Parliamentary Studies

Task: Select any policy topic of your choice. Focusing on at least one non-legislative scrutiny mechanism, critically analyze how parliament scrutinized this policy topic since 2017.

you must collect data from primary parliamentary sources, and drawn on at least four pieces of high-quality academic literature (per answer) about the relevant weekly topics (beginning with the most important texts from the reading list). And, you should have systematically collected larger amounts of primary data, and/or drawn on a wider variety of high-quality academic texts.

Instructions
For this task you are required to write an analysis of how parliament scrutinized a policy topic of your choice. You should focus on one or more non-legislative scrutiny mechanism (e.g. debates, questions, EDMs), but you must not look at the formal scrutiny of legislation (i.e. in the legislative process).
You must draw both on primary sources (including parliamentary records) and secondary sources (including relevant academic publications). While you may include some description, you should keep this brief. Most of the task should focus on critically analyzing how parliament scrutinized the policy topic, for example by critically engaging with the academic literature.
Non-legislative scrutiny
For the purposes of this assignment, ‘non-legislative’ means ‘not on legislation’. In other words, you should not look at the formal scrutiny of bills (including private members’ bills) or secondary legislation. This means you should not focus on debates that form part of the legislative process on a bill.

Selecting your policy issue
You can select any policy topic of your choice: the idea is for you to pick something that interests you. It could be something very specific (e.g. the cladding crisis) or something broader (e.g. education policy). Obviously, it must be something that falls within the responsibility of the Westminster parliament. Before you commit to your policy issue, check that there is enough parliamentary material available through the parliament website for you to draw on.
Examples of issues selected by students in previous years include: Universal Credit; counter-terrorism; university tuition fees during the pandemic; education; climate change; Heathrow expansion; reform of the criminal justice system; benefits sanctions; military action in Syria; Brexit; reproductive health; restrictions on sport during the pandemic; UK government foreign policy towards Bangladesh; LGBTQ+ rights.
To find scrutiny activity, you may find it helpful to first search the parliament website. Good first ports of call are Hansard and the pages of select committees.
Scope of analysis
It is essential that your assignment critically analyses how parliament scrutinized the policy topic. In other words, don’t just describe what happened, but use the primary source material to critically engage with the academic literature (and/or vice versa).
The task instructions have been worded deliberately broadly to give you flexibility in what angle to focus on in your analysis. If you need some inspiration, the following provides some (non-exhaustive) suggestions of how you could focus your analysis:
• How effective was parliament’s scrutiny in achieving success (however defined)?
• How effective was parliament’s scrutiny in representing various concerns or interests?
• How did the effectiveness of the scrutiny observed compare to similar mechanisms studied in the academic literature?
• How did the effectiveness of parliament’s scrutiny differ between two specific non-legislative scrutiny mechanisms?
It is not essential for your assignment to cover every form of scrutiny on the policy topic. It is fine for you to restrict your analysis to a particular period, mechanism and/or chamber. Whatever you do, make sure you very briefly explain your focus, and obviously the narrower your focus the more detail you will go into.
You need to demonstrate that you can conduct independent primary research into parliament and write up your findings concisely.
Primary and secondary sources
All three answers must draw on a mix of primary and secondary source material. The goal is to collect a good amount of primary data, and to apply the academic literature to help you to analyze it.
For primary sources, you should mainly use parliamentary records and documents. Examples of sources you might usefully draw on are: parliamentary debates (from Hansard); data on parliamentary voting behavior; amendment papers and bills (from the relevant bill page on the parliament website); select committee reports; select committee evidence session transcripts; e-petitions; the Early Day Motions database; plus MPs’ websites or social media accounts. This list is illustrative not exhaustive.
You will find a list of links to different types of parliamentary source in the ‘finding parliamentary sources’ topic on QM Plus. To receive full credit for your primary research, you should briefly explain what you did to generate your findings (usually a couple of sentences will be sufficient, depending on what you did).
You are also encouraged to use comments from the visiting speakers (but this is not instead of the parliamentary sources above). You are encouraged to ask them questions that you can use in your assignments. Aside from visiting speakers, however, you should only use publicly available data: you must not contact any MPs or peers (or other individuals).
For secondary sources, you must make use of academic texts. You should start with the reading list from the ones I have provided, although this is not exhaustive and credit will be given for evidence of wider reading.
Analyzing primary data (including using secondary sources)
You should use existing academic sources to help you analyze the primary data. You might use academic sources to help you interpret the data, for example by using academic theories to help you to interpret the primary records you analyze. You might also use your primary findings to critically engage with arguments from the literature. One approach would be to replicate the methods in an existing academic study (obviously on a much smaller scale), and then compare your findings to this existing study. Try to reflect on the bigger picture of what your findings tell us.
When collecting data, think about how representative it is. It is more likely to be reliable if you look at (say) every contributor to a long debate, rather than picking out a few speeches you liked the look of.
When analyzing your data, you may find it helpful to use Excel. For example, if you were looking at parliamentary questions, you might record in Excel every question asked during a particular session of departmental questions, and then ‘code’ each question for different variables (e.g. whether helpful/unhelpful questions, the gender of the MP, etc).

