Category: Blog

Categories
Blog

“Tread carefully” – the UK Parliament as a human rights “defender” within the Northern Ireland devolution framework.


Leah Rea examines the role of the UK Parliament in ensuring compliance with the UK’s obligations under international human rights law within the context of devolution, in the absence of legislative intervention from successive UK Governments to address inaction by the Northern Ireland Executive.

Human rights discourse occupies a prominent role in Northern Ireland’s politics, with the issue of rectifying state non-action of protection of human rights arguably as old as the province itself. As evidenced by both historic and contemporary legislative records, the progression of human rights standards in Northern Ireland has always been problematic. The example of the 1960s civil rights movement illustrates both the historic propensity for the politicisation of human rights in the region, and the difficulty of securing legislative change in i) the absence of progression at devolved level, and ii) the absence of intervention by the UK Government, particularly when the Government evades international obligations. In recent years, the discussion has been framed within the context of devolution, focusing on where does legislative competency reside, and specifically, at what political juncture can legislative intervention be sought from the UK Parliament to rectify human rights issues in Northern Ireland? As we wait on the Northern Ireland Office (‘NIO’) to implement the pledge made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to introduce the draft Irish language legislationpublished in conjunction with The New Decade, New Approach Agreement 2020, it is worth recalling the UK Parliament’s role as a human rights “defender” vis-á-vis the operation of the Sewel Convention in the context of Northern Ireland’s abortion law between 2018-2019.

Using parliamentary procedure to highlight human rights

Following an early election in March 2017, agreement to form the Northern Ireland Executive could not be reached and subsequently the devolved institutions did not function in Northern Ireland until January 2020. During this time, there were key developments in the recognition of the human rights violations arising from the then law governing abortion in Northern Ireland. In light of these, parliamentary procedure was utilised within the House of Commons to raise the particular matter of human rights in relation to abortion law in Northern Ireland, the UK Government’s corresponding non-compliance with international human rights law, and the need for legislative intervention in the absence of the devolved institutions.

Emergency Debate and navigating Sewel

Following the referendum result to repeal the Eighth Amendment to the Irish Constitution, the constitutional prohibition on accessing abortion, grassroots movements in Northern Ireland called for urgent legal reform to address widening geographical disparity in abortion access and human rights. With the Abortion Act 1967 limited in territorial application to Great Britain, the then legal framework in Northern Ireland comprised of sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861: abortion was only legal to protect the mother’s life, or cases where her mental and/or physical health was seriously at risk, and could not be accessed in cases of Fatal Fetal Abnormality (FFA), rape and incest. 

The development invoked fresh political impetus: Labour backbencher Stella Creasy MP utilised Standing Orders (No 24) to bring an emergency debate to the House of Commons on 5 June 2018 for the House to consider its role in repealing sections 58 and 59 of the 1861 Act. Creasy aimed to bring the operational impact of the 1861 Act to the attention of the House – and commence the argument that in the absence of a sitting Assembly, it was the responsibility of the UK Government under international human rights law to legislate to address human rights violations in Northern Ireland. 

In the context of Northern Ireland, Creasy referenced the findings of the UN CEDAW Committee inquiry that women and girls had been subjected to “grave and systemic violations of rights”. Conscious there were concerns regarding undermining the constitutional arrangements of devolution, Creasy emphasised the 1861 Act continued to operate across the UK, so Parliament was required to act to remedy the issue on a UK-wide basis. However, she noted the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement 1998 provided for the UK Government “to legislate as necessary” to ensure the UK’s “international obligations” are met in respect of Northern Ireland. Conversely, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland upheld the Sewel Convention, stating as abortion was a devolved matter it “would not be appropriate for Westminster” to intervene. Ultimately, the House resolved its affirmation of the motion – and its role as a human rights “defender”.

The Urgent Question and a change in tactics

Shortly after the emergency debate, on 7 June 2018, the UK Supreme Court delivered its judgment in the judicial review brought by the NIHRC against the Department of Justice under the Human Rights Act 1998 on the basis the existing law violated Articles 3, 8 and 14 ECHR of women and girls by criminalising abortion access for FFA, rape and incest. A majority of the Court determined the law was incompatible with Art 8 ECHR in respect of not providing access to women and girls in these circumstances. Responding to the judgment, Creasy availed of procedure to ask an urgent question. In this instance, Creasy directly challenged the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the Government’s position of the incompatibility of the 1861 Act with human rights, further urging for the Government to progress the draft Domestic Abuse Bill and adopt it as a vehicle to repeal sections 58 and 59 on a UK-wide basis. She called upon the House, with “its responsibility” under the 1998 Agreement to uphold human rights in Northern Ireland, to “do our job” and call for legislative action. Again, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland invoked the Sewel convention, asserting the matter was within the legislative competence of the devolved institutions and so the responsibility of Northern Ireland politicians alone, and would not commit to recognising the UK Government’s obligations under international law.

Westminster intervenes: the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Political negotiations continued in Northern Ireland throughout 2019, and by June 2019 the period outlined within s1 of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018 for Executive formation had expired. To enable the continuation of negotiations, the Secretary of State introduced The Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill to extend the available timeframe. Illustrating the UK Government’s need for the Bill to come into effect promptly, the Bill was subjected to a fast-track process. Whilst this process usually restricts Parliament’s ability to scrutinise Government Bills, in this instance the accelerated schedule proved feasible for tricky amendments to challenge the Government to uphold its international obligations. Creasy availed of the situation, tabling an amendment (New Clause 10) which obligated the Secretary of State, in the event of continued absence of devolved government in Northern Ireland, to implement the 2018 recommendations of the UN CEDAW Committee. This marked a significant change in Creasy’s tactics: here now was an attempt for direct legislative action from Westminster to rectify human rights issues in Northern Ireland. The Sewel Convention notwithstanding, the amendment was accepted by the Speaker’s Office for consideration.

Proposing her amendment at Committee stage, Creasy acknowledged the House must “tread carefully” in relation to achieving a balance between respecting the devolution arrangement and upholding human rights standards, but affirmed the role of Parliament as a human rights “defender”, emphasising the obligations of the House in accordance with the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement as regards safeguarding human rights in Northern Ireland. She submitted the UK Parliament had failed to adhere to its obligations and had a responsibility to intervene in the continued absence of devolved government. 

Responding for the Government, Minister for the NIO, John Penrose stated devolved issues should be the responsibility of the devolved institutions; Parliament should “tread carefully” within the devolved context. The pattern of affirming Sewel then ceased, as the Minister acknowledged the prolonged absence of devolved government in Northern Ireland, and “the result” of which was the list of human rights related amendments. The Minister further noted amendments on issues of conscience, such as the Creasy amendment, were “traditionally free votes” and confirmed the Government would not “break that important principle”. In the absence of a whipping operation Creasy’s amendment was approved by a parliamentary landslide of 332 votes to 99. The Bill as amended was subsequently carried at Third Reading and came into force on 9 July 2018. 

Whither Sewel?

It is interesting to chart the developments in this case study as regards navigating the Sewel Convention. Creasy initially sought to uphold Sewel: her original proposal was for the May Government to repeal the relevant sections of the1861 Act via the draft Domestic Abuse Bill and on a UK-wide basis, using the situation of human rights concerns in Northern Ireland as grounds for the necessity of this. However, following the judgment of the Supreme Court just two days later, Creasy emphasised the House’s particular role under the 1998 Agreement as regards human rights in Northern Ireland and urged for the May Government to directly intervene in light of the political vacuum in Northern Ireland. Her successful amendment to the 2019 Act therefore marked a turning point for the Sewel Convention, suggesting that in the event of a human rights violation in the devolved administrations, the UK institutions may intervene on the grounds of their role as final guarantors of human rights obligations in international law. Can we now interpret “will not normally legislate” in the context of upholding international human rights? Equally, we must consider that the requirement of consent under Sewel was a determining factor: in the absence of the devolved institutions, consent could not be acquired.

