a different picture emerges with the average male and female MSP sitting on 1.78 and 1.85 committees respectively.

Overall, then, while recognising that committee turnover is high and membership patterns can change relatively quickly, it remains the case that female MSPs are currently underrepresented in the more senior positions of the committee system compared to their presence in the Scottish Parliament, even if sometimes only by a relatively small amount. As the GSA shows, this has not always been the case, especially in the first two parliaments, but it does appear to be a feature of the sixth. Female MSPs are also overrepresented in what can be considered the least glamourous position, where they both presumably often have to change their work schedule at short notice and have less opportunity to specialise in particular policy areas. These findings suggest that gendered vertical divisions of labour persist in the Scottish committee system.

Female MSPs across the Committee System

If we look at which committees female MSPs tend to be members of, then another gendered pattern emerges, one related to horizontal divisions of labour – the policy areas in which male and female parliamentarians tend to work. Tables 1 and 2 below show the gender of the Convenor for each committee and the proportion of female members. Those committee shaded light blue and light orange cover what can be considered stereotypically masculine and feminine policy areas respectively (with no shading indicating a neutral policy area)[iii].

As can be seen, the spread of female and male convenors and members across committees mostly conforms to what might be expected. There are a couple of exceptions – the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture committee is convened by a female MSP (although she is the only member) and the Education, Children and Young People committee has both a male convenor and a majority male membership – but, in the main, female MSPs are overrepresented in convenorships and committees covering policy areas which are stereotypically viewed as feminine (and perhaps less prestigious) and underrepresented in convenorships and committees covering policy areas which are stereotypically viewed as masculine (and perhaps more prestigious). Again, as shown by the GSA, some of these patterns are long-standing with, for example, male MSPs tending to be over-represented on finance-related committees and female MSPs on equalities- and on health-related committees (especially when the latter are not associated with sport).

Table 1: Gender of Convenor by Committee

Table 2: Proportion of female members by Committee (excluding substitutes)

If we believe that diversity within committees is important and not just within the committee system, then this is a problematic state of affairs. Moreover, the uneven spread of female and male MSPs across committees covering different policy areas (and with differing levels of prestige) is unlikely to be addressed by introducing a reform that stipulates that there must be at least one female and one male MSP on each committee. It is for this reason that my preference is for Big Bang reforms, such as those already recommended by the GSA Board which proposed that there should be a minimum of 40% women for committee convenorships,  that every committee should broadly mirror the gender balance in the Parliament as a whole, and that, where parties either elect or appoint more than one member to a committee, the party’s membership must be mixed.

[i] An earlier version of this blog was published in which I did not give enough prominence to ongoing work within the Scottish Parliament regarding equality, representation and participation and, in particular, the work of Fiona McKay in producing the Scottish Gender-Sensitive Parliament Audit. I apologise to those involved in this work for this omission which should not have happened.

[ii] This snapshot is taken from data provided in the SPICe Fact Sheet “Scottish Parliament committees: current committees, remits and membership” published on 30th April 2025.

[iii] These categorisations are adapted from Goodwin et al. (2021) who in turn adapted them from Krook and O’Brien (2012). The categorisations here are not perfectly fitted because of the often large and disparate policy areas that committees cover. For example, using the Krook and O’Brien typology, the Europe and external affairs parts of the Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture committee can be viewed as masculine, whereas the constitution and culture parts can be considered neutral. In such circumstances, I have categorised the committee in relation to what I assume is the most prominent focus of the committee.

About the author

Dr Stephen Holden Bates is a Senior Lecturer in Political Science at the University of Birmingham

Categories
Blog

Does beauty matter? Physical appearance in candidate selection for German parliamentary elections

By Calixte Bloquet and Danny Schindler.

After the collapse of the “traffic light” coalition and the dissolution of the Bundestag, Germany is gearing up for new elections on February 23rd, 2025. Happening in an incredibly fragile international and national context, the German elections are likely to be of vital importance. Yet, as with every election, the outcome is uncertain, as many topics collide in the campaign, and many voters are still undecided. One of the criteria for their choices will be who the candidates are: what they offer in terms of policies, which party they come from, whether they provide leadership skills and trustworthiness … And, to a lesser extent, how attractive they are.

