The Role of Research in the UK Parliament

Dr Caroline Kenny Dr Abbi Hobbs Research Associate, Department of Science, Senior Research Associate at UCL Technology, Engineering and Public Policy, STEaPP and Head of the Social UCL (UCL STEaPP) and Social Science Adviser, Science Section, POST Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) Dr Chris Tyler Director of Public Policy, UCL STEaPP, Dr David Christian Rose Co-Investigator and former Director Lecturer in Human Geography, University of POST of East Anglia and former Research Associate at UCL STEaPP Dr Jason Blackstock Head of Department, UCL STEaPP and Principal Investigator Volume two

Please cite this report as: Kenny, C., Rose, D.C., Hobbs, A., Tyler, C. & Blackstock, J. (2017). The Role of Research in the UK Parliament Volume Two. London, UK, Houses of Parliament. Contents

Appendix 1 8

Methods 8

1.1 Introduction 8

1.2 Surveying different groups of people in Parliament 9 1.2.1 Survey questions 9 1.2.2 Sampling criteria 9 1.2.2.1 Sampling method for MPs 9 1.2.2.2 Sampling method for Parliamentary staff 11 1.2.2.3 Sampling method for MPs’ staff 12 1.2.3 Contacting survey participants 12 1.2.4 Sample size 12

1.3 Case studies 14 1.3.1 Participant observation 14 1.3.2 Documentary analysis 15 1.3.3 Interviews 15

1.4 Analytical approach 16

1.5 Professional and ethical standards 16 1.5.1 Obtaining informed consent from study participants 16 1.5.2 Ensuring confidentiality and participants’ anonymity 17 1.5.2.1 Non-publicly available material 17 1.5.2.2 Personal data 17 1.5.3 Storage of personal and confidential data collected by the study 18

1.6 Limitations 19 1.6.1 Scale and scope of study 19 1.6.2 Number and sample of participants 19 1.6.3 Participants’ understanding of the study 20 1.6.4 Potential bias 21 1.7 Survey questions 22

1.8 Case study interview guide 26

1.9 One-page overview provided to study participants 27

1.10 Statement of informed consent provided to study participants 28

Appendix 2 29

Roundtable workshop participants 29

Appendix 3 30

Case studies of scrutiny: detailed write-up 30

3.1 Select Committees in Parliament 30 3.1.1 Commissioning research 33

3.2 Case Study One 34 House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee 34 3.2.1 Membership of the Committee 34 3.2.2 Routes in which research fed into the Committee 36 3.2.2.1 The written and oral evidence received by the Committee 37 3.2.2.2 Private briefing materials to the Committee 42 Briefings from the Committee staff 42 Briefings from other parliamentary staff 43 3.2.2.3 Specialist Advisers to the Committee 43 3.2.2.4 Informal seminars organised for the Committee 44 3.2.2.5 Research commissioned by the Committee 44 3.2.2.6 Research that was done by individual Committee members 46 3.2.3 Factors that shaped the use of research in the Committee 46 3.2.3.1 Reliance on written evidence ways of working 47 3.2.3.2 The Committee’s workload 47 3.2.3.3 The Committee’s capacity to appraise the research it received 47 3.2.3.4 The time at which the research was received 48 3.2.3.5 The Committee’s concern to achieve consensus across Committee members 49 3.2.3.6 The workload and time available to individual Committee members 50 3.2.3.7 The way that research was presented 50 3.2.3.8 The prior views of Committee members 50 3.2.4 Research cited in written evidence submissions to the Communities and Local Government Committee 51

3.3 Case Study Two 64 House of Lords National Policy for the Built Environment Committee 64 3.3.1 Membership and staff of the Committee 64 3.3.2 Routes in which research fed into the Committee 65 3.3.2.1 Informal seminars organised for the Committee 65 3.3.2.2 The written and oral evidence received by the Committee 66 3.3.2.3 Private briefing materials to the Committee 71 3.3.2.4 Specialist Advisers to the Committee 72 3.3.2.5 External research received by Committee members 72 3.3.3 Factors that shaped the use of research in the Committee 72 3.3.3.1 The quantity of evidence submitted to the Committee 73 3.3.3.2 The workload and time available to Committee staff and members 74 3.3.3.3 Reliance on written evidence ways of working 74 3.3.3.4 The Committee’s concern to achieve consensus across Committee members 75 3.3.3.5 Committee members’ knowledge of topic area 75 3.3.3.6 The way that research was presented 75 3.3.4 Research cited in written evidence submissions to the National Policy for the Built Environment Committee 76

Appendix 4 90

Case studies of legislation: detailed write-up 90

4.1 Legislative process: Committee Stage 90 4.1.1 Background to the Committee Stage in the House of Commons 90 4.1.1.1 Membership 91 4.1.1.2 Written and oral evidence 91 4.1.1.3 Internal briefing support 92 4.1.2 Background to the Committee Stage in the House of Lords 92 4.1.2.1 Membership 92 4.1.2.2 Briefing materials on legislation 93

4.2 Case study Three 93 The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill 93 4.2.1 Members participating in the Committee Stages of the Bill 94 4.2.2 Routes in which research fed into the Committee Stage of the SBEE Bill 96 4.2.2.1 The written and oral evidence received by the Commons SBEE Bill Committee 96 4.2.2.2 Private briefing materials to Members 100 4.2.2.3 Research sent directly to Members 103 4.2.2.4 Research conducted by Members themselves 104 4.2.3 Factors that shaped the use of research in the SBEE Bill Committee Stages 105 4.2.3.2 The workload and time available to Members participating in the Committee Stage 105 4.2.3.2 Resources available to Peers 106 4.2.3.3 The Parliamentary Timetable 106 4.2.3.4 The impact that the Members’ role has on the support available to be able to understand and appraise the information they receive 107 4.2.3.5 The nature of topic area 108 4.2.3.6 The time at which the research was received by Members 108 4.2.4 Research cited in written evidence submissions to the SBEE Public Bill Committee 109

4.3 Case study Four 110 The National Insurance Contributions Bill 110 4.3.1 Members participating in the Committee Stages of the Bill 110 4.3.2 Routes in which research fed into the Committee Stage of the NICs Bill 112 4.3.2.1 The written and oral evidence received by the Commons NICs Bill Committee 112 4.3.2.2 Private briefing materials to Members 114 4.3.2.3 Research conducted by Members participating in the Committee Stage 115 4.3.3 Factors that shaped the use of research in the NICs Bill Committee Stages 115 4.3.3.1 The Parliamentary Timetable 115 4.3.3.2 The nature of the topic area and complexity of the Bill 116 4.3.4 Research cited in written evidence submissions to the NICs Public Bill Committee 118

Appendix 5 119 Quotes relating to each section of Volume 1 119

Bibliography 122 Appendix 1

Methods

1.1 Introduction This appendix explains the methods used as part of These questions focus on eliciting the views and this study. A Steering Group consisting of external practices of different groups of people in Parliament. academic experts, members of Parliament and internal It explores the context within which these different parliamentary representatives provided expert guidance groups of people operate, the challenges they face in and ensured that the study was methodologically robust performing their respective roles and the ways that they (see Volume 1, Acknowledgements). negotiate these challenges in undertaking their work. A qualitative approach using mixed methods was used Four research questions guided the study. This report to address the research questions. As an approach that presents findings from the first wt o. A separate report is concerned with understanding the meanings that will be published addressing questions three and four. people attach to actions, decisions, beliefs and values within their social world and the processes that people 1. Where, when and how does research feed use to make sense of and interpret the world around into parliamentary processes currently? them, this approach was well suited to the study (Ritchie and Lewis, 2003). 2. What factors (processes, mechanisms and cultures) shape the use of research There were three components to the study, which drew in parliamentary processes? upon different methods. This appendix is divided into four sections, each of which focuses on these different 3. How, and in which ways, does POST contribute components. to these processes and how is this contribution perceived by Parliamentarians? Section 1.2 provides more information about the survey conducted as part of the study, including 4. How might POST contribute better to these survey questions, sample selection and size, and processes in the future? the follow-up interviews undertaken.

Section 1.3 provides a more detailed examination into the case studies. This includes selection of case studies and participants, details of participants as well as information about the specific methods used.

Section 1.4 describes the approach taken to analyse the data collected as part of this study and synthesise findings across the different data collection methods.

8 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament 1.2 Surveying different groups of people 1.2.2.1 Sampling method for MPs in Parliament The following steps were taken to generate a sample A sample of MPs, MPs’ staff and parliamentary staff was of MPs for the survey. surveyed. Participants were given a choice to complete the survey online (using the software service SurveyMonkey) 1. The survey of MPs was conducted between or face-to-face facilitated by an interviewer.1 Follow- January and March 2016. In December 2015, up interviews were carried out with a sub-group of a spreadsheet listing all 650 MPs was created. respondents to the online survey. 2. 58 MPs were excluded from this list because they met one of the following exclusion criteria: 1.2.1 Survey questions Survey questions were informed by a literature review. The –– They were a member of the steering group categorisations of the types and sources of research used for the research project (2 MPs excluded) in the survey built upon the work of six pieces of previous work in this area (Allen et al., 2014; Amara et al., 2004; –– They were a current member of the POST Avey and Desch, 2014; Landry et al., 2001b; McCormick, Board (9 MPs excluded – 1 excluded as 2013; Talbot and Talbot, 2014). The survey questions were member of steering group) reviewed by Steering Group members and the Head of –– They were involved in one of the case studies Qualitative Research at IPSOS Mori. The survey was piloted being examined as part of the study: with four members of parliamentary staff.

1.2.2 Sampling criteria i. The House of Commons Communities and Local Government Select The study aimed to collect a wide range of viewpoints Committee (CLG) (11 MPs excluded) encapsulating different job roles, levels of seniority, and length of experience. To ensure this, a sample size of 338 ii. The House of Commons National was sought. This sample size was chosen purposively so Insurance Contributions Public Bill as to ensure that good representation of each of the key Committee (NICs PBC) (17 MPs actors of interest to the study in the sample (the figure excluded – 1 MP also sat on the of 338 equated to 20% of the total population for each CLG committee. A further MP of the following key groups: MPs, Peers, MPs’ staff and sat on the POST Board) parliamentary staff). Members of the House of Lords iii. The House of Commons Small were included in the original sample. However, changes Business, Enterprise and Employment in senior leadership within the House of Lords meant that Publi Bill Commitee (SBEE PBC) (19 the inclusion of members of the House of Lords was not MPs excluded) possible at the time that the survey was undertaken. The sample of MPs and parliamentary staff was selected randomly according to different characteristics. A different approach was used for MPs’ staff because no information is held on the total population of this group.2

1 Where the survey was conducted face-to-face facilitated by an interviewer, the questions were asked as open questions and answers were selected according to the response received. The multiple-choice options were only used as prompts if necessary. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed to ensure accuracy of recorded responses. 2 Following advice from representatives of MPs’ staff, four approaches were used to identify the sample of MPs’ staff for the survey. This included: requests to the Chairman of the Members and Peers’ Staff Association (MAPSA) and the Branch Secretary of the UNITE union, hard copy letters to all MPs addressed to the staff, and emails to the staff of MPs from the smaller political parties or independent MPs.

Volume two 9 3. Information about the four characteristics was 6. The requisite number of MPs from each category entered for the remaining 592 MPs, (see Table 1.1 was then selected from the beginning of where below). they first appeared in the spreadsheet. 4. A stratified random sample was generated using the RAND function in Excel. Each MP was assigned So, as Table 1.1 shows, 66 Conservative MPs were a random number greater than, or equal to, 0 and required so, starting from where Conservative less than 1. The random number was listed in a MPs first appeared in the spreadsheet, the first 66 column at the end of the table. Conservative MPs were selected for the sample. Then, again starting from where first listed in the 5. The dataset was then sorted to select the final spreadsheet, the first 47 Labour MPs were selected sample. It was sorted in the following order for the sample. The first 12 SNP MPs were selected, the first Liberal Democrat MP and the first 5 MPs – Political party (A-Z) from other political parties were selected. These MPs formed the sample for the survey. – Gender (A to Z) – Total length of experience (smallest to largest) – Random value (smallest to largest)

Table 1.1: Survey sampling criteria for MPs

Characteristic Criteria Number eligible Number of to participate people needed to participate to meet 20% sample size

Polital party Conservative 303 (51% of overall seats) 66 Labour/Social Democratic 212 (36% of overall seats) 47 & Labour Scottish National Party 50 (9% of overall seats) 12 Liberal Democrat 8 (1% of overall seats) 1 Other 19 (4% of overall seats) 5

Gender Male 423 (71%) 92 Female 169 (29%) 38

Total length Less than 1 year 170 (26%) 34 of experience since 1-5 years 10 (2%) 3 being elected (to take 6-10 years 167 (26%) 34 account of any breaks) More than 10 years 245 (37%) 48

10 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament 1.2.2.2 Sampling method for Parliamentary staff Due to data protection, it was not possible to have a According to the HR department in the Commons, there complete list of parliamentary staff distinguished by were a total of 284 people in scope. No information characteristic. To determine eligible staff, the Human on the total number of eligible people in the Lords was Resources departments in the Commons and the provided. HR personnel selected a 20% random sample Lords provided a list of job types. 38 job types were of the parliamentary staff deemed within scope, covering deemed to be relevant to the study.3 These job types the four characteristics listed in Table 1.2. were divided into six categories across the two main The sample was selected by HR personnel choosing every departments of the Committee Office (overseeing third name in the list under each category. For example, the work of select committees and legislative for staff listed in job category 1, HR selected 20% of committees) and the Libraries (overseeing the work females with less than 1 years’ service, 20% of females of the libraries and POST). Job categories 1-3 fell with 1-5, years’ service, 20% of females with 6-10 years’ under the committee office, job categories 4-6 were service and so on. under the library).

Table 1.2: Survey sampling criteria for Parliamentary staff

Category Criteria

Parliamentary department Committee Office Library

Gender Male Female

Total length of experience Less than 1 year (to take account of any breaks) 1-5 years 6-10 years More than 10 years

Current job type Based on the categorisations used by the Human Resources departments

3 To be deemed relevant, the job type had to refer to a position which involved engaging with research, for example Library Clerks produce briefing papers which can involve consulting and using research. Committee Specialists produce briefing papers for committee members which can also involve consulting and engaging with research.

Volume two 11 1.2.2.3 Sampling method for MPs’ staff A different sampling approach was used for MPs’ staff All MPs were invited to complete the survey online or to because no information is held on the total population take part in a face-to-face interviewer facilitated survey; of this group. Four approaches were used to identify MPs’ all selected the latter. All other respondents were invited staff for the survey. to take part in a follow up interview after they had completed the survey online. Participants were asked 1. A request was made to the Acting Chairman of to complete the online survey in two weeks. Where no MAPSA to email all members inviting them to response was received, participants were contacted with participate in the survey. a follow-up email, telephone call or in-person visit. 2. A hard copy letter was sent to all MPs addressed 1.2.4 Sample size (at Westminster and Constituency office) ‘For the 456789attention of [insert name of specific MP] staff’. This Table 1.3 outlines the number of people that took part in letter invited them to participate and requested that the survey. The online survey asked people if they were they pass on to any colleagues. willing to take part in follow-up interviews and those that responded positively were asked to provide contact details. 3. A specific email addressed to MP’s staff was Follow-up interviews lasted between 15-30 minutes and sent to MPs from the smaller political parties or focused on exploring participants’ responses to particular independent MPs inviting them to participate. questions, and the reasons for their selection of multiple choice responses. The interviews were audio recorded 1.2.3 Contacting survey participants and transcribed. Survey participants were contacted via email (MPs and Tables 1.4 and 1.5 outline the number of participants MPs’ staff also received a hard copy letter). Initial contact by sampling criteria. No information is available on invited them to participate in the survey and included: the numbers of parliamentary staff by total length of experience or current job type as this was sensitive A one-page summary of the project with an information and was not shared outside of HR. outline of the purpose of the study, why they have been asked to participate, and information about how their data will be used.

They were also made aware that their participation in the study was voluntary and that they were free to withdraw at any time.

An offer to send interview/survey questions in advance.

4 Total population of MPs taken from Commons Library Standard Note SN02411. 5 All MPs contacted chose to conduct the survey face-to-face and so the number of follow-up interviews is equal to the number of actual responses. 6 T otal population of Members’ staff is based on the assumption that MP’s are provided with funding to employ up to 4 members of staff. These are likely to be spread between the MP’s constituency and Westminster. The numbers of staff employed by each MP, and where they are located (for example constituency-based or Westminster-based) is likely to vary between different MPs. As such, the total population size is calculated on the assumption that each MP employs 1 staff member that is based in Westminster. Peers do not receive any funding to employ staff and so are excluded from this sample. 7 One person opted to do the survey face-to-face facilitated by an interviewer. 8 The total population of parliamentary staff consists of 284 staff in the House of Commons (based on the number of relevant staff employed in the Committee Office and Library of the House of Commons, as calculated by the Department of Human Resources and Change in the Commons). This number also includes 103 staff from the House of Lords Committee Office and Library as calculated from figures quoted in the2014 Lords Staff Survey 9 Nine people opted to do the survey face-to-face facilitated by an interviewer.

12 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament Table 1.3: Survey sample size and composition

Category of Total Sample size (20% of Number completing survey Number of follow- participant population total population) (face-to-face up interviews or online) undertaken

MPs 6504 130 24 (4% of total) 245

MPs’ staff 6506 130 357 (5% of total) 5

Parliamentary staff 3878 77 669 (17% of total) 26

Total 1584 338 125 55

Table 1.4 Number of MPs that took part in the survey by sampling criteria (N=24)

Characteristic Criteria No. of MPs surveyed

Political party Conservative 11

Labour 10

Scottish National Party 1

Liberal Democrat 1

Other 1

Gender Male 18

Female 6

Total length of experience Less than 1 year 3

1-5 years 0

6-10 years 12

More than 10 years 9

Table 1.5 Number of parliamentary staff by sampling criteria

Characteristic Criteria No. of participants

House Commons 27

Lords 16

Unknown (anonymous) 23

Parliamentary department Committee office 26

Library 17

Unknown (anonymous response) 23

Gender Male 25

Female 18

Unknown (anonymous response) 23

Volume two 13 1.3 Case studies The level of participant observation in each case study varied according to the preferences of the Four case studies were conducted as part of the study. Clerk responsible for each area. This varied from: This included two Select Committees and two pieces of legislation in the committee stage of both Houses. The Observation. Involving passive observation choice of case studies intended to highlight different of public and private proceedings. processes in the two Houses. The final choice of individual cases was pragmatic, based on timing and advice from Shadowing. Involving observation of public steering group members and senior management. Case and private proceedings but also insight into studies involved three methods: participant observation, the roles and responsibilities of the staff. document analysis and semi-structured interviews with Participation. Involving observation of public relevant Members and parliamentary staff. Each of these and private proceedings, insight into the roles methods is discussed below. and responsibilities of the staff and active participation in some form, for example 1.3.1 Participant observation drafting briefings. Participant observation is the process enabling researchers to learn about the activities of the people under study in their natural setting through observing and participating in those activities. [Participant observation is] the process of learning through exposure to or involvement in the day- to-day or routine activities of participants in the researcher setting (Schensul et al., 1999: 91).

In participant observation, the researcher participates in ongoing activities and records observations. It extends beyond merely observing behaviour because the researcher is a “player” in the action. There are obvious trade-offs in this approach. Participant observation facilitates an “insider” viewpoint which is likely to be richer than that obtained through systematic observation. It opens up what is ordinarily hidden in official accounts. A researcher, in observing those processes, and in some cases participating in group activities, is able to see social behaviour through their vantage point. In this way, participant observation analyses the everyday behaviour of groups and individuals – both in terms of the decisions they take and the language they use (Geddes, 2014). However, it raises issues of bias and reactivity. Nevertheless, participant observation has been highlighted as an appropriate approach for both the study of research use and Parliament (Geddes, 2014, Van Eerd et al., 2011, Ward et al., 2009b).

14 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament Table 1.6: The nature of participant observation in each case study.

House Type of Case study Details Number of Extent of participant participants observation interviewed Commons Select committee Communities and Local Government 7 Participation Committee

Legislation Small Business, Enterprise and Employment 8 Shadowing Public Bill Committee

National Insurance Contributions Public Bill 1 Observation Committee Lords Select committee National Policy for the Built Environment 7 Observation

Legislation Small Business, Enterprise and Employment 8 Observation Grand Committee

National Insurance Contributions 1 Observation Grand Committee

1.3.2 Documentary analysis Text can be coded rapidly and simultaneously so that such text is then linked to particular codes. Case studies involved analysis of all public Furthermore, text can be retrieved according documents associated with the case such as to the code, or codes, to which it is linked written evidence submissions and committee (Richards 2002: 268). Utilising these functions transcripts of oral evidence sessions. Access to does not, necessarily: “alienate the researcher private documents was determined by the clerk, from their data” (Kelle 1997: 1.1). Indeed, such in consultation with the Chair, but generally strategies still enable the context of such texts included all private briefing materials produced to be analysed alongside the unit coded and by committee staff or other parliamentary thus, remain sensitive to the richness of the data offices (for example POST). Documents were (Richards, 2002: 268). analysed thematically using Nvivo (Section 2.4 in Volume one). Despite the frequent links between 1.3.3 Interviews qualitative research software and particular theoretical approaches, such as grounded Table 1.7 outlines the number of people theory, the use of NVivo does not determine any contacted to take part in case study interviews, particular method. Rather, it provides support for and the actual response rate by category of many methods that require the development of participant. Requests were made to all eligible an organising system (see Bringer, 2004, Crowley participants. For Select Committees this et al., 2002, Kelle, 1997 for examples). Using involved contacting all committee members, NVivo provides practical benefits of being able to the Clerk and the Committee Specialist/Policy code and retrieve data quickly and easily as well Analyst. For legislation, this involved contacting as allowing the benefit of “data administration all Public Bill Committee members in the and archiving” (Kelle, 1997: 6.3). Commons and all members of the House of Lords who put forward amendments in the Grand Committee stage of the Lords.

Volume two 15 Table 1.7: Interviews conducted as part of the case studies

Type Case study Members Parliamentary staff

Contacted Actual Contacted Actual response response rate rate

Select committee Commons Communities and Local 11 5 (46%) 2 2 (100%) Government Committee

Lords National Policy for the Built 12 7 (58%) 1 0 (0%) Environment Committee

Legislation10 Commons Small Business, Enterprise 20 7 (35%) 1 1 (100%) and Employment Public Bill Committee

Commons National Insurance 19 0 (0%) 1 1 (100%) Contributions Public Bill Committee

Lords Small Business, Enterprise and 23 8 (35%) N/A Employment Grand Committee

Lords National Insurance Contributions 211 1 (50%) N/A Grand Committee

A semi-structured interview guide was used (see The following text outlines the approaches taken to obtain Section 1.8). Interview questions were informed informed consent from study participants: to ensure by a literature review. Semi structured qualitative confidentiality and participants’ anonymity and to store interviews allowed participants to speak in their the personal and confidential data collected by the study. own words, give as much detail as they wish, and give their own perceptions and interpretations of 1.5.1 Obtaining informed consent from their experience. Such an approach yields data that study participants can be subjected to qualitative analysis. Where All participants were provided with a one-page overview participants gave permission, interviews were audio of the project (see Section 1.9), which set out the aims recorded and transcribed in full by a professional of the project, what participation in the project would transcriber. involve and how the information would be used. All participants were also required to either sign an informed 1.4 Analytical approach consent form (participants as interviewees, see Section 1.10) or indicate that they had read, understood and The analytical approach of coding is described in agreed with a statement detailing the same information Volume One of the report. as provided in the informed consent form (for those participants completing a survey). In addition, interviewees 1011 1.5 Professional and ethical standards were given verbal instruction about how the information would be used, where the data would be stored and who To ensure that the study conformed with general would have access to this data. The informed consent ethical principles and standards, an application was form/statement and verbal instruction made clear that submitted to, and subsequently approved by, UCL participation in the study was entirely voluntary and that Research Ethics Committee (Project ID: 6468/001) and participants were free to withdraw at any time without was registered with the UCL Data Protection Officer reason or prejudice, should they wish to do so. (reference No Z6364106/2015/01/80, section 19, research: social research).

10 Parliamentary staff interviewed as part of the two case studies on legislation were those that had been involved in producing briefing papers. As Section 5 outlines, the role of Clerks on legislative committees differs to that of select committees and therefore was not relevant to the questions about the use of research. 11 Two members of the House of Lords participated in the Grand Committee stage. One member tabled amendments to the Bill

16 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament 1.5.2 Ensuring confidentiality and To ensure further confidentiality of non-publicly availa- participants’ anonymity ble material, it was agreed that only that material cited in the project report, and signed off by management The study involved collecting non-publicly available in both Houses, would be made public. Should the material and personal data from participants. research team wish to publish further data based on private material that has not been made available in 1.5.2.1 Non-publicly available material the project report, this would be subject to additional The principal researcher was given approval to access approval from management in both Houses. the following non-publicly available material as part of the study: 1.5.2.2 Personal data All private briefing materials produced as part of Three types of personal data were collected as part the case studies (whether produced by Committee of this study: staff or other sections e.g. Scrutiny Unit or POST). Participants’ full names. All private meetings and/or evidence sessions An informed consent form with the signature of conducted as part of the case studies. the participant. Interview Committee staff (and any other internal Audio recording and transcript of interviews with staff that were involved with the case studies for participants (where permission had been granted example those producing briefings or advising by the participant) in which participants may on witnesses) and MPs and Peers involved in the provide information about their views of existing case studies. political processes. A process of approval was agreed with House of The purpose of collecting this personal data was to enable: Commons and House of Lords management to share a draft project report, presenting findings drawn from Personal data collected via the survey. Findings both publicly and non-publicly available material, with from the survey were aggregated so that the management in both Houses for review before publication. study could provide information about the This was in draft form with the explicit instruction that it proportion of different categories of participants was of a confidential nature and not to be shared more (from the broad category types of Members widely. The draft findings did not contain any personal of Parliament [MPs], Members of the House or identifiable data and all findings were anonymised. of Lords [Peers], staff of MPs or Peers, or parliamentary staff) giving each answer. It was also agreed that the draft report would be shared with two other parties. First, the three individuals listed Personal data collected via the interviews. as Principal Investigators on the Economic and Social This was for internal purposes to assist the Research Council (ESRC) funding grant (Dr Chris Tyler, principal researcher in obtaining data from a Director of POST at the time. Now Director of Public representative sample of different categories Policy in Department of Science, Technology, Engineering of participants, as far as possible. No personal and Public Policy (STEaPP) at University College London data was used in the findings made publicly (UCL); Professor David Price, UCL Vice-Provost (Research); available and was only be available to those and Dr Jason Blackstock, Head of Department: Science, people named on the informed consent Technology, Engineering and Public Policy, UCL). The form signed by the participants (the principal second party that was given sight of the draft project researchers and the Director of POST). report were the 19 members of the project’s steering group made up of external experts and internal representatives from Parliament. Again, this was with the explicit instruction that it was confidential and not to be shared more widely.

Volume two 17 Personal data was only collected from people who As part of the process of securing approval to undertake voluntarily agreed to participate in the study. Participants this study in the UK Parliament, the principal researcher were given a one-page overview of the project (Section agreed a process for reviewing the study before it was 1.9) and were required to complete either an informed made publicly available. This involved making a draft final consent form or, to indicate that they had read, report containing only non-identifiable, or non-personal, understood and agreed with a statement detailing the data from the project available to representatives from same information as that set out in the informed consent the House of Commons and House of Lords management form (Section 1.10). For interview participants, this bodies before publication. The management boards were information was re-emphasised in verbal instruction given the opportunity to review the findings for accuracy, by the principal researcher. however the agreement made clear that the review would not permit any amendments to the study based on To protect against participants being identified through personal preference or discomfort at the findings. them being observed engaging with the principal researchers, participants were given the responsibility 1.5.3 Storage of personal and confidential of deciding the location of their interviews. Locations data collected by the study included a private office that has been reserved specifically for use by the study, the participant’s own private office or, All personal and confidential data collected by the where suggested by participants, an open area. study was stored on a password protected area of the Parliamentary ICT system, which is governed by the Disclosure of any personal data collected by the project Parliamentary ICT Security Policies and Procedures. In was limited to three individuals: the principal researcher addition, personal data such as participants’ names was (Dr Caroline Kenny), Dr Abbi Hobbs (second social science stored separately to any audio files or transcript files and adviser in POST) and the Director of the POST, which was both folders were password protected. The informed the collaborating organisation. Personal data was not consent form advised participants that, as the data would made available to any other individuals. This arrangement be stored on the parliamentary ICT system, it may be was set out in a Memorandum of Understanding that was subject to disclosure under The Freedom of Information drawn up between POST UCL at the start of the project. Act 2000. This was also re-stated in the verbal instruction

for participants providing interviews. Before commencing This agreement states: the study, the principal researcher spoke at length to Data ownership: The memorandum of the Information Rights and Information Security Service understanding states that research outputs (IRIS) team in the House of Commons and the Information published in academic journals would be owned Compliance Team in the Lords and received assurance by UCL, while outputs published by POST would that personal data stored on the parliamentary ICT system be owned by Parliament. The memorandum also was usually exempt from disclosure however, participants states that any raw research data collected as should be notified of the potential for this to be disclosed. part of the study would be owned by POST.

Administrative support: The memorandum of understanding outlines that POST has committed to ensuring that the principal researcher is provided with sufficient administrative support and that Parliament would provide desk space and IT support.

Confidentiality agreements: The memorandum of understanding includes a requirement that the principal researcher and Dr Abbi Hobbs (second researcher) would adhere to parliamentary confidentiality agreements in line with other parliamentary posts.

18 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament 1.6 Limitations There was a low response rate to requests to participate in the survey amongst MPs and MPs’ staff. 18% of MPs Limitations to the study fall into four main categories. contacted agreed to participate (24 agreed to participate from 130 MPs contacted) and 5% of MPs’ staff (35 1.6.1 Scale and scope of study agreed to participate from 650 requests sent out). The scale of the project and its scope was limited A better response rate was from parliamentary staff: by time and resources available. One researcher 86% of those contacted (77) agreed to participate. was responsible for undertaking fieldwork for the The low response rates of MPs and MPs’ staff suggest duration of the study. The researcher undertook the that participants from these groups were self-selecting. study (Data collection and analysis) alongside other It is important to note that challenges in recruitment, duties as dictated by their position as social science in particular low response rates, mean that survey adviser in POST. Although the principal researcher was responses are not statistically representative and aided at various points by additional researchers (see cannot be generalised to the wider groups that acknowledgements), the resources available dictated respondents belong to. The follow-up interviews and what was possible. Following advice from the steering the case study interviews were not designed to obtain group, it was decided to revise the initial study design representative information; rather they were used to and limit the number of case studies examined so as generate in-depth rich insights as to some of the ways to provide an in-depth, qualitative understanding of that research feeds into particular processes, such as particular cases rather than a representative study scrutiny and legislation, and some of the key factors of the use of research across Parliament. shaping its use in Parliament. Timescales were also affected by the length of time It is also important to note that because of changes it took to secure the necessarily extensive approvals in leadership in the House of Lords at the time that process given the focus on different processes within permissions for this study were being sought, it was Parliament across the two Houses and the privileged not possible to survey Peers, which is a shortcoming of access to non-publicly available proceedings and the study. Further, because Peers are not provided with materials. This had a knock-on effect on the time a budget with which to employ staff, the perspectives of available for data collection and analysis. The effect researchers employed directly by members of Parliament of both of these was that the study overran and a are those of MPs staff, and not those of Peers. 12-month extension to the project was necessary. Consequently, even though the perspectives of parliamentary staff based in the House of Lords were 1.6.2 Number and sample of participants represented in the survey and follow-up interviews and The study adopted a considered approach to sampling those of Peers in the case study interviews, overall the and for the survey, where possible, the study populations sample is biased towards the House of Commons and were stratified according to characteristics judged to be this must be taken into consideration when relevant to the research questions based on the literature interpreting the results. review, with samples subsequently drawn at random In summary, the survey findings presented in this report from these (see Section 1.2.2). cannot be taken to be representative of the groups of which respondents are part of, and the specific findings from the case studies cannot be extended other persons, times or settings than those directly studied. However, it provides deep insights into how and why the perspectives on the role of research in Parliament of a range of groups are shaped by the political, cultural and social context, and how and why research fed into particular parliamentary processes.