Structure and presentation
There is no specific structure required. Each answer will need a brief introduction and conclusion (but you can keep them both short). You might find it helpful to include sub-headings, although these are not a substitute for fluency. Make sure that sub-sections of text still flow together, always use fluent prose, and do not use bullet points.
Where appropriate, you are encouraged to present information in the form of tables and graphs. Make sure these are as clear and comprehensible as possible for your reader (think about whether someone unfamiliar with your research would understand it). You can use Excel to help you create these. Each such table or figure requires a number, a short title, and a clear explanation in the text. In addition, each requires explanation and discussion – rather than simply being a free-standing addition. Source(s) used in the construction of tables and figures should be placed directly underneath. You should not cut and paste tables or figures in from other sources: always construct your own (this is because we cannot give you credit for someone else’s work, and you need to demonstrate that you can collect and analyze primary data yourself).
The word limit includes all material (including any tables) within the body of the answer itself. Your bibliography, and any appendices at the end, are excluded from the word limit. Appendices are not required, but can be used sparingly to present material that you think we might like to look at but which is not required for the reader to understand your work (e.g. further detail on your classification scheme or sources, or more detailed tables of results).
Interpreting the marking criteria
For these assignments, you should read the standard marking criteria in conjunction with the following clarifications.
• Addressing the task. For a good mark, you must have written a work that addresses the task requirements. It must draw on both primary and secondary source materials relating to the specified weekly topics. For a higher mark, the work should be fully focused on the task, conducted to a high standard, and analytical throughout.
• Research. The research component is especially important for this assignment. For a good mark, you must have collected data from primary parliamentary sources, and drawn on at least four pieces of high-quality academic literature (per answer) about the relevant weekly topics (beginning with the most important texts from the reading list). For a higher mark, you should have systematically collected larger amounts of primary data, and/or drawn on a wider variety of high-quality academic texts. To receive full credit for your research, you should briefly explain what you did to generate your findings. You may also receive credit for using material from the trip and visiting speakers.
• Knowledge and Understanding. For a good mark, you must demonstrate familiarity with relevant empirical knowledge (e.g. of relevant parliamentary processes, mechanisms and behaviors) and of arguments drawn from the academic literature (relating to the relevant weekly topics). For a higher mark, you should show a sound grasp of both empirical and theoretical knowledge.
• Quality of Argument. For a good mark, you should analyze primary data you have collected, using academic sources to arrive at conclusions. For a higher mark, your conclusions should be well reasoned, should critically engage with debates from the readings (e.g. using your primary data to support or critique arguments from the literature), and should show awareness of how they relate to each other and to wider contexts (e.g. parliament’s overall functions and operation).
• Structure. Each answer should have a clear structure, including an introduction and conclusion. You should clearly signpost the main sections and the connections between them.
• Communication and Presentation. Work must be presented to a high standard. You are encouraged to present findings in tables and graphs, which should include a clear number, title, source, and discussion in the text. Always use fluent prose and do not use bullet points.
• Representation of sources. Each answer must include appropriate references, including a bibliography.
Resources:
Bates, Stephen R., Peter Kerr, Christopher Byrne and Liam Stanley (2014) ‘Questions to the Prime Minister: A Comparative Study of PMQs from Thatcher to Cameron’, Parliamentary Affairs 67(2): 253-280.
Bates, Stephen, Peter Kerr and Ruxandra Serban (2018) ‘Questioning the Government’, in Cristina Leston-Bandeira and Louise Thompson (eds.) Exploring Parliament (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 174-186.
Norton, Philip (2013) Parliament in British Politics, 2nd edition (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan), chapter 6 (focus on pages 111-125 and 139-147).