Moreover, the case study appears to suggest in the situation of a conflict between the convention of free votes upon conscience issues and the Sewel convention affirming devolved legislative competencies, the former takes precedence. Could the role of the UK Parliament as a human rights “defender” depend on individual Parliamentarians according to their own conscience? Or, was relying on the conscience convention an exercise in political expedience for the May Government to navigate the situation Creasy had created with her significant amendment in a tight timeframe? As the NIO recently introduced the The Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021 – which empower the Secretary of State to issue direction to comply with the 2018 UN CEDAW Committee recommendations in Northern Ireland – in light of ongoing failure of the Northern Ireland Executive to fully commission abortion services, and so continuing with Westminster intervention in Northern Ireland, the situation on a contentious issue remains complex. The problem of human rights progression in Northern Ireland goes on.

Leah is a PhD Researcher at the Transitional Justice Institute at Ulster University. Her research focuses on examining the relationship between constitutional conventions established by devolution settlements, and the progression (or hindrance) of human rights standards in Northern Ireland. This blog post is based on a paper delivered at the PSA Parliaments Conference 2021.

Categories
Blog

The Owen Patterson Scandal: Standards, Trust and Democratic Norms

By Chris Monaghan, Caroline Bhattacharya and Alexandra Meakin

NB The views expressed in this blog post do not reflect the view of PSA Parliaments

The resignation of Owen Paterson as Member of Parliament for North Shropshire, following revelations that he had been paid half a million pounds to lobby ministers has highlighted  what may be an uncomfortable truth, that many MPs supplement their parliamentary salary with taking on second or indeed third jobs. The extent of this practice has been forced into the open, with newspaper reports highlighting that the former Attorney-General Sir Geoffrey Cox had spent substantial time undertaking paid work (earning £700,000) for the British Virgin Islands. 

The focus on this blog will be the Paterson scandal. The blog will outline the events that gave rise to the controversial attempt by the government to protect Paterson from sanction, and in doing so revealed the problems with regulating the conduct of Members of Parliament and holding them to account for engaging in lobbying. The blog will then place the scandal within a broader context. 

Factual background

In response to the revelation in The Guardian that Paterson had been paid £500,000 to lobby ministers, an investigation was commenced by the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner, Kathryn Stone, who found that Paterson had  breached the rules relating to paid advocacy, declaration of interests, and the use of parliamentary facilities. Her findings were considered by the House of Commons Standards Committee—comprising four Conservative MPs, two Labour MPs, one Scottish National Party MP and seven lay members—who concluded:

“This is an egregious case of paid advocacy. Previous instances have led to suspensions of 18 days, 30 days and six months. Each of Mr Paterson’s several instances of paid advocacy would merit a suspension of several days, but the fact that he has repeatedly failed to perceive his conflict of interest and used his privileged position as a Member of Parliament to secure benefits for two companies for whom he was a paid consultant, is even more concerning. He has brought the House into disrepute. We therefore recommend that Mr Paterson be suspended from the service of the House for 30 sitting days”.

It is customary for the recommendations of the Standards Committee to be approved by MPs without a vote. Ahead of the vote on the suspension of Paterson, however, the former Leader of the House of Commons, Dame Andrea Leadsom, tabled an amendment, signed by 59 MPs, to the motion, declining to endorse the suspension until and if by a specially-formed select committee reviewed the “clearly flawed” standards system for MPs. The Government enforced a three-line whip on the vote and Dame Andrea’s amendment was passed by 250 to 232 Members of Parliament, with only two non-Conservative MPs voting in favour (one of whom was Rob Roberts MP, who had been elected as a Conservative prior to losing the Whip when he was suspended for a separate breach of standards rules). (It is important to note, however, that from the Conservative backbenches, 98 MPs did not vote and thirteen voted against the government). 

Any celebrations for ministers were short-lived, however, as the Government was forced into a U-turn almost immediately when the opposition parties made clear that they would not serve on the proposed new select committee. Just hours after the Leader of the Commons, Jacob Rees-Mogg, pledged to work on a “cross-party basis to achieve improvements in our system for future cases”, Paterson resigned as a Member of Parliament, triggering a by-election for December 2021. The Government’s initial approach was heavily criticised and it was seen by opponents and many commentators as shielding one of its own supporters and undermining the accountability of members for breaches of parliamentary rules. Ministers have acknowledged the Government’s mistake and described the U-Turn as the ‘grown-up thing’ to do (Nadhim Zahawi MP, BBC News). The Government has formally asked the Commons to rescind the motion establishing the new Committee, and Paterson’s resignation has meant that he will avoid any suspension. 

Analysis 

Paterson has resigned, the government has apologised and conceded its mistake. However, this does not negate the sense of double standards and the concern that the Johnson administration is further tarred with the taint of corruption. It has further reignited debate over the number of Members of Parliament who have second jobs. While MPs are barred from acting as “a paid advocate in any proceeding of the House”, there is no universal restriction on second jobs.  Just under a third of all Members of Parliament have additional income to their official parliamentary salary, and although this does not just affect one party (the Leader of the Official Opposition, Sir Keir Starmer reportedly received £70,000 for legal advice from private companies), the party with the highest proportion of MPs with second jobs is the Conservative Party (It should be noted that neither Sir Geoffrey Cox nor Sir Keir Starmer are accused of engaging in lobbying on behalf of their clients). A study by Weschle shows that Conservative MPs with a second job ask more parliamentary questions, and that these questions are targeted at larger ministries with more procurement spending and often concern internal policies (such as the state or planning of projects). 

There have been some defences of outside interests: Cabinet Office Minister Steve Barclay argued that there is “value in MPs having a continued connection with the world outside of politics”. Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg has defended Sir Geoffrey Cox, partly due to the need to attract practicing lawyers to serve both in Parliament and as law officers—the ministerial roles of attorney general, solicitor general and advocate general for Scotland. Such arguments have often caused past efforts to bar MPs from holding certain outside interests to fail to gather sufficient support (e.g. the Private Members’ Bills tabled by Peter Bradley in 2002 and Martin Salter in 2007 and the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s recommendations in 2018). Following the Paterson scandal, however, Sir Keir Starmer’s intention to table a motion to ban MPs from paid consultancies or directorships may prove more successful.

The broader decline of trust in parliamentarians and Parliament itself is a matter of concern. New polling by the Committee on Standards of Public Life found that 44% of people rated the standards of conduct of MPs as quite or very low, compared to only 20% taking a positive view, and noted the progressively lower scores reported since 2002. The Hansard Society’s latest Audit of Political Engagement found that 72% of the public believe that our system of parliamentary government needs ‘quite a lot’ or ‘a great deal’ of improvement. 

In their book How democracies die: What history tells us about our future, Levitsky and Ziblatt remind us that “[d]emocratic backsliding today begins at the ballot box” (p. 5). In other words, nowadays it is more often elected governments than men with arms who seek to undermine democracy, and often “democracies erode slowly, in barely visible steps” (p. 3). Democracy is safeguarded by institutions such as parliament and written laws and rules upheld by independent courts, but, Levitsky and Ziblatt argue, at least as important are unwritten democratic norms:

Norms are […] shared codes of conduct that become common knowledge within a particular community or society – accepted, respected, and enforced by its members. Because they are unwritten, they are often hard to see, especially when they’re functioning well. […] Like oxygen or clean water, a norm’s importance is quickly revealed by its absence. When norms are strong, violations trigger expressions of disapproval, ranging from head-shaking and ridicule to public criticism and outright ostracism. And politicians who violate them can expect to pay a price. (p. 102)

When applying these arguments to the parliamentary setting, we can make a strong case that parliament as a democratic institution and the norms that underpin parliamentary democracy need to be defended first and foremost from within. And this task does not fall merely on the shoulders of the Speaker of the House of Commons as the highest representative of parliament and ‘conductor’ of parliamentary proceedings, but is a responsibility that should be shared by all parliamentary actors.