Volume two 19 In so doing, it brings to life the ‘lived experience’ of Staff employed directly by MPs and Peers are often called different groups of people working in Parliament, and researchers and do a variety of work, which may include highlights the meanings and importance that they attach undertaking research in the sense of pursuing information to issues of research and evidence. This should help such as current benefit rates and rules in support of their those outside of Parliament to understand the particular MP. They are often also involved in preparing materials context in which such work goes on and the mechanisms for debates, committee work, drafting questions and that shape the ability and extent to which Members, amendments to bills, managing casework and local MPs’ staff and parliamentary staff engage with research. campaigns, managing diaries and expenses, booking Further, given the rigour of the study’s design, process tours, arranging travel and meetings, writing speeches, of data collection, analysis and interpretation the study maintaining their Member’s website and general office team would argue that many of the specific themes tasks (House of Commons Administration Committee, identified are likely to have broader relevance. However, 2014). In being asked about their use of research, some themes may be more dominant in certain sub- participants are likely to have understood this to mean groups than others in ways that it is not possible to their use of research produced by internal sources such determine from this study, for example, for particular as the libraries and answered accordingly. groups, political party, duration of service, age or gender, This issue is further complicated by the role of the or for type of process, timing in the parliamentary principal researcher in asking participants this question. calendar and external political events. As Crewe notes, the identity and social position of the researcher gives a particular shape to the ways in which 1.6.3 Participants’ understanding of the study questions are asked as well as responses (Crewe, 2017: The study found multiple definitions of research in use 163). Requests to participate in the study were sent from within Parliament. It also found that the term ‘research’ is the principal researcher based in POST.13 POST occupies used predominantly as a noun to refer to a particular type a particular space within Parliamentary research services. of evidence, namely that produced by the parliamentary The emphasis upon science and technology in POST’s libraries. This point is perhaps unsurprising given that name and its branding as “Parliament’s in-house source the work of many parliamentary staff and staff that of independent, balanced and accessible analysis of public work directly for MPs and Peers is described as research. policy issues related to science and technology”, may For example, the House of Commons and the House have led participants to interpret the focus on research of Lords Libraries both offer research services for MPs in this study narrowly as it refers to issues of science and and MPs’ staff (Commons Library) and Peers12 (Lords technology. Furthermore, its role with the Research and Library). ‘Research’ here refers to the particular type of Information Service in Parliament may have encouraged service provided which is both fast-paced (often within participants to say what they think was the preferred very demanding deadlines) and driven by immediate answer rather than what they themselves actually interests of parliamentarians (addressed through the think (Skinner, 2012: 25). That is, that they thought provision of a confidential question-answering service for research was useful to them and that it fed into their individual Parliamentarians) and the short to medium term work. This may have been compounded by the effect of work of the Parliament (as met through the provision of the now “ubiquitous term” of ‘evidence-based policy’ publicly-available briefings for all Parliamentarians on the (Campbell et al., 2007: 12). Described by Hammersley impacts of proposed legislation, policies or programmes). as “a slogan whose rhetorical effect is to discredit Parliamentary researchers draw upon existing sources opposition” (Hammersley, 2013: 15). Framing the project of information and data, which includes Government as examining the use of research in Parliament may have documents, official statistics, the work of international obliged participants to appear positive about research and organisations, think tanks and non-governmental its usefulness and role within parliamentary processes. organisations as well as research evidence from academics.

12 The term Peers is being used as shorthand to refer to all members of the House of Lords. 13 As agreed in the specific approvals process with the relevant authorities in the UK Parliament before embarking on the study and approved by UCL ethics committee.

20 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament 1.6.4 Potential bias The study’s findings are indebted to the privileged access granted to the principal researcher while undertaking the research. This afforded the researcher and the wider research team an ‘insider’ viewpoint which is likely to be richer than that obtained through systematic observation. It opens up what is ordinarily hidden in official accounts. A researcher, in observing those processes, and in some cases participating in group activities, is able to see social behaviour through their vantage point (Geddes, 2014). Such access, while having obvious benefits in terms of access to normally private or non-publicly proceedings or documents, also carries with it risk of bias. Bias occurs because events, behaviour and actions are interpreted through the single observer’s eyes, and therefore is framed within the views and perspective of this observer. The potential bias arising from this approach is complicated further by the issue of subjectivity. The ethnographic nature of the approach carries risks of subjectivity and for researchers of becoming “entangled” with the study’s participants informants. As Crewe notes, research is a social process of conversation, observation, action and response. The situated position of the researcher, both as a full-time member of parliamentary staff during the period of the study, and a member of staff within the POST, which occupies a particular space within the internal parliamentary research landscape as noted above, will have undoubtedly had an influence on the nature of the research, how it was conducted and the findings thus drawn out. The study team took various steps to protect against subjectivity, triangulating data from interviews and participant observation with other studies, double coding at the data analysis stage and establishing a steering group of internal and external experts to ‘sense-check’ the approach taken and findings drawn out. We note, however, the inherent subjectivity in this process, and caveat the conclusions reached in this report accordingly.

Volume two 21 1.7 Survey questions The following document outlines the survey questions that were asked to MPs, MPs’ staff and parliamentary staff). Where certain questions have only been asked to particular groups, this is specified.

1. ALL GROUPS: 2. ALL GROUPS: Which types of research do you use Thinking about the last piece of work that you did, most often as part of your parliamentary work? which of the following sources of information did Please tick all that apply. you consult? Please tick all that apply.

Conceptual or theoretical Academic books and/or articles Experiments Commons/Lords Library staff Expert opinion Community forums Focus groups with service users or those affected Experts in the area Interviews with service users or those affected Government departments Observations International organisations (e.g. EU, OECD, WHO) Predictive models Media (Newspapers, TV, radio) Public opinion polls MPs’/Peers’ research staff Randomised controlled trials Other (please specify) Statistical meta-analyses Other people (colleagues, friends) Statistics POST Surveys/questionnaires with service Professional associations and/or journals users or those affected Select Committees Systematic reviews Social media (e.g. blogs, LinkedIn, Twitter) Other (please specify) Specific organisations (please give details) 1.1 ONLY MPs’ STAFF: Trade associations, press books and/or articles Are there any particular types of research that in magazines tend to feed into your work more often than 3. ALL GROUPS: others? If so, please give details. Again, thinking about the last 12 months, 1.2 ONLY MPs’ STAFF: how often have you consulted or used research Why do these types feed in more frequently? as part of your parliamentary work? Daily 1.3 ONLY MPs’ STAFF: Why do you think this is the case? A few times a week A few times a month A few times a year Never

22 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament

4. ONLY MPs AND MPs’ STAFF: 8. ALL GROUPS: Thinking about the last 12 months, which areas How do you feel about the amount of your parliamentary ork has research been that you have been able to engage with the most important to you? research in your parliamentary work?

All Party Parliamentary Group activity I have engaged with research as much as I wanted to Constituency work I would have liked to engage with more research Engaging with stakeholders (for example, attending I would have liked to engage with less research meetings, speaking at events) I have not used research Legislative work 9. ALL GROUPS: Select Committee work Please tell us how confident you Tabling parliamentary questions are about your own skills in finding research

Taking part in parliamentary debates Very confident Other (please specify) Quite confident 5. ALL GROUPS: Average How do you receive most of the research Not confident that you use as part of your parliamentary work? Not at all confident Mailing lists that I have subscribed/signed up to 10. ALL GROUPS: Information that I am sent by post/email – unsolicited Please tell us how confident you are about Personal contacts your own skills in appraising research

The sources that I actively search for myself Very confident Other (please specify) Quite confident 6. ONLY PARLIAMENTARY STAFF: Average This is a survey about research and how people use it. Not confident What kinds of research come to mind first when you Not at all confident hear the word ‘research’?

7. ALL GROUPS: Thinking about the last 12 months, please indicate the extent that you agree that research has been useful to you in your parliamentary work.

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree

Volume two 23 11. ALL GROUPS: Please indicate the extent that you agree with each of the statements below:

Strongly Agree Neither agree Disagree Strongly agree nor disagree disagree

There is enough good quality research to inform the work that I do

I have enough time to be able to find and use research in my parliamentary work

[ONLY MPs’ AND PARLIAMENTARY STAFF] I am/will be rewarded or recognised for using research as part of my parliamentary work

[ONLY MPs’ AND PARLIAMENTARY STAFF] My department/MP values me using research as part of my work

[ONLY MPs’ AND PARLIAMENTARY STAFF] I feel supported by my manager/s/MP to access and use research as part of my parliamentary work

12. ALL GROUPS: Please put the following factors in the order of how important they are to helping you to decide whether to read/use a piece of research:

How credible you think the source of the If you were consulted or participated in the research is research in any way e.g. as an interviewee

How credible/appropriate you think the methods/ (ONLY FOR MPs AND MPs’ STAFF): approaches used in the research are How important the issue is in your MP’s constituency How the research is presented (for example, its length, clarity) (ONLY FOR MPs AND MPs’ STAFF): How important the issue is to you personally How easily you can find the research (ONLY FOR MPs AND MPs’ STAFF): How easy it is to access/get hold of the research How important the issue is to your MP’s (for example, if there is a cost involved) political party

How important the issue is to what you are (ONLY FOR MPs AND MPs’ STAFF): working on currently If you have staff or personnel resources to assist If it has been recommended to you by word of mouth Other (please specify) If you have had contact or a pre-existing relationship with the people/organisation behind the research

24 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament 13. ALL GROUPS: 17. ALL GROUPS: Do you have a preference for how research Thinking about your main areas of parliamentary information is presented to you (for example, work, and how you currently use research, what format, style, length)? ideas do you have for how POST might support the use of research in your parliamentary work 14. ALL GROUPS: in the future? Had you heard of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) before 18. ONLY FOR MPs and MPs’ STAFF: I contacted you? If you use other parliamentary research services (for example, the Library or Select Committee Yes staff), do you have any comments to make?

No 19. ALL GROUPS: Is there anything more 15. ALL GROUPS: that you would like to add? How did you hear about POST?

16. ALL GROUPS: Have you used any of these POST services in the last year?

Not aware Aware of, not used Used once Used more than once of

POSTnotes (hard copy)

POSTnotes (electronic copy)

Longer reports

Briefings to Select Committees

Seminars

Spoke with POST staff

Other please specify

Volume two 25 1.8 Case study interview guide 1. To start off, I’d be interested in hearing your views 8. [For legislative case studies only] What are your about the ways that research has fed into this views on how legislation is scrutinised currently? Committee/Bill. Is there more/less scope for research to feed into this? Please explain. 2. Can you tell me about how useful you think research has been to you as part of your work on 9. [For legislative case studies only] Do you feel that this Committee/Bill? the ways that research currently feeds into existing parliamentary legislative processes is adequate to Do you have any specific examples from your enable effective scrutiny? Please explain. work to illustrate when research has / has not been useful? 10. Had you heard of the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) before I contacted Are you able to point to specific sources of you for an interview? evidence that you used/ who they asked/where they went for evidence? a. If so, in what context?

3. Do you feel that the amount that you / the b. Do you use, or have you previously, used Committee has engaged with research has been any POST resources (POSTnotes) or attended sufficient? any events organised by POST Would more/less engagement with research c. Do you feel that POST provides a useful been helpful/beneficial in your opinion? contribution to your parliamentary work and why? 4. Did you consult any research as part of your scrutiny of this Committee/Bill? If so, what were 11. Do you have any thoughts on how an in-house these, if not, why not? department (such as POST) might better support you in your use of research evidence and/or 5. To what extent would you say that your experience could have assisted you in your work on this on this Committee/Bill with regards to research is Committee/Bill? typical of the other areas of your parliamentary work? 12. Is there anything more that you would like to add about how research feeds into parliamentary 6. Are there any particular things that have helped, or scrutiny and legislation and how POST could prevented you from consulting or using research as better support these processes? part of your work on the Committee/Bill? What are these? 7. C an you tell me about what factors you consider when deciding whether to read/use a piece of research? For example, the source of the research, whether you were involved in the research in any way.

26 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament 1.9 One-page overview provided to study participants

Background To answer these research questions, a mixed method approach will be used. This includes: The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) is Parliament’s in-house source of scientific advice. In A review of available literature to identify the September 2013, POST established a new Social Science existing knowledge base around the factors that Section to improve Parliament’s access to social science shape the use of research, and specifically on the research. This section was set up in partnership with the use of research in Parliaments. Economic and Social Research Council and with support An overview of how research is used across both from University College London. This research is being led Houses of Parliament, including: a survey of by the Social Science Section. Members, their staff and parliamentary staff, semi- structured interviews, and participant observation Aims and purpose of core parliamentary processes.

The aim of this study is to explore how research feeds into In-depth qualitative case studies of Select existing parliamentary processes and to identify where it is Committees and legislative processes in both of benefit to Members, Members’ staff and parliamentary Houses of Parliament, including observation, staff. The purpose of this is to learn how POST might document analysis and semi-structured interviews. better support and facilitate the use of research across Parliament. Outputs Research questions and methods There will be a number of different outputs targeted towards different internal and external audiences. These The research will seek to answer four questions: will include blogs, presentations and workshops; the 1. Where, when and how does research feed into development of training modules for academics on parliamentary processes currently? engaging with Parliament; and articles in peer-reviewed academic journals as well as a final report. Target 2. What factors (processes, mechanisms and cultures) audiences include: shape the use of research in parliamentary processes? 3. How, and in which ways, does POST contribute POST: To inform the future work of POST by examining to these processes and how is this contribution how its resources might be best utilised to support and perceived by Parliamentarians? facilitate the use of research across Parliament. 4. How might POST contribute better to these MPs and Peers: To assist MPs and Peers to understand processes in the future? the ways in which research can support their parliamentary work. Parliamentary staff and Members’ staff: To inform the work of those who prepare research for parliamentary use about the ways in which Members engage with research. External researchers (third sector and academic): To build on the recent focus on ‘impact’ in engaging with policy by informing researchers about how their work might most effectively feed into the main areas of parliamentary work.

Volume two 27 1.10 Statement of informed consent All reasonable attempts will be taken to ensure provided to study participants that any personal data relating to this study are kept private and confidential (except to those You are being asked to participate in an interview about parties who are intended and authorised by you to your experience and perceptions of how research (as view such information as named above). However, you understand it) has fed into parliamentary scrutiny it is possible that the full dataset, including and legislation. It is being conducted by the principal personally identifying information, such as your researcher, Dr Caroline Kenny, at the Parliamentary Office name, could be subject to disclosure under the of Science and Technology (POST) in conjunction with Dr Freedom of Information Act 2000. Whilst all Abbi Hobbs and Dr Chris Tyler, also from POST, to explore reasonable attempts to resist this would be made, how research feeds into existing parliamentary processes it is not possible to provide an absolute guarantee and to identify where it is of benefit to Members, that any such confidential information will not be Members’ staff and parliamentary staff. Further details are seen or accessed by third parties. outlined in the attached executive summary. The purpose of this is to inform the future work of POST by examining The full dataset will be retained for 10 years, and how its resources might be utilised best to support and will be stored on the researcher’s computer during facilitate the use of research across Parliament. the analysis of the data, and subsequently on the POST parliamentary ICT system. In both instances, Please read all the following information, and discuss any all files related to the study will be password questions you may have with the principal researcher, Dr protected. After this period the audio recording Caroline Kenny, before deciding whether to participate in will be destroyed, and the transcripts will be this study. permanently anonymised. The interview will take up to 30 minutes of your time and will be audio-recorded and transcribed. Participation in this study is entirely voluntary. If you decide to take part in the study you can The full data set, including the digital audio withdraw at any time without reason or prejudice. recordings and transcripts will be available to the However if you have any questions regarding this research team directly involved in the project (as or any aspect of this study or the information named above). The digital recordings may also be you have been given, please contact the principal heard by a professional transcriber. investigator, Dr Caroline Kenny.

The study will produce a final report which will be publicly available. All direct quotes will be I have read the information presented above and have anonymised and a draft of these anonymised had the opportunity to ask the researcher any questions quotes will be made available for you to review related to this research and to receive any additional before publication upon request. However, details I wanted. With full knowledge of all foregoing, I participants should be aware that they may be agree, of my own free will, to participate in this session. I identifiable from the nature of the quote even if will receive a copy of this document for my records. they are not named.

Name of participant

Signature of participant

28 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament Appendix 2

Roundtable workshop participants

The workshop involved the following 20 participants:

Parliamentary representatives: External participants: Caroline Kenny, POST Dr Adam Cooper, Lecturer in Social Science and Public Policy, Department of Science, Technology, Jane Tinkler, POST Engineering and Public Policy, UCL

Daniel Wood, Outreach and Engagement Service, Professor Emma Crewe, Professorial Research Houses of Commons Associate, Anthropology Department, SOAS

Jessica Mulley, Committee Office, House Dr Gemma Harper, Deputy Director for Marine, of Commons Chief Social Scientist, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Bryn Morgan, Director of Research Development, House of Commons Dr Miles Parker, Visiting Research Fellow, Centre for Science and Policy; University of Cambridge Penny Young, Librarian and Director General of Information Services, House of Commons Dr Justin Parkhurst, Associate Professor of Global Health Policy, London School of Economics David Lloyd, Head of Scrutiny Unit, House of Commons David Pye, Programme Manager, Research, Research and Information, Local Government Paul Evans, Clerk of Committees, Association House of Commons Professor Andrew Pullin, Professor in Evidence- Philippa Tudor, Clerk of Committees, based Conservation, Bangor University House of Lords Jill Rutter, Programme Director, Institute Patrick Vollmer, Director of Library Services, for Government House of Lords Vanessa Cuthill, Deputy Director Evidence, Impact, Strategic Partnerships, Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC)

Daniel Lambauer, Director of Value for Money Development, National Audit Office

Volume two 29 Appendix 3

Case studies of scrutiny: detailed write-up

This section presents the results from two of the four Investigative Select Committees in the Lords are in-depth case studies conducted as part of this study. intended to be cross-cutting, that is, with a remit that These case studies involved two Select Committees, spans several government departments. There are six one in each House of Parliament. The case studies permanent (so called ‘sessional’) Lords Committees examined were: covering: the European Union (this Committee also has six subject area sub-Committees); science and The House of Commons Communities and Local technology; economics; communications; the UK Government Committee (CLG); constitution; and international relations. In addition, Ad The House of Lords Ad Hoc Committee on the Hoc Committees, such as the Committee on Digital Skills, National Policy on the Built Environment (NPBE). are set up each session to look at issues outside these subject areas (House of Lords Liaison Committee, 2013). Appendix 3 is split into four sections. Section 3.1 provides These Committees take evidence, deliberate, report and more of an introduction for those who are unfamiliar then cease to exist at the end of a single parliamentary with the way that Select Committees work and explains session or by a date specified in the terms of reference. the role and work of Select Committees in order to give Joint Committees operate across both Houses of context to the findings presented. This section provides Parliament and, formally, are a Committee of MPs and a brief description of how Select Committee processes Peers working together under a single remit. They have work. Sections 3.2 and 3.3 examine how these processes similar powers to other Select Committees. Some are set operate in practice and present findings from the two case up on a permanent basis, like the Joint Committee on studies: the CLG and NPBE Committees. Human Rights. Others are set up for specific purposes, such as to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny of a draft Bill, 3.1 Select Committees in Parliament and cease to exist once that task has been completed. A Select Committee is a formal cross-party group Select Committees consist of MPs or Peers from different of MPs or Peers given a specific remit to investigate political parties. In the Commons, the make-up of and report back to the House that set it up. Whilst the membership broadly reflects the party balance there are other kinds of Select Committee (such as within the Commons as a whole. The Chairs of Select Committees which consider internal administrative Committees are allocated to the various political parties matters or the technicalities of secondary legislation), by agreement between party leaders broadly based this study is concerned only with investigative Select on the same balance as well as each party’s interest in Committees. These exist in both the Commons and particular subject areas and other factors. The majority the Lords, largely to conduct inquiries and to produce of Chairs in the Commons are now elected directly to reports on a range of matters. Most investigative Select their post by the whole House and the membership of Committees in the Commons are ‘departmental’, that is each Committee is elected through an internal ballot Committees that are tasked with scrutinising the work of process within each political party. Crucially, however, government departments. There are presently 21 such the membership of each Committee, except the Chair, Committees and their role is to examine the ‘expenditure, is formally confirmed (appointed) by the House on a administration and policy’ of the government debatable and amendable motion. Currently, a typical department concerned, along with its ‘associated Committee has 11 members: either five Conservative, public bodies’ (e.g. regulators and quangos). five Labour and one other member (depending on the subject these will be divided between the minority parties) or five Conservative, four Labour and two others (White, 2017). Most Commons Select Committees are appointed for ‘a Parliament’ (normally five years).

30 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament In the Lords, the membership of each Select Committee Committee Specialist/Inquiry Manager: The role is agreed to by the House as a whole. The names in of the ‘Committee specialist’ is to provide specialist the appointment motion are recommended by the information and briefing to the Committee on matters Committee of Selection (which by custom accepts the within the remit of each. Committee specialists are nominations of the Chief Whips and the Convenor of generally recruited on the basis of subject knowledge in the Crossbench Peers). Typically, a Committee of 12 one or more areas of focus for the Committee. The role Members would be made up of four Conservative, four of the ‘Inquiry manager’ is similar except without the Labour, two Liberal Democrat and two Crossbench expectation of an underpinning subject area expertise. Members. Members are required to rotate off a Select Both roles are responsible for managing inquiries and Committee after three parliamentary sessions and providing information and briefing to the Committee. are not reappointed to the Committee they have Committee specialists and inquiry managers normally rotated off (or any of its sub-Committees) for two rotate after between two to five years (Committee parliamentary sessions. Select Committees are seen Office, 2012). as largely collaborative in nature (Levy, 2009), freer of The basic staffing model in the Lords is broadly similar, the adversarial partisan atmosphere seen elsewhere in with the following differences. Second Clerks are rare Parliament, and more or less immune to government in the Lords, the post of inquiry manager does not exist interference (Larkin, 2008: 97). Each Committee has and the role carried out by Committee specialists in its own staff with numbers and roles varying between the Commons is carried out by ‘policy analysts’ – the Committees and the two Houses. In the Commons, job title reflects that these staff do not necessarily have Committee staff with responsibility for research include: pre-existing specialism in the particular subject. In the Clerk/Second Clerk: The ‘Committee Clerk’ is the Lords, each Committee has its own Committee assistant overall manager of the Committee staff. S/he is whereas in the Commons such support is normally responsible for the day to day management of the provided by a pool of staff. team’s work and liaises closely with the Chair and other members of the Committee providing substantive and procedural advice and information. Clerks are usually generalists rather than specialists (except in the field of the House’s rules). This role requires “procedural and parliamentary expertise which can only be acquired through extensive experience of a wide range of parliamentary proceedings and processes” (Governance Committee, 2014). A ‘Second Clerk’ has a similar role to the Clerk, deputising as necessary, but is his/her junior and often in training. Clerks normally rotate between Committees, and between Committee work and other procedural roles after three or four years (although this can extend to a maximum of six years). Senior Clerks will move after between four and six years. Second Clerks normally rotate after one or two years.

Volume two 31 Information gathering and evaluation are at the heart The choice of witnesses to give oral evidence is informed of the scrutiny function of Select Committees and by the written evidence submitted. Although ideally all this includes the gathering of written evidence, the written evidence would have been received, analysed questioning of witnesses in oral evidence sessions and and circulated before inviting witnesses to give oral preparing reports based on evaluation of the material evidence, often the two processes happen in parallel. obtained (Maer et al., 2009: 22). Some Committees For Lords Ad Hoc Committees, oral evidence sessions choose to supplement the public calls for evidence with usually begin before the call for written evidence has specific requests to individuals or organisations that been published. In such cases, initial evidence sessions they feel may be of particular interest to the Committee might then be used to shape and refine the questions or may have something valuable to contribute to in the call for written evidence. According to Maer and the inquiry. Commons Committee office guidance Sandford (2004), oral evidence is taken usually from a encourages Committee staff to ensure that “all the key subset of those who provided written evidence. However, players have submitted evidence” and if not, to “chase witnesses can be called to either amplify written and encourage them to submit something” (House of evidence already submitted or because the Committee Commons Committee Office, 2012, House of Commons has decided that it ought to hear the views of particular Committee Office, 2013). witnesses, whether they have submitted written evidence or not (House of Commons Committee Office, Lords Committee Office guidance refers to “interested 2012; House of Lords Committee Office, 2016: 64). parties and experts” (House of Lords Committee Office, 2016). ‘Key players’ in this context refers both to the A traditional mode is: evidence from the responsible main stakeholder groups – Government (national, departmental officials first—to provide the scope and regional and local), regulators, business, charity/third context; then stakeholders, service users, relevant sector, civil society groups (for example, community professional bodies, business and/or trade unions, and groups) – and also the individuals/organisations various experts—to provide views on the government’s prominent in the area. This is to ensure that the main strategy, policies and/or performance and effectiveness; stakeholders with an interest and/or working in the area and finally, the responsible Government Minister to are aware of the inquiry and their ability to contribute. answer the ‘charge sheet’. The choice of the witnesses This ensures that Committees hear from a range of who appear in the middle section of this inquiry map is different perspectives on a particular issue. ‘Key players’ shaped by the members, Clerks, and specialist advisers in this context also ensures that Committees hear a (Maer and Sandford 2004). Before oral evidence sessions, balance of views and opinions on a topic. Committee staff prepare a brief, containing relevant background material and suggested questions, which is circulated to all members of the Committee.

32 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament 3.1.1 Commissioning research Select Committees in the Commons have access to a is often underspent (House of Commons Liaison budget that they can use to commission work from Committee, 2012a). This study identified ten pieces external providers. In 2016, the budget available to of work that had been commissioned by Select Select Committees was £62,000. Although actively Committees since 2005 (see Table 3.1). encouraged by the Committee Office, this budget

Table 3.1: Work commissioned by Commons Select Committees 2005-2016

Select Committee Year Inquiry Title of commissioned Organisation commissioned work to do the work

Communities & Local 2014 Operation of the The nature of Cambridge Centre for Housing Government National Planning Policy planning constraints and Planning Research Framework (NPPF)

2015 Building Regulations Investigation into the British Electrical Safety First certification of domestic Retail Consortium’s Voluntary electrical work Agreement Regarding the Sale of Electrical Products

Energy & Climate 2012 Consumer Engagement Opinion poll of public Populus Change with Energy Markets perception of energy markets

Environmental Audit 2013 Energy Subsidies Energy Subsidies in the UK Dr William Blyth, Oxford Energy Associates

Scottish Affairs 2013 Land Reform in 432:50 – Towards a Michael Foxley, James Hunter, Scotland comprehensive land reform Peter Peacock, and Andy agenda for Scotland Wightman

Transport 2011 High speed rail Review of the Government’s Oxera case for a High Speed Rail programme

2013 UK’s aviation strategy Would a new hub airport be Oxera commercially viable?

Education 2014 Academies and free Conflicts of interest in Institute of Education schools academy sponsorship arrangements

Education and 2015 Education, skills Skills and productivity in the National Institute of Economic Business, Innovation and productivity: UK, US, France and Germany: and Social Research (NIESR) and Skills Committee commissioned research a Literature Review

Business, Innovation 2009 Pub companies report PubCo Licensee Survey CGA & Skills

Public Administration 2013 Engaging the public in Study of British public opinion YouGov National Strategy in three areas: the future of the United Kingdom’s nuclear weapons system; public spending in domestic and overseas areas; and the United Kingdom’s wider role in the world

Women and 2016 Sexual harassment The trouble with… sex in Fixers Equalities and sexual violence in schools schools

Volume two 33 3.2 Case Study One The case study is structured into three sections. Section 3.2.1 outlines the Committee’s membership and details House of Commons Communities and of its specialist advisers. Section 3.2.2 describes the Local Government Committee routes by which research fed into the work of the Committee during the case study. This section draws The Communities and Local Government (CLG) upon three main issues: Committee is a permanent Committee in the House of Commons. It is a departmental Select Committee that What types of research fed into the Committee’s shadows the Department for Communities and Local work during the case study? Government (DCLG). The role of the Committee is to examine the policies, administration and spending of From which sources did the research come from? DCLG and its associated arm’s-length bodies, including In what ways/ through which routes did research the Homes and Communities Agency. This case study is feed in? based primarily on a three-month period of participant observation of the Communities and Local Government Section 3.2.3 examines the factors that shaped the use of Committee between October 2014 and February 2015. research in the Committee during the case study period. It also draws upon findings from the seven semi- structured interviews conducted as part of the case study (five Committee members and two members of 3.2.1 Membership of the Committee Committee staff were interviewed). More information about the methods used in this study is provided in The importance of Committee Chairs on the focus, Annex 1. operation and impact of Select Committees has been noted elsewhere (Benton and Russell, 2013, Russell The case study was undertaken in the 2014-15 session, and Benton, 2011, White, 2016). Committee members which was the final session of the 2010 Parliament more widely have also been highlighted as often before the 2015 General Election. The timing of the bringing considerable expertise and experience to Select case study may have shaped the findings. As White Committees. This may involve backgrounds related to the (2016) notes, the introduction of a five-year fixed term work of the Committee or may relate to experiences from Parliament gave greater certainty about the date of the their constituencies (Maer and Sandford, 2004). Table next election, which in turn affected Committees’ work 3.2 gives an overview of the CLG Committee members. programmes. Although in theory “it should have enabled The table includes information about the length of time them to plan their work more strategically… in practice on the CLG Committee and total time as an MP. These uncertainty about the likely longevity of the Coalition may additional details are included because experience has have had an equal but opposite effect” (White, 2016). been highlighted as a factor shaping the use of research In practice, this may have led some Committees to be in two systematic reviews (Oliver et al., 2014a, Estabrooks reluctant to undertake substantive inquiries during the et al., 2003). last parliamentary session and therefore any case study undertaken in this period to be unrepresentative of its work overall. Furthermore, the 2010 Parliament was unusual in that no single party won an overall majority – the first time this has happened in the UK since February 1974 (House of Commons Library, 2011).

34 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament Table 3.2: Committee members at the time of the case study

Member Role Party Time on Committee Time as an MP

Clive Betts Chair Labour Chair since 2010. Member since 2001 Since 1992 (including predecessor Transport, Local Government and Regions Committee).

