THE UNIVERSITY OF HULL Do Committees Make a Difference? An Examination of the Viscosity of Legislative Committees in the British House of Commons being a Thesis submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the University of Hull by Louise Thompson, BA (Hons), MA May 2013 Acknowledgements The submission of this thesis brings my time as a student in the Department of Politics and International Studies to an end. The ten years I have spent as a student here have been the very happiest and the most enjoyable. There was only ever one university at which I wanted to study, hence why I stayed so long. I have always found the department and its staff to be extremely warm, welcoming and supportive. I will always look back on these years in the department with much affection and will be incredibly sad to leave. Whilst I owe a debt of gratitude to all of the academic and administrative staff for making my time here so memorable; very special thanks must go to two people in particular. Firstly, to Professor the Lord Norton of Louth. From my very first day as an undergraduate student, through my undergraduate dissertation, a Master’s degree and now the submission of this thesis he has acted as my academic supervisor. I therefore thank him for a decade of advice and guidance. His supervision and counsel in preparing this thesis has been invaluable and has kept me on the right path whenever I have started to wander. Secondly to Dr Cristina Leston-Bandeira; my supervisor, mentor and friend, for her never ending supply of advice and words of wisdom. She has unhesitatingly offered a listening ear when I have needed it the most. Without her I would not have made the transition from undergraduate student to fledgling academic. I will never be able to put into words how grateful I am for the very many precious hours of her time that she has given me. As an incredible lecturer, supervisor and busy mum, she will always be the very model of the academic that I aspire to be. It is not possible to complete a PhD without the support of those closest to you. My utmost thanks must go to my husband John for sacrificing a job and career that he cherished to permit me to pursue my dreams of a doctorate. Without his constant love, support and encouragement this thesis would not have been written. Finally, thanks must go to our much loved son Percy. Not only did he provide many, many hours in the middle of the night during which to contemplate my research, he gave me the extra motivation I needed to submit this thesis on time. I apologise to him for not being there as often as I should have; for the late nights and very early mornings and the special moments that I was not there to see. I hope that one day I will make him very proud. I must additionally thank the Economic and Social Research Council for providing the studentship which made this research possible and my good friends Dr Dominic Welburn, Dr Sameera Khalfey and Dr Liqin Wang for all of their support and encouragement along the way. 2 Table of Contents List of Tables 6 Table of Figures 7 Abstract 8 1.Introduction 9 The Functions of Bill Committees 11 Research Aims 14 Analytical Framework 15 Hypotheses 24 Structure of the Thesis 26 2. Sample and Methodology 29 Quantitative Sample 29 Qualitative Sample 33 Outputs: Measuring the impact of bill committees 35 Input Machinery: The variables which may affect the viscosity of bill committees 42 3. Literature Review 52 The Decisional Impact of a Legislature 52 Placing a value on legislative output 54 Empirical Studies of Legislative Committees in the UK 56 The ‘Milder Influence’ of Legislative Committees 67 Committee Output as the Dependent Variable 68 4. Overview of Bill Committees 2000-2010 70 An Increased Workload for Bill Committees 70 Attendance at Committee Sittings 72 What Lies Behind these Changes? 74 Potential for Viscosity in Committees 79 5. Measuring the Viscosity of Bill Committees: Formal Committee Output 81 Proportion of Bills Receiving Amendments 81 Indicators of Legislative Viscosity 2000-2010 84 Formal Amendments and Legislative Viscosity: The Hunting Bill - A Less Compliant Committee 91 Explaining the Low Viscosity in Committee 93 Conclusion 98 3 6. Measuring the Viscosity of Bill Committees: Milder Influences 99 Defining the Less Visible Indicators of Viscosity 99 Ministerial Undertakings in Committee 101 The Importance of Report Stage for Legislative Viscosity 105 Case Study of Committee Viscosity: NHS Redress [HL] Bill 115 Why is Committee Viscosity so much more apparent at Report Stage? 