The main problem was not Owen Paterson. (There will always be some bad apples among the bunch.) The key issue was that the government – with the help of their Commons majority and key parliamentary figures such as the current and former Leaders of the House – (a) denied the legitimacy of the outcome of the parliamentary procedure to investigate and sanction MPs’ rule-breaching behaviour and (b) proposed to overhaul the institutional system for evaluating parliamentary standards, also retrospectively for the Paterson case.

Lord Evans, Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said on 4 November:

[I]t cannot be right to propose that the standards system in the House of Commons should be reviewed by a Select Committee chaired by a member of the ruling party, and with a majority of members from that same party. This extraordinary proposal is deeply at odds with the best traditions of British democracy. The political system in this country […] is a common good that we have all inherited from our forebears and that we all have a responsibility to preserve and to improve.

The two important norms at play here are the acceptance of outcomes of democratic processes (in this case the standards inquiry system) and what Levitsky and Ziblatt call ‘institutional forbearance’, that is the exercise of self-restraint and acting not only in the letters of the law but also in its spirit. The government’s actions in parliament undermined both these values. By imposing a three-line whip on its MPs, the government did not only interfere in what is generally seen as parliamentary business but also signalled that defiance would be considered a serious breach of party loyalty with potential consequences. (Angela Richardson, who abstained, lost her job as a Parliamentary private secretary – before being reappointed after the government’s U-turn.)

High levels of party unity are a key feature of a well-functioning parliamentary system. But a parliamentary party group cannot always be perfectly cohesive in their viewpoints, and when divergence emerges, party leaders usually have an array of institutional tools at their disposal to impose discipline. During every MP’s time in office, occasions will arise when their constituency interests and/or personal views and convictions will stand at odds with the official party line. Those are the moments when an MP needs to decide whether to stay silent for the sake of party loyalty or publicly communicate and act on their dissent, in full awareness that a roll-call vote stays in the historical records. When the issue at stake is not a specific policy but essential democratic norms and procedures, the option to stay silent is a particularly serious one, as MPs fail to fulfil their role as guardians of parliamentary democracy.

On 3 November, 248 Conservative MPs voted in favour of the Leadsom amendment, 13 voted against and a few more abstained and publicly voiced their objection such as the ‘Father of the House’, Sir Peter Bottomley. The government’s U-turn indicates that the broad public outrage and presumably conversations among members of the Conservative Party behind closed doors (and sometimes apparently in semi-public view) have succeeded in safeguarding parliamentary democracy in this instance. But this was not the first time and is unlikely to be the last time that the Johnson government seeks to tighten the executive grip on parliament, and that Conservative MPs must decide when the defence of the role of parliament, democratic norms and ethical principles is more important than party-political goals and personal ambitions.

This post was originally published on the Political Studies Association Blog.

Categories
Blog

Using the past to help us to understand the future of the Palace of Westminster

Ahead of next Tuesday’s Virtual IHR Parliaments, Politics and People seminar, we hear from Dr Alexandra Meakinof the University of Leeds. On 9 November 2021, between 5.15 p.m. and 6.30 p.m., she will be responding to your questions about her pre-circulated paper on ‘Using the past to help us understand the future of the Palace of Westminster’.

The Palace of Westminster is in a state of advanced disrepair, and faces what was described by a Joint Committee of MPs and Peers in 2016 as ‘an impending crisis which we cannot reasonably ignore’. While a major refurbishment project—Restoration and Renewal (R&R)—was approved in 2018, the future of the Palace remains uncertain, as concerns mount among some MPs about the cost and the prospect of temporarily moving out to allow the work to take place.

The risk of a catastrophic fire, flood or failure of the essential services within the Palace has developed over many decades, as vital maintenance was neglected and the infrastructure serving the building went far past its expected lifespan. Indeed, some of the mechanical and electrical plant dates back to the building’s establishment in the mid-19th century, as a replacement for the old Palace, destroyed by fire in 1834.

The 1834 fire, as discussed previously on this blog, occurred after multiple unheeded warnings about the state of the building, a situation worryingly similar to today. It is not the only lesson from history, however, which may be relevant for current discussions. This blog posits that through historical analysis we can identify five recurrent themes that help to explain policymaking decisions relating to the Palace as a legislative building (figure 1, below).

Figure 1: Explaining policy decisions

A confused governance system has been evident in Westminster for centuries, manifested through divided patronage between the King and Prime Minister in the appointment of architects to work on the Palace in the 18th century and delays to the rebuilding after the 1834 fire caused by contradictory instructions from ministers, MPs and Peers—an issue still present today. In addition, the emotional attachment parliamentarians feel about their workplace—for example in the form of a connection to their predecessors, transmitted through the very fabric of the Palace—influences the decisions they make about its future.

This is linked to the third recurrent theme: a clear unwillingness to make radical changes to the Palace. When disaster has occurred, there has been a tendency to recreate the past: either in the exact replica of the previous Commons chamber in the 1940s (described by one MP in 1945 as taking ‘nostalgia to the stage of absurdity’), or in Barry’s design for the new Palace after the 1834 fire. These decisions then become precedent to be followed faithfully in future, a form of path dependency that explains the reluctance to move out of the Palace, the fourth theme. Finally, historical analysis shows that you cannot explain decisions about the Palace of Westminster purely by considering what was happening within the building. The intrinsically political nature of the legislature means that wider political events have influenced the policies chosen for the building.

The Elizabeth Tower covered in scaffolding, 2019; image: Ethan Doyle White, CC via Wikimedia Commons

Looking to history helps to explain how R&R became necessary but it can also explain why its future remains unclear. While the Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Act 2019 legislated for an independent governance structure, the future of the R&R project continues to be subject to the views of the House of Commons Commission. A number of MPs remain opposed to leaving the Palace of Westminster even temporarily, demonstrating the same attachment to the building as has been witnessed for generations. There have been repeated efforts to scale back the scope of programme, in a further sign of the tendencies towards conservatism and to reflect the economic impact of the coronavirus pandemic. A key lesson from the historical analysis is that major work to the Palace of Westminster has tended to occur only when unavoidable: despite the approval of R&R, it may be that history repeats itself and the ‘impending crisis’ warned of in 2016 occurs.

The threat of a crisis is one major reason why the future of the Palace of Westminster matters. The risk to the Palace is not just about the potential loss of an emblem of national identity, but also the very real dangers faced by the people working in or visiting Parliament. Former Leader of the Commons, Andrea Leadsom, has warned that ‘it is only by sheer luck that no one has been injured or killed’ to date. But the future of the building also matters for the health of our democracy. Legislative buildings are not just symbols of the institution, but their architecture, design and décor affect how people—parliamentarians, staff and visitors—behave within. Through the necessary work to fix the pipes and stonework, the UK Parliament has an opportunity to think about how it can build a legislative building fit for the 21st century, shaped by the public and designed to facilitate their engagement with democracy. Taking this opportunity before crisis occurs would demonstrate that MPs and Peers really have learnt from the past.

To find out more, Alexandra’s full-length paper ‘Using the past to help us understand the future of the Palace of Westminster’ is available here.

This blog was originally posted on The History of Parliament Website and is reposted with permission.

Categories
Blog

Parliaments are watching to make sure climate legislation has an impact

How have parliaments responded to the Paris Agreement during the past five years? In which way are parliaments making sure that climate legislation does have an impact? These were some of the questions guiding the new report “Parliaments and the Paris Agreement”, published by Westminster Foundation for Democracy, ParlAmericas, INTER PARES, and GLOBE International. Based on this report, we put forward five golden rules for conducting climate-proof Post-Legislative Scrutiny.