Bob Blackman Member Conservative Since 2010 Since 2010 Simon Danczuk Member Labour Since 2010 Since 2010

Mary Glindon Member Labour Since 2013 Since 2010 Mark Pawsey Member Conservative Since 2010 Since 2010

John Pugh Member Liberal Democrat Since 2013 (also between 2006-2010 Since 2001 & predecessor Transport, Local Govt and Regions Committee 2001–02)

Alec Shelbrooke Member Conservative Since 2014 Since 2010 John Stevenson Member Conservative Since 2012 Since 2010

Heather Wheeler Member Conservative Since 2011 Since 2010 Chris Williamson Member Labour Since 2010 Since 2010

David Heyes Member Labour Since 2010 Since 2001

At the time of the case study, the Committee was staffed (and their organisational affiliation) to the CLG Committee by one Clerk, one Second Clerk, one committee specialist during the case study are shown in Table 3.3. No specialist and one inquiry manager. advisers were appointed to the Litter and Fly-Tipping in England and the Community Rights inquiries.14 A Select Committee can also appoint specialist advisers to assist with its work. Details of the specialist advisers

Table 3.3: Specialist Advisers to the committee during the case study period

Name Organisational affiliation Organisation Inquiry worked on Former inquiries category worked on

David McCullogh Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors Non-profit: Professional Building Regulations 2013-14, 2012-13 association or body Certification of & 2010-12 Domestic Electrical

Kelvin MacDonald Senior Visiting Fellow at the Higher education: Operation of the 2013-14, 2010-12, Department of Land Economy, Russell Group National Planning 2009-10, 2008-09 Cambridge University.14 Policy Framework & 2007-08

Gladys Rhodes White Manchester City Council Public sector: Local or Child sexual regional official exploitation in Rotherham

Professor Christine London School of Economics and Higher education: Private Rented Sector 2013-14, 2012-13, Whitehead associate member of the University Russell Group 2010-12, 2007-08, of Cambridge Centre for Housing & 2006-07 & 2005-06 Planning Research

14 Other roles include: member of the Enabling Panel for the Design Council—CABE. Examining Inspector, Major Applications and Plans Division, the Planning Inspectorate. Member of the Department for Communities Planning Sounding Board.

Volume two 35 3.2.2 Routes in which research fed into the Committee

The case study period overlapped with eight pieces of work that were in progress by the CLG Committee:

Table 3.4. CLG inquiries in progress during the case study period

No. Title of inquiry Inquiry stage during case study period

1 The work of the Communities and Local Started during case study period. Government Committee since 2010

2 Private Rented Sector: the evidence from Started during case study period. banning letting agents’ fees in Scotland

3 Child sexual exploitation in Rotherham Ended (report published) during case study period

4 Litter and fly-tipping in England Started during case study period.

5 Community rights Ended (report published) during case study period

6 Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework Ended (report published) during case study period

7 Pre-appointment hearing with the Government’s preferred One-off session held during candidate for the post of Housing Ombudsman case study period.

8 Follow-up to Building Regulations Certification Report published during of Domestic Electrical case study period

Research fed into these areas of work differently and to various extents. There were six main ways that research fed into the Committee during the case study period:

1. The written and oral evidence received by Committee; 2. Private briefing materials to the Committee; 3. pecialist advisers to the Committee; 4. Informal seminars organised for the Committee. 5. Research commissioned by the Committee; 6. Research that was done by individual Committee members.

Each of these will be examined in turn.

36 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament 3.2.2.1 The written and oral evidence received comprised the second biggest category, with most by the Committee coming from service users and/or members of the public. The CLG Committee received 270 pieces of written evidence that referred to research across the eight 101 witnesses gave oral evidence to the Committee inquiries. Eight categories and 21 sub-categories of during the case study period, of which 54% were individuals and organisations submitted evidence to from the non-profit sector. This was made up of a the Committee during the case study period. roughly similar proportion of business and/or trade associations (24%) and charities and/or campaign Nearly half (49%) of all written evidence groups (22%). submissions were made by non-profit organisations, of which, charity and campaign groups comprised the biggest sub-category. Individual submissions

Figure 3.1: Sources of research submitted as written evidence to CLG Select Committee (%)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Figure 3.2: Organisational distribution of oral evidence witnesses (as %)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Volume two 37 15 types of research and 17 sources were referred to Focus group. A group of individuals selected and in the written evidence submitted to the Committee assembled by researchers to discuss and comment (a more detailed table is available in Annex 3.2.4). on, from personal experience.

Types of research referred to in CLG written evidence Horizon scanning. A systematic examination of submissions: information to identify potential threats, risks, Anecdotal or experiential. Knowledge that emerging issues and opportunities. is drawn from individual experience or from Interviews. Usually one-on-one conversation with speaking to people informally (heresay) rather one person acting in the role of the interviewer than empirical evidence. and the other in the role of the interviewee. Case studies. In-depth studies of a phenomenon, Modelling. This category includes predictive like a person, group, or situation. modelling (where predictive analytics are used Comparative. Research that seeks to identify, to create a statistical model of future behaviour), analyse and explain similarities and differences economic models (simplified descriptions of reality, across different sites such as countries, cultures, designed to yield hypotheses about economic societies, organisations or groups. behaviour that can be tested) and methods of horizon scanning (drawing upon Delphi Evaluation. Research that seeks to judge actions techniques or scenario models). and activities in terms of values, criteria and standards. Includes impact assessments. Opinion polls. Survey of public opinion from a sample of people. Evidence review. Review of existing literature. This includes both systematic and non-systematic Statistics. Collection, analysis, interpretation, reviews. This category includes the type of and presentation of masses of numerical data. research undertaken by Select Committees and Survey. A list of questions aimed at extracting APPGs in their inquiries as well as official reviews specific data from a particular group of people. (such as Farrell Review) e.g. call for evidence, submissions, oral evidence, and reports as well as Unclear. No information about methods or briefings produced by other parliamentary offices approach used in the research provided. such as the Libraries and POST.

Experiment. Testing new interventions or policies to observe effects. Includes pilots and randomised controlled trials.

Expert opinion. Research produced by individuals or organisations considered to domain-specific expertise through their profession. Including reports from think tanks, charities and practitioners.

38 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament Sources of research referred to in CLG written Membership body. Organisations that allows evidence submissions: people to subscribe, and often requires them to pay a fee or “subscription”. Academic. This category includes research published in academic journals or at academic Own. Refers to research undertaken by individual conferences as well as research projects being or organisation that submitted the evidence. undertaken by academics (either solely or in partnership with other organisations), references Parliamentary. Includes research produced by to research funders, individual academics. departments or groups within Parliament such as Select Committees or All-Party Parliamentary Business. Organisations working for profit Group (APPG). This also includes research that is including commercial organisations, consultancies. cited by individual MPs or Peers in debates.

Charity. Organisations established for charitable Professional association. Usually, a non-profit purposes and generally not-for-profit. organisation seeking to further a particular profession, the interests of individuals engaged Community or civic group. For example, in that profession and the public interest. community organisations such as the Kew Society. Representative body. Organisations that promote Government. Includes research produced by the views of a group of people with common government departments at national, devolved, interests. The representative bodies collect the regional and local levels. This category also views of their members and act as their collective includes government-related organisations voice in discussions with other groups on issues such as Public Health England and other non- that affect them all. departmental public bodies (NDPBs). Social media. Websites and applications or ‘apps’ International organisation. Research produced (software programs) that enable people to interact, by international organisations such as the World create, share and exchange information for Health Organisation, OECD. example, Twitter and Facebook.

Legal. Refers to case law, legal judgments, Think tank. A research institute or other and legislation (Bills and Acts). organisation providing advice and ideas on national or commercial problems. Media. Newspapers, television etc. Includes trade press. Unclear. No source or supporting references provided.

Volume two 39 § Think tank. A research institute or other organisation providing advice and ideas on national Figures 3.3 andor commercial problems. 3.4 show the frequency that the different cited type of research was unclear. The most frequently types and§ sourcesUnclear. No source or supporting references provided. of research identified were referred to cited source of research was Government. in the written evidence submissions. The most frequently Figures 3.3 and 3.4 show the frequency that the different types and sources of research identified were referred to in the written evidence submissions. The most frequently cited type of research was unclear. The most frequently cited source of research was Government. Figure 3.3 Frequency of references to types of research in written evidence submissions to CLG (by %)15 Figure 3.3 Frequency of references to types of research in written evidence submissions to CLG (by 16 percentage)Series 1 Legal 0.20% Social media 0.20%Unclear 29% Professional associationEvidence review0.70% 16% Community or civicOpinion polls group1% 14% Survey 14% Think Tank Statistics1% 14% International organisationAnecdotal or experiential2% 13% Representative body Modelling2% 4% Media Evaluation 1.70% Case studies 1.00% Memb rganisation Expert opinion 1% Academ Interviews 0.90% Busin Comparative 0.90% Parli Experiments 0.40% Horizon scanning 0.20% Chari Focus groups 0.20% Own 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% Unclear

Figure 3.4 Frequency of references to sources of research in written evidence submissions to CLG (by 17 percentage) Figure Figure 3.4 Frequency of references to sources of research in written evidence submissions to CLG (by %) 16 (%) Social media 0.20% Legal 0.20% Professional association 0.70% Think Tank 1% Community or civic groupGovernment 1% Representative bodyUnclear 2% International organisationOwn 2% CharityMedia 3% Membership organisationParliamentary 4% ParliamentaryBusiness 8% AcademicBusiness 8% Membership organisationAcademic 8% MediaCharity 12% Representative bodyOwn 13% International organisationUnclear 16% GovernmentThink Tank 20% Community or civic group 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Professional association Social media Legal 16 Overall there were 457 references to types of research in the written evidence submissions. 17 Overall there were 439 references to 0.00% sources5.00% of research in the written evidence submissions.10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00%

Page 31 of 114

15 Overall there were 457 references to types of research in the written evidence submissions. 16 Overall there were 439 references to sources of research in the written evidence submissions.

40 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament As part of its inquiry into the work of the department since The interviewee highlighted the contribution that 2010, the Committee asked for views about the ways that commissioned research could make in occasions where it itself had engaged with research. Submissions made to no research was submitted as part of inquiries or, this inquiry suggested that the Committee should draw Committee members had concerns about the research upon wider sources of information than it does currently which was submitted: and several submissions saw greater scope for the So that is all fine and that will continue but, again, Committee to assess and challenge the evidence it receives there are occasions where that evidence isn’t (House of Commons Communities and Local Government there or isn’t there in the form we want it, or Committee, 2015). Specific suggestions included that the we have got concerns about the evidence and Committee should engage with those organisations that the research that has been done, or there is a had been set up explicitly to provide robust research different organisation that may have commissioned evidence to inform decision-making and enable better use it with a view to getting certain results out of of it at all levels. Examples of such organisations include it – that can happen. So my guess is that there the What Works Centres, the Economic and Social will be a moment of reflection in future inquiries Research Council (ESRC) funded Local Government at the beginning, where we look at the terms of Knowledge Navigator and the Alliance for Useful Evidence. reference, we look at what evidence we think we The submissions included references to work that the are going to get, and we look perhaps whether we latter two organisations had done that related directly to think we are going to have to commission some of areas of the Committee’s work. our own research (MP, interview 6). Interviewee 6 referred to a number of different types and sources of research available to Committees. This Although submissions are the main way that Select included “very detailed academic research” to requests Committees receive research, one Committee member to local authorities for specific pieces of information. The raised concerns about the effectiveness of this method. interviewee also highlighted that many of the evidence Whereas the evidence sessions themselves, we submissions received by the Committee draw upon will have a witness come along and they will research done by the organisation itself, say something and you could very easily put at [T]here is lots and lots of evidence on many the end of it, ‘Well, he would say that, wouldn’t inquiries.There will be organisations who submit he?’ So sometimes I wonder whether we learn a evidence who have done research themselves, great deal from the evidence sessions. I think it which often is credible and verifiable and you can is a matter of how it is presented; on a lot of the use it and quite happily use it; it may often be reports that we have done I would very gladly used to challenge government, which of course swap an evidence session for a more informal may have a different view on some of these briefing and the opportunity to chat through some things (MP, interview 6). of the issues that are coming through. One of the things that did strike me as a bit odd on the way the Committee works is – I have spoken to you about the lack of visual information – but often we do an evidence session, it always runs for longer than anticipated because MPs talk too much, and witnesses often like to talk a great deal, but we only ever review what we have heard once or twice and at the end of the evidence sessions (MP, interview 17).

Volume two 41 3.2.2.2 Private briefing materials to As part of the follow-up inquiry into the private rented the Committee sector, a brief was produced by the author. This involved consultation with both internal and external sources of Briefings from the Committee staff research. The final report was produced by the author as part of the participant-observation process. This As part of the Committee’s legacy report, a summary of inquiry came about from a commitment made in a 2013 all of the written evidence that had been received was report on the Private Rented Sector "to gather further provided to Committee members. information on the impact in Scotland of the decision to Clearly the most valuable research on the Select make fees to tenants illegal, and to return to this issue Committee has been the briefings that the team in 2014". In summer 2014, the Committee wrote to the supporting the Select Committee prepare; I Scottish Government and four organisations in Scotland will always read that before going to the Select representing tenants, landlords and agents to seek their Committee. So the principal area of research is analysis of the impact of the ban to ask for an assessment what other people have done for us, frankly, and of the impact of the ban. often they will reference the additional information The briefing paper did three things. First, it assessed on their questions. Rarely would I take it any the strength of the evidence received (for example, further; frankly, often as much as I can do is just robustness and appropriateness of the methods). Secondly, get through the briefing paper and understand it it assessed whether the evidence received was strong and read it without picking up any other reference enough/sufficiently conclusive for the Committee to material (MP, interview 17). recommend to the Government that the effect of the Committee staff produced a brief for Committee members ban in Scotland has been negligible and a ban should for the roundtable discussion held as part of its inquiry be introduced in England. If not, to identify whether any into the work of the Communities and Local Government other evidence exists to support or contest that a ban Committee since 2010. This brief was divided into five should be introduced in England. Finally, it outlined the sections and a number of subsidiary or linked issues were type of evidence that would be necessary to support or outlined. It summarised the written evidence that had contest a ban being introduced in England, should it not been received, with the five sections broadly reflecting the be available. questions and issues posed in the terms of reference for The briefing was produced using two main methods: the inquiry. Most of the subsidiary or linked issues reflect the focus and/or nature of the responses received in the a rapid literature review to identify existing written evidence. Some subsidiary/linked issues were academic research and academics that had not highlighted in the written evidence and these asked published on this topic including subject specifically for suggestions about how the Committee specialists in the House of Commons and Lords might work differently in the future. The five sections libraries and previous briefings produced by include a selection of extracts from the written evidence the parliamentary Library; to highlight specific points made. Biographies of the six informal consultations with the following sources participants were also provided in the brief. of research:

–– the Specialist Adviser on the 2013 report who provided comments on a draft briefing;

–– the Scottish Parliament Information Centre (SPICe) (an internal research service for MSPs);

–– four experts identified through the literature review. These experts advised that they were not aware of any existing research on the impact of the ban on letting agent fees in Scotland:

42 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament Professor Douglas Robertson, University of Stirling This information was seen to be useful later on in the and Chair of the Scottish Private Rented Sector inquiry when questioning witnesses. Strategy Group at the Scottish Government – Research is useful to put into perspective, and supplied information about a person to contact in balance, the views of the different organisations Scottish Government; that we receive evidence from. At times, the Professor Isobel Anderson at the University of evidence sessions reveal contrasting opinions and Stirling; different perspectives, and research can provide an objective answer. For example, in our recent Professor Michael Oxley, Director of the litter inquiry, the Chair was able to challenge the Cambridge Centre for Housing and Planning statistics being put forward by some witnesses in Research at the University of Cambridge; the evidence sessions (MP, interview 19).

Dr Kim McKee, Director of the Centre for Housing 3.2.2.3 Specialist Advisers to the Committee Research at the University of St Andrews. The main way that research has fed into the work Briefings from other parliamentary staff of the Committee is through specialist advisers (MP, interview 19). Staff from the Commons Library gave a presentation to the Committee as part of its inquiry on litter and fly- Specialist advisers were used differently by the Committee. tipping in England. This presented results from: As section one outlines, many of the specialist advisers during the case study period had been former advisers on Survey of litter in England (carried out by Keep previous inquiries. Their expertise was used in different Britain Tidy, funded by DEFRA) – data for 2012-13 ways. For example, although not formally appointed and annually since 2001-02. as a specialist adviser on the follow-up inquiry on the Local authority spending on street cleansing since Private Rented Sector, Professor Whitehead’s experience 2001-02. and knowledge in this area was drawn up to provide comments on a draft briefing paper to the Committee. Statistics on fly-tipping (collected by an online Professor Whitehead was also present for a private service Flycapture managed by the Environment meeting with Committee members to present the main Agency) – data for 2013-14 and annually since points from this briefing paper and to give comments on 2007-08. the accuracy and validity of this briefing.

Figures for local authority spending on clearing and investigating incidents of fly-tipping.

Legislation on litter and fly-tipping.

Statistics on condition of public bins.

General information on litter collection, cigarette butts and chewing gum.

Volume two 43 3.2.2.4 Informal seminars organised 3.2.2.5 Research commissioned by the Committee for the Committee The CLG Committee is unusual amongst other One private seminar took place during the case study Committees in having commissioned its own work. 10 period. This was organised as part of the inquiry into pieces of work have been commissioned by eight Select the work of the Communities and Local Government Committees since 2005 (see Section 3.1.1). Two pieces Committee since 2010 and involved a meeting between of commissioned research fed into the Committee during Committee members and six external people. This the case study period. included: The nature of planning constraints commissioned as part Three people that had previously provided of the inquiry into the Operation of National Planning oral evidence to the Committee and who had Policy Framework. Produced by Cambridge Centre submitted written evidence to this inquiry. for Housing and Planning Research. This came about through discussions between the Chair and the Specialist One specialist adviser who had submitted written Adviser and was completed within three months. The evidence to the inquiry. research drew upon three methods: One specialist adviser who had formerly given oral A review of existing literature on the planning evidence to the Committee. system and the delivery of housing to identify constraints within the planning system. This One person who had previously given oral included analysis of secondary data on local evidence to the Committee. planning authorities and government statistic on planning application and house building. Participants were selected by Committee staff according to who they felt would have something useful to contribute Interviews. Six in depth interviews with major and those with perceived influence with Committee housebuilders to understand their concerns about members (for example, previous specialist advisers). issues in different local planning systems. Two Committee members highlighted the usefulness of Case studies of four local planning authority informal seminars. development schemes. Including interviews with We do draw on some research, you know; if we local planning authority planning officers and are doing an inquiry on housing, we do draw on developers and analysis of applications. some housing research that is out there and things. But I still think we could probably draw on more Research on the effectiveness of the British Retail and have more background presentations not Consortium’s retailer voluntary agreement on electrical through the formal taking evidence system, do you products commissioned as part of the Committee’s know what I mean? I am not sure why we don’t follow-up to Building Regulations Certification of do that. We do have some presentations at the Domestic Electrical Work inquiry. Produced by the beginning of an inquiry to set the scene and give organisation Electrical Safety First (a trading name used us a flavour of what the topic is; we don’t always by the campaigning charity Electrical Safety Council). do that, but sometimes we do. That would be an This piece of research was commissioned through an ideal opportunity to share some research findings open process. Only one bid was received. The research of work that has already been done (MP, interview was conducted between October 2014 and January 18). 2015. The research drew upon five main methods: Desktop research to analyse company websites. I think it is a matter of how it is presented; on This involved analysis of the websites of 11 a lot of the reports that we have done I would companies that had signed up to the British Retail very gladly swap an evidence session for a more Consortium’s voluntary agreement on electrical informal briefing and the opportunity to chat products and a selection (number not specified) through some of the issues that are coming of companies not signed up to this agreement. through (MP, interview 17).

44 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament Mystery shopper exercise in 18 stores across Some members were unaware of the research that the Greater London, Hampshire and Hertfordshire Committee had commissioned when interviewed. In one to evaluate the quality and quantity of advice case, this was due to the member joining the Committee provided at various stages of transaction (before, later in the parliamentary session (interview 19). Two at and after sale) against voluntary agreement. interviewees (17 and 18) were unaware of the different pieces of research that the Committee had commissioned. Online survey of people who have purchased appropriate products. I wouldn’t be aware of them as separate and different sources of information; I didn’t know Survey of registered electricians (same sample as that the Select Committee had commissioned used in previous research by supplier): N=136. those pieces of work… [I]t is just part of a whole chunk of information. I am guessing that the Public survey (administered in conjunction with Committee Clerks and the Chairman took the view Populus): N=5,029. that that was necessary because of a gap but, if I am honest, that hasn’t been made particularly Interviews with Committee members and staff clear to me in terms of, ‘Here is some research focused predominantly on the first piece of research that the Committee has commissioned because of commissioned: the nature of planning constraints. It was a gap in other sources.’ Because my assumption suggested that this came about due to two reasons. First, would be that if that information is available the Chair and Clerk had a general awareness that money through more conventional existing sources, why was available for Select Committees who wanted to would the Committee need to commission it? commission research. In initial discussions with the Chair (Interviewee 17 MP). and Clerk, the specialist adviser agreed that this was a good idea. The specialist adviser identified that there had been no previous research on the intended topic of commissioned research. The second reason related to the nature of the issue. The Committee had polarized views on the inquiry topic and therefore it was felt necessary to commission external evidence. I think we have come to it through a gradual process of realising [that commissioning research] could be helpful. In the future, we might well start to consider [it] as an automatic part, particularly of a major inquiry, what information we think we might need, whether it is likely to be available and whether we ought to think about commissioning our own research to support the investigation we are doing. My guess is that, over the next few years, [commissioning] research will become a more integral part of the process (MP, interview 6).

Volume two 45 Committee members differed in their views about whether Committee members also referred to using their own staff the research commissioned was useful. Interviewee 21 (an to undertake research for their Committee work. MP) commented that the research that was commissioned As part of my parliamentary staff I have a did not make much difference to the Committee in researcher, so there may be a particular topic that it was treated in the same way as other evidence coming up on the Select Committee and I will ask they received. This MP was sceptical as to the value them to dig a bit deeper for me on this, or there of commissioned research as part of inquiry process. may be a particular local angle or something that They thought that it was more important to synthesise effects my constituency. House building is quite a information from already existing research. In contrast, good example because my local authority has got Interviewee 19 (MP) felt that the research had been very quite a proactive attitude to house building and clear and was instrumental in helping the inquiry report to we have allocated our sites; I wouldn’t expect a have an impact. brief on what is going on in my constituency to One reason suggested for why some members felt that come from the Select Committee staff as my own the research was not useful relates to how the research staff here would do that. I would look at who was presented to the Committee on completion. A private we have got giving evidence and there might be meeting was organised for the researchers who conducted a particular point where I would ask them to – I the work to present the key findings to Committee have got someone within my team who would do members and for them to be able to ask questions. that. Also, sometimes quite a big brief will come Rather than the researchers who had carried out the work in from, let’s say, an inquiry into the private rented presenting these findings, however, someone who had sector, so there were landlord groups and groups not been involved with the research came, which led to representing tenants, many of whom would send criticisms from some Committee members (Commons in quite substantial documents (MP, interview 17). Committee staff, interview 25). 3.2.3 Factors that shaped the use of research in 3.2.2.6 Research that was done by individual the Committee Committee members This section outlines four factors that shaped the use of Work done by Committee members varied in scale and research in the CLG Committee during the case study intensity. For example, as part of the inquiry into the period. These were: the Committee’s reliance on written Community Rights, one of the Committee members evidence ways of working, the Committee’s workload, the instructed his own staff to undertake some research to Committee’s capacity to appraise the research it received, inform this inquiry. This research involved issuing a number and the time at which the research was received. Four of Freedom of Information requests to several local additional factors were also mentioned by one interviewee authorities on this issue. Interview with this Committee each. These four factors were: the Committee’s concern member suggested that this was done due to a lack of to achieve consensus across Committee members, the available information elsewhere and was seen to have workload and time available to individual Committee informed the final report. members, the way that research was presented; and the The other piece of research is that this office did prior views of Committee members. some Freedom of Information requests for local authorities in relation to community rights. That informed the report; so that got used within the report. I don’t think they just used it because we had done it, I think they used it because it was helpful and there was no other research out there (Interviewee 18 MP).

46 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament 3.2.3.1 Reliance on written evidence ways 3.2.3.2 The Committee’s workload of working During the three-month period of the case study, the Perception of select committee procedure and the Committee worked on eight inquiries, many of which demanding workload of the CLG Committee meant that were running concurrently. Within each of these inquiries, the Committee was largely reliant on the information 277 pieces of written evidence were submitted, which that was submitted as formal evidence as a source drew upon research of different types and from many of research. This is dependent not only on research different sources. This resulted in a significant workload being submitted but also that such research is both for the four members of staff on the Committee. Staff comprehensive (so as not to leave the Committee with worked on multiple inquiries at once which left little time significant knowledge or evidence gaps) and reliable. to process, digest and appraise the research submitted or to undertake additional background scoping research. You are sometimes reliant upon agencies and In addition to this, were the tight deadlines that the organisations presenting the research to the Committee worked to in terms of processing evidence, Committee in relation to the inquiry and I don’t producing briefing for members and drafting reports. know how much the Clerks and the team that The approach taken to process the evidence coming work on it go out and find research for the in, and by extension the research cited within it, was Committee (MP, interview 18). to focus on the evidence that had been submitted by Committee staff are able to do their own background the main stakeholders, ‘the key players’, for example, research and to proactively contact people or representative bodies and the well-known organisations organisations that they think can contribute to an in the area. inquiry. The ability of Committee staff to do the former was constrained by their workload and the demands 3.2.3.3 The Committee’s capacity to appraise of the Committee timetable. Staff did do the latter the research it received and approached people and organisations proactively The capacity to appraise the research that was received (as shown in the people that gave oral evidence was shaped by the time available and skills in research without submitted written evidence) based on which appraisal. The veracity of the research was assessed stakeholders they felt were either missing from the according to the perceived credibility of the individual written evidence, or who they thought should be heard or organisation that presented it. Where there were on a particular inquiry. questions about the robustness or reliability of research For two Committee members, the reliance on written — for instance, in the responses the Committee received evidence was problematic for slightly different reasons. in relation to the follow-up inquiry on the private rented One member felt that this put a limit on the ability sector — I was asked to analyse the evidence and to give of individual Committee members to bring their own an appraisal. This limited the ability of the Committee to research to evidence sessions rather than relying judge the information that they heard and the reliability on being “constrained by the topics developed by of the research in which it purported to be based upon. Committee staff” (MP, interview 21). The other member who raised this issue felt that the Committee should draw on wider research and different methods of hearing from such research.

Volume two 47 Two Committee members highlighted concerns about 3.2.3.4 The time at which the research the Committee’s ability to assess the information and was received research that it received. Interviewee 19 spoke about Two interviewees said that the Committee was more likely being “bowled over” by figures ht at were quoted to in to draw upon research at the start of an inquiry when staff evidence sessions. The interviewee reported that often the and members were trying to understand the topic and parameters of those figures or where they came from was the key issues within it. Once written evidence had been unclear, which made it difficult of r members to be able received, the Committee focused upon that and did not to assess their validity. The interviewee said that it would consult other sources. be of most use to Committees to have research that assessed the research that the Committee had received, What I have learned – you have followed the for example, analysis of the methods used or the validity Committee, so you know the Committee has done of the conclusions drawn. The interviewee advised that a series of inquiries – clearly there is more reading members are only able to do this at the end of an inquiry up for a member of a Select Committee during the after all of the evidence has been heard. The interviewee early stages of an inquiry than towards the end reported “wishing [members] could go back and re- of an inquiry, because you get to grips with the question people in light of the subsequent information earlier issues… I learned to keep an eye on what [they] heard.” future inquiries are; so we may be doing an inquiry now on one topic – housing, for example – but in The main way that Committee members were able to two months’ time we are going to be starting an assess the research that they received was cited as their inquiry on something else. Then I would pay more previous experience (before becoming an MP). This was attention to the stuff that is coming up ahead of seen to provide them with a greater understanding of that inquiry... So a good example, perhaps, is the some policy issues rather than others. Interviewee 19 one we have been doing on child exploitation in noted, that because of his previous experience, he felt Rotherham; as an MP, all of the stuff in the media he could weigh up different pieces of evidence from would have been of interest to me, but because I particular witnesses more easily. The interviewee went on became aware that it was an issue that the Select to note that because he did not have a background in Committee were going to look at… It would be research or ‘science’, he did not feel able to question this paying attention to briefings that come into my type of knowledge. The interviewee felt that Committee inbox. Stuff piles in and a lot of it you simply don’t members with such a background would be able to have time to look at. Some of the cleverer lobbying question or challenge information of this type more groups will say, ‘Right, this Select Committee effectively (MP, interview 19). is doing an inquiry on that, we will send two Interviewee 18 was unsure about the extent that skills members of the Committee our take on whatever in research appraisal were held by people working in it is that they are doing an inquiry into.’ That is Parliament: helpful (MP, interview 17). [T]rained, experienced people amongst the Clerks within the House to be able to ensure that any such research remained objective and not biased, and I don’t know whether that skillset exists within the workings of the Houses of Parliament (MP, interview 18).

48 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament The same interviewee also talked about the issue of when But we don’t do that because of the way that the in the inquiry process research would be of most use to Committee system works, and often I think there members. is not a great appetite on the part of members – who have already sat through two panels for In an ideal world, it would be before you take perhaps two and a half hours – to remain in a evidence, but often somebody presents some meeting for yet another period of time in order to research to you before you have started on a do that. So that is why I say I would rather reduce process and it doesn’t mean a lot to you. So the amount of time taken in an evidence session, there is an argument for introducing it part way perhaps ask one or two fewer questions, and through, but then you have probably been less have the opportunity to consider what we have productive in the early evidence sessions than heard. Or even lose an evidence session and have you might otherwise have been. It probably an opportunity to discuss what is coming forward only ought to come at the beginning but often, amongst the Committee members (MP, interview because you haven’t got to grips with the topic, 17). somebody presented it to you without you fully understanding it. That is a problem (MP, Four additional factors were each highlighted by one interview 17). interviewee. The meeting in which Committee members discuss the 3.2.3.5 The Committee’s concern to achieve draft report structure was highlighted by Interviewee 17 consensus across Committee members as important for shaping how research was used by the Committee in its report. The interviewee advised that Select Committees are generally seen to be less partisan this was the main opportunity for members to voice their in their approach and to seek consensus on the issues views about the evidence they had received and to put they consider (Bochel et al., 2015: 315, Crewe, 2015). forward their opinion on how this should be drawn upon The collaborative approach of the CLG Committee was in the final report. seen by one interviewee to limit the ability of individual members to ask their own questions of witnesses or to We have a meeting which is called the Heads of prevent them from challenging the questions drafted for Terms meeting where we, as members, set up them by Committee staff. templates for the Clerks to go away and draft up a report, and I have learned that that is probably On some occasions, I’ve found myself having to the most important meeting of the lot, because ask questions which I didn’t think were relevant or if I have got a particular view about the way germane to the inquiry and some which I didn’t a report is going and I want to steer it in that understand myself. On the occasions when I have direction, I have got to be there for that meeting. ventured from the brief to ask my own questions, If I miss that meeting I have had it, because the those that I feel will be of most use to the inquiry, next opportunity then is when the Committee or follow up on information gleaned from the Clerks have drafted their report and then I may witness, I’ve been told off by the Committee Chair object to something they have said. So you could (MP, interview 21). have half a dozen evidence sessions, be able to attend all of those, but miss the Heads of Terms. And, by contrast, you could also have a member who has attended very few of the evidence sessions and then decides to rock up at the Heads of Terms meeting and express his or her opinion very strongly at that meeting and influence the direction of a report without having necessarily sat through all of the evidence… I have often thought that, occasionally, when we finish an evidence session we should have ten minutes or so reflecting on what we have just heard while the evidence is very fresh in our minds.