Bennister, Mark and Phil Larkin (2018) ‘Accountability in Parliament’, in Cristina Leston-Bandeira and Louise Thompson (eds.) Exploring Parliament (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 143-151.
Milner, Patrick (2018) ‘Scrutiny by the House of Lords’, in Cristina Leston-Bandeira and Louise Thompson (eds.) Exploring Parliament (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 196-206.
Besly, Nicolas and Tom Goldsmith (2023) How Parliament Works, 9th edition (London: Routledge), chapters 8 and 9.

Parliamentary Questions (generally)
Bird, Karen (2005) ‘Gendering Parliamentary Questions’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations 7(3): 353-370.
Cole, Michael (1999) ‘Accountability and Quasi-Government: The Role of Parliamentary Questions’, Journal of Legislative Studies 5(1): 77-101.
Kellermann, Michael (2016) ‘Electoral Vulnerability, Constituency Focus, and Parliamentary Questions in the House of Commons’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations 18(1): 90-106.
Kolpinskaya, Ekaterina (2017) ‘Substantive Religious Representation in the UK Parliament: Examining Parliamentary Questions for Written Answers, 1997–2012’, Parliamentary Affairs 70(1): 111-131.
Martin, Shane (2011) ‘Parliamentary Questions, the Behavior of Legislators, and the Function of Legislatures: An Introduction’, Journal of Legislative Studies 17(3): 259-270. [The entire issue of this journal is also on PQs in comparative perspective.]
Saalfeld, Thomas (2011) ‘Parliamentary Questions as Instruments of Substantive Representation: Visible Minorities in the UK House of Commons, 2005-10’, Journal of Legislative Studies 17(3): 271-289.
Salmond, Rob (2014) ‘Parliamentary Question Times: How Legislative Accountability Mechanisms Affect Mass Political Engagement’, Journal of Legislative Studies 20(3): 321-341.

Prime Minister’s Questions
Bates, Stephen Holden and Alison Sealey (2019) ‘Representing Women, Women Representing: Backbenchers’ Questions During Prime Minister’s Questions, 1979-2010’, European Journal of Politics and Gender 2(2): 237-256.
Bevan, Shaun and Peter John (2016) ‘Policy Representation by Party Leaders and Followers: What Drives UK Prime Minister’s Questions?’, Government and Opposition 51(1): 59-83.
Bull, Peter and Pam Wells (2012) ‘Adversarial Discourse in Prime Minister’s Questions’, Journal of Language and Social Psychology 31(1): 30-48.
Bull, Peter and Will Strawson (2020) ‘Can’t Answer? Won’t Answer? An Analysis of Equivocal Responses by Theresa May in Prime Minister’s Questions’, Parliamentary Studies 73(2): 429-449.
Hansard Society (2014) Tuned In or Turned Off? Public Attitudes to Prime Minister’s Questions (London: Hansard Society) [Available online at https://assets.ctfassets.net/u1rlvvbs33ri/v5KOp60C6Os0y2MYiMYyg/da0ce4465c346bb592fde93de3550b3c/Publication__Tuned-in-or-Turned-off-Public-attitudes-to-PMQs.pdf]
Hazarika, Ayesha and Tom Hamilton (2018) Punch & Judy Politics: An Insiders’ Guide to Prime Minister’s Questions(London: Biteback).
Lovenduski, Joni (2012) ‘Prime Minister’s Questions as Political Ritual’, British Politics 7(4): 314-340.
Ludwicki-Ziegler, Sebastian and Mark Shephard (2023) ‘”New politics”, crisis effects and format effects: A comparative study of hostility and positivity in exchanges between leaders during UK Prime Minister’s questions and Scottish and Welsh First Minister’s questions’, The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, OnlineFirst, doi: 10.1177/13691481231199890.
Sealey, Alison and Stephen Bates (2016) ‘Prime Ministerial Self-Reported Actions in Prime Minister’s Questions 1979–2010: A Corpus-Assisted Analysis’, Journal of Pragmatics 104: 18-31.
Serban, Ruxandra (2023) ‘Conflictual Behavior in Legislatures: Exploring and Explaining Adversarial Remarks in Oral Questions to Prime Ministers’, British Journal of Politics and International Relations, early access version. [Note: This is a comparative piece that includes the UK.]
Shephard, Mark and Daniel Braby (2020) ‘Questions to the PM Versus Questions by the PM: An Examination of the State and Nature of ‘Punch and Judy’ Politics During PMQs at Westminster’, Journal of Legislative Studies 26(1): 27-46.
Waddle, Maurice, Peter Bull and Jan R. Böhnke (2019) ‘“He Is Just the Nowhere Man of British Politics”: Personal Attacks in Prime Minister’s Questions’, Journal of Language and Social Psychology 38(1): 61-84.
Waddle, Maurice and Peter Bull (2020) ‘Curbing Their Antagonism: Topics Associated with a Reduction in Personal Attacks at Prime Minister’s Questions’, Parliamentary Affairs 73(3): 543-564.
Williams, Blair E. (2021) ‘A Tale of Two Women: A Comparative Gendered Media Analysis of UK Prime Ministers Margaret Thatcher and Theresa May’, Parliamentary Affairs 74(2): 398-420.