By Rafael Jimenez Aybar and Franklin De Vrieze.

With only a few of weeks until the start of COP-26 in Glasgow, the role of parliaments in advancing international climate commitments deserves a spotlight. Parliament’s critical role in the development, implementation, and monitoring of their country’s climate objectives is often underestimated. 

The recent report “Parliaments and the Paris Agreement” shows that, to date, action on climate by parliaments has gone beyond adopting climate policies and legislation. The report also notes how parliaments focus on implementation and impact, thus contributing to promoting environmental democracy by upholding the environmental rule of law. 

While legislation is of critical importance to achieve national climate commitments, it is equally vital to ensure that the legislation is implemented and has the intended outcomes. This process is often referred to as Post-legislative Scrutiny (PLS) or ex-post impact assessment of legislation. 

PLS can help identify implementation shortcomings, areas of improvement and good practices. While PLS can provide oversight of the implementation gap, the gap between ambitions legislated for and those delivered, PLS can also provide a window for increasing legislative ambitions in line with what the science demands. 

PLS can be applied to climate-specific legislation as well as to general legislation which is not specifically environment- or climate-focused. In case of the latter, one speaks of a climate and environmental “lens” over PLS. 

Based on the new report, we outline five golden rules for conducting climate-proof PLS. The five golden rules capture the do’s and don’ts for parliaments willing to engage on PLS of environment and climate legislation and PLS of general legislation with an environment and climate lens.

1. Make the work of parliament climate-proof. Climate-proof PLS is not the job of the Environmental Committee only. All committees need to be engaged. This means that parliaments need to organise their internal processes to ensure that environmental oversight spans the entirety of its work, including through inter-committee communication and environmental and climate mainstreaming in committees’ work. This requires that all MPs and staff have been informed of the national targets related to mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and the strategy on adaptation.

For instance, the Scottish Parliament applies its sustainable development Impact Assessment Tool to all its legislation. It helps parliamentarians moving beyond simply asking ‘what is the economic cost or benefit of this law’ to asking, ‘what is the carbon cost?’. The UK Parliament Environmental Audit Committee has a cross-government mandate to consider the extent to which government departments and public bodies contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development.

2. Make all PLS inquiries climate-inclusive. For PLS of general legislation, it is important that environmental impact is explicitly included in the PLS guidance, calls for evidence, and questions used in data collection. The PLS report needs to include a section on findings and recommendations relevant to the environment and climate; going beyond findings and recommendations related to the thematic remit of that law. This is similar to the approach that says that any legislative impact report must have a section relevant to gender equality.

An example is the Indonesian Parliament which has started PLS of the ‘Law on Job Creation’ with specific attention to the risks of driving environmental degradation.

3. Employ environmental treaties as entry-point for environmental PLS. Parliaments have a key role in ratifying international environmental and climate treaties. PLS can provide a window of analysis to check on the government’s commitments and adherence to such treaties as reflected in the national law. Furthermore, delivery against international treaties takes place at national, regional, and sub-regional level. Parliaments are critical to ensure that this happens.

4. Look at the role of implementing agencies of legislation. Each law designates an institution, department or ministry for its implementation. In many countries, the piecemeal development of environmental legislation risks regulatory overlap. Through PLS, MPs can review the role of implementing agencies of environmental laws, in order to consider whether compliance and enforcement regimes exist, and what is their effectiveness, legality, and coherence.

For example, the National Assembly of Nigeria is currently assessing the Environmental Impact Assessment Act and the Act on the National Agency for the Great Green Wall.

5. Review the legislative targets. It is important that legislative targets for climate and environment are adequate, timely and achievable. Setting targets alone does not in itself improve environmental outcomes. PLS of climate and environment legislation should therefore focus its assessment not only on targets, but also performance against those targets – asking if the targets and actions to meet them are doing enough.

For example, the Canadian Parliament enacted a review clause in the Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act to ensure a parliamentary review after 5 years of it coming into force with the aim to sharpen the targets.

Rafael Jimenez Aybar is Environmental Democracy Adviser and Franklin De Vrieze is Senior Governance Adviser at Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD).

Categories
Blog

Parliaments or Legislatures, or perhaps Assemblies? Names, origins and meanings

Cristina Leston-Bandeira, University of Leeds

@estrangeirada

For parliamentary geeks out there, this is a recurrent discussion: parliament or legislature? Which term is the ‘right’ term to use? Which one reflects the true nature of the institution that embodies the representative and legislative branch in a political system. I suggest we should relax more about the exact term and instead acknowledge their differing origins and meanings, whilst recognising the diversity of terms out there – assemblies, councils etc. After all, words are imbued with our own culture and history – why should it be any different with the word used to refer to this institution?

A while ago I started working on a textbook about comparative legislatures – unfortunately, life was a bit too mad at the time and I couldn’t bring it to fruition (maybe a retirement project?). But, as part of Chapter 1, I actually completed some research on the names and history of development of legislatures (or is it parliaments?). Here are some notes from that research. 

The institution supporting the representative and legislative branch of governance has been known by different names across the world and over time. This is often associated with local culture and language, but can also indicate a focus on a particular function to the detriment of others. The terms ‘legislature’ and ‘parliament’ are the most commonly used generic terms and are regularly used inter-changeably – they have, however, different origins and refer to different functions. In short, legislature is North American originally and refers to the function of making law. Parliament has European origin and refers to the function of debating.

The term ‘legislature’ tends to be more ordinarily used in Anglo-Saxon environments and/or countries with a strong American influence. The development of this term is closely associated with the expansion of the nascent American colonial legislatures. As their expansion in a context of independence was closely associated to the right of making law, the label of “legislature” – to legislate, to make ‘legis’(law) – became the natural appellation of these institutions. It is therefore a term linked to American influence, but also to an understanding of this institution as a legislation-making body. 

The term ‘parliament’ however is more common in Europe and in environments with a strong European influence. The term comes from the French verb ‘parler’ – to speak, to discuss. It refers therefore to a different dimension of this institution: as an arena for debate. As we see below, the medieval parliaments were mainly gatherings for discussion, and the term parliament is associated with these. This term can be dated back to medieval times in Europe, being therefore the most well-established nomenclature for this institution.

Other common names include Assembly (often National Assembly and associated with the need to reaffirm the national sovereignty of the people), Congress (usually encompassing a lower and an upper chamber), Chamber (Chamber of Representatives, Chamber of Deputies, etc, encompassing an explicit reference to the primacy of the role played by the Plenum chamber), Council, House and Senate (a popular name for upper chambers). But many parliaments also have their own country specific names, such as Althingi (Iceland), Bundestag (Germany), Diet (Japan), Majlis (Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries), Sabha (India) and Sejm (Poland). And some of these names refer instead to the idea of ‘gatherings’, ‘coming together’, or even ‘events’, which speak to other types of functions performed by these institutions but are also a nod to the way they developed from ad-hoc gatherings to permanent institutions.

Legislatures are not a new feature of our societies, they have existed for many centuries. What is specific to the modern parliament is its complexity of membership and of roles performed, and the way it is integrated nationally in the governance fabric of our societies. It is difficult to date exactly when the first parliaments existed, as this is closely related to how one defines a legislature plus the linkage of the institution with its place (are legislatures that have changed location and/or building, the same legislature, for example?). Besides this, the development of legislatures is often conflated with the development of democracy and/or representative government. Although related, they are not necessarily the same. There are plenty of examples of legislatures, still today, that have little resemblance to democracy or representative government. 

The definition of a parliament, in its basic form, can be summed up as a group of people meeting together at the same time and location (even if digital) to discuss matters that affect the collective of a community. This may simply constitute a discussion and not lead to an effective decision or a vote. Some identify the medieval legislatures as the first ones, other point to the Greek assemblies (with associated myths: the Icelandic Althingi, the Isle of Man Tynwald, England for Westminster, etc.). The first legislatures were mainly forums for discussion, whereby people would meet to discuss key issues of the day. The abiding power of these forums to make decisions or to simply consult and discuss varied considerably, across the ages and contexts. 