Volume two 49 3.2.3.6 The workload and time available to to two things, really; we are responding to the individual Committee members issues that the constituents raise with us and then we are responding to the timetable of events in One interviewee spoke about the challenges of managing Parliament. I have got no control over either of workloads and balancing commitments to constituency those; I have got no control over the agenda in work and that of the Select Committee. At busy times, Parliament and I don’t control the issues that my this meant that their ability to do research as part of their constituents raise with me, so we are very, very work on the Select Committee (and more widely) was reactive (MP, interview 17). impacted: If there is a very busy or controversial issue that 3.2.3.7 The way that research was presented has come up in my constituency, then the bit that gets squeezed is research, both personally Interviewee 25 spoke about the importance of how and then, if I have got loads of constituency research is presented to the Committee in shaping correspondence, the person in my team who whether it is used. The interviewee referred to a piece of would normally be doing some research may research that had been commissioned by the Committee. get steered towards getting letters out on time In this case, a private meeting was organised for the to constituents. So research is therefore the researchers who conducted the work to present the key bit that gets squeezed… There may be a Select findings to Committee members and for them to be able Committee hearing or a debate in the Chamber, to ask questions. However, rather than the researchers so if I am going to contribute to that and make who had carried out the work, someone who had not a useful contribution then either I or somebody been involved with the research presented the findings. in my team needs to have done some reading This was criticised by some Committee members. round and prepared some notes and done some research in order to be effective at that. Whereas 3.2.3.8 The prior views of Committee members on the other hand you have then got the pressure One interviewee (MP, interview 19) spoke about how from constituents and so you have got to juggle individual perspectives and beliefs can shape the use of between the two. It does make management of research. The interviewee gave the example of the CLG your staff here very difficult as well; you can’t say Committee where all Committee members shared a belief to somebody, ‘You are only going to deal with one in local democracy, despite differing in their views of how particular type of work,’ because they have got to to achieve this. In the interviewee’s opinion, this shared be able to respond to the kind of pressures that I belief led its members to be neither willing nor open to face. So there is a demand of flexibility from them engage with research that challenged their views on this as well (MP, interview 17). issue. Interviewee 17 went on to speak about the unpredictability of their work as particularly challenging. There are two sorts of correspondence that we get: one is the general stuff that will go to every MP on a national topic, where we can work out the reply and do the same reply to everybody, and then there are the much more specific individual letters or emails that we get where you do a bespoke and individual letter to that constituent. They are very different and the interesting thing is that, as an MP, you have got no control over the rate at which those happen. I used to run a business before becoming an MP and I used to encourage my staff to be proactive in their work so they would go to work organised and knowing exactly what they were doing on a week to week basis; this, however, is an incredible, reactive job. We are responding

50 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament 3.2.4 Research cited in written evidence submissions to the Communities and Local Government Committee

Name Categories and sub-categories Type of research Source of submitters17

The work of the Communities and Local Government Committee since 2010

ACCA Non-profit: Professional association Unclear Academic; Own or body

Association of Independent Public sector: Local or regional official Survey; Guidance; Official review; Own; Government; LSCB Chairs Parliamentary; International Academic; Parliamentary examples

Centre for Public Scrutiny Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Survey; Case studies; Unclear; Own; Government; group Expert opinion; Official review; Membership bodies; Parliamentary; Evidence review Parliamentary

Christine Whitehead Higher education: Russell group Experiential

Core Cities UK Non-profit: Business and/or trade Statistics; Economic/financial; Unclear; Own; Parliamentary association Evidence review

Dr Tim Brown, De Montfort Higher education: Non-affiliated Unclear; Evidence review; Expert Own; Government; University opinion Academic

Educe Ltd & the Alliance for Non-profit: Think tank or research Evidence review; Case studies; Academic; Charity; Useful Evidence institute Survey; Expert opinion; Government; Professional Parliamentary; Guidance association; Own

John Thornton Individual: Independent expert Modelling; Evidence review; Membership body; Own Anecdotal; Survey

Local Government Non-profit: Think tank or research Survey; Case studies Own Knowledge Navigator institute

Local Government Government/civil service: Arm’s length Parliamentary; Statistics; Government; Parliamentary; Ombudsman and body (ALB) Experiential/anecdotal; Official Own Parliamentary and Health review Service Ombudsman

London Councils Non-profit: Think tank or research Unclear Academic institute

Parks Alliance Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Parliamentary; Unclear; Statistics; Parliamentary; Charity; group Survey Unclear; Own

Professor George Jones & Higher education: Russell Group Parliamentary Parliamentary Professor John Stewart

Professor Jane South Higher education: Million plus Evidence review; Stakeholder Academic consultation

Richard Bate Individual: Independent expert Experiential

Richard Styles Individual: Independent expert Survey; Unclear Business; Unclear

What Works Centre for Non-profit: Think tank or research Evidence review; Impact evaluation; Own; Membership body; Local Economic Growth institute Modelling; Expert opinion Think tank

17

17 T aken from Geddes M. 2016. Taking evidence: Witnesses and the evidence gathering process of select committees in the House of Commons. The Political Studies Association Annual Conference, 21-23 March 2016. Brighton.

Volume two 51 Litter and fly-tipping in England

Action on Smoking and Health Non-profit: Charity and/ Survey; Modelling; Expert opinion; Government; Charity or campaign group Statistics; Parliamentary

The Association of London’s Non-profit: Professional Unclear; Survey Charity; Government Public Sector Waste Management association or body Professionals

Bolsover District Council Public sector: Local Interviews; Focus Groups; Surveys; Government; Academic or regional official Stakeholder consultation

Bolton & District Civic Trust Non-profit: Charity and/ Comparative; Survey; Anecdotal or International organisation; or campaign group experiential Government; Academic; Charity

Braintree District Council Public sector: Local or regional official Survey Unclear

British Soft Drinks Association Non-profit: Business and/ Unclear Charity or trade association

Campaign to Protect Rural England Non-profit: Charity and/ Survey; Unclear Charity; Academic or campaign group

Carnegie UK Trust (CUKT) Non-profit: Charity and/ Survey; Interviews; Unclear Own; Government; Charity; or campaign group Academic; Think tank

Caroline Lewis Individual: Service user and/or Anecdotal or experiential member of the public

Charles Hook Individual: Service user and/or Practitioner member of the public

Chewing Gum Action Group Non-profit: Charity and/ Statistics; Survey Unclear; Charity; Own (CGAG) or campaign group

City of London Corporation Public sector: Local Survey Charity or regional official Unclear

Chartered Institute of Waste Non-profit: Professional Surveys; Unclear Government; Academic; Management association or body Charity

Clean Highways Non-profit: Charity and/ Anecdotal or experiential or campaign group

Clean Up Britain Non-profit: Charity and/ Survey; Economic/financial Charity or campaign group

CleanupUK Non-profit: Charity and/ Survey; Anecdotal or experiential; Charity; Academic or campaign group Experiment; Opinion poll; Trial/Pilot

Crewe Clean Team Non-profit: Charity and/ Statistics Unclear; Own or campaign group

David Alexander Individual: Service user and/or Anecdotal or experiential member of the public

David Mason Individual: Service user and/or Anecdotal or experiential member of the public

Department of Communities and Government/civil service: Central Survey; Anecdotal or experiential; Academic; Unclear; Charity; Local Government government department Unclear; Economic/financial; Government Statistics; Evaluation

Derby City Council Public sector: Local Statistics; Theoretical Own; Unclear or regional official

52 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament Litter and fly-tipping in England

Derby Telegraph Media and publishing: Statistics Unclear Journalist/editor

East Hampshire District Council Public sector: Local Statistics; Unclear Own or regional official Unclear

East Tisted Parish Council Public sector: Local Anecdotal or experiential or regional official

Elaine Simpson Individual: Service user and/or Unclear Unclear member of the public

Ferndown Town Council Public sector: Local Statistics; Anecdotal; Unclear Unclear or regional official

Foodservice Packaging Association Non-profit: Business Survey Charity; International and/or trade association organisation

Frampton Cotterell Village Action Non-profit: Charity and/or Survey; Statistics Own; Unclear Litter Busters campaign group

Graham Andrews Individual: Service user and/or Anecdotal or experiential member of the public

Great Yarmouth Borough Council Public sector: Local Statistics; Anecdotal Unclear or regional official

Hampshire Association of Local Public sector: Local Statistics; Anecdotal; Unclear Unclear Councils or regional official

Heather Frenkel Individual: Service user Anecdotal or experiential Academic and/or member of the public

The Industry Council for Research Non-profit: Think tank Unclear; Survey; Parliamentary; on Packaging & the Environment or research institute Parliamentary Charity

Janet Slootweg Individual: Service user and/or Statistics; Unclear Charity; Professional society member of the public

Japan Tobacco International Private sector: Multi-national business Survey; Experiment Government; Charity; International organisation

Jim Murphy Individual: Service user and/or Anecdotal or experiential member of the public

John Kent Individual: Service user and/or member of the public

Keep Britain Tidy Non-profit: Charity and/ Survey; Economic/financial; Government; Business; or campaign group Parliamentary; Unclear; Statistics Parliamentary; Charity; Unclear; Academic

Kington Local Environment and Individual: Campaigner Anecdotal or experiential Energy Network (KLEEN)

Local Government Association Non-profit: Business and/ Opinion polls; Statistics; Economic/ Membership body; or trade association financial Government; Charity

London Borough of Camden Public sector: Local or regional official Survey; Unclear Own; Charity

Lympne Parish Council Public sector: Local or regional official Anecdotal or experiential

Marine Conservation Society Non-profit: Charity and/ Survey; Unclear International organisation; or campaign group Own; Business; Unclear

McDonald’s Restaurants Ltd. Private sector: Multi-national business Evaluation; Economic/financial Business; Charity

Mick Wright Individual: Independent expert Unclear Academic; Charity

Volume two 53 Litter and fly-tipping in England

Mike Ward Individual: Service user and/or Comparative Internet member of the public

Mr Gary Pear Individual: Service user and/or Anecdotal or experiential member of the public

Newnham Parish Council Public sector: Local Unclear or regional official

National Farmers’ Union (NFU) Non-profit: Business and/ Statistics Government; or trade association Representative body

Paul Jeffries Individual: Campaigner Statistics FOI

Paul Summerfield Individual: Service user and/or Anecdotal or experiential member of the public

Philip Wheeler Individual: Service user and/or Anecdotal or experiential member of the public

Port of London Authority Public sector: Local or Unclear Unclear regional official

Portsmouth City Council Public sector: Local or Unclear; Statistics; Economic/ Unclear regional official financial

Robert Baertlett Individual: Campaigner Unclear Unclear

Robert Jones-Mantle Individual: Campaigner Unclear Academic

South Lakeland District Council Public sector: Local Stakeholder consultation; Own or regional official Anecdotal

Stephen Individual: Campaigner Anecdotal or experiential

Test Valley Borough Council Public sector: Local or regional official Unclear Charity; Business

The New Brighteners Non-profit: Charity and/ Unclear Media; Civic group or campaign group

The Packaging Federation Non-profit: Business and/ Unclear Business or trade association

The Wrigley Company Ltd Private sector: Multi-national business Opinion polls; Unclear Business; Charity

Tobacco Manufacturers’ Non-profit: Business and/ Parliamentary Unclear; Association or trade association Parliamentary; Charity

Wandsworth Borough Council Public sector: Local or regional official Unclear; Survey; Parliamentary Charity; Own; Unclear

Warwickshire Waste Partnership Public sector: Local or regional official Unclear Charity

Waste Transition Ltd Private sector: Business Unclear Unclear (size not known)

Zilch UK Non-profit: Charity and/ Unclear; Statistics; Anecdotal Own; Charity; or campaign group Government; Unclear

54 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament Community Rights

Action with Communities in Rural Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Survey Own England (ACRE) group

Architectural Heritage Fund Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Anecdotal or experiential group

Babergh and Mid Suffolk Public sector: Local or regional official Unclear District Councils (Joint Scrutiny Committee)

Bath Place Community Venture Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Anecdotal or experiential group

Bracknell Forest Council Public sector: Local or regional official Statistics Own

British Property Federation Non-profit: Business and/or trade Unclear; Anecdotal; Parliamentary Unclear; Parliamentary association

Building & Social Housing Non-profit: Think tank or research Stakeholder consultation; Survey; Own; Civic group Foundation institute Anecdotal

CAMRA, the Campaign for Real Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Statistics; Unclear; Survey Own; Government; Ale group Membership body; Charity

Carnegie UK Trust Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Unclear OwN group

Civic Voice Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Survey; Unclear; Economic/financial Own; Government; Media; group Parliamentary; Unclear

Community Development Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Survey Own Foundation group

Confederation of Co-Operative Non-profit: Business and/or trade Anecdotal or experiential; Academic; Unclear Housing association Comparative; Unclear

Country Land and Business Non-profit: Business and/or trade Parliamentary Parliamentary Association association

Department for Communities and Government/civil service: Central Survey; Statistics Government Local Government government department

Historic Houses Association Non-profit: Business and/or trade Economic/financial; Survey Own association

James Paul Lusk Individual: Independent expert Anecdotal

Local Trust Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Survey Own group

Locality Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Experiential; Survey Own group

National Coalition for Independent Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Interviews; Unclear Own; Unclear Action group

NAVCA Non-profit: Business and/or trade Anecdotal association

New Economics Foundation Non-profit: Think tank or research Stakeholder consultation Government; institute Charity

Volume two 55 Community Rights

Plunkett Foundation Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Experiential; Survey Own group

Social Investment Business Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Survey Own group

The Theatres Trust Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Experiential; Anecdotal group

UK Cohousing Network & National Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Survey; Anecdotal Own CLT Network group

Wiltshire Community Land Trust Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Anecdotal Own group

Woodland Trust Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Experiential group

Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework

A Bailey Individual: Service user and/or Experiential member of the public

ACS (The Association of Non-profit: Business and/or trade Statistics; Impact assessment Own; Government Convenience Stores) association

Affinity Sutton Group Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Experiential Academic group

Airport Operators Association Non-profit: Business and/or trade Unclear Government association

Alan Wing Individual: Service user and/or Experiential; Unclear Unclear member of the public

Allyson Spicer Individual: Service user and/or Parliamentary Parliamentary member of the public

Ashbury Parish Council Public sector: Local or regional official Unclear Unclear

Association of Town & City Non-profit: Business and/or trade Statistics; Unclear Government; Membership Management association body; Parliamentary; Business

BANDAG Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Unclear Media group

British Council of Shopping Non-profit: Business and/or trade Statistics; Unclear Own; Business; Centres (BCSC) association Membership body

Blythburgh with Bulcamp & Hinton Public sector: Local or regional official Unclear Unclear Parish Council

Bourton Parish Council Public sector: Local or regional official Unclear Unclear

Brighton & Hove City Council Public sector: Local or regional official Statistics Unclear

British Independent Retailers Non-profit: Business and/or trade Statistics Business; Government; Association association Charity; Membership body; Representative body

British Property Federation Non-profit: Business and/or trade Unclear Unclear association

56 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework

Buntingford Civic Society Non-profit: Charity and/ Statistics Unclear or campaign group

Cambridge Past Present and Future Non-profit: Charity and/ Official review Government or campaign group

Campaign for Better Transport Non-profit: Charity and/ Unclear Charity; Media; Membership or campaign group body; Charity

CBI Non-profit: Business Official review; Statistics; Unclear Business; Government and/or trade association

Chartered Institution of Highways Non-profit: Professional Unclear Unclear and Transportation association or body

Chelmsford City Council Public sector: Local or regional official Unclear Business

Cheltenham Alliance Public sector: Local or regional official Statistics Parliamentary; Government

Cheltenham Borough Council Public sector: Local or regional official Unclear Unclear

Cheryl Stickler Individual: Service user and/or Unclear Unclear member of the public

Civic Voice Non-profit: Charity and/ Official review Government; Charity; or campaign group Business; Membership body

CLA Country Land & Business Non-profit: Business and/ Parliamentary Parliament Association (CLA) or trade association

Cllr Roger Whyborn Politician: Local or regional Anecdotal elected representative

Community Voice on Planning Non-profit: Charity and/ Survey; Unclear; Parliamentary; Government; Academic; (Covop) or campaign group Statistics; Official review; Business; Charity; Social Anecdotal media; Parliamentary

Congleton Town Council Public sector: Local or regional official Survey Business

Cotswolds Conservation Board Public sector: Local or regional official Unclear Academic; Government

CPRE Non-profit: Charity and/ Statistics; Unclear Charity; Business; Legal; or campaign group Government

CPRE Gloucestershire Non-profit: Charity and/ Unclear or campaign group

CPRE Lancashire Non-profit: Charity and/ Experiential; Impact assessment; Academic; Charity; or campaign group Statistics Government

Croudace Homes Group Private sector: Business Unclear Unclear size not known)

Daniel Scharf Individual: Service user Survey; Unclear Academic; Representative and/or member of the public organisation; Unclear

David Birtwhistle Individual: Service user and/or Anecdotal member of the public

David Walsh Public sector: Local or Parliamentary; Official review; Parliamentary; regional official Unclear Government; Unclear

Defend North Devon Non-profit: Charity and/ Unclear Unclear or campaign group

Volume two 57 Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework

Department for Communities and Government/civil service: Central Statistics Government Local Government government department

Design Council Non-profit: Charity and/ Experiential; Statistics Own or campaign group

District Councils’ Network Trade union Stakeholder consultation Own

DLP Planning Consultants Private sector: Business Official review; Unclear; Evidence Charity; Business; (size not known) review; Modelling Government

Dogmersfield Parish Council Public sector: Local or regional official Anecdotal

Doug Webb Individual: Service user Surveys Unclear and/or member of the public

Dr Peter Cuthbert Individual: Service user Official review; Evidence review International organisation; and/or member of the public Government; Unclear

Dr Rebecca Driver Individual: Service user Survey; Statistics Government; Own and/or member of the public

East Devon Alliance Non-profit: Charity and/ Unclear or campaign group

Eden District Council Public sector: Local or regional official Unclear

Energy UK Non-profit: Business and/ Unclear or trade association

English Heritage Non-profit: Charity and/ Anecdotal or campaign group

Environmental Services Association Non-profit: Business and/ Unclear or trade association

Essex County Council Public sector: Local or regional official Evidence review Government

Federation of Master Builders Non-profit: Business and/ Survey; Anecdotal Representative body or trade association

Friends of the Earth England, Non-profit: Charity and/ Unclear Media; Business; Unclear; Wales and Northern Ireland or campaign group Government

Future Horsham Public sector: Local or regional official Statistics; Parliamentary Government; Parliamentary; Unclear

Get Involved Exminster Individual: Campaigner Experiential

Gladman Developments Private sector: Business Experiential (size not known)

Gnosall Parish Council Public sector: Local or regional official Survey Own

Greater London Authority Public sector: Local or regional official Unclear Business; Unclear

GT Energy Private sector: Business Unclear Academic (size not known)

Guildford Greenbelt Group Non-profit: Charity and/ Statistics Business; Academic or campaign group

Historic Houses Association Non-profit: Business and/ Economic/financial; Survey Own; Charity; Unclear or trade association

58 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament 3.3 Case Study Two Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework

HouseHome of Builders Lords Federation National PolicyNon-profit: for Business the and/or trade Official review Government Built Environment Committee association Ian Preddy Individual: Campaigner Statistics; Unclear Academic; Media; The National Policy for the Built Environment (NPBE) Committee was an Ad Hoc Committee in the HouseGovernment of Lords. Ad Hoc Committees are temporary Committees appointed to investigate and report on a particular subject, or to examineInstitute for legislation, Archaeologists either (IFA) in draftNon-profit: form (pre-legislative Professional association scrutiny) or after it hasUnclear been enacted (post-legislativeRepresentative body; scrutiny). Ad Hoc, or sessional, Committees undertakeor body a mix of follow-up and new thematic inquiries; theyGovernment are supported by full-time staff in scoping out possible topics for inquiries, often using agreed criterion for selection, and put togetherJ D I Baker their own work programmes.Individual: Service user and/or Horizon scanning; Unclear Government member of the public Mem\\bers are invited to propose topics for consideration by Ad Hoc Committees by writing to the Liaison CommitteeJacqueline -Annette whose Thompson function is toPublic allocate sector: resources Local or regional to Select official CommitteesSurvey; - setting Statistics out the case for Government;topics. The Business topics are researched, usually by policy analysts in the Committee office and then the House is invited to agree James Walton Individual: Service user and/or Statistics Government recommendations about what will be consideredmember of the in publicthe next Session. The NPBE Committee was proposed by Baroness Andrews and Baroness Whitaker (House of Lords Liaison Committee, 2015). The Committee was appointed Jeffreyon 11 Elder June 2015 to considerIndividual: the developmentService user and/or and implementationSurvey of national policy for theGovernment built environment. It was given a reporting deadlinemember of of the public 23 MarchJoanna 2016. Greenway Individual: Service user and/or Unclear Academic; Business member of the public

John Hubble Individual: Service user and/or Survey Media member of the public

John Lewis Partnership Private sector: Large/national business Official review; Unclear Government; Unclear

Joint Committee of the National Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Unclear Civic group Amenity Societies group

Joseph Rowntree Foundation Non-profit: Think tank or research Survey; Unclear; Parliamentary; Academic; Media; institute Statistics; Evidence review Government; Parliamentary; Own; FOI

Keep Kingswood a Village Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Survey; Unclear Own; Charity group

Kevin Froggatt Individual: Service user and/or Unclear member of the public

Kingswood Parish Council Public sector: Local or regional official Unclear Charity

Kirklevington & Castle Leavington Public sector: Local or regional official Unclear FOI Parish Council

Leeds City Council Public sector: Local or regional official Unclear Membership body

Leonard Stanley Parish Council Public sector: Local or regional official Unclear Media

Local Government Association Non-profit: Business and/or trade Impact assessment; Parliamentary Membership body; association Government

Linden Homes Private sector: Business (size not Official review; Statistics; Survey Government; Business; known) Media; Trade union; Think tank

London Borough of Islington Public sector: Local or regional official Parliamentary; Official review; Parliamentary; Government; Unclear; Evidence review Media; Business; Charity

Luton Borough Council Public sector: Local or regional official Statistics Government

Volume two 59 Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework

Mark Williams Non-profit: Business and/or trade Official review; Interview; Survey Membership body; association Government

Martin Fox Individual: Service user and/or Survey; Unclear Business; Academics member of the public

Martin Round Politician: Local or regional elected Unclear Government representative

Michael Rose Grad Dipl (Aa) Private sector: Business (size not Unclear Charity known)

Milton Keynes Council Public sector: Local or regional official Unclear Think tank

Monks Orchard Residents’ Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Parliamentary Parliamentary Association group

Mount Hindrance Action Group Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Unclear group

Mrs D Nason Individual: Service user and/or Official review Government member of the public

National Association of Local Trade union Parliamentary Parliamentary Councils (NALC)

National Association for AONBs Individual: Service user and/or Case studies; Unclear Business; Government; member of the public Unclear

National Housing Federation Non-profit: Professional association Unclear; Parliamentary; Official Academic; Representative or body review organisation; Business; Media; Government

National Retail Planning Forum Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Unclear Business; Membership body; group Unclear

National Trust Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Statistics; Parliamentary; Survey Government; Business; group Own; Charity; Media; Parliamentary

Neil Blackshaw Private sector: Business (size not Unclear Own known)

Northumberland & Newcastle Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Statistics Unclear Society group Government

Patrick Cullen Individual: Service user and/or Unclear member of the public

Peter Hutchison Individual: Service user and/or Survey Government member of the public

Places for People Private sector: Small and/or medium Experiential sized business

Planning Officers Society Non-profit: Professional association Unclear Government or body

Professor Alan Hallsworth Individual: Independent expert Unclear Own; Membership body

Protect Congleton - Civic Society Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Anecdotal or experiential; Government; Parliamentary; group Unclear; Official review; Statistics; Unclear Parliamentary

60 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament This case study is based on a three-month period of participant observation of the NPBE Committee between July and October 2015. More informationOperation about theof the methods National used Planning in this Policy study Framework is provided in Chapter Two. The case study is structured into three sections. 3.3.1 outlines the membership and staffing of the Committee. This include detailsQueniborough of the Chair Parish andCouncil members Public with sector: some Local contextual or regional officialinformation provided,Parliamentary information about CommitteeParliamentary staff and detailsR ofD Nixon specialist advisers. 3.3.2Individual: describes Service how user and/orresearch fed into the workUnclear of the Committee duringMedia the case study. 3.3.3 examines the factors that membershaped of the the Committee’spublic use of research.

Raglan Housing Association Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Parliamentary; Statistics Parliamentary; Unclear 3.3.1 Membership and staff of the Committeegroup TableRenewable 3.5 gives Energy an Association overview / of theNon-profit: NPBE Committee Business and/or members. trade Survey Government; Unclear Solar Trade Association association Committee staff during the case study period included one ClerkRenewableUK and one policy analyst Non-profit:(with a changeover Business and/or in policytrade analystSurvey; during Unclear; the Parliamentary period). Government; Parliamentary; association Think tank Professor Matthew Carmona, Professor of Planning and Urban Design at the Bartlett School of Planning, UCL RES Private sector: Multi-national business Unclear; Evidence review International organisation; was appointed as specialist adviser to the Committee. Business; Parliamentary; Government

Residential Landlords Association Non-profit: Business and/or trade Statistics; Unclear Government; Unclear association

Residents of Wilmslow Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Experiential group

Richard Broadbent Individual: Service user and/or Statistics Government member of public

Richard Hathway Individual: Service user and/or Unclear International organisation; member of public Government

Royal Institution of Chartered Non-profit: Professional association Official review; Unclear Own; Government Surveyors or body

Robert Boulter Individual: Service user and/or Unclear member of public

Roger John Arthur Individual: Service user and/or Statistics Unclear member of public

Roland Mckinney Individual: Service user and/or Statistics Unclear member of public

Royal Institute of British Architects Non-profit: Professional association Experiential; Survey Own; Charity or body

Royal Town Planning Institute Non-profit: Professional association Parliamentary; Survey; Unclear Parliamentary; Own or body

RSPB Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Statistics; Survey; Unclear; Official Charity; Government; group review Membership body; Unclear

Russell Prince-Wright Individual: Service user and/or Unclear member of public

Ruth Langhorn Individual: Service user and/or Unclear member of public

Sandbach Town Council Public sector: Local or regional official Modelling Government

Save Brockworth Green Belt Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Unclear group

Save Our Greenbelt Dinnington & Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Unclear Business Anston Action Group group

Volume two 61 Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework

Save Shudrick Valley Group Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Anecdotal or experiential Media; Parliamentary; group Charity

Save The Countryside Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Statistics Government group

Save Whalley Village Action Group Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Unclear Own group

Secured By Design Public sector: Public service staff Modelling; Official review; Statistics Academic; Unclear; Government; International organisation

Sheffield City Council Public sector: Local or regional official Statistics Unclear

Shortwood Green Belt Campaign Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Official review; Statistics; Unclear Charity; Government; group Unclear

Sir Terry Farrell Private sector: Multi-national business Official review Government

Somerford Parish Residents Action Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Unclear Group group

South Bedfordshire Friends of The Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Official review; Opinion polls; Parliamentary; Government; Earth group Parliamentary; Unclear Membership body; Business

Sport England Government/civil service: Arm’s length Statistics Charity body (ALB)

Terence Knight Individual: Service user and/or Unclear member of public

Thames Valley Housing Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Unclear Business group

The Archaeology Forum Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Unclear; Official review; Civic group; Government group Experiential

The Battlefields Trust Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Unclear group

The Heritage Alliance Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Unclear Civic group; Charity group

The Home Builders Federation Non-profit: Business and/or trade Official review; Unclear Government; Business; association Own; Membership body

The Loose Anti Opencast Network Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Parliamentary; Comparative Parliamentary; Government group

The Mineral Products Association Non-profit: Business and/or trade Unclear; Survey Own; Unclear association

The Peel Group Private sector: Small and/or medium Unclear Charity sized business

The Wildlife Trusts Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Parliamentary; Unclear Parliamentary; Government; group Representative body

Town and Country Planning Non-profit: Business and/or trade Parliamentary; Unclear Own; Parliamentary; Unclear Association (TCPA) association

62 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework

Turley Associates Private sector: Business (size not Unclear Unclear known)

United Kingdom Without Non-profit: Business and/or trade Modelling; Impact assessment Government Incineration Network (UKWIN) association

Vale of White Horse District Public sector: Local or regional official Modelling Academic Council

Valerie H Kennedy Individual: Service user and/or Statistics; Modelling Own; Government; Business member of the public

Various Organisations Non-profit: Business and/or trade Anecdotal or experiential association Non-profit: Professional association or body Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign group Government/civil service: Arm’s length body (ALB) Higher education: Russell group

Wantage and Grove Campaign Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Modelling; Unclear Academic; Government; Group group Professional association

Weareresidents.org Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Statistics Government group

Wildlife and Countryside Link Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Unclear Charity; Government group

Will Chapman, Vice Chair, Alrewas Public sector: Local or regional official Statistics; Survey Government; Civic group Neighbourhood Plan (ANP)

Woodland Trust Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign Unclear Unclear; Academic group

Wychavon District Council and Public sector: Local or regional official Unclear Charity Malvern Hills District Council

Volume two 63 The Committee was appointed on 11 June 2015 3.3 Case Study Two to consider the development and implementation of national policy for the built environment. It was House of Lords National Policy for given a reporting deadline of 23 March 2016. the Built Environment Committee This case study is based on a three-month period The National Policy for the Built Environment (NPBE) of participant observation of the NPBE Committee Committee was an Ad Hoc Committee in the between July and October 2015. More information House of Lords. Ad Hoc Committees are temporary about the methods used in this study is provided Committees appointed to investigate and report on in Section 2. The case study is structured into three a particular subject, or to examine legislation, either sections. Section 3.3.1 outlines the membership in draft form (pre-legislative scrutiny) or after it has and staffing of the Committee. This include details been enacted (post-legislative scrutiny). Ad Hoc, or of the Chair and members with some contextual sessional, Committees undertake a mix of follow- information provided, information about Committee up and new thematic inquiries; they are supported staff and details of specialist advisers. Section 3.3.2 by full-time staff in scoping out possible topics for describes how research fed into the work of the inquiries, often using agreed criterion for selection, Committee during the case study. Section 3.3.3 and put together their own work programmes. examines the factors that shaped the Committee’s use of research. Members are invited to propose topics for consideration by Ad Hoc Committees by writing 3.3.1 Membership and staff of the Committee to the Liaison Committee - whose function is to allocate resources to Select Committees - setting out Table 3.5 gives an overview of the NPBE the case for topics. The topics are researched, usually Committee members. by policy analysts in the Committee office and then the House is invited to agree recommendations about what will be considered in the next Session. The NPBE Committee was proposed by Baroness Andrews and Baroness Whitaker (House of Lords Liaison Committee, 2015).

Table 3.5 Overview of the NPBE Committee members

Member Role Party Time as a Peer

Baroness O’Cathain Chair Conservative Since 1991

Baroness Andrews Member Labour Since 2000

Lord Clement-Jones Member Liberal Democrat Since 1998

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Member Crossbench Since 2001

Lord Freeman Member Conservative Since 1997 (MP 1983–1997)

Lord Inglewood Member Conservative Since 1989

The Earl of Lytton Member Crossbench Since 2011

Baroness Parminter Member Liberal Democrat Since 2010

Baroness Rawlings Member Conservative Since 1994

Baroness Whitaker Member Labour Since 1999

Lord Woolmer of Leeds Member Labour Since 1999 (MP 1979 –19)

Baroness Young of Old Scone Member Labour Since 1997

64 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament Committee staff during the case study period included 3.3.2.1 Informal seminars organised one Clerk and one policy analyst (with a changeover in for the Committee policy analyst during the period). The Committee held a private briefing seminar featuring Professor Matthew Carmona, Professor of Planning and four confidential briefings from Professor Matthew Urban Design at the Bartlett School of Planning, UCL was Carmona (Bartlett School of Planning, University College appointed as specialist adviser to the Committee. London), Professor Cecilia Wong (Centre for Urban Policy Studies, University of Manchester), Professor Janice 3.3.2 Routes in which research fed into Morphet (Visiting Professor, Bartlett School of Planning, the Committee University College London) and Dr Laurence Carmichael (Centre for Sustainable Planning and Environments, Research fed into the Committee differently and to University of the West of England). various extents. The information provided in the rest of this section is taken directly from the experiences of the One Peer (Peer, interview 31) said of the seminar: author as a participant-observer, including classifying the The first one is obviously the briefing that we ways that research fed into the Committee into the five have in advance of determining what subject categories below. matter we are going to run with on the There were five main ways that research fed into the Committee. That is a series of oral briefings Committee during the case study period: which I believe the Clerk or the staff organise with a range of experts; they give presentations to us over a two-hour period… to set out the stall of the issues. That is incredibly helpful Informal seminars organised for the Committee; because it gives a sense of where future research and opinions might be coming from, as well as The written and oral evidence received by the what the issues are themselves… the earlier that Committee; one gets an overview of the issue, it then makes the research that comes in subsequent to that Private briefing materials to the Committee; easier. At least you have an understanding of Specialist Advisers to the Committee; the parameters of the debate, which is helpful (Peer, interview 31). External research received by Committee members.