118 Adaptation of Parliamentary Behaviour to Maximise Policy Impact 121 Conclusion 123 7. Specialisation and Legislative Viscosity 125 Measuring Specialisation 125 Specialisation in Bill Committees 126 Specialisation and Viscosity 135 Case Study of Specialisation and Viscosity: The Housing and Regeneration Bill Committee 150 Members with No Specialisation 153 Conclusion 154 8. The Impact of Evidence Taking 156 The Introduction of Evidence Taking 156 Evidence Taking in Practice 159 The Potential for Oral Evidence to Enhance Committee Viscosity 160 Assessing Bill Committee Viscosity: Some Anecdotal Evidence 163 Measuring Public Bill Committee Viscosity: Number of Amendments Tabled 167 Measuring Public Bill Committee Viscosity: Success of Formal Amendments 168 Measuring Public Bill Committee Viscosity: Milder Constraints 170 Explaining Greater Viscosity: Behavioural Changes in Evidence Taking Committees 174 Probing Amendments in Committee 178 Case Study of Viscosity in an Evidence Taking Committee: The Health and Social Care Bill (2007-08) 180 Conclusion 187 9. Conclusion 188 Findings Grounded in a Strongly Empirical Study 188 Contribution to the Field of Legislative Studies 189 The Viscosity of Bill Committees in the House of Commons 191 Maximising Committee Impact 194 Areas for further research 196 Conclusion 199 4 Bibliography 200 Appendices 210 Appendix 1: Indicators of Viscosity in Bill Committees 209 Appendix 2: Sample of Government Bills 210 Appendix 3: Example of Coding Frame for Committee Amendments 214 Appendix 4: Sample of Public Bill Committees 2007-2010 215 Appendix 5: Classification of Amendments 217 Appendix 6: Research Interviews Undertaken 219 Appendix 7: Time Spent in Bill Committees 2000-2010 220 Appendix 8: Attendance of Individual Members at Bill Committees 221 Appendix 9: Reasons for Absence from Bill Committees 222 Appendix 10: Bills Reported with Non Government Amendments 224 Appendix 11: Successful Meetings with Government Ministers before Report Stage 225 Appendix 12: Successful Government Amendments at Report Stage which have been discussed in committee but on which no undertaking was given 231 Appendix 13: Changes made during Report Stage of the NHS Redress [HL] Bill as a Result of Committee Scrutiny 232 Appendix 14: Evidence Submitted to the Health and Social Care Bill Committee 234 Appendix 15: Government Amendments to be made in the House of Lords 235 Appendix 16: Specialisation in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill Committee (2006-07 Session) 238 Appendix 17: Specialisation in Committees with Successful Amendments 239 Appendix 18: Specialisation and Successful Non Government Amendments (Upper and Lower Quartiles) 240 Appendix 19: Specialisation of Members Moving Successful Amendments in Committee 241 Appendix 20: Levels of Association between the Specialisation of Backbenchers and Ministerial Undertakings 243 Appendix 21: Recommendations for Evidence Taking Powers in Written Evidence Submitted to the Modernisation Committee (2006) 250 Appendix 22: Non Government Amendments Tabled in Bill Committees 251 5 List of Tables Table 1. The Milder Influence of Bill Committees ...................................................................................... 36 Table 2. Measurement of Specialisation.......................................................................................................... 46 Table 3. Amendments Moved or Discussed in Committee .................................................................... 72 Table 4. Bills Amended in Committee by Session ...................................................................................... 82 Table 5. Bills Receiving the Greatest Number of Amendments in Committee ............................ 83 Table 6. Bills Leaving Committee with No Amendments 2000-2010 .............................................. 83 Table 7. Successful Government Amendments by Session.................................................................... 84 Table 8. Unsuccessful Government Amendments ...................................................................................... 87 Table 9. Success of Non Government Amendments by Session .......................................................... 88 Table 10. Bills with the Highest Frequency of Successful Non Government Amendments.. 89 Table 11. Successful Government Amendments ......................................................................................... 89 Table 12. Substantiveness of Amendments Passed in Committee .................................................... 90 Table 13. Substantial Amendments Passed in the Hunting Bill Committee (2002-03).......... 93 Table 14. Ministerial Undertakings in Bill Committees 2000-2010 .............................................. 101 Table 15. Changes Made to Government Bills through Other Means ........................................... 102 Table 16. Indicators of Viscosity in NHS Redress [HL] Bill Committee ......................................