Interpreting Parliamentary Scrutiny

Interpreting Parliamentary Scrutiny An enquiry concerning everyday practices of parliamentary actors in select committees of the House of Commons Marc Geddes A dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Politics Faculty of Social Sciences The University of Sheffield May 2016 Contents Abstract v Acknowledgements vi List of tables and figures viii Introduction 1 Part I: Theoretical Foundations Chapter 1: Traditions 9 Chapter 2: Theory 35 Chapter 3: Methodology 58 Part II: Interpreting Scrutiny Chapter 4: Members 81 Chapter 5: Chairs 111 Chapter 6: Staff 137 Part III: Scrutiny Landscapes Chapter 7: Relationships 165 Chapter 8: Evidence 194 Chapter 9: Conclusions 223 iii Notes Appendix A: List of select committees 245 Appendix B: Ethics agreement 247 Appendix C: House of Commons confidentiality agreement 249 Appendix D: Standard interview consent form 251 Appendix E: Interview themes and checklist 253 Appendix F: Summary statistics for committee members 255 Appendix G: Summary data for witnesses 257 Appendix H: Summary of witness database categories 259 Bibliography 261 iv Abstract This doctorate looks at the role of parliamentary select committees in the UK House of Commons. Though the literature on this topic is extensive, this research project explores the issue from a distinctive vantage point. While research on committees has predominantly focused on their outputs, such as committee reports, in order to assess the effectiveness of Parliament in holding the executive to account, this thesis looks at the input-side to committee work. It explores the individual beliefs, everyday practices and perennial dilemmas of parliamentary actors in select committees. In doing so, this thesis argues that understanding beliefs and practices of committee members, chairs and staff are crucial ways to better comprehend the way that scrutiny works in the House of Commons. This PhD finds that scrutiny is contested in a range of ways by a range of actors. In taking actors’ interpretations seriously, this PhD reveals that each actor has their own performance style, which is used to enact beliefs about scrutiny. At its most simple, this PhD argues that scrutiny is pushed and pulled in different (sometimes conflicting) directions by parliamentary actors. There is no such thing as uniform, systematic select committee scrutiny; there exist only dense webs of scrutiny that rely upon committee members, chairs and staff to enact their roles in such ways to be conducive to holding the executive to account. These dense webs of scrutiny affect committee relationships, their ability to question witnesses in select committees, and construct consensus in writing reports. v Acknowledgements This PhD owes its debts to a range of people – these two little sides of A4 do not do their contribution justice. Matthew Flinders, Felicity Matthews and Kate Dommett have been three pillars on which I have relied throughout my four years of doing this PhD. I have drawn on Matt and Kate for support, advice and help ever since I met them in summer 2010. Matt has given me many opportunities, and his supervision has been generous, constructive and unfailing. His detailed feedback, plentiful discussions and challenging comments have ensured that this PhD became much more rigorous than I could have hoped. Kate’s informal advice has been crucial moral support and helped me to build confidence in my research. Over time, I also drew on advice and support from the many people that became part of the Sir Bernard Crick Centre for the Public Understanding of Politics, whose help I relied upon in the final stages of doing this PhD. I’m also grateful for the support from the Political Studies Association’s Parliaments and Legislatures Specialist Group, particularly Cristina Leston-Bandeira and Louise Thompson. Thanks also to the Study of Parliament Group, whose members have provided great insights, feedback and ideas for my research as it reached its final stages. I am also grateful to all other academics and researchers that have taken their time to read and comment on my work over the past four years, including Sarah Childs, Nick Turnbull, Alexandra Meakin, Dan Gover, Tom Healey and many more that I cannot all mention here. Your feedback and ideas have made their way into my research in one way or another. Emma Crewe deserves a vi special mention for her hugely insightful advice on how to undertake fieldwork – the most difficult, yet rewarding, part of my thesis. It goes without saying that, without the support of the House of Commons, this study would not have been possible. In particular, I am thankful for Jessica Mulley, Head of the Scrutiny Unit during my fieldwork, for supporting this project. Her patience, feedback and support has been invaluable to this PhD. It pains me not to be able