Each of these will be examined in turn.

Volume two 65 3.3.2.2 The written and oral evidence received Evaluation. Research that seeks to judge by the Committee actions and activities in terms of values, criteria and standards. The Committee received 192 pieces of written evidence (including multiple submissions submitted by the same Evidence review. Review of existing literature. organisation and supplementary pieces of written This includes both systematic and non- evidence provided) from a range of sources. systematic reviews. This category includes Over half of the written evidence submissions were from the type of research undertaken by Select the non-profit sector, of which 53% were from charities Committees and APPGs in their inquiries e.g. and/or campaigning organisations. call for evidence, submissions, oral evidence, and reports as well as briefings produced Of these, 137 (73%) referred to research. In total, 15 by other parliamentary offices such as the types of research and 14 sources were referred to in these Libraries and POST. submissions (see Annex 3.3.4 for a more detailed table). Experiment. Testing new interventions or Types of research referred to in NPBE written evidence policies to observe effects. Includes pilots submissions: and randomised controlled trials. Action research. Research into practice undertaken by those involved in that practice, with an aim to Expert opinion. Research produced by change and improve it. individuals or organisations considered to have domain-specific expertise through their Anecdotal or experiential. Knowledge that profession. Including reports from think tanks, is drawn from individual experience or from charities and practitioners. speaking to people informally (heresay) rather than empirical evidence. Focus group. A group of individuals selected and assembled by researchers to discuss and Comparative. Research that seeks to identify, comment from personal experience. analyse and explain similarities and differences across different countries, cultures or societies.

Figure 3.5: Organisational distribution of written evidence submissions referring to research (as %)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

66 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament Interviews. Usually one-on-one Sources of research referred to in NPBE written conversation with one person acting in evidence submissions: the role of the interviewer and the other Academic. This category includes research in the role of the interviewee. published in academic journals or at Longitudinal. Collection and analysis of academic conferences as well as research data over time. projects being undertaken by academics (either solely or in partnership with other Modelling. This category includes organisations), references to research predictive modelling (where predictive funders, individual academics. analytics are used to create a statistical model of future behaviour), economic Business. Organisations working for profit models (simplified descriptions of reality, including commercial organisations and designed to yield hypotheses about consultancies. economic behaviour that can be tested) Charity. Organisations established for and methods of horizon scanning charitable purposes and generally (drawing upon Delphi techniques or not-for-profit. scenario models). Civic group. For example, community Opinion polls. Survey of public opinion organisations such as the Kew Society. from a sample of people. Government. Includes research produced Statistics. Collection, analysis, by government departments at national, interpretation, and presentation of masses devolved, regional and local levels. This of numerical data. category also includes government-related Survey. A list of questions aimed at organisations such as Public Health extracting specific data from a particular England and other non-departmental group of people. public bodies (NDPBs).

Unclear. No information about methods International organisation. Research or approach used in the research provided. produced by international organisations such as the World Health Organisation, OECD.

Media. Newspapers, television etc. Includes trade press.

Volume two 67 Membership organisations. Organisations that Figures 3.6 and 3.7 show the frequency that each allow people to subscribe, and often requires type and source of research was referred to in the them to pay a fee or ‘subscription’. submissions. The most frequently cited type of research was classified as "Unclear", which comprised 44% of all Own. Refers to research undertaken by individual references. The most frequently cited source of research or organisation that submitted the evidence. was also "unclear" meaning that where referred to in the submissions, most research was put forward Parliamentary. Includes research produced by without a source. Here, general claims were made departments or groups within Parliament such about the existence of supporting research but without as Select Committees or All-Party Parliamentary any references provided (see Figure 3.7). Group (APPG). This also includes research that is cited by individual MPs or Peers in debates. Two interviewees (28 and 49) spoke about the type of research that the Committee had received and Professional association. Usually a non-profit specifically the methods that this research drew upon. organisation seeking to further a particular Interviewee 49 made a comparison between the type profession, the interests of individuals engaged in of research received by the NPBE Committee and that that profession and the public interest. which they were used to receiving as part of their other parliamentary work. They described the research Representative body. Organisations that promote received by the NPBE Committee as “more commentary the views of a group of people with common pieces focusing on aesthetic aspects” whereas on a interests. The representative bodies collect the previous Committee the member had sat on had a views of their members and act as their collective “higher scientific profiles [in which] lots of biochemistry voice in discussions with other groups on issues research fed in and such ‘scientific’ research was easier that affect them all. to pull in”. Think tank. A research institute or other organisation providing advice and ideas on national or commercial problems

Unclear. No source or supporting references provided.

68 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament Confidential – please do not share more widely Series 1 Social mediaFigure 3.6 References0.20% to types of research in written evidence submissions to NPBE Committee (as %) Figure 3.6 References to types of research in written evidence submissions to NPBE Committee Debate (Parliamentary) (as percentage)0.60% Media 3%

Unclear 44% Membership bodies3% Representative organisationsEvidence review3% 17% APPG Expert opinion4% 10% Statistics 10% Select committee 4% Survey 6%

InternationalAnecdotal or experiential organisations4% 4%

Professional associations4%Modelling 3% Think tank 5%Opinion poll 2% Charity 6%Comparative 2% Longitudinal 1% Own 6% Interview 1%

Business 7%Experiment 1%

Academic 16%Evaluation 1% Government 17%Focus group 1% Unclear Action research27% 0.20%

0.00% 5.00%10.00%15.00%20.00%25.00%30.00%35.00%40.00%45.00%50.00%

Figure 3.7 References to sources of research in written evidenc e submissions to NPBE Committee (%) Figure 3.7 References to sources of research in written evidence submissions to NPBE Committee (as %) Figure 3.7 References to sources of research in written evidence submissions to NPBE Committee (as percentage)

Social mediaUnclear 0.20% Debate (Parliamentary)Government 0.60% Representative organisationsAcademic 3% Membership bodiesBusiness 3% OwnMedia 3% Professional associationsCharity 4% Think tank International organisations 4% Professional associations Select committee 4% International organisations APPG 4% Select committee Think tankAPPG 5% Representative organisationsOwn 6% Membership bodiesCharity 6% MediaBusiness 7% Debate (Parliamentary)Academic 16% Social mediaGovernment 17% Unclear 27% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

One Peer (Peer, interview 28) felt that most of the research received by the Committee drew upon case studies and practical experience. The interviewee felt that “proper research”, which they defined as “research evaluation projects”, was “relatively rare” in public policy and felt that organisations such as the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Nuffield stood out as organisations that Volume two 69 did do such research. In contrast, the interviewee felt that international evidence “would be immensely useful”, describing this as like “gold dust” in public policy.

Page 59 of 114

One peer (interview 28) felt that most of the These suggestions then provided the basis for research received by the Committee drew upon case subsequent approaches for remaining evidence sessions. studies and practical experience. The interviewee 26 witnesses that gave oral evidence to the felt that “proper research”, which they defineda s Committee did not submit written evidence. “research evaluation projects”, was “relatively rare” in These additional witnesses were selected for public policy and felt that organisations such as the a variety of reasons including: Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Nuffield stood out as organisations that did do such research. In contrast, the They worked in roles and/or for organisations interviewee felt that international evidence “would be that had responsibility for an area of relevance immensely useful”, describing this as like “gold dust” to the Committee’s inquiry (for example, the in public policy. representatives from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Planning Inspectorate). 58 witnesses appeared in front of the Committee to give oral evidence. Just over half of witnesses were Their work addressed a concern of one (or more) from the non-profit sector, of which charities and/or of the Committee’s members in relation to the campaign groups comprised nearly half. inquiry (for example, the representative from the As the previous section outlines, specific requests can WHO Collaborating Centre for Healthy Urban be made for a number of reasons including to ensure Environments spoke to the health and wellbeing that a key stakeholder is represented, or if it is felt concerns of Baroness Finlay of Llandaff that a particular individual has something valuable to [Evidence session 1: page 10]). contribute. All Committee members received copies Their presence was requested specifically by a of the written evidence (either electronically or in hard Committee member (for example, the Planning copy). In addition, the Clerk and policy analyst produced Inspectors and the Environment Agency) and a summary of the written evidence, structured using the endorsed by the Committee. same headings and questions set out by the Committee in the call for evidence. The initial oral evidence sessions took place in parallel with the call for evidence being open. Witnesses for the initial oral evidence sessions were identified byCommittee staff, informed by their background briefing work and advice from the specialist adviser, and suggested to the Chair. Once approved by the Chair, witnesses were approached. Towards the end of July, a long list of potential witnesses was circulated to the Committee and specialist adviser, who were encouraged to suggest additions or amendments.

Figure 3.8: Organisational distribution of oral evidence witnesses referring to research (as %)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

70 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament 3.3.2.3 Private briefing materials to Copies of written evidence received since the Committee last meeting.

Committee staff were seen by a number of interviewees Any other business that the Committee were to be a source of research. The main way that staff due to discuss at the session for instance, to did this was through the private briefings prepared for formally accept written evidence (a procedural members in advance of each oral evidence session. The requirement) or a draft discussion of emerging purpose of these briefings is to provide an overview of the themes as provided in the briefing for the proposed topic, outline key policies, pieces of work and/ meeting on 15th October 2015 (discussed in or research as well as the main individuals/organisations more detail below). working in the area. Ad Hoc Committee staff in the Lords are generally not subject specialists. As such, these Additional information relevant to the specific background briefings can be informed by conversations evidence session and witnesses, or the inquiry with relevant staff in the Commons (both Committees and more generally. This usually involved Government Libraries) and on occasion, by bespoke pieces of work by policy documents and relevant articles in media or POST. In the case of the NPBE, both the Clerk and policy specialist press. For example, the briefing for the analysts had knowledge of planning issues from their session on 17th September included the following: previous experience. –– Peter Hetherington, Striving constructor (an These briefings generally comprised of the following interview with Sunand Penoyre), The Guardian, sections: (January 2007) Details of witnesses scheduled to appear in each –– Iain Withers, Government axes chief construction oral evidence session (name, organisation, and adviser role, building.co.uk (July 2015) on occasion noteworthy details: for example, the brief for the Committee’s meeting on 22 July 2015 –– Quinlan Terry, Designing a Sustainable Future, referred to “Prof Peter Bishop, Professor in Urban (2015) Design, The Bartlett School of Architecture, UCL; Author, The Bishop Review: The Future of Design –– National Planning Policy Framework, Section in the Built Environment and Max Farrell, Partner, 7 (Requiring good design), Department for Farrells; Project Leader, The Farrell Review of Communities and Local Government Architecture and the Built Environment”). (March 2012).

Biographies for each witness. Committee staff also produced two summaries of the written evidence received (in advance of Suggested questions for each oral evidence the meetings on the 12th and 22nd October) and session (developed by Committee staff). Each (in collaboration with the specialist adviser) an question was preceded with some background overview of the oral evidence (see section below). text, setting out the context for the question, why The summary of written evidence highlighted it was important, how it relates to the written the points or issues that had been mentioned evidence submitted by the person/organisation by a number of different submissions. It gave an (where applicable), or referring to another source indication as to which points there was general from the person/organisation. support for and identified those issues where concerns had been raised. The summary also Minutes of the previous Committee meeting. identified potential gaps in the stakeholder groups Transcript of previous evidence session for represented in the written evidence. The summary members to check and return any corrections of oral evidence focused on highlighting the key to the Clerk. themes that had emerged from the oral evidence sessions themselves.

Volume two 71 3.3.2.4 Specialist Advisers to the Committee 3.3.2.5 External research received by Committee members The specialist adviser played an important role for the Committee. This included being a source of research, as One peer (interview 31) referred to a piece of research indicated by interviewees 26, 28 and 49. being sent to them directly. This was from a membership body, the UK Green Building Council. The organisation The role of the specialist adviser is vital to any had previously contacted all members of the Committee Committee. They nearly always come from a semi- and had been encouraged by the Clerk to submit formal academic background and Committees tend to rely written evidence. on them quite heavily as a repository of knowledge (Peer, interview 28). In contacting the member, the UK Green Building Council drew attention to the written evidence they had The specialist adviser is an expert in the field and submitted and provided a summary of the key points that has been able to point members in the direction of this submission made. The organisation also offered to useful research if asked (Peer, interview 26). meet with the member to discuss the submission. One Peer also stated that the specialist adviser assisted This approach was seen to be very useful by the member. the Committee in interpreting the evidence that they I thought that approach was excellent. If you send received (Peer, interview 29). The specialist adviser was a one-page email (which I expect they sent to frequently referred to by the Chair in evidence sessions everyone else) and people want to pick it up, and his opinion was sought by Committee members you then get a chance to get a face-to-face after each evidence session. As one Peer stated, the briefing. This actually works remarkably well specialist adviser advised members “on things derived (Peer, interview 31). during [the evidence] sessions” and the member would ask them “for his views on the respectability of evidence” The member agreed to meet the organisation to discuss (Peer, interview 28). In addition to offering his views the submission “after which I had a much clearer idea immediately following evidence sessions, the specialist about their pitch”. The member advised that following adviser, in collaboration with the Clerk, also produced a this meeting, they suggested the organisation as a witness paper outlining emerging priorities and themes based to give oral evidence, which they then subsequently did. upon the oral evidence heard up until 12th October. This was produced following a request from members in 3.3.3 Factors that shaped the use of research the previous meeting and the latter half of an evidence in the Committee session was set aside for deliberation. This note was circulated to members alongside a separate document Six factors shaped the use of research in the NPBE setting out the timetable for the remainder of the inquiry, Committee during the case study period: including a possible witness list. The proposed timetable The quantity of evidence submitted to the included a session for considering the written evidence Committee; that had been received with instructions that a summary of this would be provided to members in advance The workload and time available to Committee (circulated on 19th October). staff and members;

Reliance on written evidence and ways of working; The Committee’s concern to achieve consensus across Committee members; Committee members’ knowledge of the topic are; The way that research was presented.

72 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament 3.3.3.1 The quantity of evidence submitted to The specialist adviser was used by some members the Committee for advice on how to weigh up the evidence they received (Section 3.2.4). In so doing, the specialist The Committee received 192 pieces of written evidence adviser provided his views as to the key points and his and 58 individuals gave oral evidence; 26 of which interpretation of what had been heard or submitted. had not submitted prior written evidence. A combined On occasion this included citing relevant research volume of all of the written and oral evidence that the (for example, on street patterns and relationship to Committee had received was produced and numbered crime and antisocial behaviour). However, the ability 1,964 pages. This presented Committee staff and of the specialist adviser to do this was limited by members with a huge quantity of information to get the amount of time left in the Committee’s meeting through. Interviewees 30 and 31 spoke about the after the evidence sessions. Given the full timetable “copious amounts of submissions” and said that the of the Committee and the packed evidence sessions, “literally huge” stacks of paper made it difficult to wade invariably this meant that little time was available for through it all. The challenges of analysing such a large the specialist adviser to provide any detailed advice on amount of evidence in the time available to them on these matters. the Committee (and alongside other commitments) was highlighted by two members who were keen to receive For one Committee member, dealing with the amount advice from Committee staff on those submissions seen of written evidence received was complicated by to be of most significance. the Committee holding oral evidence sessions at the same time. As with most Ad Hoc Committees, the Sometimes it is too voluminous. It is really helpful National Policy for the Built Environment Committee when people send in a document with a one-page continued to receive written evidence whilst holding summary at the front, because that helps you work oral evidence sessions. your way through it; but when you are getting a huge envelope each week, it is very interesting It could be because this is a freestanding stuff around the issue but it is not particularly Committee and therefore it is time-limited; relevant sometimes to what I think the questions other Committees, although they may be five- are that we are trying to answer. However, as I year Committees, there is a set period for the said, they could be sending in these submissions inquiry to take place, you have set out what because the topic is so large, like housing or the Committee can achieve, you have written infrastructure, and all those issues about which submissions, receive the written submissions, each of them has a thousand submissions. I think and then you move onto the oral submissions. people are sending us stuff – and perhaps they do That gives a cleaner approach and I think it it for other organisations or other reasons – and helps; it certainly helps me as a Committee it just feels like you are getting a constant set of member to get my head around the overall overall briefings rather than something that hones parameters and the areas to flesh out, which down on the issues. I think that is a real issue for you can then use the oral sessions to probe a Committees (Peer, interview 31). bit further (Peer, interview 31).

As noted above, Committee staff did provide summaries of this evidence; however, one interviewee advised that whilst useful, these summaries did not give them “a sense of where the gaps are, or how the information/evidence they have received fits into the wider literature about what is known” (Interviewee 26, Peer). This interviewee said that they felt that the Committee should have sat down and reflected on the evidence that it had received up to that point, to identify the evidence it had received and on which topics, what was known from wider research literature about these topics, and what conclusions were suggested from this. The interviewee advised that they would have liked staff to provide an outline of what was known from existing research on the topics, ideally with the quality of such research to be assessed so that they would know whether it is “worth looking at”. Volume two 73 Although seen as “unhelpful” by this Peer, this same The Peer felt that this was because there was a wider lack interviewee then went onto explain this as a strength in of this type of research; that it actually did not exist rather that it enabled the Committee to be flexible and respond than just failed to feed into the inquiry. To verify this to the changing requirements for knowledge as the point, the principal researcher conducted a quick inquiry went on. literature search and identified 14 relevant research articles, including six systematic reviews that examined We got to around November-time and quite a the relationship between the built environment and lot of us realised that we had not really looked at several aspects of physical and mental health. This anything about the whole issue of sustainability; demonstrated that there was robust research evidence I certainly had some people who had offered to available that could have fed into this inquiry but did not. come and brief us and they had not been picked There were two main reasons why such research did not up on. A few of us went to see the Clerk and feed in. First, Select Committees such as the NPBE said, ‘Look, this issue hasn’t been picked up,’ Committee do not generally draw on material outside of the Clerk went away, asked if there were any that which they receive as evidence. Unlike Committees in ideas for people we could turn to for written and the Commons, Lords Committees do not have access to a oral evidence, and we picked that issue up (Peer, budget through which to commission their own research. interview 31). Although the Committee staff did undertake their own research and references to this were included in the 3.3.3.2 The workload and time available briefings they provided to Committee members in to Committee staff and members advance of oral evidence sessions, the briefings they The topic of the inquiry was broad and covered a lot provided were based principally on the written evidence of different aspects, covering for example, planning, with some exceptions. On the issue of health and the governance issues, capacity and training, sustainability, built environment, the additional research cited in the health and wellbeing and public engagement. Processing briefings did cite other research, for example, it referred the 192 written evidence submissions was done alongside, to the Wellcome Trust (“Factoring Long Term health and in parallel to, preparing for oral evidence sessions, impacts into the built environment”), the Glasgow Centre which themselves drew on prior sessions and written for Population Health (“The built environment and health; evidence. In addition, the Committee went on two visits. an evidence review”), further research that had been As noted above, 58 individuals gave oral evidence with conducted by the National Housing Federation (which the Committee holding 25 sessions. The final evidence was not cited in their written evidence) and information session took place on 17th December 2015 and the from government which cited general statistics and did report was published on 19th February 2016. Managing not go into detail about the research it was based upon. these processes was one Clerk and a policy analyst (which The second reason refers to perceptions about research. changed during the inquiry). Interviewees 30 and 49 Two Peers (Peer, interviews 26 and 28) felt that the nature highlighted time as a factor shaping the use of research in of the topic addressed by the Committee meant that the Committee. Here it was felt that time was a constraint there was little research on which to draw. Interviewee 28 upon the Committee, which limited how much evidence explained that most issues focused on by the Select they could receive. Committee were “new topics” upon which a body of evidence did not exist: 3.3.3.3 Reliance on written evidence and ways of working Quite often, Select Committees are ahead of the game compared to the academic community. The impacts of the built environment upon the mental They often wrestle with things where there is no and physical health of people was an area of focus for body of evidence. The notion of evidence-based the Committee and was the subject of a number of policy assumes that there is research on which submissions. In discussing this issue, one Committee to base policy (Peer, interview 28). member highlighted what they saw as weakness in the research they received on this topic, drawing a comparison between “robust scientific” research that they had used on a previous inquiry and the “qualitative, commentary” research that they had drawn on in this inquiry.

74 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament It was clear that Committee staff saw research as being 3.3.3.4 The Committee’s concern to achieve relevant to the inquiry and they were aware of research consensus across Committee members that addressed the questions the Committee was One Peer (interview 26) felt that the culture of the interested in. Committee was such that members were “being too However, the fact that the research identified about the nice” to one another, always allowing others to speak relationship between the built environment and health before them, and not challenging the progress of the did not feed into the Committee may suggest that the Committee. They felt that members should be more Committee were not aware of this type of research (in direct and upfront about pressing for time to look at this case systematic reviews) or, that they were unable the evidence they have received so far and what to find it. evidence they feel they need more or less of, and commissioning it from external bodies if necessary. Interviews with four Committee members highlighted the Suggestions from members were encouraged by value they placed on the information and briefings Committee staff during the inquiry process. As provided to them by Committee staff and the specialist outlined above, towards the end of July, Committee adviser. It was unclear from these interviews as to whether staff circulated a long list of potential witnesses members understood that the briefings were based and members were asked to suggest additions or predominantly on written evidence submissions (as is alternatives. Indeed, through this process, the Planning usual Committee practice). For example, comparing the Inspectorate and the Environment Agency were quotes below, the first quote may suggest that suggested as additional witnesses for the Committee. information provided by Committee staff is based upon a wider literature review, whilst the second quote shows 3.3.3.5 Committee members’ knowledge that this member is aware that it is not. of topic area I have the sense that the Clerks have read the Two interviewees referred to this issue. Interviewee 29 relevant research and filtered it to the Committee. referred to their prior knowledge of this issue. They I certainly don’t feel deprived of research (Peer, compared this to other Committees where they felt a interview 27; see Peer interviews 30 and 49). greater need to go into depth on the issue and have Currently, we receive briefings from Committee worked more closely with the policy analyst and the staff that review the written evidence received specialist adviser. Compared to previous Committees, or observations put forward in the written the member advised that they have done less reading evidence, for example, the TCPA reports x, y and around the topic on the Built Environment Committee. z. We’ve not tasked the staff to produce a major This is largely due to their role on the Committee. They piece of research. I, personally, would like them chaired the previous Committees and because of this to provide an outline of what is known from they felt more obliged to go into more detail. existing research on the topics, ideally with the As a Chair, the member advised that one should quality of such research to be assessed so that I “orchestrate” the Committee, whilst as a member they know whether they are worth looking at... It’s were required merely to “contribute”. Interviewee 28 also important that the research is relevant to also spoke about the relationship between their prior what we’re looking at. Reliability and quality of knowledge of the topic area and the research they research is key (Peer, interview 26). engaged with. They advised that the extent that the research accorded with their own views shaped their use of research.

3.3.3.6 The way that research was presented Interviewees 30 and 31 spoke about how the way research was presented, shaped their use of the research. Both interviewees highlighted the importance of a one-page overview setting out the key points. The Committee’s call for evidence requests that any submissions of six pages or more should include a one-page summary.

Volume two 75 3.3.4 Research cited in written evidence submissions to the National Policy for the Built Environment Committee

Name Categories and sub-categories of Type of research Source of research submitters

Anchor Non-profit: Charity and/ Parliamentary Select Committee; or campaign group APPG

Expert opinion Think tank

Survey Representative body

Statistics Government Unclear

Unclear Own

Sir John Armitt Non-profit: Professional Survey Business association or body Unclear Professional association

Mr Nigel Atkins Individual: Service user and/ Statistics Unclear; Unclear; Media or member of the public

Dame Kate Barker Individual: Independent expert Statistics Business

Unclear Own

Tom Bartlett Individual: Service user and/ Survey Unclear or member of the public

Bat Conservation Trust Non-profit: Charity and/ Evidence review Select Committee or campaign group Statistics Unclear

Expert opinion Professional association

Unclear Academic

Boxley Parish Council Public sector: Local or regional official Unclear Unclear

Professors Glen Bramley, Neil Higher education: Unclear Academic Dunse and Chris Leishman, Non-affiliated Heriot-Watt University Modelling Academic Expert opinion Government; Representative body; Professional association

Unclear Academic; Charity

Braunston Parish Council Public sector: Local or regional official Unclear Academic

Expert opinion Charity

British Property Federation Non-profit: Business and/ Evidence review Select Committee or trade association Unclear Unclear

Dr Tim Brown, De Montfort Higher education: Unclear Academic University Non-affiliated Official review Government

Unclear Unclear

Comparative Unclear

76 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament Name Categories and sub-categories of Type of research Source of research submitters

Building & Engineering Services Non-profit: Business and/ Evidence review Select Committee Association or trade association Statistics Membership body; Professional association; Government

Expert opinion Media

Cambridge Centre for Housing Higher education: Unclear Academic & Planning Research Oxbridge Expert opinion Own

Unclear Unclear

Camden Town Unlimited Non-profit: Business and/ Statistics Representative body or trade association

Canterbury Society Other: Other Expert opinion Business

Unclear Unclear

Care & Repair England Non-profit: Charity and/ Evidence review Select Committee or campaign group Survey Academic

Unclear International

Unclear Research organisation; Unclear

Chartered Institute for Non-profit: Professional Official review Government Archaeologists (Cifa) association or body Expert opinion Media

Chartered Institute of Building Non-profit: Professional Official review Government association or body Evidence review; Unclear APPG; Government

Opinion polls Own

Statistics Own; Academic; Business; Government

Unclear Media Government

Cibse Non-profit: Professional Official review Government association or body Focus group Academic

Expert opinion Think tank

Ciwem Non-profit: Professional Unclear Academic association or body Unclear Membership body; Unclear

Colchester Borough Council Public sector: Local or regional official Unclear Professional association

Committee on Climate Change Government/civil service: Statistics Unclear Arm’s length body (ALB)

Confederation of British Non-profit: Business and/ Survey Business Industry (CBI) or trade association

Volume two 77 Name Categories and sub-categories of Type of research Source of research submitters

Construction Industry Council Non-profit: Professional Evidence review APPG association or body Modelling Government

Modelling; Unclear Unclear; Research organisation; Representative body

Construction Industry Training Non-profit: Professional Unclear Professional association; Board (Citb) association or body Unclear

CPRE Non-profit: Charity and/ Comparative International or campaign group Evidence review; Unclear Select Committee; Government

Statistics Government; Business

Modelling Government

Unclear Campaigning charity

Academic

CPRE Lancashire Non-profit: Charity and/ Unclear Government or campaign group Anecdotal or experiential

Unclear Business; Charity; Government; Unclear

Create Streets Non-profit: Think tank Opinion polls Business; Own or research institute Experiment Academic

Evaluation; Interview Academic

Survey Academic; Charity; Professional association

Statistics Business

Unclear Professional association; Own; Business; Charity; Unclear

Department for Communities Government/civil service: Survey Research organisation; and Local Government Central government department Government

Parliamentary Select Committee

Statistics Government

Comparative International

Unclear Unclear

Unclear; Government; International organisation

Design Council Non-profit: Charity and/ Survey Government or campaign group Unclear Think tank; Government

78 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament Name Categories and sub-categories of Type of research Source of research submitters

Professor Danny Dorling Higher education: Oxbridge Expert opinion; Unclear Academic

Opinion polls Representative body

Statistics Government; Business

Survey Research organisation; Government

Parliamentary Library

Statistics Media; Charity; Unclear Business; Representative body

Edinburgh College of Art, Higher education: Russell Group Longitudinal Academic University of Edinburgh Unclear

Unclear Government

Electrosenstivity UK (Es-Uk) Non-profit: Charity and/ Expert opinion Academic or campaign group Unclear International organisation

Unclear; Statistics; Evidence Unclear review

Farrells Private sector: Multi-national business Official review Government

Federation of Master Builders Non-profit: Business and/ Survey Own or trade association

Friends of The Earth Non-profit: Charity and/ Unclear; Comparative Charity; Media; Unclear or campaign group

Gas Safety Trust Non-profit: Charity and/ Statistics Government or campaign group Unclear Academic

Statistics International

Statistics; Unclear Unclear

Glass and Glazing Federation Non-profit: Business and/ Unclear Charity or trade association

Greater London Authority Public sector: Local or regional official Unclear Government

Grove Park Group (Residents Non-profit: Charity and/ Official review Government Association) or campaign group Anecdotal or experiential

Guide Dogs for The Blind Non-profit: Charity and/ Survey Charity Association or campaign group Focus groups Own

Unclear Own; Unclear

Volume two 79 Name Categories and sub-categories of Type of research Source of research submitters

Habinteg Non-profit: Charity and/ Parliamentary Select Committee or campaign group Survey Government

Statistics Government

Interviews; Unclear Own; Unclear; Charity; Research organisation; Business

Headcorn Parish Council Public sector: Local or regional official Anecdotal or experiential

Historic England Government/civil service: Anecdotal or experiential Arm’s length body (ALB) Statistics Own; Unclear

Unclear Unclear

The Housing Forum Home Non-profit: Business and/ Unclear Own Performance Label Consortium or trade association

Roger Hutton Individual: Independent expert Anecdotal or experiential

Independent Transport Non-profit: Think tank Unclear Academic Commission or research institute Unclear Own; Media; Unclear

Innovate UK Government/civil service: Evaluation Unclear Arm’s length body (ALB) Official review Government

Unclear Professional association; Government; Business; Research organisation

Institute of Acoustics Non-profit: Professional Unclear Government ssociation or body Evaluation Unclear

Statistics Government

Parliamentary APPG

Modelling; Unclear Business; Unclear

Unclear Academic; Social media

Institute of Historic Building Non-profit: Professional Official review Government Conservation association or body Unclear Unclear

Dr Isaac Jamieson and Dr Erica Private sector: Business Statistics Unclear; Government Mallery-Blythe (size not known)

Parliamentary Select Committee

Evidence review Academic

Unclear International; Business; Professional association; Media; Unclear

Joint Parishes Group Public sector: Local or regional official Unclear Professional association

80 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament Name Categories and sub-categories of Type of research Source of research submitters

Mr Bulent Kazim Individual: Service user and/ Unclear Unclear or member of the public

Kew Society Non-profit: Charity and/ Unclear Own or campaign group

Kwes Kent Woodland Non-profit: Charity and/ Unclear Unclear Employment Scheme or campaign group

Landscape Institute Non-profit: Professional Official review; Modelling Government association or body Parliamentary Debate; Select Committee

Expert opinion; Unclear; Unclear; Business; Own; Evidence review; Modelling Charity

Dr Fabiano Lemes de Oliveira, Higher education: Statistics Government University of Portsmouth School University Alliance of Architecture Unclear International Official review Government