Whilst the ancient Athenian Agora is the most well-known early assembly-like institution, this was by no means an exceptional institution. Other assemblies existed already at the time across ancient Greece. Most operated as public spaces for discussion, open to whoever wish to join the debate. Some assemblies had deliberative powers and decisions would be voted upon, though the power to vote would be limited to male citizens who attended the respective meeting. There is also evidence of much earlier presence of assemblies in the Indian sub-continent, in the Vedic age, meaning circa 3000-1000 BC, which exercised considerable influence. The Roman era also includes many types of early institutional expressions of a legislature in the form of councils, assemblies and, of course, the well-known Senate, which was particularly powerful during the Roman Republic. These legislatures varied very considerably in composition, participation, role and powers across the different Roman regimes. Some involved direct democracy participation, some had legislative powers, some were simple forums for discussion of local issues. A common characteristic of all of these different types of legislatures is their transient nature and, in most cases, lack of national remit.

It is from the medieval legislatures, though, that we can identify a clearer path of development towards the institution of the modern parliament. Many authors date the creation of the first parliaments in the 13 century and place it in England, with the De Monfort Parliament in 1265, seen as the first expression of a national legislature. But this development is progressive, representing the culmination of the expansion of smaller scale assemblies. It is also a process present elsewhere in Europe. The first parliaments were born out of a need of Monarchs to negotiate with the members of their aristocracy, and of increasingly larger territories under their ruling. As territories under one Monarch became larger and the need for taxation became a more complex task, the need to negotiate terms with local Barons and other aristocracy representatives became all the more pressing. As the context and environment of those negotiations became more formal and regular, the beginnings of the notion of a parliament started to materialise.

In his detailed comparative analysis of medieval parliaments in Europe, Marongiu shows that the predecessors of the modern parliament – curia, courts, concilia, estates – were developed firstly as occasional public relations reunions, which were “summoned by sovereigns whenever it seemed opportune to ask [secular and ecclesiastical dignitaries] counsel or opinion” (Marongiu, 1968: 45). As these reunions became more regular and larger, their relevance and formality expanded eventually leading to the new parlamentums. The first parliaments were therefore about communication and public relations. But as parliaments became institutionalised and part of a national governance chain, their focus shifted to the relationship with the executive and to the function of legislating.

I’m European, so parliament feels like the most natural word to use. My first language was French (parlement), my second language Portuguese (parlamento) and my third one is English (parliament). So parliament it is; that doesn’t mean I don’t use the term legislatures and I’m perfectly relaxed about using the term, as my recent article with David Judge shows; I’d probably rarely use the term ‘legislators’, but understand where North American colleagues come from when they do. So rather than worrying about what is the right term (whilst ignoring the many other terms that exist, such as Assemblies), it may simply be best to accept both. Or indeed adapt and create new words, as Brazilians have done: by adapting the American legislature word and meaning, they created ‘the legislative’ as a noun – o legislativo – which does not exist in European Portuguese as a noun. Ultimately words simply reflect their history and culture, there is no right or wrong, it’s about what each means, the same with parliament (or is it legislature?).

If you want to find out more about it all, I really recommend the following:

Loewenberg, G. and Patterson, S. (1979), Comparing Legislatures, University Press of America.

Marongiu, A. (1968), Medieval Parliaments – a comparative study, Eyre and Spottiswoode.

Categories
Blog

Parental Leave, ‘Locum MPs’ and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

In this blog, Nick Dickinson argues that Stella Creasy’s call for better parental leave rights for MPs is a vital step. But a better system can’t be achieved by IPSA alone, and asking it to do so may undermine the aim of a more representative Parliament in the long run.

The Labour MP Stella Creasy has written to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA), the body that regulates MPs’ pay and expenses, after the authority denied a request to fund the appointment of a ‘locum MP’ to provide full maternity cover. While Creasy has argued that IPSA must “follow the law on maternity cover” in this respect, the regulator has responded, through its chief executive Ian Todd, that the “concept of a locum… is misconceived in relation to an MP” as a matter of constitutional principle.

In the context of the systematic underrepresentation of women in British politics, IPSA’s position seems hard to justify – appearing to put constitutional niceties ahead of gender equity. Parliament has a long history of direct and indirect discrimination against women MPs, with the fight for better parental rights only the latest in a long list of fights to make Parliament more equitable. IPSA’s position is also undermined on this occasion by having provided funding for a locum position for Creasy previously in 2019, albeit only after similar pressure being applied.

Yet the clear and pressing need to address parental leave for MPs cannot fall to IPSA alone. Independent bodies of various kinds are common in UK. However, IPSA is unique in exercising functions which so directly affect core institutions of British democracy – and which were held until comparatively recently to be the sole prerogative of a democratic sovereign Parliament. For the same reason, its central tasks are sharply delimited: to determine MPs pay and pension contributions and to regulate and administer the system of expenses (or ‘business costs’, as the regulator now calls them).

Throughout its existence, IPSA has been the subject of a variety of attacks by MPs on its decisions. While this was initially directed at the exercise of its core tasks, in particular the regulation of expenses, over time controversies have shifted towards what IPSA is not doing rather than what it is. This has included, among other things, criticism in support of a greater HR role for MPs staff, for whom IPSA provides resources and template contracts, in the context of bullying and harassment scandals in the Commons.

These critiques all have individual merit, but taken together they amount to a form of mission creep with the potential to backfire badly. As scholarship on agencies such as IPSA has shown, their independence is assured through the intensive management of reputation. Contrary to the expectations of public choice theorists, however, this is achieved not through ‘empire building’ and taking on a broader role but by a ruthless focus on narrow core competencies. At a time where some of IPSA’s have once again become controversial this lesson is all the more important.

Moreover, the effective exercise of IPSA’s pay setting competency itself has substantive consequences for gender parity in parliament. Maintaining an adequate level of pay has been shown improve legislator quality by overcoming barriers faced by women in entering legislative bodies. Kotakorpi and Poutvaara (2011), for example, take advantage of a one-off pay reform of Finnish legislators to show that increased remuneration led to increases in levels of higher education among candidates and office holders, but only among women. Likewise, Atkinson, Rogers and Olfert (2016) also find a positive effect of increasing legislators’ compensation on the proportion of highly educated women in the Canadian parliament by increasing the pool of candidates.

Instead, Parliament should take responsibility for the constitutional reforms required for a real solution to the problem. One obvious device would be the use of ‘alternates’ – or substitute candidates elected alongside the primary candidate in each constituency. If the candidate wins office but is unable is unable to serve for any reason (illness, death, extended travel, or, as in this case, parental leave), then the alternate takes their place fulfilling the full functions of the office holder. Alternate positions are widely used in Latin America and can be found in systems around the globe.

Routine use of alternates may also come with other benefits in terms of broadening descriptive representation. By increasing the pool of candidates for office, parties may gain more leverage to strategically nominate members of underrepresented groups to alternate positions. A system of alternates would also allow MPs to take leave for other reasons, for example mental health. This has been highlighted most recently by Labour MP Nadia Whittome’s decision to take time off to recover from Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). But the ability of more MPs to regularly take such breaks may become increasingly important in light of the psychological pressures of modern politics. Again, this impact is very likely to be gendered issue given the broader unequal burden of mental health in the population as a whole.

In sum, Stella Creasy’s call for better parental leave rights for MPs is a vital step towards a more equitable politics. But a better system can’t be achieved by IPSA alone. Moreover, asking it to do so may undermine the aim of a more representative and democratic Parliament in the long run.

Dr Nicholas Dickinson is Bingham Early Career Fellow in Constitutional Studies at Balliol College, Oxford.