Backbench Business
Backbench Business Committee (2015) Work of the Committee in the 2010-2015 Parliament, first special report of 2014-15, HC 1106 (London: The Stationery Office). [Available online at https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmbackben/1106/1106.pdf]
Foster, David H. (2015) ‘Going “Where Angels Fear to Tread”: How Effective was the Backbench Business Committee in the 2010-2012 Parliamentary Session?’, Parliamentary Affairs 68(1): 116-134.
Russell, Meg (2011) ‘Never Allow a Crisis to Go to Waste. The Wright Reforms to Strengthen the House of Commons’, Parliamentary Affairs 64(4): 612-633.
Russell, Meg and Akash Paun (2007) The House Rules? International Lessons for Enhancing the Autonomy of the House of Commons (London: Constitution Unit). [Available online at https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/sites/constitution-unit/files/142_0.pdf.]
Shephard, Mark and Jack Simson Caird (2018) ‘The Role of a Backbench MP’, in Cristina Leston-Bandeira and Louise Thompson (eds.) Exploring Parliament (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 187-195.

Opposition Day debates
Fessey, Jean and Sarah Priddy (2020) ‘Commons Opposition Day Debates Since 1992’, SN06315 (London: House of Commons Library). [Available online at https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06315/.]

Early Day Motions
Childs, Sarah and Julie Withey (2004) ‘Women Representatives Acting for Women: Sex and the Signing of Early Day Motions in the 1997 British Parliament’, Political Studies 52(3): 552-564.
Kellermann, Michael (2012) ‘Estimating Ideal Points in the British House of Commons Using Early Day Motions’, American Political Science Review 56(3): 757-771.
Kellermann, Michael (2013) ‘Sponsoring Early Day Motions in the British House of Commons as a Response to Electoral Vulnerability’, Political Science Research and Methods 1(2): 263-280.
Kolpinskaya, Ekaterina (2016) ‘Does Religion Count for Religious Parliamentary Representation? Evidence from Early Day Motions’, Journal of Legislative Studies 22(1): 129-152.

Other
Cobb, Louise (2009) ‘Adding Value to an Arena Legislature? A Preliminary Examination of Topical Debates in the British House of Commons’, Journal of Legislative Studies 15(4): 535-546.
Worthy, Benjamin (2014) ‘A Powerful Weapon in the Right Hands? How Members of Parliament Have Used Freedom of Information in the UK’, Parliamentary Affairs 67(4): 783-803.
Kelso, Alexandra (2018) ‘Select Committees’, in Cristina Leston-Bandeira and Louise Thompson (eds.) Exploring Parliament (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 163-173.
Benton, Meghan and Meg Russell (2013) ‘Assessing the Impact of Parliamentary Oversight Committees: The Select Committees in the British House of Commons’, Parliamentary Affairs 66(4): 772-798.

Geddes, Marc (2017) ‘Committee Hearings of the UK Parliament: Who Gives Evidence and Does This Matter?’, Parliamentary Affairs 71(2): 283-304.
Lynch, Philip and Richard Whitaker (2019) ‘Select Committees and Brexit: Parliamentary Influence in a Divisive Policy Area’, Parliamentary Affairs 72(4): 923-944.
Norton, Philip (2013) Parliament in British Politics, 2nd edition (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan), 126-136.
Besly, Nicolas and Tom Goldsmith (2023) How Parliament Works, 9th edition (London: Routledge), chapter 10.
Liaison Committee (2012) Select Committee Effectiveness, Resources and Powers, second report of 2012-13 session, HC 697 (London: The Stationery Office). [Available online at https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmliaisn/697/697.pdf].