Physical appearance does not usually top the list of criteria when picking a political representative, yet it can be particularly relevant in the case of parliamentary elections, where many little-known candidates are discovered for the first time on election posters. In the current German campaign, it is occasionally mentioned, with Green chancellor candidate Robert Habeck being described in medias as “probably the most attractive candidate for chancellor”. We take this opportunity to look into the role of attractiveness in candidate selection in German parties, how important it is, and for whom.

When and how to measure attractiveness?

The literature has already shown that attractiveness (slightly) improves the chances of being elected, in general but also in Germany specifically, be it in regional, national or European elections. But if it seems to be established that it matters to voters, little is known about how important it is for selectors inside parties, i.e., when it comes to deciding who can run for election in the first place: do selectors anticipate physical characteristics to be of importance, or do they take their decisions based on exclusively political criteria?

To answer this question, we draw on a party survey on candidate selection for the 19th Bundestag (2017-2021). More specifically, we asked more than 9000 party selectors in randomly selected nomination meetings at both district and state level (party lists), representing each party in the Bundestag, to judge which of a list of criteria were important or unimportant when nominating a candidate. Among the list, two items can be related to physical appearance: “attractiveness” (“Attraktivität”) on the one hand, and “well-groomed appearance” (“gepflegtes Erscheinungsbilds”) on the other.

Ultimately, our survey question does not measure the actual influence of physical appearance, but rather how willing selectors are to say these characteristics matter. This implies that respondents are likely under-reporting, either because they are unwilling to disclose what could be regarded as a “superficial” concern compared to political orientation, or because they might not be aware of its full influence on them.

What role does appearance play in the candidate selection process?

So does beauty matter? According to our data, both attractiveness and well-groomed appearance are relevant for the nomination of Bundestag candidates, to varying degrees: a third of respondents say attractiveness is important or very important (32,6%), and four fifths that a well-groomed appearance is (79,8%). Those results seem unrelated to the amount of political experience, for example the time spent weekly on party work or whether or not one holds a leadership position: committed members rated attractiveness and appearance as just as important or unimportant as less active ones.

What seems to matter most are social characteristics and political orientation – and through them, likely moral values. Indeed, our results seem to indicate that the older, less educated and more conservative party selectors are, the more likely they are to declare that either attractiveness or a well-groomed appearance matter. All those effects remain true in a multivariate model. On the other hand, younger, more educated and more progressive party selectors are less likely to admit the same, either because it influences them less, or because it is less appropriate of a thing to admit in those contexts. In ideological terms, party members of the conservative CDU and CSU attach more than twice as often importance to attractiveness than their counterparts among the Left Party or the Greens. As far as gender goes, if a well-groomed appearance is rated as similarly important by men and women, men attribute slightly more importance to attractiveness than women (Figure 1 and 2).

It is not to say that rational considerations do not also play their part: regardless of those other factors, selectors report that physical appearance matters less when nominating multiple candidates for lists rather than one individual candidate for a district. This is hardly surprising, when lists are composed of several dozens of candidates, most of them placed way too low to ever have a chance to be elected anyway. But this does not mitigate the importance of the other factors in any way.

***

To be sure, the importance of physical appearance in candidate selection should not be overestimated: other selection criteria carry greater weight. In our survey for example, more than 94% of respondents considered it important that the nominees demonstrate expertise in certain policy areas and are approachable. However, physical appearance does also come into play, not only in competition between parties, but also in internal party selection processes. In a context where personalization of politics, even in Germany, keeps rising, candidates might be able to find here some competitive advantage.

About the authors

Dr Calixte Bloquet is a Research Associate at the Institute for Parliamentary Research, where Dr Danny Schindler is the director.

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
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
    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
    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.

    Categories
    Blog

    Parliaments need to ensure democratic accountability for public debt

    By Franklin De Vrieze.

    On the occasion of the International Day of Parliamentarism (30 June), this article highlights the challenging task for many parliaments around the globe in ensuring accountability for the rapidly increasing public debt of their nation. It analyses questions of debt transparency, legislative and oversight practices on public debt and the challenge of executive dominance.