Categories
Blog

Cummings on stage: what does it tell us about select committees?

Marc Geddes explores fresh drama in the theatre of Westminster. In this blog, he discusses Dominic Cummings’ recent select committee appearance and considers the insight it can offer into the effectiveness of select committees.

Asked if the prime minister, Boris Johnson, is a fit and proper person to get us through the COVID-19 pandemic, the former chief advisor to the prime minister, Dominic Cummings, replied: ‘No’. This damning verdict was given as part of evidence to the joint Science and Technology/Health and Social Care committee inquiry into lessons to be learned from COVID-19. The appearance was high-profile: newspaper articles speculated at length about the session in advance, it was discussed that morning on BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme, the session was trending on Twitter, and it remained headline news throughout the day and into the next. To use the analogy of theatre: it was a front stage political drama. It raises a significant number of questions about the government’s handling of COVID-19. But what does it tell us about select committees? I think there are three interesting issues.

A first issue is about how effectively select committees are able to develop detailed questioning. It was interesting to note how the session played out largely in a non-partisan way (with some exceptions). But more than that, the session showed us the importance of sustained and effective questioning. Greg Clark and Jeremy Hunt – chairs of their respective committees – took up the first hour to question Cummings before other committee members had an opportunity to ask questions. The ability to follow a line of inquiry was crucial to following up on key claims and asking for concrete evidence of Cummings’ allegations through written documents. The chairs were also unafraid to ask follow-up questions when committee members failed to do so (e.g. when Cummings first accused Hancock of lying to the Cabinet, the committee member expressed shock but moved on to another subject). Cummings was held to account, but the session raises questions about the wider questioning skill of committee members. Perhaps there are structural issues at play: with fewer questions, members need to ask more direct and arguably more adversarial questions; knowing you have 30 minutes instead of ten makes a big difference.

While Clark and Hunt, in particular, have come out looking well, there is also a bigger question to be answered about what the joint committee gained from the session. The hearing was wide-ranging (and perhaps unnecessarily long). Cummings made a significant number of eyebrow-raising claims. His answers were long and rich in detail, sometimes backed up by pictures, graphs and text messages. The hearing was an exercise in explanatory accountability: understanding what happened, in detail. It helps paint a picture of how Number 10 operates, which – given the gravity of the decisions – is hugely important. But it was also a picture painted according to one former advisor that has fallen out with, and is disliked by, many in government. His account was therefore partial, and full of contradictions. He was reflective about things he wanted to talk about, but evasive when it came to things he did not want to discuss. The joint committee had a big task in testing the former advisor’s claims, with some (though not complete) success. The committee was good at pushing for evidence and information, but Cummings was still able to talk generally about ‘groupthink’ and system failure without always going into specifics. A second issue that this hearing raises, then, is how individual testimonies fit into the wider picture, and also how effectively the committee gathered accurate information.

A third issue concerns the witness. I have already implied that there is some doubt surrounding the truthfulness of Cummings’ account. Let us not forget that Cummings’ appearance took place despite him being found in contempt of Parliament for refusing to appear in front of a different select committee in 2019. This should raise questions about his motivations for attending in this instance. An underlying issue – as discussed in this recent Constitution Society blog – is the possibly complex relationship between committees, witnesses and contempt, which has been the subject of a number of parliamentary inquiries over the years (as also recently discussed by Paul Evans for the Hansard Society). In any case, a wider issue for Parliament to consider is the truthfulness and credibility of the account of somebody who has previously been found in contempt of Parliament. It is not clear, in the end, how much credibility we should give to Cummings’ evidence. This, in turn, raises the thornier question of whether it was in the committee’s interest to hear from Cummings directly in this way – something that only time will tell.

All three issues return us to a fundamental, existential question: what’s it all for? What is, ultimately, the purpose of this hearing, this inquiry, and scrutiny by select committees? Evidence sessions are an incredibly important part of the scrutiny process. It is through them that committees are able to explore key policy and political issues, gain information about what happened, and to evaluate if things were done as effectively as they could have been. This doesn’t happen through one single hearing, but through multiple different sites across Parliament: along the committee corridor and in hearings, through bilateral meetings, through written communications, through oral and written questions across the Commons and Lords, and much else besides. Through this, Parliament is able to build webs of scrutiny that can be significant for strong accountability – provided that chairs and members are able to ask effective questions in order to establish the truth.

Marc Geddes is Senior Lecturer in Politics at the University of Edinburgh. He is author of Dramas at Westminster: Select committees and the quest for accountability, which won the Mackenzie Prize for Best Book Published in Political Science in 2021.

This blog has been kindly shared with us by The Constitution Society. Please find the original post on their blog series here

Categories
Blog

You are Unmuted: the Impact of Hybrid Proceedings on MPs Participation during the Pandemic

Wang Leung Ting writes: A year has passed since the adoption of hybrid proceeding (HP) by Parliament. HP was intended to mitigate the problems that come with the pandemic and lockdown, most important of which is to maintain the representativeness of the House by facilitating participation from vulnerable members, such as aged MPs, who need to be shielded to protect their health, as well as female MPs, who are more likely to be burdened by increase familial and caring responsibilities during the lockdown. It is perhaps time to take stock on HP’s efficacy see if it has the intended effect in facilitating aged and female MPs’ participation in parliamentary proceedings.

But before doing so, we need to address a methodological obstacle: the lack of an observable counterfactual to act as a baseline of comparison. To put it differently, it is impossible to tell how MPs would have behaved should the impact of the pandemic was not mitigated by HP. Without knowing that, we cannot determine whether HP has indeed changed MPs’ behaviour.

However, the scope of HP has gone through a couple of changes in the past year as shown in Table 1. During the height of the first wave of the pandemic (P1), HP applied to both substantive (i.e. debate on legislation) and scrutiny (i.e. Questions to ministers) business. This was narrowed during last summer and autumn (P2), when HP was limited to scrutiny business only. It was not until the end of December(P3), with the onset of the second wave of infection, that the arrangement under P1 was restored.  

We can therefore exploit these expansions and contraction of the scope of HP to determine its impact on MPs behaviour: If HP does facilitate the participation of aged and female MPs, we should observe these two groups of MPs being more active during P1 and P3, when the application of HP was more expansive, in comparison to the more restrictive P2.

Let’s begin by looking at MPs participation at the aggregate level. The following graph shows the total number of words spoken by all backbench male (blue) and female (red) MPs each week from the beginning of this parliament until 18th Mar 2021 as recorded in the Hansard. We can see that there is a dramatic drop in the number of words spoken during P1 for male MPs whilst the negative impact for female MPs is much less apparent.

What about older MPs? Graph 2 shows the result of the same analysis as the first but this time between MPs who are over the age of 65 at the beginning of the pandemic (Green) and those who aren’t. We can see that there wasn’t much change for aged MPs participation throughout 2020 except a very modest increase in the number of words spoken by MPs above the age of 65 with the onset of P3.

Graph 3 below shows the number of words spoken by female and aged MPs as the proportion of all words spoken in each week. For female MPs, despite some fluctuation, their participation remains quite steady except for the slight increase in P3 in comparison to the end of P2. As for MPs over 65 years of age, again there is no dramatic shift except for some modest increase toward the end of P2, which continued under P3.

To further explore the effect of HP on MPs participation at the individual level, I have fitted two Time-series Poisson regression models on the number of words spoken by each backbench MP in any weeks throughout the study period. The baseline of comparison in both models is P2, as suggested in the aforementioned hypothesis. The model includes MP fixed effects, which confine the analysis to variation of participation within an MP across weeks. It also contains week fixed effects, which control for time-varying factors that may affect MPs participation, most important of which is varying number of sitting days and the length of proceeding between weeks.