Unclear Academic

Unclear Unclear

Living Streets Non-profit: Charity and/ Statistics Government or campaign group Unclear Membership body; Own; Unclear

Locality Non-profit: Charity and/ Statistics Unclear or campaign group Unclear Own

London Borough of Islington Public sector: Local or regional official Statistics Business; Government

Survey Business

Parliamentary Select Committee

Official review Government

Unclear Membership body; Professional association Charity; Business; Media

Ms Janet Mackinnon Individual: Service user and/ Unclear Unclear or member of the public

Ken Mafham Individual: Service user and/ Official review Government or member of the public Anecdotal or experiential

Statistics Business; Unclear

Unclear Charity; Unclear

Volume two 81 Name Categories and sub-categories of Type of research Source of research submitters

Ms. Judith Martin Individual: Service user and/ Parliamentary Select Committee; or member of the public APPG

Expert opinion Academic

Unclear Unclear; Government; Academic

McCarthy & Stone Private sector: Statistics Business; Government; Large/national business Representative body

Opinion poll Charity

Official review; Unclear Government

Unclear; Evidence review Academic

Parliamentary Select Committee

Unclear Unclear; Business; Charity; Think tank

Mr Tony Michael Private sector: Anecdotal or experiential Business (size not known)

Mineral Wool Insulation Non-profit: Business and/ Statistics Unclear Manufacturers Association or trade association (Mima) Opinion polls Government Unclear Government

Comparative; Unclear Academic

Unclear Think tank; Charity; Business; Unclear; Social media

Ministerial Advisory Group Government/civil service: Unclear Unclear for Architecture & Built Other government Environment For Northern Unclear Academic Ireland

MRC Epidemiology Unit & Higher education: Survey; Longitudinal Academic Centre For Diet And Activity Oxbridge Research Unclear Government Statistics Government

Unclear Unclear

Evidence review; Unclear; Academic Experiment; Survey; Modelling; Cross-sectional

National Federation Of Roofing Non-profit: Business and/ Unclear Charity Contractors or trade association

82 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament Name Categories and sub-categories of Type of research Source of research submitters

National Housing Federation Non-profit: Professional Statistics Unclear association or body Unclear Business; Own; Research organisation; Unclear

Unclear Government

Unclear Government

Newcastle University Higher education: Russell group Unclear Academic

Dr Kerry Burton and Dr Richard Higher education: Unclear; Official review Academic Newman University alliance Government

Unclear Unclear; Professional association; Media

Parliamentary APPG

National House Building Council Non-profit: Professional Unclear Unclear (NHBC) association or body

Sir William O’Brien Individual: Service user and/ Anecdotal or experiential or member of the public

Partnership For Active Travel, Non-profit: Charity and/ Modelling International Transport And Health (Patth) or campaign group Unclear; Modelling Government

Statistics Unclear

Parliamentary APPG

Unclear Academic; Business

Unclear Unclear

Peter Brett Associates LLP Private sector: Business Unclear Unclear; Think tank; (size not known) Business; Government

Place Alliance Non-profit: Charity and/ Survey Unclear or campaign group Unclear Own; Academic

Unclear Unclear

Places For People Private sector: Small and/ Unclear Academic or medium-sized business Unclear Business Unclear

Volume two 83 Name Categories and sub-categories of Type of research Source of research submitters

Planning Officers Society Non-profit: Professional Parliamentary Select Committee; ssociation or body Debate

Unclear Charity; Professional association; Government; Think tank; Research organisation

Official review Government

Unclear Academic

Survey Business

Anecdotal or experiential

Portsmouth School Of Higher education: Survey Government Architecture And Radian Group University alliance Unclear Government

Unclear Unclear; Think tank; Professional association

Unclear Academic

Potterspury Parish Council Public sector: Local or regional official Anecdotal or experiential

Mr John Preston Non-profit: Professional Parliamentary APPG association or body

Unclear Government Evidence review

C Prosser Individual: Service user and/ Unclear Unclear; Academic; or member of the public Media; Government

Public Health England Government/civil service: Evidence review; Cross-sectional; Academic rm’s length body (ALB) Survey Statistics; Unclear

Unclear International organisation

Parliamentary Select Committee

Unclear Unclear; Charity; Business; Professional association; Think tank; Membership body; Research organisation

Unclear; Modelling; Evidence Government; review; Expert opinion Membership body

Unclear International organisation

Statistics International organisation; Government

Pupils 2 Parliament Other: Other Focus group Own

84 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament Name Categories and sub-categories of Type of research Source of research submitters

Reclaim London Non-profit: Charity and/ Evidence review Academic or campaign group Unclear Unclear

Rescue, The British Non-profit: Charity and/ Anecdotal or experiential Archaeological Trust or campaign group

Respublica Non-profit: Survey Unclear Think tank or research institute Opinion poll Own

Unclear Own

Royal Academy Of Engineering Non-profit: Unclear Government Professional association or body Expert opinion Unclear

Focus group Academic

Unclear Unclear; Research organisation; Representative organisation

Royal Institution Of Chartered Non-profit: Professional Unclear Unclear; Own Surveyors association or body

Royal National Institute Of Blind Non-profit: Charity and/ Unclear Own People or campaign group

Royal Society for the Protection Non-profit: Charity and/ Statistics Unclear of Birds (RSPB) or campaign group Unclear Government

Unclear Own; Charity

Royal Town Planning Institute Non-profit: Professional Unclear Academic association or body Unclear; Official review Own; Unclear; Government; Membership body

Professor Yvonne Rydin, Higher education: Expert opinion Academic University College London Russell group

Mr Daniel Scharf Individual: Independent expert Unclear Government

Parliamentary Select Committee

Unclear Academic

Unclear; Official review Professional association; Unclear; Government

Professor Alister Scott Higher education: Million plus Unclear Academic

Unclear Media; Membership body; Unclear

Shine Public sector: Local or regional official Unclear Academic

Evidence review International

Volume two 85 Name Categories and sub-categories of Type of research Source of research submitters

M.A. Henny Shotter Individual: Service user and/ Anecdotal or experiential or member of public

Dr Richard Simmons Individual: Independent expert Comparative Academic

Official review Government

Expert opinion Unclear

Unclear Unclear

Dr Felicity Simpson Individual: Other Statistics Unclear

Unclear Unclear

Social Life Non-profit: Charity and/ Official review Government or campaign group Unclear Unclear

Stop Smart Meters UK Non-profit: Charity and/ Unclear Unclear; International or campaign group organisation; Academic

Suffolk Preservation Society Non-profit: Charity and/ Expert opinion Professional association or campaign group Unclear Unclear

Sustainable Traditional Buildings Non-profit: Business and/ Unclear Academic Alliance (Stba) or trade association Unclear Government

Expert opinion Representative body

Statistics Unclear

Tata Steel Private sector: Multi-national business Statistics Unclear

Unclear Business

The Access Association Non-profit: Charity and/ Unclear; Official review Government or campaign group Expert opinion Charity

Unclear Unclear

The Edge Non-profit: Think tank Official review Government or research institute Parliamentary APPG

Evidence review Academic

Unclear Unclear

Expert opinion Charity

The Gardens Trust Non-profit: Charity and/ Unclear Unclear or campaign group

The Glass-House Community Non-profit: Charity and/ Action research; Unclear Academic Led Design or campaign group Unclear Unclear

The Institution Of Structural Non-profit: Professional Unclear Unclear Engineers association or body

86 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament Name Categories and sub-categories of Type of research Source of research submitters

The Land Trust Non-profit: Charity and/ Unclear Unclear or campaign group

The Mersey Forest Non-profit: Charity and/ Unclear Government or campaign group Statistics Unclear

Unclear Unclear

The Parks Alliance Non-profit: Charity and/ Survey Charity; Representative or campaign group body

Unclear Unclear

Expert opinion Charity; Think tank

The Theatres Trust Non-profit: Charity and/ Unclear Unclear or campaign group

The Wildlife Trusts Non-profit: Charity and/ Unclear; Evidence review Academic or campaign group Official review; Unclear Government

Expert opinion Charity

Unclear Unclear

Mrs Sue Thompson Individual: Service user and/ Unclear Unclear or member of the public

Professor Anthea Tinker and Higher education: Unclear Academic Professor Jay Ginn Russell group Unclear Government

Unclear International

Town and Country Planning Non-profit: Business and/ Official review; Unclear Government Association or trade association Statistics Government

Unclear International organisation

Unclear Unclear

Expert opinion Membership body; Unclear

Transport And Health Study Non-profit: Charity and/ Unclear Unclear Group or campaign group Expert opinion Research organisation

Trees And Design Action Group Non-profit: Charity and/ Unclear Unclear or campaign group Expert opinion Representative body; Unclear

Unclear Academic

Parliamentary Debate

Volume two 87 Name Categories and sub-categories of Type of research Source of research submitters

Dr Shann Turnbull Individual: Independent expert Expert opinion Think tank; Academic

Expert opinion International organisation; Think tank

Expert opinion Academic

Unclear Academic

Dr Lucy Natarajan, University Higher education: Russell group Unclear Academic College London, and Prof Vincent Goodstadt, University of Manchester

UK Green Building Council Non-profit: Business and/ Expert opinion Representative body; or trade association Unclear

Unclear Unclear

UK Health Forum Non-profit: Charity and/ Unclear Unclear or campaign group Expert opinion Charity

UK Indoor Environments Group Non-profit: Charity and/ Expert opinion Representative body; or campaign group Professional association; Unclear

Unclear; Evidence review; Academic Modelling

Unclear International organisation

Unclear; Statistics Unclear

University of Manchester Higher education: Russell group Expert opinion Membership body

University of Northampton Higher education: Non-affiliated Unclear Academic

Expert opinion Membership body

Urban Design Group Non-profit: Charity and/ Expert opinion Professional association or campaign group Unclear Unclear

Anecdotal or experiential

Urban Fwac (Forestry Government/civil service: Unclear Unclear And Woodland Advisory Arm’s length body (ALB) Committees) Network

Urban Vision Enterprise Cic Non-profit: Business and/ Anecdotal or experiential or trade association

Urbed Private sector: Business Expert opinion Unclear; International (size not known) organisation

Dan Ward Individual: Service user and/ Unclear Academic or member of the public Anecdotal or experiential

Unclear Media; Unclear

Weedon Bec Parish Council Public sector: Local or regional official Anecdotal or experiential

88 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament Name Categories and sub-categories of Type of research Source of research submitters

Welton Parish Council Public sector: Local or regional official Expert opinion Charity

West Of England Nature Public sector: Local or regional official Unclear Government Partnership Unclear International organisation

Expert opinion Research organisation Membership body

Unclear Media

Wildfowl & Wetland Trust Non-profit: Charity and/ Unclear; Comparative; Evidence Government or campaign group review

Parliamentary Select Committee

Expert opinion Research organisation

Statistics International organisation

Woodland Trust Non-profit: Charity and/ Statistics Unclear or campaign group Unclear Government

Expert opinion Charity

Volume two 89 4.1.1 Background to the Committee Stage Appendix 4 in the House of Commons Case studies of legislation: In the Commons, most Bills are dealt with in a Public Bill Committee (PBC). These are quite different to Select detailed write-up Committees, being, essentially the main Chamber ‘in This appendix presents findings from the two case miniature’ including the applicable rules, procedures, studies conducted as part of this study that focus on styles, and political partisanship. Each Committee is the ways that research feeds into parliamentary scrutiny assigned two Chairs (one from each main political party) 19 of legislation. These case studies involved two pieces of from a Panel of Chairs , which operates under the legislation as examined in the Public Bill Committee authority of the Speaker. Unlike the Chair of a Select Stage in the Commons and the Grand Committee Committee, a PBC Chair acts as an impartial presiding Stage in the Lords. The case studies examined were: officer, appointed by the Speaker to ensure that the proceedings take place in accordance with the rules and The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment practice of the House; and does not play any active Bill (now Act) (SBEE); and political or substantive role in proceedings. Members of the Panel of Chairs are experienced MPs who are The National Insurance Contributions Bill allocated to PBCs largely (now Act) (NICs). on the basis of rotation and availability, although the The appendix is organised into four sections. Section more senior and experienced members usually end up 4.1 provides some background information about the appointed to more contentious Bills. PBC chairs are Committee Stage in the two Houses in order to give supported and assisted by a Clerk. context to the findings presented. Sections 4.2 and 4.3 The bulk of the work of a PBC is the consideration of present findings from the SBEE and NICs case studies. amendments (proposals for change) and, of these, most debate and voting occurs in relation to the proposals of 4.1 Legislative process: Committee Stage the Opposition frontbenches (with the Government’s amendments to its own Bill usually being more a matter 18 Bills are proposals for new laws and to change of technicalities and corrections than new policy). existing laws, presented for consideration by Parliament. Once a Bill has had its First Reading and Amendments proposed by MPs to the Bill are published its Second Reading has been successful, in either the online as they are submitted on a rolling marshalled list Commons or the Lords, it enters into its Committee (‘marshalling’ is the act of listing the amendments in the Stage where a more detailed examination of it, line- order in which they affect the Bill). For each day the by-line, takes place. In the Lords, this is usually at PBC sits, an Amendment Paper is produced which, least two weeks after the Bill’s Second Reading. together with the Bill itself, constitutes the Committee’s agenda. Every element of the Bill, each clause, schedule and the long title, must be agreed, as amended or not, and every amendment actually moved by a member of the Committee must be disposed of (withdrawn or decided with or without a vote); but any of these things may happen with or without debate.

18 A Bill is a draft law; it becomes an Act if it is approved by the House of Commons and House of Lords, and formally agreed to by the reigning monarch (known as Royal Assent). An Act of Parliament is a law, enforced in all areas of the UK where it is applicable. 19 The Panel of Chairs is a group of senior MPs who can chair PBCs (as well as other general Committees and debates in Westminster Hall). Standing orders specify that they should include the Chairman of Ways and Means (Deputy Speaker), and his or her two deputies, alongside not fewer than ten other members. In practice, the Panel significantly exceeds this with 23 members since 26 May 2010 (HoC Library note SN/PC/03718).

90 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament Apart from seeking orderly progress and observance 4.1.1.2 Written and oral evidence of the various rules (including no refreshments, except Since 2007, all PBCs in the Commons where the Bill is water, in the Committee room), the only responsibility ‘programmed’ (i.e. subject to an agreed timetable), have of a PBC chair, involving knowledge of the Bill and the power to receive written evidence and hear oral its subject matter, is for the selection and grouping of evidence.20 Written evidence can be accepted after the amendments for debate. In fact, this task is undertaken Second Reading until the Committee sits for the last time. by the Committee Clerk under the Chair’s authority It is circulated to all PBC members and most submissions (sometimes in consultation with the Government lawyers are published on the relevant Bill page on Parliament’s responsible for drafting legislation). ‘Selection’ is deciding website. The decision to hear oral evidence is in practice which amendments are in order (within the rules, i.e. such taken within the ‘usual channels’ and it has become the as within the scope of the Bill) and may be debated; and norm for Bills starting in the Commons but not for those ‘grouping’ is deciding which amendments can be debated being sent from the Lords. Oral evidence is invariably together in a sensible ‘package’ in a way that balances heard in public and, although it can be heard at any efficient progress with effective debate. point during the Committee Stage, it is always scheduled A minority of Bills are dealt with in a ‘Committee of the for the first sessions before line-by-line consideration whole House’ (which is exactly what it sounds like and begins. takes place on the floor of theHouse) when any Member The introduction of evidence-taking in PBCs would, it can seek to take part. A CWH is reserved for (a) highly was thought, increase MPs’ knowledge of the intricacies contentious and/or very significant constitutional Bills of Government Bills and therefore improve legislative and (b) tiny, consensual or very uncontentious and/or scrutiny (House of Commons Modernisation of the technical Bills (where setting up a PBC would be a waste House of Commons Committee, 2006). Studies have of resources). shown how MPs on PBCs cite arguments put forward in oral evidence sessions as well as when tabling 4.1.1.1 Membership amendments (Thompson, 2015: 104-105). Public Bill Committees in the Commons usually consist Between 2007-08 and 2014-15, 175 PBCs were con- of around 18-25 MPs with membership reflecting the stituted in the Commons, of which 71 (35%) took oral political balance of the Commons, so there is always evidence. This amounted to 221 oral evidence sessions a Government majority. PBC membership will include (an average of 1.26 sittings) over this period. According the relevant Minister, Opposition frontbench team to Thompson (2015), 1,418 witnesses were called to give members and a Whip on each side. In addition, names evidence to PBCs between 2007-2012, although it is un- are submitted by the parties within the Committee of clear what proportion of this includes repeat appearanc- Selection, most of whom are Whips, again, from each es by the same individuals or appearances from multiple side (Russell et al 2013: 10). Committee rooms in the witnesses from the same organisation (Thompson 2015: Commons are set out to mimic the Commons Chamber 97). For example, the number of witnesses called to with Government members on one side directly opposite PBCs vary, six witness gave oral evidence to the National members of the Opposition. The very layout of the rooms Insurance Contributions Bill and 45 gave evidence to the for the different stages emphasise the different modes of Localism Bill in 2010-12, with the average number of behaviour (Russell et al., 2013). The make-up of PBCs and witnesses being around 26 (Thompson, 2015: 97). the layout of the room they work in may shape the extent that research that challenges Government proposals is able to feed into this process.

20 Evidence sessions were not proposed in the following three cases: (1) in a transitional phase, for Bills introduced before Christmas 2006 (whether or not they received Second Reading before Christmas); (2) Bills which were introduced in the House of Lords; (3) sometimes/often for Bills which have already received evidence during parliamentary pre-legislative scrutiny and are substantially unaltered (HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY 2007. Modernisation: Public Bill Commitees. SN/PC/04541.).

Volume two 91 4.1.1.3 Internal briefing support Before the Committee Stage begins, amendments which have been tabled by members of the House are gathered Those PBCs that receive evidence are supported by a together and placed in the order in which they will be Commons staff team called the Scrutiny Unit (SU) which, considered, before being published in the ‘marshalled amongst other things, invites written evidence and will list’. Updated lists are produced before the start of each make the arrangements for contacting and inviting day of Committee Stage. witnesses for oral evidence (once known). The SU also process any written evidence submitted and coordinate During Committee Stage, every clause of the Bill has to with specialists in the Commons Library and in Select be agreed to and votes on any amendments can take Committee secretariats to provide briefing material ahead place if the Bill is being considered in Committee of the of the oral evidence sessions (Levy, 2009: 22, Russell et al., Whole House (though such votes are rare). All suggested 2013: 14). amendments have to be considered, if a member wishes, and members can discuss an issue for as long as they 4.1.2 Background to the Committee Stage want. The Government cannot impose a time limit. This is in the House of Lords a key point of difference with procedure in the Commons. A further point of difference with the Commons is that In the Lords, the Committee Stage of a Bill usually takes oral evidence sessions with external witnesses cannot take place in the main Chamber (Committee of the Whole place at Committee Stage in the Lords. House) or in Grand Committee (which usually takes place in the Moses Room rather than in the main Chamber of 4.1.2.1 Membership the House of Lords). The procedure is the same whether the Bill is taken in Committee of the Whole House or In contrast to the Committee Stage in the Commons, any Grand Committee except that Divisions may not take member is able to participate in the Committee Stage in place in Grand Committee. The Committee Stage involves the Lords. This can mean that the Committee Stage in detailed examination of the separate parts (clauses and the Lords is less party-political because it is not restricted schedules) of a Bill. The Committee must agree to each to members divided along party lines. Furthermore, the individual clause or schedule being part (‘standing part’) membership of the Lords means that no party has an of the Bill. Any Member of the Lords can take part in absolute majority with a sizeable body of peers having Committee Stage. no party political affiliations leading to a less adversarial approach and fewer Divisions than in the Commons (see Table 4.1; and (Norton, 2016: 129): 129).

Table 4.1: ‘Eligible’ Members of the House of Lords by party/group and type of membership21

Party/group Life peers Excepted hereditary Bishops Total Percentage of Eligible peers22 Membership

Conservative 205 48 - 253 31.4

Labour 199 4 - 203 25.2

Liberal Democrat 98 4 - 102 12.7

Crossbench 146 32 - 178 22.1

Other Parties 13 1 - 14 1.7

Non-affiliated 28 1 - 29 3.6

Bishops - - 26 26 3.2

Total 689 90 26 805 -

21 The figures in the table exclude Members of the House of Lords that (at 27 January 2017) were on leave of absence or subject to a disqualification (House of Lords Library (2017) House of Lords: Statistical Profile of Membership, House of Lords Library Note 2017-0008, 6 February 2017. 22 Hereditary peers elected by parties and groups, or by the whole House.

92 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament 4.1.2.2 Briefing materials on legislation Many different sources of information can be drawn upon in the Libraries’ briefings. Internal guidance from The Commons and Lords Libraries produce briefing the House of Commons Library states that briefings papers in time for the Second Reading debate for major should “set out the views of the main political parties (if Government Bills (except the Finance Bill) and the most known) and comment from major stakeholder groups and important Private Members’ Bills (generally the top interested parties, including Select Committees of both seven as these are guaranteed debate in the Chamber). Houses” (House of Commons Library, 2013). A briefing paper is also produced for the Report Stage. This generally includes a short summary of the Second Reading Debate and of Committee Stage, emphasising 4.2 Case study Three amendments made at Committee and areas likely to be debated at report. This is then updated to include any The Small Business, Enterprise and amendments accepted at Report. Employment Bill House of Commons Library internal guidance states The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill was three major functions for its briefings on legislation: one of 26 Government Bills passed during the 2014-15 parliamentary session (Institute for Government, 2015a). to provide briefings that inform Members of It had its First Reading in the Commons on 25 June 2014 Parliament in preparation for debates in the and was given Royal Assent on 26 March 2015. The Bill Chamber and in Committee on legislation; was wide-ranging, covering topics including access to to provide briefings that meet Members’ needs finance, regulation, procurement, insolvency, employment outside debates; law, education and childcare. The case study is structured into three sections. to add to the Library’s knowledge base so that it Section 4.2.1 outlines the membership of the PBC can answer enquiries/ brief Members in the future and information about the members of the Lords that (House of Commons Library, 2013). participated in the Grand Committee Stage. Section In general, Library briefings papers on legislation: 4.2.2 describes the ways in which research fed into the Committee Stages in both Houses during the case study. highlight the key issues raised by the legislative Section 4.2.3 examines the factors that shaped the use proposals; of research in the Committee Stages. provide some policy narrative to explain the genesis of the Bill;

draw out any themes arising from consultation on the legislative proposals;

set out how key elements of the legislation will bring the proposals into effect.

Volume two 93 4.2.1 Members participating in the Committee Stages of the Bill Table 4.2 gives an overview of the MPs on the PBC in the Commons. Table 4.3 lists the Peers who participated in the Committee Stage in the Lords.

Table 4.2: Members of the Commons SBEE Public Bill Committee

Member Role Party Time as an MP

Robert Jenrick24 Member Conservative Since 2014

Oliver Colvile Member Conservative Since 2010

Stephen Doughty Opposition Whip Labour Since 2012

Bill Esterson Member Labour Since 2010

Mark Garnier Member Conservative Since 2010

Stephen Gilbert Member Conservative Since 2010

Sheila Gilmore Member Labour Since 2010

Andrew Griffiths Member Conservative Since 2010

Matthew Hancock Minister of State (Department for Business, Conservative Since 2010 Innovation and Skills)

Andy McDonald Member Labour Since 2012

Anne Marie Morris Member Conservative Since 2010

Ian Murray Shadow Minister (Business, Innovation and Skills) Labour Since 2010

Sheryll Murray Member Conservative Since 2010

Toby Perkins Shadow Minister (Business, Innovation and Skills Labour Since 2010

David Simpson Shadow DUP Spokesperson (Business, Innovation Democratic Unionist Since 2005 and Skills)

Mel Stride Assistant Whip (HM Treasury) Conservative Since 2010

Jo Swinson Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Liberal Democrats Since 2005 Business, Innovation and Skills) (Employment relations, Consumer and Postal Affairs)

Chris White Member Conservative Since 2010

Iain Wright Shadow Minister (Business, Innovation and Skills) Labour Since 2004

24 Robert Jenrick replaced Nicola Blackwood.

94 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament Table 4.3: Peers participating in the Lords Committee Stages of the SBEE

Member Role Party Time as a Peer

Baroness Donaghy Member Labour Since 2010

Baroness Hayter Shadow Spokesperson Labour Since 2010 of Kentish Town (Business, Innovation and Skills)

Baroness Hollis of Heigham Member Labour Since 1990

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Shadow Spokesperson (Education) Labour Since 2006

Baroness King of Bow Member Labour Since 2011

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department Conservative Since 2013 for Business, Innovation and Skills) (Intellectual Property)

Lord Berkeley Member Labour Since 2000

Lord Borwick Member Conservative Since 2013

Lord Cromwell Member Crossbench Since 2014

Lord Flight Member Conservative Since 2011

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Member Conservative Since 2000

Lord Howard of Rising Member Conservative Since 2004

Lord Leigh of Hurley Member Conservative Since 2013

Lord Low of Dalston Member Crossbench Since 2006

Lord Mendelsohn Member Labour Since 2013

Lord Mitchell Member Labour Since 2000

Lord Phillips of Sudbury Member Liberal Democrat Since 1998

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara Opposition Whip, Shadow Spokesperson Labour Since 2010 (Business, Innovation and Skills)

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Member Labour Since 1997

Lord Whitty Member Labour Since 1996

Lord Wills Member Labour Since 2010

Lord Young of Norwood Green Shadow Spokesperson Labour Since 2004 (Business, Innovation and Skills)

The Earl of Lytton Member Crossbench Since 2011

Viscount Ridley Member Conservative Since 2013

Volume two 95 4.2.2 Routes in which research fed into the 4.2.2.1 The written and oral evidence received Committee Stage of the SBEE Bill by the Commons SBEE Bill Committee Research fed into the Committee differently and to The SBEE Bill Committee received 84 pieces of written various extents. The information provided in the rest evidence (including additional or supplementary pieces of of this section is taken directly from the experiences evidence submitted by the same organisation), submitted of the author as a participant-observer, including by a range of organisations. classifying the ways that research fed into the Nearly half (48%) of written evidence submissions were Committee into the four categories below. made by non-profit organisations, of which, charity and There were four main ways that research fed into the campaign groups comprised the biggest sub-category. Committee during the case study period: 27 witnesses gave oral evidence to the PBC. Most of these The written and oral evidence received by the were from the non-profit sector. Witnesses from the Commons SBEE Bill Committee; non-profit sector were comprised of a roughly similar (a third) proportion of people from professional associations Private briefing materials to members; or bodies or business and/or trade associations (other organisational affiliations were charities and/or campaign Research sent directly to members; groups which made up 18% and trade unions which Research conducted by members themselves. comprised 23%). Nearly a third of written evidence submissions (30%) Each of these will be examined in turn. referred to research. 10 types of research and 13 sources of research were referred to in these submissions (more details are available in Annex 4.2.4).

Figure 4.1: Organisational distribution of written evidence submissions to the Commons SBEE Bill Committee referring to research (as %)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Figure 4.2: Organisational distribution of oral evidence witnesses to the Commons SBEE Bill Committee (as %)

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Types of research referred to in SBEE PBC written Business. Organisations working for profit evidence submissions: including commercial organisations, consultancies.

Anecdotal or experiential. Knowledge that is drawn Charity. Organisations established for charitable from individual experience or from speaking to people purposes and generally not-for-profit. informally (hearsay) rather than empirical evidence. Government. Includes research produced by Evaluation. Research that seeks to judge actions and government departments at national, devolved, activities in terms of values, criteria and standards. regional and local levels. This category also Includes impact assessments. includes government-related organisations such as Public Health England and other non- Evidence review. Review of existing literature. This departmental public bodies (NDPBs). includes both systematic and non-systematic reviews. For example Farrell Review, Barker Review. Types of International organisation. Research produced research in this category usually involve a set series by international organisations such as the World of processes: consultation, call for evidence, focus Health Organisation, OECD. groups, stakeholder consultation, thematic workshops, regional workshops, meetings, expert opinion. Media. Newspapers, television etc. Includes trade press. Experiment. Testing new interventions or policies to observe effects. Includes pilots and randomised Membership organisations. Organisations that controlled trials. allows people to subscribe, and often requires them to pay a fee or ‘subscription’. Expert opinion. Research produced by individuals or organisations considered to have domain-specific Own. Refers to research undertaken by individual expertise through their profession. Including reports or organisation that submitted the evidence. from think tanks, charities and practitioners. Parliamentary. Includes research produced by Modelling. This category includes predictive modelling departments or groups within Parliament such (where predictive analytics are used to create a as Select Committees or All-Party Parliamentary statistical model of future behaviour), economic Group (APPG). This also includes research that is models (simplified descriptions of reality, designed cited by individual MPs or Peers in debates. to yield hypotheses about economic behaviour that can be tested) and methods of horizon scanning Professional association. Usually a non-profit (drawing upon Delphi techniques or scenario models). organisation seeking to further a particular profession, the interests of individuals engaged in Opinion poll. Includes public consultation. that profession and the public interest.

Statistics. Collection, analysis, interpretation, and Representative body. Organisations that promote presentation of masses of numerical data. the views of a group of people with common interests. The representative bodies collect the Survey. A list of questions aimed at extracting specific views of their members and act as their collective data from a particular group of people. voice in discussions with other groups on issues that affect them all. Unclear. No information about methods or approach used in the research provided. Think tank. A research institute or other organisation providing advice and ideas on Sources of research referred to in SBEE PBC written national or commercial problems. evidence submissions: Academic. This category includes research published in Unclear. No source or supporting references academic journals or at academic conferences as well provided. as research projects being undertaken by academics (either solely or in partnership with other organisations), references to research funders, individual academics.

Volume two 97 Confidential – please do not share more widely Figures 4.3 and 4.4 show the frequency that the most frequently cited type of research with Confidential – please do not share more widely theFigures different 4.3 and 4.4 types and show sources the frequency of research that the different types and sourcesgovernment of research identified being the most frequently cited source identifiedwere referred to in the were referred written evidence to in the written submissions. evidence Surveys and evidenceof research. reviews were the most submissions.Figuresfrequently 4.3 cited and 4.4 Surveys type of show and research the evidence frequency with reviews government that the were different being the most types and sources frequently of cited research identified source of wereresearch.referred to in the written evidence submissions. Surveys and evidence reviews were the most Figure 4.3: Types of research by frequency that were referred to in written evidence submissions to SBEE (as %) 25. frequentlyFigure 4.3: cited Types type of of research by research frequency with government that referred being the most to in written evidence frequently submissions cited source of to SBEE 25 research.(shown as percentage) Figure 4.3: Types of research by frequency that referred to in written evidence submissions to SBEE 25% 25 (shown as percentage) 21% 21% 19% 19% 25%20% 21% 21% 19% 19% 20%15%

15%10% 8%

4% 4% 5% 10% 2% 2% 2% 8% 4% 4% 5%0% 2% 2% 2%

0%

Figure 4.4: Sources of research by frequency that referred to in written evidence submissions to SBEE 26 (shown as percentage) Figure 4.4: Sources of research by frequency that were referred to in written evidence submissions to SBEE (as %) 26. Figure 4.4: Sources of research by frequency that referred to in written evidence submissions to SBEE 25% 26 (shown as percentage) 20% 25%20% 16% 16% 20% 15% 20% 12% 10% 16% 16% 15%10% 8% 6% 12% 10% 5% 10% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 8% 6% 5%0% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2%

0%

25 53 references to types of research were identified in the written evidence submissions. 26 50 references to sources of research were identified in the written evidence submissions. 25 53 references to types of research were identified in the written evidence submissions. 2625 505 3references references to tosources types of of research research were were identifiedidentified in the written in the written evidence evidence submissions. submissions. Page 89 of 114 26 50 references to sources of research were identified in the written evidence submissions.