    Today’s debt crisis

    The world is facing a new debt crisis. Twenty-five of the poorest countries spend more on debt repayments than on education, health, and social policy combined. Sixty percent of low- and middle-income countries are highly debt vulnerable. In its latest International Debt Report, the World Bank revealed the sharpest rise in global borrowing costs in four decades.

    The origins of this dire situation are both historical and more recent. They include global power dynamics, international and regional barriers to trade and infrastructure development, national political histories and governance decisions around economic development, and the policies of multi-lateral lending institutions and the role of credit agencies. More recently, public debt of many countries has exacerbated by the COVID-19 crisis, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the environmental and climate emergency – and their economic and financial impacts – as well as sometimes dubious national borrowing decisions.

    Breaking out of the current debt crisis and avoiding future ones will require a fundamental shift in oversight and accountability for the way that governments borrow and manage debt. In this context, there is increasing recognition of the unique roles for parliament in the governance of public debt.

    Why parliaments need to get involved

    In its submission to the UK House of Common’s International Development Committee’s inquiry, Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD) suggested that there are six incentives as to why parliaments can play a more active role with regards to public debt: 1) It serves as a catalyst for greater debt transparency. 2) It helps to establish and implement a stronger legal framework on public debt management. 3) It strengthens oversight over government policies and spending. 4) It protects the national interest in emergency contexts and highlights the gendered effects of public debt. 5) It unearths the risks of State-Owned Enterprises becoming a major cause of debt accumulation and debt crises. 6) It contributes to delivering the requirements of successful Nature-for-Debt swaps, hence contributing to action on climate change mitigation and adaptation, and to climate change finance accountability.

    Parliaments, as representatives of people’s interests, as well as lawmakers and agents of accountability, are critical fiscal policy institutions responsible for approving the annual budget and overseeing the government’s execution of its approved programme. Meanwhile, debt managers are responsible for ensuring the government’s financing needs are met at the lowest cost over the medium-to-long term, consistent with an acceptable level of risk, and other objectives such as supporting domestic debt market development.

    How parliaments can get involved

    How can parliaments play a meaningful role in public debt oversight?

    Firstly, setting a legal framework for public debt management ensures that parliament provides strategic direction to borrowing decisions and clearly specifies the roles and responsibilities for the institutions involved in debt management. While most countries in the world have a financial administration act, public debt can also be regulated by more specific legislation.

    Secondly, the budget cycle provides the main structure for financial decision-making in parliament, and there are opportunities to scrutinize public debt and public debt management throughout the four stages of the budget cycle: formulation, approval, execution and audit/oversight.

    Thirdly, parliaments can incorporate debt management into their regular law-making and budgeting responsibilities in various ways, such as: reviewing and endorsing the Debt Management Strategy and monitoring ongoing implementation; reviewing and ratifying external loan and guarantee agreements in a timely manner; drawing on debt management compliance/ performance audit reports prepared by the Supreme Audit Institution to check the effectiveness of regulatory and systems arrangements; maintaining one or more permanent parliamentary oversight committees with overall responsibility for budget and debt management scrutiny.

    Worldwide, parliaments fulfil their debt management roles to varying extents, as MPs often struggle to understand the availability and completeness of debt statistics and other debt management documents. Hence, some parliaments decided to create a dedicated Committee on public debt, bringing together those MPs with strongest knowledge and interest in the topic, as is the case in Kenya and Nigeria. Many parliaments lack staff with the specializedknowledge and skills to support stronger oversight of public debt. Hence, some parliaments have established a Parliamentary Budget Office (for instance in Kenya and Sierra Leone), which provides members with specialized analysis on fiscal and budget issues, including issues of public debt.

    Transparency as precondition for parliamentary debt oversight

    Transparency is one of the major anchors of debt sustainability, ensuring that all stakeholders, including policymakers, creditors and investors, can take optimal decisions on a country’s debt obligations, based on fully disclosed, reliable and timely information. The issue of debt transparency became more prominent following the discovery of hidden debts in some debtor countries (for instance in Mozambique). It’s the main preconditions for parliamentary involvement in public debt oversight.