to directly mention by name and thank the select committee and its members, chair and staff for whom I worked – but they know who they are, and I want to thank them for supporting me in so many large and small ways. I would also like to thank my interviewees for participating in this research project. To all MPs and clerks that have participated and fed into this research in one way or another: it is your candour of thought and your generosity of time that have allowed this thesis to happen. I am grateful to Sarah Cooke and Gemma Bennett for helping me to navigate the Kafkaesque higher education bureaucracy, without whom I would possibly never have completed this PhD. Thanks, too, to the Economic and Social Research Council and the White Rose DTC for their funding to make all of this possible. More generally, I must thank all academics, staff and students at the Department of Politics at Elmfield that have made the environment to study for a PhD so enjoyable and comfortable. In particular, I couldn’t have done this PhD without the support of my friends in the PhD community, including (and in no particular order): Gemma B., Clara S., Irene V., Lucy P., Sara W., Louise R., Dan B., Xavier M., Luca L., Adriana R., Chris K. and Alix D. There are so many more names that I want to mention, but unfortunately I do not have the space here. Outside the PhD Office, I must thank Becky S., Sarah H. and Alice H., whose support as housemates in Sheffield went far further than I could have asked; and Rich S., Dom B., Tom A., Mike B. and Keith A. for welcoming me into their flat in London for three months. And finally, many thanks to my family for all their support. My family were always there for me whenever I needed them. I cannot name them all, but especially thanks to Mama, Dad, Dom, Oma, Nan and Stan. Your love has kept me going. I dedicate this PhD to you. vii List of tables and figures Table 1.1. Select committee core tasks 12 Table 1.2. Timeline of select committee reform 15 Table 1.3. Approaches to the study of Parliament 20 Table 2.1. Bevir and Rhodes’ interpretive approach: concepts 42 Table 2.2. Everyday practices as performances 53 Table 2.3. A framework for analysing select committee scrutiny 55 Table 3.1. Application of interpretive principles 59 Table 3.2. Interviewees 71 Table 3.3. Applying the analytical framework: methods 76 Table 4.1. Analysing committee members 82 Table 4.2. Performance styles in select committees 88 Table 5.1. Analysing committee chairs 112 Table 5.2. Select committee chairs, 2010-15 115 Table 5.3. Catalysts and chieftains 126 Table 6.1. Analysing committee staff 138 Table 6.2. Clerkliness 151 Table 7.1. Inquiry processes 178 Table 7.2. Relationships at different levels of analysis 191 Table 8.1. What does evidence mean? 196 Table 8.2. Most frequent higher education witnesses 205 Table 8.3. Dilemmas facing committees in taking evidence 220 Table 9.1. Themes in select committee scrutiny 227 viii Figure 6.1. The House of Commons administration 140 Figure 8.1. Number of witnesses by committee 201 Figure 8.2. Organisational distribution of witnesses 202 Figure 8.3. Organisational distribution of witnesses by committee 202 Figure 8.4. Government and civil service witnesses 204 Figure 8.5. Non-profit witnesses 204 Figure 8.6. Private sector witnesses 204 Figure 8.7. Higher education witnesses (all witnesses) 205 Figure 8.8. Higher education witnesses (university witnesses only) 205 Figure 8.9. Geographical distribution of witnesses 206 Figure 8.10. Geographical distribution (academic witnesses only) 206 Figure 8.11. Geographical distribution of witnesses in the UK 207 Figure 8.12. Gender balance of witnesses (numbers) 209 Figure 8.13. Gender balance of witnesses (proportion) 209 Figure 8.14. Gender balance of witnesses (organisational breakdown) 209 ix Introduction arliamentary studies has traditionally not engaged with themes of everyday life as a topic to study. It is, justifiably, associated with P ordinariness and normality. This ordinariness is pervasive: from the way we choose to organise our personal and working spaces to the way that we communicate with others both verbally and non-verbally. We do not notice the everyday as in some way politically significant or relevant for analysis precisely because it is perceived to be typical, routine, settled, established, standard, common – perhaps even boring, unremarkable, mundane. However, as we try to negotiate the world around us, it is important to realise that this ordinariness and this normality that we associate with the everyday is something that we have willed into being. As such, everyday practices are the result of our interpretations about the world, and the choices that we have made as a result (or, indeed, others have made on our behalf (willingly, unwillingly; knowingly, unknowingly)).

Load more