Page 89 of 114 98 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament 26 witnesses gave oral evidence to the SBEE Committee, In selecting witnesses, one interviewee highlighted the 15 of which had previously submitted written evidence. importance of choosing people that would ‘hold sway’ As one MP said: or be influential on the Committee. Here, seniority and practical experience was highlighted. The issue about witnesses is very much resolved before we start, because we submit the names to If you are doing a police Bill, for instance, which I Government and they will then call the witnesses was involved in before, to get the Chief Constable based on the parts of the Bill, so it is a fairly fluid for Greater Manchester or the Chief Constable exercise. I suppose if we were doing a Bill on for Greater London to come out and say that the media and we suggested that Rupert Murdoch Government is wrong or, ‘This should happen or should come they might say they were not going that should happen because we don’t have the to do that, but they tend in the main to accept our numbers in place, we don’t have this, we don’t list of potential witnesses (MP, interview 7). have that,’ or ‘This is a good idea because we have trialled it and we agree with what the Government Those witnesses that did not provide written evidence is saying,’ that holds a hell of a lot of weight with were (not including the two Government representatives: a Committee… That is their job; that is what they Rt. Hon. Matthew Hancock MP, Minister of State for do for a living. Then we stand in front of the Chair Business and Enterprise and Minister of State for Energy to argue our point on whatever amendment it and Andrea Leadsom MP, Economic Secretary to the is, quoting the person who is probably the most Treasury): experienced policeman in the whole of the UK who Iain Birrell, Employment Rights Manager, has knowledge better than anyone else anywhere, Thompsons Solicitors it does hold up when you see it. They will look at it and say, ‘Hang on a second, the top policeman Katja Hall, Deputy Director General, in the country says this and the Government think Confederation of British Industry they know better; hang on a second, we can’t have that, we will put an amendment in to change Philip King, Chief Executive, Institute of Credit that.’ Just to have these kinds of experts, it means Management a hell of a lot, particularly in Opposition who don’t have the resources that Government have. So to Detective Chief Inspector Jonathan Benton, be able to quote a guy who knows is worth its Head of the Met Police’s International Proceeds weight in as many researchers as you have got; of Corruption Unit it is very, very, very useful (MP, interview 8). Dave Mountford, GMB

Martin Smith, GMB National Organiser

Steve Turner, Assistant General Secretary, Unite

Gill Jones, Deputy Director for Early Years, Ofsted

Sion Humphreys, Policy Adviser, National Association of Head Teachers.

Volume two 99 Two interviewees referred to the type of research that fed The other thing is that that there are a lot of into the Bill. Both interviewees felt that the process relied interesting academic studies on a range of things on interest groups at the expense of other types and to do with small business in particular, which again sources of information. we don’t really have access to. Within the context of the Small Business etc. Bill there was also a I think the next thing I would say about the restriction for us which, as I understand it, people research, and this has been a frustration that we are very reliant on information that comes from have had with the Select Committee, is that the outside interest groups, and we had a number of research, as I understand it, can only come from interest groups who had essentially done a deal trade bodies. I think it is fair to say that most of with the Government not to brief the Lords, not to them are therefore of a left-leaning persuasion. propose amendments, but they would have access There is nothing wrong with that, it is just a matter to the Bill team and some other goodies that they of fact, whereas certainly in the Select Committee might get along the way (Peer, interview 10). we know a number of examples of good practice for a particular project of the Government or a particular change in the way the legislation or 4.2.2.2 Private briefing materials to Members structures work, and the Chair will not allow that The Commons Library briefing paper for the SBEE Bill to be brought in. So you feel that the information involved a number of different specialists due to the Bill is inevitably biased because lobby groups inevitably being wide-ranging. The briefing paper included a general have a view. I think there is a challenge for structure that set out a brief introduction/background to Parliament if it wants MPs to properly scrutinise each section of the Bill, an explanation of what the Bill rather than simply say, ‘It is easier to go to the what was aiming to do (what the Bill was proposing and lobby body. One, because they are organising for what purposes), an outline of the individual clauses, the information that we want and, two, there and a comment section that outlined the views of those is a perception that they represent everybody,’ people working in the area who had commented on the recognising that actually they don’t. The overall Bill and the Bill’s main stakeholders. One of the people structure whereby you have witnesses right at involved in producing the brief (Interviewee 20) advised the start – on the big ones, not on the small Bill that a key consideration in producing the briefing was Committees – is helpful but, again, you only take to be impartial, which was achieved by ensuring that all the lobby groups and the obvious, rather than the relevant views of stakeholders are represented (where people who actually have a view (MP, interview 3). such views had been published or were available). I am in business and this was a business Bill, In consulting stakeholders, Interviewee 20 advised that so there are a lot of things that are relatively respondents to the Government consultation provided available, some of which I will come to in a a good indication of which organisations to consult. The second. For example, the thing that I always find interviewee also advised that ‘known’ individuals and absolutely mystifying is that in business there organisations are generally consulted, specifically those are so many fantastic datasets that are available that are known to be ‘respected in the area’. Briefings are which could help to develop policy and they are usually produced within a tight timeframe. In this case, just not accessible. So, for example, an aspect of the brief was produced within two weeks, which limited the Small Business etc. Bill was on pubs; Mintel the opportunity to contact organisations individually. produced a fantastic report on the pub industry and, essentially, the last Mintel report also illustrates why the London Economics Report, which was commissioned by the Government, is rubbish. You can actually see that the data points that they gave London Economics was just regurgitated and it was a very poor analysis, it essentially had no foundation whatsoever.

100 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament Interviewee 20 said that “research is incredibly useful Yes, they are really useful because they are simply in doing this work”. Having a background in law, the a distillation of all the other bits and pieces. So interviewee made a distinction between ‘analyses’ on the the Library brief will be this thick and it will be one hand and ‘research’, which was frequently equated a distillation of a whole plethora of information. with statistics, on the other. The interviewee advised They are incredibly useful and tend to make much that analyses were more regularly consulted. Where more sense than the explanatory notes… Yes, the research was consulted, the interviewee advised that it Library briefings are incredibly good and of course generally comprised comments on case laws and where you can phone up the Library and they are pretty academics were used, it was through blogs and other quick at getting other stuff back if you request “more accessible” outlets such as citations in the Financial it. So the Library in that sense is incredibly useful Times and policy-relevant presentations. In making the (Interviewee 7 MP). distinction between analyses and research, the interviewee explained that some parts of the briefing required one I consulted widely with that and I referred to type of information rather than the other. For example, that quite regularly, as well as the explanatory in terms of research, the interviewee explained that notes. So those were my bible texts: the Bill, the explaining the implications of the Bill did require specific explanatory notes and the research paper. I found pieces of research around the numbers of people on that very, very helpful, especially when you can zero hours contracts, and within those, the number that make the connections between the research have exclusivity clauses within them. The only source of paper and the specific representations you are such information was said to be the work done by the receiving from interested bodies. That was helpful Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) (Interviewee 2 MP). in its report “Zero Hours Contracts; Myth and Reality” Those are excellent… they are a great way, if you (findings of which were submitted as written evidence to have an interest in sitting in on a debate, just the Committee) and the Chief Executive was called to give reading up the background to it. That is a great oral evidence. This work had informed the Government’s publication, I think (Interviewee 11 Peer). views on this issue and because of this, it was included as part of the brief. Yes, I will generally get hold of that and also not just on legislation; if there is a debate that I want All Members interviewed were aware of the Libraries’ to speak in I will have a look at their general briefings on the Bill. Members were generally positive briefing as well, which is good and concise. One of about the briefings (one interviewee advised that they the whole issues is that everything now is too long had only “glanced” at the briefing and not consulted and too detailed and impossible to absorb – and it in detail and a second interviewee explained that as a whether it is actually now true in the commercial member of the Government they tended to use materials sector as well as the public sector – and one of the from the civil service rather than Parliament). Members’ virtues of the Library is that they are pretty concise commented that it was “extremely useful” referring (Interviewee 12 Peer). specifically to its “plain English” summary of the different parts of the Bill (“breaking it down into digestible pieces”) with easy-to-understand sections (Interviewee 22 MP).

Volume two 101 Members also receive briefing papers on the Bill Welcome. Gill, you or Ofsted have said that from their political parties as commented on by one encouraging schools to take on younger children MP. They felt that there should be more coordination will raise educational attainment, particularly between the different bodies producing briefings of children from low-income families. How do on legislation and cited the explanatory notes you respond to childcare experts who argue that accompany the Bill, the Library brief, the brief that exposing children to more a formal school produced by the political parties’ own research environment is harmful to their social, emotional functions and at times also Select Committees. and physical skills? (Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill Committee, 2014. Oral evidence It is almost too much and too little. So you have session Thursday 16 October Q208 Toby Perkins). got the actual Bill itself, then you have got the notes that come out at the same time with it, then In proposing these questions, the briefings did not provide you have got the Library note, then you have got any contextual information about for example, the the PRU and, for the average MP, you have lost ‘childcare experts’ that argued this point, the basis of their the plot. To be honest, I think the Library note is arguments, or the existence of other relevant research in the best because the one that runs alongside the this area. This meant that Members were unable to pursue Bill itself tends to say, ‘We are not talking about this issue even if they had wanted to. With regards to the the bits that are obvious, we are only going to be research produced by CIPD, which was quoted extensively talking about the other bits,’ but if you don’t have in the Committee transcripts, no discussion was had about a view of the whole thing, you just get lost as you the quality or reliability of this work. This work was based go through (Interviewee 3 MP). on findings from two surveys conducted by the organisation (managed by the polling company YouGov The briefings produced by Libraries and the SU are plc) and included responses from 2,054 people taken from the main mechanisms that can provide appraisal a YouGov panel of people that had agreed to participate of the evidence. The majority of questions in the in surveys, as well as CIPD members. private briefings focused on eliciting the views of the witnesses, asking them directly what they thought Members did question the evidence they heard about particular issues or asking for clarification on independently of the briefs. During the evidence sessions, a point in their briefings. Three questions focused on one MP questioned one of the witnesses about the research. This included: methods used in the piece of research being quoted where there were significant differences in the figures A question to a representative from Ofsted asking being quoted from different sources about the same issue. how they would respond to ‘childcare experts’ The figures being quoted by this specific witness were who disagreed with the view they had put outside of those put forward by the ONS. The MP advised forward in their written evidence. that he wanted to know the basis on which those figures A question to the representative from R3 asking had been collected, which would then allow him to weigh of they knew of any evidence about benefits to up how reliable the claims being made were. It was clear creditors of proposed changes to the insolvency from the interview with this MP that his ability to do this regime. was due to his knowledge of statistical methods which in his view came from his previous experience (before A question to a representative from the Chartered becoming an MP) and his experience on two other Select Institute of Personnel Development asking them Committees. The MP said that they felt a lot of MPs for an overview of research they had produced lacked knowledge and/or skills in these areas and that on exclusivity clauses which had informed there was a role for the House to provide training on this. Government’s assessment of this issue. The MP also felt that the House should offer this training both to Members and their staff (as often they are the one who summarise the material for Members), both to gain and refresh knowledge, crucially on how to interpret knowledge. This is something that the Member feels strongly about (Interviewee 22 MP).

102 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament 4.2.2.3 Research sent directly to Members You do have to have an independent scrutiny of what is being fed through; I don’t think I have Interviewees reported being “inundated” with ever taken anything from them just at face value, information that was sent to them by external but sometimes they do provide that extra case organisations. In speaking about the information they that is background, something that will make received, members highlighted the biases of such an amendment come alive in terms of debate. material but it was still seen to be useful in providing Certainly, meeting with them as well, they are specific interpretations of the Bill and its implications very good at just giving you practical examples of for different sectors and groups. where the legislation is failing at the moment or Yes, you will get views from your stakeholders where is could help in the future. All of that is just almost on a voluntary basis without prompting really very helpful, because otherwise this can be them; as soon as the Bill has been announced and a very dry technical process, but they provide the they have had a chance to flick through it, they will colour for some of those debates that would be come. For example, the TUC sent us a crib sheet missing otherwise (Peer, interview 5). of all the bits that they were interested in within about 48 hours, which laid out what the Bill was But it can be very useful; if I am working with trying to do, where are the missed opportunities, Which? or Citizens Advice, I trust them if they say what the Bill should be doing, what the TUC’s they don’t like this bit of the Bill and they produce policy approach should be, and the Law Society us a briefing. I will use their material, but it is did the same on the parts of the Bill that were lobbying material (Peer, interview 4). relevant to them. CAMRA and Fair Pint and those The unsolicited material sent to Members was also kinds of organisations had already pre-empted the highlighted by one Member as being useful in the sense part of the Bill about pubs and sent stuff in, and that they could assess this information in the evidence then insolvency organisations would always send sessions for the Bill: you a briefing of what the Bill is doing and where they think you should be changing it around. The Where the evidence sessions are most useful is FSB, the CBI and the Confederation of Family when you are actually testing some of this stuff you Businesses all submitted stuff into the Bill in terms have already had. Very little comes out of evidence of what they had seen the Bill trying to achieve sessions that is new. What we tend to do – well, you and where they thought it could either go further sat through the laborious parts of the Bill – is use or be changed… So in that sense they really the evidence sessions to back up in terms of third provide a really good platform for that, and then parties’ quotes directly from the Hansard documents they will comment on the comments and say, ‘this of what they have said (Peer, interviewee 5). amendment would be useful for X, but actually if went a little bit further we could achieve Y,’ so some of the organisations that are really engaged in the process are pretty useful (MP, interview 7).

Volume two 103 Two interviewees highlighted the partiality of the 4.2.2.4 Research conducted by members information they received in that some areas of the Bill themselves received no representations from external organisations In addition to receiving unsolicited information from (Interviewees 4 and 5): external organisations, interviewees also spoke about the I actually didn’t get much lobbying material at proactive research they did to find relevant information all; I got a bit from Which?, that was all, about and to speak to relevant organisations in relation to the the CMA, but I didn’t get anything on the home Bill. Here, the members’ background knowledge, previous business at all. That is quite interesting; so there experience and personal contacts were highlighted as was the Government making a change and nobody enabling them to identify relevant groups to contact. came to me and said, ‘Oh, that’s really good, make If I take pre-packs as an example, I thought I really sure you support it,’ or, ‘my god, this is problematic, ought to be doing something here because I know don’t support it.’ So the bits that I did on this were a bit about pre-packs. So I spoke to my friends at not typical; when I have done other bits, I have Rcapital and said, ‘Is there any sort of trade body had much more lobbying material, depending on that we should get together with?’ and they said, what it is, either from the professional organisation ‘Yes, R3; we will make sure you are invited to their involved… The problem is if there is an issue that briefing and discussion session’. Taking them in there isn’t a strong lobbyist for or against, it can order, the insolvency regime… In terms of that, a) go by default; like on this Bill, removing safeguards I have had some experience of the regime, b) it is of security tenure for what they are going to call an issue that I have been following for some time, home businesses, nobody approached me about c) there is a trade association called R3 who are it at all. It was only because I was curious that I keen on it because they are in the insolvency world asked a lawyer friend of mine about it. It is slightly and therefore they like ways to do business. They worrying that something is going to go through briefed me, they asked me to get involved with and I have seen no material about it at all; the some other amendments relating to the section of Government didn’t produce anything – but there the Bill, and that will be how I was informed about is nothing we can do about it. It is slightly hit that part of the Bill (Peer, interview 13). and miss because it does depend on whether the people who are going to be effected out there Yes, what I said was, going back in history, for know about it (Peer, interview 4). example, in a previous role I would get top lawyers in that area to go through the legislation, impenetrable as it always was, with me to summarise what it was saying and then thought about what we thought should be amended and then drafted the amendments. Otherwise, it is a mixture of knowledge and contacts from my previous career in the City and the various trade associations in different areas (Peer, interview 12).

104 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament Well, me specifically, the PBCA because I am a 4.2.3 Factors that shaped the use of research in member of the PBCA professionally as an associate the SBEE Bill Committee Stages member. The TMA, which is the Turnaround Management Association, because perchance Six factors shaped the use of research in the Committee I had given a talk to them a few weeks before Stage consideration of this Bill: the workload and time that fed in directly to the insolvency issues. Then available to members participating in the Committee something called R3, which is a turnaround Stage and related to this, the resources available to Peers; specialist insolvency organisation, so they briefed the Parliamentary timetable, which was seen to limit the me. Then lastly, I think, the Takeover Panel; there time available to MPs and Peers to scrutinise the legislation was an amendment that was directly relevant at Committee Stage; the impact that the members’ role to the Takeover Panel so I wanted their views has on the support available to be able to understand and on that amendment. The Institute of Chartered appraise the information they receive (particularly for Accountants sent me some briefings which I read those members in Government and those in Opposition); and used – in fact I quoted – and Grant Thornton the nature of the topic area. One factor was mentioned by sent me some unsolicited information which I one member as shaping their use of research: the time at read and thought through. I also contacted for which research was received by members. background information a lady called Teresa Graham who wrote the Graham Report, which was 4.2.3.1 The workload and time available to featured in the insolvency part. So it was quite a lot Members participating in the Committee Stage (Peer, interview 14). Several interviewees spoke about being “overwhelmed” with the amount of material they received whilst working We have a list of stakeholders in our own portfolio, on the Bill. This was discussed alongside the other so when a Bill like that hits the table we will ring commitments they faced in their parliamentary work. up all our stakeholders, meet with them, send them parts of the Bill to see if they can find out The amount of stuff that comes is just phenomenal; what we do, all those kinds of issues. So in that the emails become a deluge. Therefore, one is sense we would use our own stakeholders to kick in danger of being overwhelmed. Trying to keep the process off (MP, interview 7). abreast of anything more than about two or three issues is very difficult. (Peer, interview 13). That is why, in a sense, we get the portfolios that we do. I am the [political position] because I came from the consumer movement, so basically, I know everybody; if something comes up, I know who to phone in the group and say, ‘Oi!’ or send them something and say, ‘Are we for or against this?’ So we tend to use the contacts that we have got, in a sense, to do the work us. Very often, however, they will say, ‘I’m sorry we haven’t looked at this Bill,’ they haven’t got time, in which case we ask some intelligent questions and let it go through (Peer, interview 4).

Staff employed by members were also highlighted as important in undertaking research for members. In my case I have got a business and I have got analysts so I can quite easily ask them to find me stuff which I wanted (Peer, interview 10).

Volume two 105 In the meantime, I am starting to review for 4.2.3.3 The parliamentary timetable the Government, as of the last ten days, the Transparency in Lobbying Act, part two thereof, The parliamentary timetable was seen to be a which is the regulation of non-political party challenge for members. campaigners, and I have got a civil service team The biggest frustration for Oppositions is the who are piling up the work there. So I don’t need programming of Bills, because obviously, the more; I can’t handle any more (Peer, interview Government wants to get them through as quickly 13). You cannot exaggerate the extent to which as possible and Oppositions wants to keep them we are now swamped, literally swamped, and in the system as long as possible. As an example, that is a great deal to do with modern means the Bill we have just had spent 16 sessions in of communications technology. It means that Committee and we had something like six hours somebody who wants to bend your ear can do for Report Stage; so is that proper scrutiny when so now with great ease and they can bend 300 it comes out of Committee? Well, it probably is Peers’ ears simultaneously by pressing one knob on the basis that it hasn’t been changed, but I am (Peer, interview 15). not sure that kind of programming does the public justice in terms of proper scrutiny of a finalised 4.2.3.2 Resources available to peers Bill that is just about to go to the House of Lords, or even get Royal Assent if it started there. So Related to time constraints, the lack of staff was high- there is a bit of an issue around programming … lighted by two Peers as a factor that limited their ability to The employment issues in the Bill were given 90 engage with research as part of their parliamentary work. minutes; there were lots of colleagues that wanted In contrast to MPs, Peers are not given a budget to employ to speak and scrutinise it, and they just weren’t staff and therefore, if they wish to employ staff to support able to. Third Readings – after two votes it got 35 their work, this needs to be paid out of their own work. minutes. In a Bill that complex in nature and with I have to pay for them out of my own allowance. the effort that external researchers put into it as So the role of research in this end of Parliament well, it just seems a bit disrespectful to then just is obviously going to be different; they all have force it through in 35 minutes… But it is not just assistants and assistants for assistants and about winning votes to try and change legislation constituency advisers, and god knows what else or embarrass the Government, it is about proper down the other end, who can do a lot of the scrutiny, and things need to be seen to have been pre-digestion; we don’t have any of that (Peer, properly scrutinised otherwise the legislation interview 13). doesn’t really have the confidence that it perhaps should. I would worry that all these external The main barrier is not having our own staff, and organisations that do put an awful lot of effort, that will continue until they reform the House of and probably a considerable amount of money, Lords, basically, because no one is going to put into scrutinising and providing us with research more money in. I mean, at the moment we are notes etc. it would be a real shame if they thought supposedly an amateur House, we are not paid ‘What is the point?’, because we would lose all that and the idea is that we have a life outside – as if! resource as well (MP, interview 7). There won’t be staff, they are just not going to do it until we are an elected House or whatever. That is the biggest barrier; trying to handle a whole Bill more or less by oneself (Peer, interview 4).

106 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament Apart from that, the pace sometimes on these Obviously, as a Minister, it is slightly different sorts of things, the evidence base that is required; because by the time you get to put the Bill you can raise a lot more questions and with the together you have taken on board lots of research pace of trying to change the legislation it has anyway. So there is internal analysis that has been its own weaknesses. You get through, but you done by the team, and in many circumstances that never feel like you got to the heart of the issue. It will also have been looking at other research; so on is highly compressed and then being able to get the pubs issue, for example, there was the London into a reasonable dynamic of a discussion with Economics research, but also FSB had done some Government which gives either of you a chance. analysis, CAMRA had done some analysis, and The process of getting Government to agree to there was the research about the average amount things involves in itself so many stakeholders of money that tenants get each year… All of that that the foundation and the merits of the actual information is being continually considered as a argument of the case are secondary to the Minister when you are actually developing the cross-departmental process that is required to policy in the first place (MP, interview 9). get a decision, so you will end up with a bogus argument which is what you accept, but there There was also seen to be differences between is no dynamic. So the richness of what you can backbench or frontbench members in terms of how get out of research, or what additional research much they engaged with research. you can do to fit into the timetable, becomes In truth, you have got to be selective about those quite difficult. So you take it as it is and you try areas that you have to concentrate on. I was a and improve at the edges where you can, but backbencher on the Committee so we do tend to you still always feel at a bit of an imbalance (Peer, look to our frontbenchers and see where they are interview 10). majoring and who is doing what because, quite simply, it is just impossible to cover all the ground… 4.2.3.4 The impact that the members’ role has [M]y role as a backbencher was somewhat limited on the support available to be able to (MP, interview 2). understand and appraise the information they receive Three interviewees said that their role and position shaped the extent that they engaged with research in their scrutiny of this Bill. There were two aspects to this. First was the perceived differences in resources between Government and Opposition, with the former seen to be significantly better advantaged than the latter. [O]ppositions have absolutely no support whatsoever, so we can really only scrutinise a Bill as big as the Small Business Bill with external research. Yes, we will have our own pet projects or pet pieces of policy or broad brush approaches to some of the clauses in some of the parts of the Bill, but without having that third-party research support it would be impossible to do that properly. So we take a lot of our ideas and a lot of our direction from third-party research organisations, whether it be individual pieces of evidence or actually an analysis of what the Bill would achieve or would not achieve (MP, interview 7).

Volume two 107 4.2.3.5 The nature of topic area If you go back to the example I was just giving, in the Small Business Bill we were talking about The nature of the topic area has been highlighted in early years issues and, again, there are a whole the existing literature as one factor that can shape the lot of people out there who were interested in use of research (Monaghan, 2011). Consideration of early years, but they didn’t know that we were controversial or political issues involves factors outside of using the Small Business Bill to raise these issues research evidence such as moral or ethical views. because it would not have been something that The one way that the second one differs in terms would have necessarily caught their attention. It is of drawing on research, but it is more about the same with the Deregulation Bill that is going drawing on opinions, is the evidence sessions at through now; there is some sections on that to the beginning of the Bill. Now, for some Bills those do with education, so some of the children’s can be quite detailed and they can also involve services are being deregulated, but as an outside written submissions as well. So, for example, for organisation you would have to have a pretty the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment sharp parliamentary team to spot that there were Bill, there are over 70 bits of written evidence things in the Deregulation Bill that effected the that have been submitted and there were four people that you cared about. So sometimes the sittings for the Committee just taking questions title of the Bill doesn’t really help signpost people from the witnesses. It is partly about the style to what exactly the content is (Peer, interview 5). and sheer scale of the Bill, but it is also because certainly at least one big bit of the Bill is very, very 4.2.3.6 The time at which the research was contentious and none of the consultation that led received by members up to the Bill resolved those differences of opinion, so they have continued while the Bill has actually The issue of when some members received research gone through. All of those arguments have been was also highlighted by one interviewee. continued in Bill Committee (Commons Library I think the management of it was an issue for me staff, interview 1). because quite often you are going through the course of the Bill Committee, you are dealing with I think salience is very important; there are a a tranche of clauses, and sometimes you would get number of issues which have a tremendous research and data from particular bodies when we amount of merit where we could have applied dealt with it the week before. That was unhelpful a lot of data which are available or others sorts because you didn’t want to ignore what they of experiences and bring other first-hand views had to say, but it was distracting for me to try to to play, but it wasn’t an issue that was going manage that (MP, interview 2). to have any real resonance. Therefore, actually you have got to be relevant to what people think are the major issues or the major faults in a particular Bill, as opposed to saying, ‘The Bill is this, it could be better.’ You have got to calibrate it. So I think salience is a very important one. It is about identifying objectives and then you also have political considerations which come into your choice of issues – not your choice of research but your choice of issues that you will go with (Peer, interview 10).

108 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament 4.2.4 Research cited in written evidence submissions to the SBEE Public Bill Committee

Name Stakeholder type Type of research Source of research

Alan Yorke Individual: Service user and/ Survey; Unclear Own; Business; Unclear or member of the public

Bates Wells Braithwaite Private sector: Law firm Unclear Government

Charity Law Association Non-profit: Business and/ Impact assessment Government or trade association

David Morgan Individual: Independent expert Experiential

Dr N. Orkun Akseli Higher education: Statistics; Expert opinion; International Russell Group Unclear organisation; Membership body; Government; Academic

Fair Pint Non-profit: Charity and/ Parliamentary; Survey; Parliamentary; Trade or campaign group Unclear; Statistics association; Charity; Business; Representative organisation

Federation of Small Businesses Non-profit: Business and/ Impact assessment; Own; Professional or trade association Survey association

Finance & Leasing Association (FLA) Non-profit: Business and/ Survey Business or trade association

Forum of Private Business Non-profit: Business and/ Statistics; Parliamentary Representative or trade association association; Parliamentary; Own

Gareth Epps Individual: Campaigner Statistics Business

Hilton-Baird Financial Solutions Private sector: Business (size not known) Unclear Own

Institute of Chartered Accountants of Non-profit: Professional association or body Anecdotal; Official Government Scotland review; Unclear

Institute of Directors Non-profit: Professional association or body Survey; Official review Unclear; Government

J Mark Dodds Individual: Service user and/ Unclear; Economic/ Parliamentary; Unclear or member of the public financial

James Watson Individual: Campaigner Statistics; Parliamentary; Charity; Unclear; Unclear Parliamentary

Volume two 109 Name Stakeholder type Type of research Source of research

Justice of Licensees Non-profit: Charity and/or campaign group Parliamentary; Survey Parliamentary; Media

Luke Howell Individual: Service user and/ Statistics Business; Charity or member of the public

Mr Ron Piper and Miss E. Piper Individual: Service user and/ Experiential; Survey Government or member of the public

National Day Nurseries Association Non-profit: Charity and/ Statistics; Evidence Government; or campaign group review Parliamentary

Paul Crossman Private sector: small and/ Parliamentary; Statistics; Parliamentary; Charity; or medium-sized business Survey; Experiential; Unclear Unclear

Paul Davies Private sector: small and/ Statistics; Experiment Own; Unclear or medium-sized business

Pre-school Learning Alliance Non-profit: Charity and/ Survey; Statistics; Government; Unclear or campaign group Inspection report

Public Concern at Work Non-profit: Charity and/ Stakeholder consultation; Parliamentary; Unclear or campaign group Parliamentary; Survey

Punch Taverns plc Private sector: Stakeholder consultation; Government; Think tank; Large/national business Survey; Unclear Business

R3 Non-profit: Professional association or body Official review Government

4.3 Case study Four

The National Insurance Contributions Bill The case study is structured into three sections. Section 4.3.1 includes an outline of the membership of the Public The National Insurance Contributions Bill had its First Bill Committee and information about the Members Reading in the House of Commons on 17 July 2014 of the House of Lords that participated in the Grand and was given Royal Assent on 12 February 2015. Committee Stage. Section 4.3.2 details how research fed The Bill amended existing rules regarding national into the work of the Committee Stages. Section 4.3.3 insurance benefits including simplifying the collection examines the factors that shaped the use of research in of contributions made by people that are self-employed, the Committee Stages in both Houses. extending existing tax rules in some instances and introduced a Targeted Anti-Avoidance Rule to prevent 4.3.1 Members participating in the Committee the avoidance of national insurance contributions by Stages of the Bill intermediaries (House of Commons Library, 2014a). Table 4.4 gives an overview of the Members on the This case study is based on a three-month period of Public Bill Committee in the Commons. Table 4.5 lists observation of two stages of the Bill’s passage through the Peers who participated in the Grand Committee Parliament: the Public Bill Committee Stage in the Stage in the Lords. Commons and the Grand Committee Stage in the Lords. More information about the methods used in this study is provided in Annex 1.

110 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament Table 4.4: Members of the Commons NICs Public Bill Committee

Member Role Party Time as an MP

Harriet Baldwin Whip Conservative Since 2010

Mike Crockart Member Liberal Democrat Since 2010

John Cryer Member Labour Since 2010

Jonathan Evans Member Conservative Since 19927

David Gauke Financial Secretary to the Treasury Conservative

Mary Glindon Member Labour Since 2010

Robert Halfon Member Conservative Since 2010

Mark Hunter Assistant Whip (HM Treasury) Liberal Democrat Since 2005

Chris Kelly Member Conservative Since 2010

Ian Liddell-Grainger Member Conservative Since 2001

Khalid Mahmood Member Labour Since 2001

Shabana Mahmood Shadow Minister (Treasury) Labour Since 2010

Jason McCartney Member Conservative Since 2010

Liz McInnes Member Labour Since 2014

Fiona O’Donnell Member Labour Since 2010

Bridget Phillipson Opposition Whip Labour Since 2010

Andrew Robathan Member Conservative Since 1992

Mike Weatherley Member Conservative Since 2010

Sammy Wilson Shadow DUP Spokesperson Democratic Unionist Since 2005 (Treasury) Party

Table 4.5: Peers participating in the Lords Committee Stages of the SBEE

Member Role Party Time as an MP

Lord Davies of Oldham Shadow Spokesperson (Treasury) Labour Since 1997

Lord Newby Lords Spokesperson (HM Treasury) (Whip) Liberal Democrat Since 1997

27 Jonathan Evans was a Member of Parliament between 1992-1997 and was then re-elected in 2010-2015.

Volume two 111 4.3.2 Routes in which research fed into the 4.3.2.1 The written and oral evidence received Committee Stage of the NICs Bill by the Commons NICs Bill Committee There were three main ways that research fed into The NICs Committee received six pieces of written the Committee Stages of the NICs during the case evidence including two that were submitted by the same study period: organisation. Four submissions referred to research. The written and oral evidence received by the Three quarters of the organisations that submitted written Commons NICs Bill Committee; evidence (which referred to research) were from the non- profit sector, of which most were professional associations Private briefing materials to members; or bodies. 11 witnesses gave oral evidence to the PBC. Nearly half of these (55%) were from government Research conducted by members participating central departments. in the Committee Stage.