    There are clear advantages to greater debt transparency as it gives credibility to government policies and helps ensure debt and fiscal sustainability. It supports democratic systems and reduces the opportunity for corruption. However, some national governments might not be ready to provide timely, comprehensive, accurate, accessible, and intelligible debt data, policies and operations to their national parliament or the public at large. Parliament often only gets partial access to the relevant data, thus limiting their ability to exercise oversight on public debt.

    Executive dominance

    In addition, oversight of public debt largely depends on oversight of the political choices underpinning the proposed investment projects which are funded by new loans. However, parliamentary oversight of these political choices often faces the challenge of executive dominance. In some countries, it means that, for instance, the President might request MPs to adopt proposals, vote for proposed investment projects, or increase the debt ceiling while the MPs know that this is not a sound policy. I learned that, in those circumstances, MPs may sometimes feel that they have no choice but to approve requests by the executive, as their position in parliament or within their party – and in extremely worrying cases their personal security and the safety of their family – can depend on it.

    This means that debt transparency is not sufficient. Based on a political economy analysis, there is need for a corruption and patronage lens to fiscal and debt policy. When the national budget is inflated by imprudent projects requiring large loans, it is indebting the country for generations to come. In these circumstances, public debt can be called “budgeted corruption”.

    Civil society

    Therefore, in addition to more rigorous oversight by parliaments, civil society also needs a more robust role. CSOs and academics, with expertise in fiscal and debt policies, can play a complementary monitoring role, reinforcing parliamentary scrutiny. The role of the Institute for Public Finance in Kenya is a commendable example.

    Unsustainable and opaque debt is a democratic deficit. It undermines the social contract which underpins a democratic system of governance. That is why Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD) advocates for debt transparency, more rigorous debt accountability to parliaments and robust civil society monitoring.

    About the author

    Franklin De Vrieze is the Head of Practice Accountability at Westminster Foundation for Democracy.

    Categories
    Blog

    Petitions and Petitioning in Europe and North America

    By Henry Miller.

    Over the last decade, parliaments across the world have adopted e-petition systems to promote citizen engagement with legislatures. While made possible by the internet and twenty-first century technology, the contemporary e-petition can also be understood as the latest version of an ancient political practice: the petition. As this blog will illustrate, petitions and petitioning have long been a popular way for people to engage with parliamentary institutions, both before and after the advent of modern democracy.

    This blog summarises key findings from a major new edited book, Petitions and Petitioning in Europe and North America: From the Late Medieval Period to the Present published by Oxford University Press for the British Academy. Originating from an AHRC Network, the book brings together historians, political scientists, legal scholars, and sociologists to examine petitions and petitioning, that is the practices related to the drafting, signing, presentation and reception of petitions.

    As the book shows, petitions have been ubiquitous across a many different geographical, chronological, and political contexts, including modern democracies and authoritarian regimes. The book is organised into three sections that: 1) define petitions with greater conceptual clarity than before; 2) examine changes and continuities in petitioning over long periods of time; and 3) offer case studies of why and when petitions have mattered in particular political contexts, ranging from late medieval England to the early Soviet Union. This blog will summarise findings in three areas that will be of particular interest to scholars of parliamentary studies.

    First, a key theme of the book is the relationship between petitions and the evolution of parliamentary institutions. In his chapter, Gwilym Dodd shows that petitions were an important method for collectively asserting parliamentary authority against royal power in late medieval England. During the ‘age of revolutions’ (1789-1871) in Europe and North America, mass, collective petitioning on public issues, often based on newly codified rights to petition, was increasingly directed to legislatures. The value of petitions to parliaments was double-edged in an age of limited suffrage. Parliaments, including the UK House of Commons, used petitions to claim a degree of popular consent in the absence of democratic elections. Yet at the same time, petitioners invoking ideas of popular sovereignty frequently challenged parliamentary authority by claiming to represent a broader people than the limited electorate.