Table 2 shows the result of the two models. Model 1 considers P1 and P3 separately. The results confirmed some of the aforementioned observations. For male MPs, there is a clear drop in participation during P1. In comparison to P2, the weekly number of words spoken by a male MP drop by about 60% whilst the drop among female MPs is only around 50%. Moreover, this distinction between male and female MPs in P1 is statistically significant. A similar effect is also observed in P3 although the gender distinction is no longer statistically significant. Model 2 considers P1 and P3 together as the scope of HP under both phrases are roughly the same. Again, it shows that there is a statistically significant and gendered distinction in the impact of the expanded scope of HP under P1 and P3.

What about aged MPs? Although HP did not bring many benefits for them in P1, but they did catch up eventually during P3. On average, aged MPs spoke 35% more each week during P3 than they did in P2. Moreover, there is an interaction between age and gender as this effect is particularly strong among older female MPs.

These results suggest is that HP does facilitate female and aged MPs’ participation in parliamentary proceedings. As the scope of HP increase in P1 and P3, so did the number of words spoken by female MPs. Although the effect is most apparent during Phrase 1 when it was driven by the fact that the impact of the first wave of the pandemic is less negative for female MPs in comparison to male MPs. As for older MPs, the benefit of HP is not apparent until Phrase 3. This suggests that there is perhaps a steeper learning curve for older MPs to adopt the use of technology. Once they are acquainted with the new arrangement, HP does indeed increase aged MPs’ participation as well.

A limitation of this study is that it focuses entirely on what happened in the (virtual) chamber. What it cannot take into account is the possibility that the benefit of HP could also lie beyond the chamber, such as allowing MPs to do more in their constituency or for their family without the usual trade-off with traveling to Westminster to participate in parliamentary proceedings.

As the country seems to be turning the corner with the pandemic, there has been an ongoing discussion, both in and out of Westminster, on what roles, if any, should HP play in Parliament post-COVID. Results in this post have demonstrated that HP does have a positive impact on the participation of MPs belonging to underrepresented and vulnerable groups, there is therefore a case in favour of maintaining some form of HP in parliamentary proceedings in the long run.

Wang Leung Ting is a Fellow in the Department of Government at LSE.

Categories
Blog

Who are the ‘unsung heroes’ of Westminster? Results from a survey of MPs staff

Last year, extra funding was offered to MPs to help them and their offices cope with the COVID-19 pandemic. The public outcry that ensued showed the confusion and misunderstandings amongst the public about the work of MPs and the staff who support them. But even before COVID-19 hit us, the job of an MPs’ staffer was difficult to decipher from the outside and most people know very little about the 3,000 people who play key roles in the functioning of our democracy.

Rebecca McKee presents the first data from her project on MPs’ staff, summarising her findings in response to the question ‘who works for MPs? Much of the data presented here is from a survey of MPs’ staff and more information about the survey can be found on the project webpage.

We know more than ever about our MPs – who they are, what motivates them, and what they say and do in the course of their work. They work hard, and their workload is growing. But this work is supported by just over 3,000 staff, working in offices across the UK, and we know very little about these ‘unsung heroes’, as former Commons Speaker John Bercow called them. They undertake a wide variety of roles, as gatekeepers, controlling access by constituents and interest groups; they are resources, providing research and policy advice; they are channels, linking the constituency to Westminster; and they are providers of essential administrative support. They sit at what has been termed the ‘representational nexus’, as they represent the constituents to the MP and the MP to their constituents.

These individuals have an unusual employment status; they are not public servants in the way that a civil servant is. MPs are responsible for employing their own staff directly and they are able to set the direction of work and the roles of the staff needed to support them, essentially running 650 small businesses. They do so within a framework covering salaries and job descriptions, overseen by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA). There is no formal hiring process and staff may lack some of the usual employment protections and support systems. Yet these roles can also provide the incumbents with significant benefits. Staff may be able to trade on the valuable experience they have gained and the networks they have become privy to. Some, but not all jobs, can be a stepping stone to a career as a parliamentarian, a political journalist, in a public affairs agency, or other role where knowledge of ‘the inside’ and a demonstrable ability to engage with it counts for a lot.

Yet not everyone can take advantage of these opportunities. The experience of a caseworker in a constituency office will differ from that of a parliamentary researcher in the Westminster office, simply on account of the different work they do, their exposure to Westminster politics and the people they interact with as part of their job.

Given the importance of these staff in supporting MPs and the hugely varied experiences they have, we should ask who are these people who work for MPs?

IPSA routinely publishes some data on MPs’ staff, but as it’s collected for monitoring MPs’ expenditure and payroll purposes it is quite limited. In autumn 2019 I conducted a survey, sent to the offices of all MPs. I asked questions on three key themes: equality and diversity, capacity and skills, and employment practices and opportunities. I am very grateful for the responses I received, and that staff took the time to engage with this project. Where it was possible to compare with existing IPSA data, I could see that I achieved a sample that was largely representative in terms of gender and category of job (job family – see later) but less so in terms of political party, so the data have been weighted to take account of party in the analysis. More information about the survey is available on the project webpage. The figures cited in the following sections come from the survey, except in some cases where the data is taken from IPSA’s website. In these cases I have added a link to the source.

Who works for an MP?

Taking an average of the data, a ‘typical’ staff member is female, 37 years old, white, a state educated university graduate who is working in a junior executive role, for example a Junior Caseworker, in the constituency office. Overall, about 56% of MP’s staff are female, and 93% are White. More than half are over 30 years old, the longest serving staff member according to an IPSA FOI in 2018 had been working for an MP for almost 39 years. Their educational backgrounds vary. Almost 70% received their secondary education at a state comprehensive or secondary modern school, 15% attended an independent (fee-paying) school, and 14% attended a state grammar school. The proportion who attended an independent fee-paying school is almost double the average for the UK population (7%), but half of that of MPs themselves (29% in 2019).

This is a skilled workforce, as judged by formal qualifications. Around three quarters of all staff have a university degree, and around a fifth have a postgraduate degree. Of those with a degree 48% received it from a Russell Group University, including 7% from Oxbridge. The vast majority of degrees are in the Humanities or Social Sciences – of those with degrees, 90% at undergraduate and 82% at postgraduate level have degrees in these subjects. The rest are divided among the Sciences, Business, Education, and Planning.

Of course, university is not the only place where people gain experience and skills. Because there are 650 individual offices, each with a small number of staff, a higher proportion are in the senior roles needed to run them. Just under a third are in the top employment band including, for example, Office Managers and Senior Parliamentary Assistants, which gives them experience in taking responsibility that will be very useful in future roles. Overall, staff have worked in a broad range of sectors, including but not limited to hospitality, consulting, marketing, retail, law, finance, research and health and social care. The most common settings are the charity – or ‘third – sector’ (11%) and public services and administration (18%), such as local government, the Civil Service, government agencies or elsewhere in parliament. Around 15% had previously worked in an administrative role. This makes sense when we consider that many MPs depend on skilled administrators and office managers. While it is clearly valuable to have staff who bring expertise from outside, it’s always possible for staff to learn on the job, making use of the vast experience offered to them once they’re in the door. As Chris Skidmore MP explained, a background in Tudor History doesn’t preclude you from getting a job with an MP, working your way up through the system, getting elected yourself and one day becoming the Universities and Science Minister. 

Staff have a wide range of political experience. Just over 20% said that they had held party office at local level, 13% had been elected as a local councillor, and 4% had been a candidate for the UK or European Parliament. However, the goal of becoming an MP is not universal – when asked how likely it was that they would ever run for parliament, almost 50% stated that the chance was zero.

The structure of staffing: Job families

MPs are responsible for staffing their offices, creating roles that are in line with the job descriptions and salary brackets set out by IPSA, whilst not exceeding their overall staffing budget. Ideally MPs will use this budget to staff an office with the appropriate mix of roles to support their work, within the budget they are given. In 2018, each MP had 4.3 people on average supporting them. However, the way that MPs staff their offices varies hugely; some MPs choose to have all staff in the constituency office and have no one in Westminster, instead making use of pooled research services, others choose to have a large number of junior researchers in Westminster, and some – very few – have no staff at all.