Figure 4.5: Organisational distribution of written evidence submissions referring to research (as %)

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Figure 4.6: Organisational distribution of oral evidence witnesses (as %)

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

112 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament Confidential – please do not share more widely

Seven types of research and four sources could be identified (a more detailed table is available in 4.3.4).

Types of research referred to in written evidence to NIC PBC § Anecdotal or experiential. Knowledge that is drawn from individual experience or from speaking to people informally (heresay) rather than empirical evidence. Seven types of research and four sources could Unclear. No information about methods or be identified§ Case studies.(a more Indetailed-depth studies table is available of a phenomenon, like a person,approach group, used orin situation.the research provided. in Section§ Evaluation. 4.3.4). Research that seeks to judge actions and activities in terms of values, criteria and Sources of research referred to in written Types ofstandards. research referred Includes impact to in written assessments. evidence evidence submissions to NIC PBC: to NIC§ PBC:Focus group. A group of individuals selected and assembled by researchers to discuss and Government. Includes research produced by Anecdotalcomment or on,experiential. from personal Knowledge experience. that government departments at national, devolved, § is Statistics.drawn fromCollection, individual analysis,experience interpretation, or from and presentation ofregional and masses local levels. of numerical This category data. also speaking to people informally (heresay) rather § Survey. A list of questions aimed at extracting specific dataincludes from government-related a particular group of organisations than empirical evidence. such as Public Health England and other non- people. departmental public bodies (NDPBs). § CaseUnclear. studies. No information about In-depth studies of a phenomenon, methods or approach used in the research provided. like a person, group, or situation. Own. Refers to research undertaken by individual Sources of research referred to in written evidence submissionsor to NIC PBC: organisation that submitted the evidence. Evaluation. Research that seeks to judge actions § andGovernment. activities in terms Includes of values, research produ criteria andced by government Thinkdepartments tank. A research at national, institute or other standards.devolved, Includes regional impact and local assessments. levels. This category also includesorganisation government providing-related advice and ideas on organisations such as Public Health England and other nonnational-departmental or commercial public problems. bodies Focus(NDPBs). group. A group of individuals selected and assembled by researchers to discuss and comment Unclear. No source or supporting references § on,Own. from Refers personal to research undertaken experience. by individual or organisation thatprovided. submitted the evidence. Statistics. Collection, analysis, interpretation, and § Figures 4.7 and 4.8 show the frequency to which these presentationThink tank. ofA research institute masses of numerical or data. other organisation providing advice and ideas on national or commercial problems. types and sources of research were referred. Statistics were referred to by two submissions, making it the most Survey. A list of questions aimed at extracting § Unclear. No source or supporting references provided.frequently cited type of research. Government, Own and specific data from a particular group of people. Unclear sources of research were also referred to by two Figures 4.7 and 4.8 show the frequency to which these typessubmissions and sources making of research were them the most referred. frequently referred Statistics were referred to by two submissions, making it theto most frequentlysource of research. cited type of research. Government, Own and Unclear sources of research were also referred to by two submissions making them the most frequently referred to source of research. Figure 4.7: Types of research by frequency that referred to in written evidence submissions to NICs (as %) 28 Figure 4.7: Types of research by frequency that referred to in written evidence submissions to NICs 28 (shown as percentage)

Unclear 12.50% Survey 12.50% Evaluation 12.50% Focus groups 12.50% Case studies 12.50% Anecdotal or experiential 12.50% Statistics 25%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

28 Eight references to types of research were identified in the written evidence submissions. 28 Eight references to types of research were identified in the written evidence submissions.

Page 104 of 114 Volume two 113 Confidential – please do not share more widely

Figure 4.8: Sources of research by frequency that referred to in written evidence submissions to NICs Figure 4.8: Sources of research by frequency that referred to in written evidence submissions to NICs (as %) (shown as percentage)

Government 14% Own 29% Unclear 29% Think tank 29% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

4.3.2.2 Private briefing materials to Members 4.3.2.2 Private briefing materials to members So, in terms of preparing for this Bill, I knew that The House of Commons Library produced a briefing paperin to terms inform of the Billtimes to’s lookSecond outR foreading people. Eight making The House of Commons Library produced a briefing paper types and five sources of research were identified in this paper.responses, those are three obvious times to scan to inform the Bill’s Second Reading. Eight types and five organisations that I know have a vested interest sources of research were identified in this paper. Types of research included: in this legislation, looking at obvious sources like Types of research§ Expert included: opinion the press. Particularly in terms of my subject the Financial Times is the most important mass market Expert§ opinionImpact assessment publication that is going to be interested in stories § Parliamentary Impact assessment associated with this Bill. Then, similarly, when the § Stakeholder consultation Bill itself came out, reaching out to organisations Parliamentary§ Statistics and interested parties to make sure that I was aware of what they had written about the Bill, Stakeholder§ Survey consultation either at that point or at a previous stage… One § big change in the time that I have been doing StatisticsUnclear this job has obviously been the ability to source SourcesSurvey of research identified include: organisations’ press notices and so on; it is so easy § Academic to do it electronically very quickly at your desk, so Unclear there is relatively little outreach in terms of ringing § Government someone up and having them talk through their Sources of§ researchMedia identified include: view about something. By and large, you can very Academic§ Parliamentary quickly find what they have said about it and cut and paste it as you need to (Commons Library staff, Government§ Unclear interview 1).

AnMedia interview with a member of parliamentary staff involved in producingFor the NICs, there was the seen briefing to be highlighted the“a small number importance of capturing the views of relevant stakeholders.of professional In doing this, bodies” the interviewee advised that were considered relevant Parliamentary that most information was publicly available through thestakeholders. internet. Other relevant stakeholders were those highlighted in the Government’s consultation document. Unclear So, in terms of preparing for this Bill, I knew that in terms of times to look out for people making responses, those are three obviousThere times are to scan organisations a small number of that professional bodies An interview with aI know have a vested interest in this legislation, looking at obvious sources like the member of parliamentary staff who will always respond in detail to almost any involved in producingpress. the Particubriefinglarly in terms of my subject the highlighted Financialconsultation Times is the most exercise or any initiative that the the importance of capturing the views of relevant important mass market publication that is going to beGovernment interested in stories is going to bring forward in legislation. stakeholders. In doing this, the interviewee advised associated with this Bill. Then, similarly, when the BillSo there itself are came out, a list of reaching out usual suspects. Beyond that, I that most information was publicly available through to organisations and interested parties to make sure that I was aware of what theyoften take a lead from – very often in the run up the internet. had written about the Bill, either at that point or atto a a previous major initiative stage… Onethere big will be a pattern for the change in the time that I have been doing this jobGovernment has obviously making been the ability an initial to announcement; in source organisations’ press notices and so on; it is so easy to do it electronicallymy area that is very often in a Budget Statement very quickly at your desk, so there is relatively little outreach in terms of ringingor in the Autumn Statement. There will be some someone up and having them talk through their viewkind about of initial something. headline, By ‘We and are going to do this large, you can very quickly find what they have saidchange,’ about it there and cut will and be paste ita Consultation as document, you need to (Commons Library staff, interview 1).then there will be a Response to Consultation 114 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament document.

Page 105 of 114 In that Response to Consultation document there 4.3.3 Factors that shaped the use of research will be a lot of, ‘This body said this, this body said in the NICs Bill Committee Stages that;’ very often I will draw on that rather than go to the bodies themselves (Commons Library staff, Two factors shaped the use of research in the interview 1). Committee Stage of the NICs. The parliamentary timetable; In presenting the views of interested parties, the interviewee went on to say that they highlighted where The nature of the topic area and individuals and bodies raised concerns about the Bill or complexity of the Bill. had cited research or evidence to support their view of the Bill or a particular amendment to it. In presenting 4.3.3.1 The parliamentary timetable the views of different stakeholders, the interviewee emphasised the importance of presenting an accurate and The Second Reading of the NICs Bill took place on 8 impartial view. In the context of the NICs Bill, this means September 2014. On the same day, the Programme ensuring the relevant stakeholders were included from motion stated that proceedings in the Public Bill across the political spectrum, representing a broad range Committee Stage should be brought to a conclusion on of views on the Bill as well as making sure that their views Tuesday 28 October 2014. The House of Commons was were captured accurately in the briefing paper: in recess between 12th September and 10th October 2014. Two sittings of the Commons Public Bill Committee Generally, though, because these are coming from took place on the same day (21st October 2014). This the Library, it is not our role to present anything means that there was approximately two weeks of other than an impartial and informed view of parliamentary time set aside for consideration of the an issue. We are not looking for signoff from Bill at the Committee stage in the Commons (excluding an academic body or a lobby group or a Select recess dates). In the Lords, Second Reading of the Bill took Committee; it is much more about accuracy, that place on 25th November 2014. One sitting of the Grand process of going out and then coming back and Committee stage was held on 15th December 2014 revising what we have written, making sure we meaning that around three weeks was allocated are not actually making any factually incorrect to scrutiny of the Bill in the Lords Committee Stage. statements. I would say that that, along with our anxiety about political impartiality, are probably the Overall, five weeks of parliamentary time was allocated two single most important principles to our work, to the NICs Bill between its Second Reading and and definitely in terms of briefing on legislation. So Committee Stage in the two Houses. In the context it is in those areas, it is to ensure that you are not of Members’ other responsibilities - for example, saying something factually incorrect or that could involvement in Select Committees and other pieces of be interpreted as political bias (Commons Library legislation – and the time it can take to get grips with staff, interview 1). the nature, scope and implications of a Bill as well as the views of relevant stakeholders, this could be considered a demanding timetable. 4.3.2.3 Research conducted by members participating in the Committee Stage The short timescales afforded by the parliamentary timetable was also highlighted by a member of Two types of research were referred to in the debate parliamentary staff responsible for producing briefing that took place in the Commons Public Bill Committee. for the Bill (Commons Library staff, interview 1). This included statistics from the Office of National Statistics and a review that had been undertaken by the Government (no information about the methods of this review was provided).

Volume two 115 4.3.3.2 The nature of the topic area and What we were doing with the National Insurance complexity of the Bill Bill was mirroring what had already been done in the latter two parts with Income Tax anyway, The two people interviewed as part of this case study so I don’t think that they did – if you look at the referred to the “technical” and generally “uncontroversial” speeches, I don’t think they would have done nature of the NICs Bill. This was seen to reduce the need any research at all, actually, in the way that you to use research in two ways. First, many aspects of the understand it. I think they came to it knowing Bill applied changes already in operation in other policy something about it, read a bit about it, and made areas to the area of national insurance contributions. This relatively short speeches (Peer, interview 16). meant that many of the arguments about whether such changes were good or bad had already taken place with Related to this is the extent that members received the discussion on this Bill tending to focus on how the research from external organisations on this Bill. The changes would be implemented, rather than whether Peer interviewed as part of this case study felt that very they should be implemented or not. little research was sent to Members to inform their Now, at one remove, this Bill is something of an scrutiny of the Bill because the NICs Bill was not seen anomaly in several respects. First, politically it is to be controversial. not controversial; its nature does not give rise Partly because broad issues had been discussed to big political divisions across the Chamber. It is elsewhere and partly it wasn’t contentious. quite technical and also none of the bits in the Bill Nobody was putting in submissions to them, or really relate to each other; they are just changes to anybody, about it; virtually nobody. A better in very different bits of National Insurance law. analogy, I suppose, are [other] Bills [for example] Because it is technical and generally uncontentious, the two Pensions Bills, where it is technical, first you saw very little scrutiny, relatively few witnesses of all, so if you are going to be involved you have being asked questions and, similarly, I don’t got to have a bit of an understanding to start think the Committee actually voted on anything with, but people rely very heavily on briefings really… The content of Bills is, as you can expect, which mainly come from outside Parliament. So incredibly varied. Similarly, even areas of public if you look at the people who are speaking the policy where the Government might not be representations that are made, [they are] getting looking to make a change, Private Members might briefings from a number of specialist charities and want to engage debate at the fringes of things research bodies in that general area, and forming that might not be public policy knowing that the [their] views very much from that, I think. People Bill is not going to make very much progress but it are sending in draft amendments, for example, is a way to raise an issue generally. So there will be, because there is enough of a policy, charity, think- depending on subject and depending whether the tanky world that worries about pensions and the Bill is being used because there is consensus about politics of older people (Peer, interview 16). changing the law or it is being used to try and raise awareness of the law, I think scientific and social research will definitely play quite a strong role, but it will vary a lot from Bill to Bill. I think in this Bill there is relatively little. For the legislation over banning fox hunting colossal amounts of external research was being used by Members on both sides of the debate – a very contentious, very divisive debate – trying to work out a consensus position that resulted in the legislation. That is the first example that comes to mind, but that is an example where you are seeing a great deal of research and research that is used for different political viewpoints (Commons Library staff, interview 1).

116 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament The same Peer went on to reflect on the value of external Interviewee 16 also mentioned an individual’s capacity to briefings generally. There was seen to be both positive appraise different types of research, specifically statistics, and negative aspects to this. On the one hand, external as an important factor in shaping their use of research. briefings were considered useful; “a lot of the arguments I think experience and knowing the subject area are very strong and we do make amendments to Bills is one thing but, against that a lot of people are quite a lot as a result of it.” However, often such briefings scared of numbers. I remember ages ago and I were considered to be “special pleading”: was going in to do a debate on something that [S]o you have got to discount what you read and sounded quite technical and, as I was going in, in some cases just accept that it is special pleading [another Member of the House of Lords], who was from people who don’t want the accustomed way not scared of numbers really, said, ‘Goodness me; of doing things to change because it is in their I’m glad you are doing that rather than me.’ She interest, and that is a matter of judgement. You thought it was very complicated because it was are only getting that really from experience; there something to do with tax. A lot of people, because is no adjudicator who can look at it and say, ‘Well, they are not familiar with numbers, they accept don’t take account of that, take account of that,’ them and they don’t question them, and they you have got to do that yourself, I think (Peer, don’t see through them (Peer, interview 16). interview 16). The member of parliamentary staff interviewed as part Determining the usefulness of such research was seen to of this case study highlighted the effect that complex Bills come through knowledge of subject area and experience: can have upon the extent that research feeds into the briefing papers produced: I think you can only exercise judgement sensibly when you have got some knowledge of the subject Depending on time, and also depending on the area and the people. [O]ne of the things that you complexity of the changes that the Bill is trying to have a huge amount of is special pleading, and bring forward, [parliamentary staff] may often then there is just as much special pleading very often take a draft of what they have written and run it when it comes from a professional body, the past the Bill team or possibly other organisations doctors or the lawyers, or a charity. The idea as well. So my colleague has had situations where that any organisation virtually that is seeking to he has needed to run something by and he has change the law comes without an agenda that found somebody in [a specific organisation], or an you have got to question is just wrong; they have equivalent organisation, to look at his draft. We all got their agenda. It is quite difficult, but if you are encouraged to consult in that way by pushing have been involved in a subject for any length of out draft texts that we have and getting responses time, you do get a good idea of where people are back to it; the degree to which we can do that is coming from; you know where think-tanks are slightly personal preference, it is slightly driven by coming from and you know the Local Government subject, it is definitely driven by time (Commons Association is going to be arguing a certain line, or Library staff, interview 1). the children’s charities are going to be arguing a certain line, so you have just got to have that in your mind. It doesn’t mean you discount it totally, of course, but you have just got to put it through a credibility check, I suppose (Peer, interview 16).

Volume two 117 4.3.4 R esearch cited in written evidence submissions to the NICs Public Bill Committee

Name Categories and sub-categories Type of Source of research of submitters research

Low Incomes Tax Non-profit: Charity and/ Statistics; Think tank; Reform Group or campaign group Survey; Case Unclear; Own studies; Anecdotal or experiential

Chartered Institute of Taxation Non-profit: Professional Impact Government association or body assessment

Office of Tax Simplification and Government/civil service: Focus Own; Unclear Administrative Burdens Advisory Board Arm’s length body (ALB) groups; Statistics

Institute of Chartered Accountants Non-profit: Professional Unclear Government in England and Wales association or body

118 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament Appendix 5

Quotes relating to each section of Volume 1

1. “Now, I wouldn’t read that; I would say to a member 8. “Much more frequently, of course, is accessing of my staff, ‘Look, just go through that research for the purposes of backing up or for me and pick out the key points that I might identifying solutions. If we are putting forward be interested in,’ because I simply haven’t got policy, we need to be able to substantiate what time to read all the detail.” (MP, interview 17) we are saying through the use research that has been conducted by people who others would think 2.“I think that in terms of external sources it tends were reputable and therefore what we can quote to be government, government statistics, finance confidently without being challenged. So that is and more detailed research.” (Lords Library staff, probably the most frequent and obvious route to interview 55) accessing research, and the purpose of it is invariably 3. “Or , who are the usual suspects, or the most to back up something that we are advocating from prominent experts in that field. Whether it is a policy perspective.” (MP, interview 75) choosing witnesses or choosing specialist advisors, 9. “My role, as I see it, and as it has grown since I think the people who are generally regarded by October when I started, is to gather research as their peers as knowledgeable on the subject will much as I can… I see research (in lowercase letters) be the first people to be called.” (Commons as sacrosanct to my ability to brief the Member Committee staff, interview 67) sufficiently, properly, and to be accountable, 4. “In terms of my own time-planning, if I know that because Members are not just scrutinised when we are about to start an inquiry on a particular topic they stand up in the Chamber; it’s Twitter, it’s I will try and do a little bit of my own research or Facebook, it’s everything else. You’ll never know pay more attention to newspaper articles or any everything, but it is the ability to find what you briefings that come along immediately before the need to know quickly, even if you instantly forget it; inquiry starts... I would probably look at media it is ‘open book’ constantly. Research is one of my reports with a renewed degree of interest because primary functions in life at the moment. It is entirely there may be something in that report that I may vital to our performance as a team and [my MP’s] want to refer to in asking a question of a witness in performance.” (MPs’ staff, interview 77) an evidence session.” (MP, interview 17) 10. One MP on the Small Business, Enterprise and 5. “Committees… on the whole… [go] on the Employment Bill Committee advised that they were evidence that they themselves take, whether oral or aware of the value of research in decision-making written” (Commons Committee staff, interview 67) (in “telling us what we don’t know”), as well as the different types of research and the roles that these 6. “So deploying research is sometimes done as a may play in parliamentary work. The MP advised means of testing the conclusions that government that research is critical to them making a more arrives at.” (MP, interview 61) informed judgement about how to interpret what 7. “W ell, I can’t imagine how you can’t do research. I they read and hear. (MP, interview 22) am speaking in two debates on Thursday and I am 11. “Ther e is a lot of information out there and we doing quite a bit of research for those debates, and always try to balance that information, so that if I can’t personally imagine how you can stand up you have a left-wing think tank you will make sure and speak without going away and doing some you have got a centre and right-wing think tank as background research.” (Peer, interview 14) well.” (Lords Library staff, interview 55)

Volume two 119 12 “Now, if you are going to do that and go into a 15. “There is lots and lots of evidence on many inquiries. public forum, you can’t do it unless you have a pretty There will be other organisations who submit good grasp of the facts and a sense of confidence evidence who have done research themselves, which in your own arguments; no one else can do it for often is credible and verifiable and you can use it and you. To do that you have got to put the work in, quite happily use it; it may often be used to you have got to read the books making arguments challenge government, which of course may have a in both directions and then you have got to have different view on some of these things. So that is all conversations with people on both sides of the fine and that will continue but, again, there are argument. If you are willing to put in that level of occasions where that evidence isn’t time then you can have the joy of going along to a there or isn’t there in the form we want it, or we public meeting and putting across what is, frankly, have got concerns about the evidence and the a controversial point of view to people who are research that has been done, or there is a different outraged that you are even doing it – which, as a organisation that may have commissioned it with politician, I frankly love!” (MP, interview 81) a view to getting certain results out of it – that can happen.” (MP, Communities and Local Government 13 “The briefing at the beginning is very good because Committee, interview 15) it sets the stall out. I think that is the point, really; the earlier that one gets an overview of the issue, it 16. “But it is useful because it is useful to talk through then makes the research that comes subsequent to some of the issues; having the Ministers there to talk that easier.” (Peer, Lords National Policy for the Built about the Bill is quite good and we really put some Environment Committee case study, interview 31) of them under a bit of pressure on some of the legislation when they were there. So that helps too, 14. In a follow-up interview, one member of Commons but that is more of a political aspect. Whether or not Committee staff advised that they thought that the whole process scrutinises Bills properly and research was more useful early on in a Select makes them better Bills, well the obvious answer is it Committee inquiry. This is because, at this stage, doesn’t because you don’t win any amendments the Committee has not received any written unless the Minister’s asleep. With Enterprise evidence that they can use to develop background and Regulatory Reform Bill, I think we had 87 briefings ahead of evidence sessions. Therefore amendments and didn’t get one past. So is it a good they need other source material to base their use of everyone’s time? I don’t know. The answer is briefings on. This is when research can shape the probably no, given that it sucked up six weeks thinking of Committee members, for example, in of my life.” (MP, Small Business, Enterprise and shaping the questions that the committee staff Employment Bill Committee case study, interview 7) draft, which may inform how Committee members conceptualise the issue, subsequently shaping the 17. “For me the whole process starts well ahead of the rest of the inquiry. (Commons Committee staff, Bill Committee when you are lobbying the Ministers interview 60) to try and get it into the Bill in the first place. So when you actually get it into the Bill, you try to get yourself on the Bill Committee and then, because you have got the additional information, you are then trying to speak with regard to each of the different pieces where you have extra knowledge because you have been involved for, in my case, four and a half years, some people a lot more. I guess it is… about the timeliness, it could be argued that maybe the Bill Committee is almost too late in some respects, or at least it would be useful to have that information when the Bill is being developed so that you can have conversations with the Minister about trying shape the development of the Bill.” (MP, Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill Committee, interview 3)

120 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament 18. “Well, the first thing is to let Members know they 25. “That doesn’t necessarily mean academia, exist. I didn’t know you existed, let alone what you because the downside of working with academics do.” (Peer, interview 15) in terms of collaboration would be timescale, really; the inquiries by Select Committee are 19. “Particularly when you are reading academic reports, relatively, by Parliamentary standards, quick and people can assume a lot of knowledge; I was looking sharp, and that probably wouldn’t fit in with at a piece of research only yesterday which assumed academic timetables where research tends to a lot of understanding of statistics to be able to be programmed in and take a long period of accurately interpret it.” (MP, interview 66) time.” (MP, Communities and Local Government 20. “Academic research is usually not that user-friendly Committee case study, interview 18) from our point of view as users.” (MP, interview 89) 26. “Inevitably when you find an academic article 21. “The questions that members are asking are certainly that you want to read it is not Open Access. different to the questions that are asked in the There are some limitations to academic research research world; I would not really ever expect those in our area because we often need timely to be the same.” (Commons Library staff, interview information and academic research is very rarely 33) timely.” (Commons Library staff, interview 43) 22. O ne Peer advised that whether a research report’s 27. “If it is an area that I am not sure about, I try to findings agree or disagree with their views was get the information from more than one source an important factor in shaping whether they used so it is verified in a way, otherwise you can find the research, as well as other factors such as the yourself on thin ice.” (MP, interview 61) timeliness and the currency. (Peer, interview 28) 28. “I suppose if you have seen it used elsewhere, so 23. “When it agrees with my views. I am a politician so I f it is getting featured in media or press and it want something to back me up, or at least help me has got attention, then obviously you are going out, and so it probably has to chime with where I am to read it because you are going to want to going.” (MP, interview 87) know whether it is going to come up and it is influencing the decision-makers or policymakers.” 24. One Peer commented that in the Lords, the benefit is (MP, interview 85) so that lords can bring their knowledge from wider experience to bear on the issue and there is a lot of members with previous experience in this area. (Peer, National Policy for the Built Environment Committee case study, interview 26)

Volume two 121 Bibliography CROWLEY, C., HARRE, R. & TAGG, C. 2002. Qualitative research and computing: methodological issues and practices in using QSR NVivo and NUD*IST. International ALLEN, T., GRACE, C. & MARTIN, S. 2014. The role Journal of Social Research Methodology, 5, 193-197. of evidence and research in local government. Local ESTABROOKS, C. A., FLOYD, J. A., SCOTT-FINDLAY, Government Knowledge Navigator. S., O'LEARY, K. A. & GUSHTA, M. 2003. Individual AMARA, N., OUIMET, M. & LANDRY, R. 2004. New determinants of research utilization: a systematic review. evidence on instrumental, conceptual, and symbolic Journal of Advanced Nursing, 43, 506-520. utilization of university research in government agencies. GEDDES, M. 2014. Interpreting Parliament, but how? Science Communication, 26, 75-106. An assessment of the value of participant observation AVEY, P. C. & DESCH, M. C. 2014. What Do Policymakers in parliamentary research. Political Studies Association Want From Us? Results of a Survey of Current and Former Annual Conference. Manchester. Senior National Security Decision Makers. International GEDDES, M. 2016. Taking evidence: Witnesses and the Studies Quarterly, 58, 227-246. evidence gathering process of select committees in the BENTON, M. & RUSSELL, M. 2013. Assessing the House of Commons. Political Studies Association Annual Impact of Parliamentary Oversight Committees: The Conference, 21-23 March 2016. Brighton. Select Committees in the British House of Commons. HAMMERSLEY, M. 2013. The myth of research-based Parliamentary Affairs, 66, 772-797. policy and practice, London, Sage. BOCHEL, H., DEFTY, A. & KIRKPATRICK, J. 2015. 'New HOUSE OF COMMONS (2014) Oral evidence session mechanisms of independent accountability': Select Thursday 16 October. Q208 Toby Perkins. Small Business, committees and parliamentary scrutiny of the intelligence Enterprise and Employment Bill Committee. services. Parliamentary Affairs, 68, 314-331. HOUSE OF COMMONS ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE BRINGER, J., JOHNSTON, L. & BRACKENBRIDGE, C. 2014. Pilot study: Members and Members’ Staff Interview 2004. Maximising transparency in a doctoral thesis: the Project. London: Houses of Parliament. complexities of writing about the use QSR*NVIVO within a grounded theory study. Qualitative Research, 4, 247-265. HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMITTEE OFFICE 2012. Committee specialist induction pack. London: CAMPBELL, S., BENITA, S., COATES, E., DAVIES, P. & PENN, House of Commons. G. 2007. Analysis for policy: evidence-based policy in practice. London: Government Social Research Unit. HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE 2015. The work of the CREWE, E. 2015. House of Commons: An anthropology of Communities and Local Government Committee since MPs at work, London, Bloomsbury. 2010. Tenth Report of Session 2014-15. . HC 821. CREWE, E. 2017. Ethnography of Parliament: Finding Culture HOUSE OF COMMONS GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE and Politics Entangled in the Commons and the Lords. 2014. House of Commons Governance. HC 692. Parliamentary Affairs, 70, 155-172.

122 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament HOUSE OF COMMONS LIAISON COMMITTEE 2012. KELLE, U. 1997. Theory Building in Qualitative Research Select committee effectiveness, resources and powers HC and Computer Programs for the Management of 697. Textual Data. Sociological Research Online [Online], 2. Available: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/2/2/1.html HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY 2007. Modernisation: [Accessed 28 October 2008 ] Public Bill Committees. SN/PC/04541. LANDRY, R., AMARA, N. & LAMARI, M. 2001. HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY 2009. The departmental Utilization of social science research knowledge in select committee system. Research Paper 09/55. Canada. Research Policy, 30, 333-49.

HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY 2011. General Election LARKIN, P. 2008. The House of Representatives' 2010. Research Paper 10/36. Committee System: The Changing Committee System HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY 2013. Legislative of the British Parliament. Parliamentary Studies Centre, briefing guidance. Australian National University.

HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY 2014a. National LEVY, J. 2009. Strengthening Parliament's powers of Insurance Contributions Bill. Research Paper 14/45. scrutiny? An assessment of the introduction of Public Bill Committees. London: The Constitution Unit, HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY 2014b. Public bill and University College London. general committees: pay for chairs. SN/PC/03718 . MAER, L. & SANDFORD, M. 2004. Select Committees HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY 2014c. Small Business, under scrutiny. London: The Constitution Unit, Enterprise and Employment Bill. Research Paper 14/39. University College London.

HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY 2016. Total Number of MCCORMICK, J. 2013. Evidence Exchange: Learning MPs, Peers and staff. SN02411. from social policy across the UK. Dunfermline: Joseph Rowntree Foundation; Carnegie Trust UK. HOUSE OF COMMONS MODERNISATION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMITTEE 2006. The MONAGHAN, M. 2011. Evidence versus Politics. Legislative Process. First report of session 2005-06. HC Exploiting research in UK drug policy making? Bristol, 1097. Policy Press.

HOUSE OF LORDS COMMITTEE OFFICE 2016. Committee NORTON, P. 2016. Legislative scrutiny in the House of Office Guide. Interim edition. London: House of Lords. Lords, London, Bloomsbury.

HOUSE OF LORDS LIBRARY 2017. House of Lords: OLIVER, K., INNVAR, S., LORENC, T., WOODMAN, J. & Statistical Profile of Membership. LLN 2 017/008. THOMAS, J. 2014. A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers. INSTITUTE FOR GOVERNMENT. 2015. 26 Bills Later: BMC Health Services Research, 14. Legislation During the ‘Zombie Parliament’. Available from: http://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/ RICHARDS, L. 2002. Qualitative Computing: A Methods blog/11085/26-bills-later-legislation-during-the-zombie- Revolution? International Journal of Social Research parliament/ [Accessed 4 August 2016]. Methodology, 5, 263-276.

Volume two 123 RITCHIE, J. & LEWIS, J. 2003. Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers, London, Sage.

RUSSELL, M. & BENTON, M. 2011. Selective influence: The policy impact of House of Commons Select Committees. London: The Constitution Unit, University College London.

RUSSELL, M., MORRIS, B. & LARKIN, P. 2013. Fitting the Bill: Bringing Commons legislation committees into line with best practice. London: The Constitution Unit, University College London.

SCHENSUL, S., SCHENSUL, J. & LECOMPTE, M. 1999. Essential ethnographic methods: observations, interviews and questionnaires, Walnut Creek, CA, AltaMira Press.

SKINNER, J. 2012. The interview, an ethnographic approach, London, Bloomsbury Academic.

TALBOT, C. & TALBOT, C. 2014. Sir Humphrey and the Professors: What does Whitehall want from Academics? Manchester: Policy@Manchester, University of Manchester.

THOMPSON, L. 2015. Making British Law: Committees in action, London, Palgrave Macmillan.

VAN EERD, D., COLE, D., KEOWN, K., IRVIN, E., KRAMER, D., BRENNEMAN GIBSON, J., KOHN, M., MAHOOD, Q., SLACK, T., AMICK III, B., PHIPPS, D., GARCIA, J. & MORASSAEI, S. 2011. Report on knowledge transfer and exchange practices: A systematic review of the quality and types of instruments used to assess KTE implementation and impact. Toronto: Institute for Work and Health.

WARD, V., HOUSE, A. & HAMER, S. 2009. Knowledge brokering: Exploring the process of transferring knowledge into action. BMC Health Services Research, 9.

WHITE, H. 2016. Select committees under scrutiny: The impact of parliamentary committees’ inquiries on government. London: Institute for Government.

124 The Role of Research in the UK Parliament