    In the twentieth century, as Richard Huzzey and Henry Miller show, there was a shift away from petitioning legislatures to a broader range of authorities, including international bodies like the United Nations. Petitioning remained a ubiquitous form of political participation, but because petitions to non-parliamentary authorities (such as Number 10 Downing Street) were rarely recorded, its continued popularity remained largely invisible to scholars. This historical perspective allows us to see that one important implication of the growth of legislative e-petitions systems, documented by Cristina Leston-Bandeira in her chapter, is that it restores parliaments as the principal authorities for receiving petitions from citizens.

    Second, petitions have been an important mechanism for representation across the centuries. As a series of studies have shown, petitions have enabled the ‘voice of the voteless’ to be heard in legislatures from groups lacking formal political rights, including Native Americans, women before universal suffrage, and colonised peoples in the British empire.  In their study of the US Congress over two centuries, Maggie Blackhawk and Daniel Carpenter persuasively argue that petitioning has been an important form of representation that exists independently of electoral and party politics. Examining Dutch petitions over three centuries, Maartje Janse et al, demonstrate that petitioning has been a significant practice for making representative claims to authority by individual citizens and groups. In his survey of petitions in colonial Jamaica during the era of slavery, the late Aaron Graham shows that petitioning was one of the few tools available to groups including Free People of Colour and Jewish subjects to  claim rights from a legislature dominated by slave-owners. Marta Gravela and Ismini Pells show that petitions were an important mechanism for claiming citizenship and welfare, respectively, from the state.

    Third, the book reveals the essential duality of petitions and petitioning as both formal and informal political practices that is vital for understanding their ubiquity, longevity, and flexibility. While often studied in formal, institutional, official settings, notably parliaments, petitions have always taken informal, unofficial forms as well and have been directly to a range of authorities. As chapters by Mark Knights, Joris Oddens, and others show, there has been an enormous variety of petitions and related subscriptional (or name-signing) practices, including supplications, covenants, declarations, and gravamina to name but a few. In the nineteenth-century UK, petitions to the House of Commons were the most popular genre of petitioning, but these existed alongside addresses to the monarch, memorials to government, and requisitions and other petitions directed to every type of local authority.

    Petitions have never been isolated from other forms of political participation. Indeed, in particular contexts they have underpinned and made possible other forms of collective action. While petitions today are often regarded by sociologists as a conventional form of collective action compared to more direct forms of protest, a historical perspective shows that petitioning has often been linked with revolts, rebellions, and revolutions. Petitioning has often been a fluid political practice that could mutate into other forms, including mass demonstrations or strikes, while the correlation between petitions and the formation of political organisation such as political parties or single-issue associations is well-established. Modern forms of participation and engagement have evolved from petitioning. The institutionalised forms of referendums and initiatives in Switzerland, Andreas Würgler shows, developed from a long tradition of petitioning. The practice of letter-writing to MPs and political leaders, which expanded dramatically in the twentieth-century, was an outgrowth of petitioning as Huzzey and Miller suggest.

    The shape-shifting quality of petitions is one of the many reasons why they have been a widespread practice since the late medieval period, and a key means for interacting with parliamentary and representative institutions, even if now, they largely take digital form.  

    About the authors

    Dr. Henry Miller is Vice Chancellor’s Fellow in the Department of Humanities, Northumbria University.

    Categories
    Blog

    Reimagining the UK Parliament

    By David Judge and Cristina Leston-Bandeira.

    Few institutions – whether economic, social, or political – have escaped calls in recent years for reimagining. In its literal sense reimagining is ‘the action or an act of imagining something again’(OED); or, stated more pithily, it means to ‘think seriously about starting over’. A reimagining of parliament, therefore, needs to explore and trouble (in the sense of challenging and disrupting) current imaginings of what parliament is and does. This is what we set out to do in our new book Reimagining Parliament.

    Stages of Reimagining

    A ‘stages approach’ was adopted to reimagining. The first stage was to identify what was to be reimagined. Obviously, in our case the specific focus is the UK parliament. It is not about the genus of ‘parliament’, or of the general concept of ‘parliament’. Instead, it is about the Westminster parliament firmly located within a ‘Westminster system’ of government. This is the present (what currently exists). This provides the starting point for reimagining (what does not yet exist).