Operation and activities
Bates, Stephen, Mark Goodwin and Stephen McKay (2017) ‘Do UK MPs engage more with Select Committees since the Wright Reforms? An Interrupted Time Series Analysis, 1979–2016’, Parliamentary Affairs 70(4): 780-800.
Bochel, Hugh, Andrew Defty and Jane Kirkpatrick (2015) ‘“New Mechanisms of Independent Accountability”: Select Committees and the Parliamentary Scrutiny of the Intelligence Services’, Parliamentary Affairs 68(2): 314-331.
Brazier, Alex and Ruth Fox (2011) ‘Reviewing Select Committee Task and Modes of Operation’, Parliamentary Affairs 64(2): 354-369.
Crewe, Emma and Nicholas Sarra (2019) ‘Chairing UK Select Committees: Walking Between Friends and Foes’, Parliamentary Affairs 72(4): 841-859.
Geddes, Marc (2019) ‘Performing Scrutiny along the Committee Corridor of the UK House of Commons’, Parliamentary Affairs 72(4): 821-840.
Kelso, Alexandra (2016) ‘Political Leadership in Parliament: The Role of Select Committee Chairs in the UK House of Commons’, Politics and Governance 4(2): 115-126.
Maer, Lucinda (2019) ‘Select Committee Reform: Shifting the Balance and Pushing the Boundaries’, Parliamentary Affairs 72(4): 761-778.
Marsh, Ian (2016) ‘The Commons Select Committee System in the 2015-20 Parliament’, Political Quarterly 87(1): 96-103.
McKay, Stephen, Mark Goodwin and Stephen Bates (2019) ‘A Means to an End and an End in Itself: Select Committee Membership, Parliamentary Roles and Parliamentary Careers, 1979–Present’, Parliamentary Affairs 72(4): 799-820.
Mellows-Facer, Andrew, Chloe Challender and Paul Evans (2019) ‘Select Committees: Agents of Change’, Parliamentary Affairs 72(4): 903-922.
Norton, Philip (2019) ‘Departmental Select Committees: The Reform of the Century?’, Parliamentary Affairs 72(4): 727-741.
Power, Greg (2007) ‘The Politics of Parliamentary Reform: Lessons from the House of Commons (2001-2005)’, Parliamentary Affairs 60(3): 492-509.
Prescott, Craig (2019) ‘Select Committees: Understanding and Regulating the Emergence of the “Topical Inquiry”’, Parliamentary Affairs 72(4): 879-902.

Influence and impact
Fisher, Lucy (2015) ‘The Growing Power and Autonomy of House of Commons Select Committees: Causes and Effects’, The Political Quarterly 86(3): 419-426.
Gaines, Brian J., Mark Goodwin, Stephen Holden Bates and Gisela Sin (2019) ‘A Bouncy House? UK Select Committee Newsworthiness, 2005–18’, Journal of Legislative Studies 25(3): 409-433.
Hindmoor, Andrew, Phil Larkin and Andrew Kennon (2009) ‘Assessing the Influence of Select Committees in the UK: The Education and Skills Committee, 1997-2005’, Journal of Legislative Studies 15(1): 71-89.
Kubala, Marek (2011) ‘Select Committees in the House of Commons and the Media’, Parliamentary Affairs 64(2): 694-713.
Monk, David (2010) ‘A Framework for Evaluating the Performance of Committees in Westminster Parliaments’, Journal of Legislative Studies 16(1): 1-13.
Russell, Meg and Meghan Benton (2011) Selective Influence: The Policy Impact of House of Commons Select Committees(London: Constitution Unit). [Available online at https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/sites/constitution-unit/files/153.pdf.]
Russell, Meg and Daniel Gover (2017) Legislation at Westminster: Parliamentary Actors and Influence in the Making of British Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press), chapter 8.
Smookler, Jennifer (2006) ‘Making a Difference? The Effectiveness of Pre-Legislative Scrutiny’, Parliamentary Affairs59(3): 522-535.
White, Hannah (2015) Select Committees Under Scrutiny: The Impact of Parliamentary Inquiries on Government(London: Institute for Government). [Available online at https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/Under%20scrutiny%20final.pdf.]

Evidence sessions
Beswick, Danielle and Stephen Elstub (2019) ‘Between Diversity, Representation and ‘Best Evidence’: Rethinking Select Committee Evidence-Gathering Practices’, Parliamentary Affairs 72(4): 945-964.
Defty, Andrew and Hannah White (2018) ‘Evidence from Outside’, in Cristina Leston-Bandeira and Louise Thompson (eds.) Exploring Parliament (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 152-162.
Geddes, Marc (2019) Dramas at Westminster: Select Committees and the Quest for Accountability (Manchester: Manchester University Press).
Geddes, Marc (2021) ‘The Webs of Belief around ‘Evidence’ in Legislatures: The case of select committees in the UK House of Commons’, Public Administration, 99(1): 40-54.