Job titles, job descriptions, and pay levels are brought together as ‘job families’ by IPSA. There are three job families; administrative, executive, and research, they sit amongst three levels of seniority which link to the job description and salary bands. IPSA asks that MPs employ their staff within this structure. Despite the wide range of possible job titles, over 50% of staff reported having one of four; Caseworker, Parliamentary Assistant, Office Manager, and Senior Caseworker. Whilst this structure is used by MPs to staff their offices, it’s recognised by many that in practice staff often work across the spectrum. In the survey I asked staff to write in an alternative job title if they felt their job wasn’t fully reflected in the IPSA structure. Just under 10% chose to do so, although many of the additional suggestions were within the same job family or tier.

Table 1 shows how staff are formally split across this framework. Administrative roles are split across three tiers, whilst executive and research roles are split across two.


Source: IPSA FOI June 2020 https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/staff_working_for_mps#incoming-1586898

Using this framework to look at who works for an MP, we can see how staff in different roles may have different experiences. Perhaps the greatest difference relates to where they are mainly based, in the MP’s constituency or Westminster offices. Approximately 85% of research staff are based in the Westminster office. This drops to around 30% for administrative staff, and further to only 12% for executive staff. The experiences of staff across all 650 MPs offices will be different, but there is some association between where they work, their role, and the experiences they will have.


Source: Survey of MPs’ staff 2019, The Constitution Unit, UCL.

In the NHS, women have traditionally been more likely to work in administrative and human resources roles – in 2017, 75% of HR staff were women. We can see a similar pattern for MPs’ staff – almost three quarters of administrative staff are women, occupying roles such as secretaries or personal assistants, traditionally held by women. A January 2018 FOI request to IPSA revealed that, within the senior tier of the administrative job family, although 83% of Principal Secretaries were women, this was the case for only 35% of people with the job title Chief of Staff.

There are also more women than men working in the executive job family, but whilst the majority of caseworker and support staff were women, men are in the majority when it comes to communications roles. The story is different amongst research staff, who are more likely to be male but the distribution among different job titles is more balanced. 

Other characteristics also vary. The largest differences are between the administrative and research staff, with executive staff falling roughly in the middle. The average age of an administrative staff member (42 years) is almost double that of a researcher (22 years).

Over 90% of research staff have a degree, compared with 62% of administrative staff.

Why does this matter?

These staff make an important contribution to the democratic process, sitting at the heart of this ‘representational nexus’. They present parliament to the world and they present the world back to parliament. When we talk about accessibility and diversity in the House of Commons or the Cabinet, we need to apply that same logic to those who work for MPs and support the valuable work that they do.

If some jobs, such as research roles based in Westminster, provide greater opportunities to gain experience and develop networks that are valuable for political career advancement, but exclude those in other roles, then we need to think carefully about how and why the characteristics of those working in these roles is so different. This is especially so given the prevailing informal hiring practices, which can make it difficult to understand who is employed in each role and why. We need to know more about how the process of hiring staff works, what experiences staff gain in their roles, and what their career progression is like. My staff survey goes a long way to shedding light on this. More information from the survey will be available shortly and published in future blog posts, as well as in a Constitution Unit report due in late autumn.

This blog post has been kindly shared by the Constitution Unit Blog. The content was also presented at the PSA Parliaments Group Conference, and is available to view.

This project is ongoing, so if you work for an MP, or have worked for an MP and would like to discuss the project or are available for interview please do get in touch using the contact information on this webpage.  The author would like to say a thank you to former and current staff who have assisted with this project, who have either discussed their experiences in person, completed the survey, offered advice or who have read over drafts. It is very much appreciated. This project is funded by the British Academy as part of a Postdoctoral Fellowship.

Dr Rebecca McKee is a Research Fellow at the Constitution Unit. Rebecca is researching representation and diversity in parliament and is currently running a project on MPs’ staff.

Categories
Blog

Parliaments’ Power in Authoritarian Regimes

Felix Wiebrecht, PhD Candidate in the Department of Government and Public Administration at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, summarises his recently published study on the notable differences in strength of legislatures in authoritarian regimes.

Barbara Geddes famously stated that “different kinds of authoritarianism differ from each other as much as they differ from democracy” and the same is true for their legislatures. From country-specific case studies we know that some of them neatly fit into the long-dominating narrative of authoritarian legislatures being merely of a ceremonial nature and nothing more than ‘rubberstamps’. Examples of this would include the parliaments of Belarus, Turkmenistan, Sudan, and in one of the most extreme cases that of North Korea.

Other parliaments, however, enjoy a wider range of powers, at least in the constitution if not necessarily in practice such as the Vietnamese National Assembly or the Grand National Assembly in Turkey’s past authoritarian periods. Among the de facto powers, the Parliament of Singapore is an example that fulfils a lot of the important functions of being able to remove the Head of State or investigate the executive independently. Prior research, such as the Parliamentary Powers Index (PPI) developed by Fish and Kroenig, provides evidence that, perhaps not surprisingly, legislatures in democracies tend to be more powerful when compared to those in authoritarian regimes. But how do we make sense of the great variance of legislative strength, i.e., the accumulation (or absence) of different powers of legislatures vis-à-vis the executive, across authoritarian regimes?

I find that across authoritarian regimes the level of democracy is also a highly significant but relatively weak predictor of how strong legislatures are. Three other factors are more pronouncedly linked to legislative strength, namely whether the regime is headed by a personalist dictator, whether it holds elections and whether an opposition is represented in the legislature.

Not all dictators are personalist leaders, i.e., those that control “access to key political posts, as well as most major policy decisions” (Frantz, 2018:76) such as Mao Zedong, Alexander Lukashenko or Muammar Gaddafi that face almost no constrains in their rule from regime insiders or outsiders. However, the closer an authoritarian leader comes to this ‘ideal-type’ of a dictator, the weaker the legislature tends to be.

However, when authoritarian regimes allow an opposition in parliament and when they hold elections, they also have stronger legislatures on average. In the tradition of literature on authoritarian regimes this can be seen as the manifestation of the cooptation mechanism. Most prominently put forward by Jennifer Gandhi, cooptation denotes that once a dictator feels threatened by the opposition that aims to overthrow him, he can establish institutions such as legislatures and invite the opposition to participate in governing the country through the legislature. Indeed, these institutions have to be stronger since otherwise the opposition may not agree to work through them and instead try to overthrow the dictator.

While these factors would suggest that when a dictator has to give up some control the legislatures also become stronger, there is a caveat to that. I find that before 1990 legislatures have often been used as ‘bargaining chips’ by dictators. It appears that it was a popular strategy to weaken legislatures whenever elections were reformed to be more open and competitive. In this way, dictators could afford to have less control over the elections, simply because the stakes, that is, the strength of the legislature, were lower.

After the Cold War, however, the nature of many authoritarian regimes has changed fundamentally. We are currently in the era of ‘competitive authoritarianism’ in which most authoritarian regimes have legislatures and allow some opposition parties to participate in elections. In this background, more competitive or liberalizing elements in the electoral and legislative processes are indeed associated with stronger legislatures after 1990. This is in line with recent research on legislatures in Africa that highlight that less dictatorial meddling in legislative processes is an important condition for legislative development. Legislative strength has not been a widely used concept regarding authoritarian legislatures. However, as we move to understand their roles in authoritarian governance in more depth, it may be useful to pursue more research investigating the effects of legislative strength. It helps us differentiate between ‘pure’ rubberstamps and those that are stronger vis-à-vis the dictator.

Felix Wiebrecht, PhD Candidate in the Department of Government and Public Administration at The Chinese University of Hong Kong, @FelixWiebrecht