    The second stage of reimagining was to identify who is doing the reimagining. The selection criteria for ‘reimagineers’ was that they should collectively combine the practical, professional experience of those who have worked in Westminster and the academic, research experience of those who have analysed parliament from a range of disciplines; and that they should be willing to step outside their professional and academic comfort zones to be provoked into thinking afresh about how they might reimagine parliament. Our ‘reimagineers’ were: Didier Caluwaerts, Emma Crewe, Paul Evans, David Judge, Cristina Leston-Bandeira, Lucinda Maer, Alexandra Meakin, Dann Vermassen, Hannah White, and Ben Yong.

    A third stage was the ‘how’ of reimagining. A ‘headshift’, in the sense of ‘a break with conventional thinking’, was required. To break with the orthodoxies of institutional perspectives, contributors were asked to identify foundational principles with which to drive the modelling ab initio of various dimensions of parliamentary activity; to explain why the identified principles are deemed to be foundational, and why they matter. Two broad categories of principles emerged from this identification process. In the first category are principles broadly reflective of basic political tenets currently underpinning notions of liberal democracy in the UK: these include openness; engagement/connectedness; accessibility; inclusion; equality; fairness; responsiveness; and accountability. Principles in the second category are associated more with institutional and organisational norms and practices: these include wellness; ethical propriety; sustainability; organisational flexibility; and effective institutional governance.

    The outcomes of reimagining

    Notions of space, connectivity and interaction help in defining the positioning and distinctiveness of parliament at the centre of UK politics. ‘Space’ focuses attention upon location, architectural space and purpose, and the symbols, performances and rituals of parliament. ‘Connectivity’ is concerned with the dynamics of representation, the identities of those to be brought together in parliament, and how citizens are included and engaged in parliamentary processes. ‘Interaction’ is multi-directional, both outward looking to inter-institutional connections and highly politicised processes of effecting government responsibility and accountability; and inward looking to intra-institutional modes of administration and regulation, demarcated by parliamentary procedures and processes of self-governance.

    Within these encompassing frames – of parliamentary space, connectivity, and interaction – the impact of how first category foundational principles may impact reimagining can be seen below.

    Openness, engagement/connectedness, and accessibility

    Space: These principles are used to guide rethinking: first, in the architectural sense of designing more open-plan spaces within which parliamentarians and staff could meet and work; and of an opening-up of the dark recesses of the parliamentary estate to allow in more natural light and ventilation. Second, in the sense of parliament being open to the public and infusing the principle of public access into the architectural design and necessary security structures and working regimes at Westminster. A fundamental question behind such reimagining is: what would the building look like if the public’s access to democracy was the primary purpose for the design?

    Connectivity: The principles of openness and accessibility also underpin a reimagining of the engagement networks, mechanisms and processes of parliament to inform its information, education, communication, consultation and participation activities. In part this prioritisation of openness reflects growing citizen expectations of more openness within parliamentary democracies across the world. Whilst the principles of openness and accessibility provide keystones for engagement activities, their interconnectedness with other principles – of relatability, relevance, continuity, and sustainability – is also vital to reimagining public engagement.

    Interaction: When applied to parliamentary scrutiny the principles of openness; engagement/connectedness; and accessibility provide for: greater openness and accessibility in the sense of the ability to obtain information from government and citizens and the capacity to receive (and publish) information in a more open way – through reimagining the technologies, the language, and the choreography of scrutiny. A reimagining of connectedness would include greater deliberative innovation into the scrutiny process; alongside a rethinking of partnership working both within Westminster and between legislatures in the UK; as well as enhanced networking with other monitoring and regulatory bodies. In turn, the principle of engagement can be used to rethink the relationship between parliamentarians and scrutiny processes.

    When applied to parliamentary procedure, a reimagining based on the above principles, would aim to encourage participation, deliberation, and make procedure more accessible to parliamentarians and citizens. To this end, it should be transparent both in the sense of being ‘open’ about the rules governing parliamentary behaviour and how they are applied, as well as being presented in language which is natural, plain and transparent. Enhanced openness, in conjunction with other identified ‘second category’ principles, envisages procedure to be more ‘relatable’ inasmuch as it must be recognisably human; ‘relevant’ insofar as it must focus attention on what is important; and provide ‘continuity’ to the extent that procedure must be predictable without being unchanging.

    Inclusion, equality, fairness, and responsiveness

    These principles provide tensile threads running through most aspects of reimagining parliament.

    Space: the principles of inclusion and equality are of central importance in re-envisioning parliamentary architectural space and transforming parliamentary rhythms, rituals and symbols. Such reimagining would have at its heart securing greater equality and inclusion in relation to currently under-represented or un-represented groups in parliament. These principles would be inhered by symbolic recognition of the achievements of minority groups; provide challenges to prevailing ‘hierarchies of value’; and made manifest in redesigns of parliamentary space, parliamentary communication and messaging strategies, and the adoption of neutral (non-exclusionary) parliamentary language.

    Connectivity: A rethinking of parliamentary engagement imbued with the principle of inclusion aims to produce a parliament that is more welcoming, more relatable, and more relevant both to current generations and to future generations of parliamentarians and citizens. The principle of inclusion also signifies a necessary representation of diverse bodies, abilities, voices, opinions, backgrounds, races, ethnicities, genders, and identities in parliamentary activities. Securing greater equality and inclusiveness in the representative process requires affirmative action, including compensatory measures, to challenge the structural and attitudinal barriers which perpetuate representational inequalities. The inclusion of more, and more diverse, voices in the deliberation of public policies through such institutional actions and measures, alongside the situating of parliament as a key nodal point in intricate networks of electoral and non-electoral representation, are essential elements of reimagining parliamentary representation. The principle of fairness also intersects with the discussion of representational equality, not least in the maxim that formal political equality is secured through free and fair elections. In turn, securing fairness opens up considerations of a more proportional electoral system and greater alignment of the activities of representatives to the preferences of the represented through the institutionalisation of an encompassing system of responsiveness.

    Interaction: Inclusion – and the promotion of diversity – serves as a guiding principle for reimagining the patterns of social interactions, working routines, and ‘people policies’ at Westminster. A reimagined parliament would conceptualise itself as an exemplar of best workplace practice and culture, rather than an exception to the rules shaping other workplaces. Moreover, a reimagined parliament would uphold the principle of fairness, and the closely aligned principle of non-discrimination, to guarantee the general right of workers be treated fairly and not to be discriminated against. When reimagining parliamentary governance, a parliamentary administration which is both responsive and responsible is to be a touchstone of good governance. These principles, when operationalised, would provide greater transparency of governance arrangements; and ensure that those making key administrative decisions are clearly identifiable and known to be responsible and accountable for those decisions.

    When it comes to reimagining parliamentary scrutiny, what makes it unique, and distinct from other forms of scrutiny of executive actions, is that it engages the notion of democratic accountability. The media, regulatory bodies, charities and academics may all play valuable scrutiny roles, but they lack this central democratic function. For parliamentary scrutiny to be effective, it needs to engage parliamentarians. Being engaging, efficient, connected, informed, and accessible can all be seen as part of good scrutiny, but good scrutiny should feed back into good government. Equally, if procedure is essential to conferring legitimacy upon the processes and outputs of parliament then the way decisions are reached must be seen to be fair (and, so far as possible, be enduring because they are fair).

    Further serious thinking

    Whilst the specific focus of Reimagining Parliament is ‘thinking seriously about starting over’ – in conceptualising parliamentary space, connectivity and interaction in Westminster – it also serves to prompt questions about the necessity of further serious thinking about reimagining the broader institutions and processes of parliamentary democracy and parliamentary government in the UK. Calls for broader reimagining are particularly salient at a time when: parliament is widely and roundly criticised (see, for example, Ian Dunt, Hannah White, and Alison Young); significant proportions of the UK population have little trust in Parliament; and many citizens believe that politicians at Westminster do not understand their lives.

    About the authors

    David Judge is Emeritus Professor of Politics in the Department of Government and Public Policy at the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow.

    Cristina Leston-Bandeira is Professor of Politics in the School of Politics and International Studies at the University of Leeds.