House of Commons Public Bill Committees and Oral Evidence: A Half-Step Forward?

IF 1.3 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Parliamentary Affairs Pub Date : 2022-06-16 DOI:10.1093/pa/gsac013
H. Bochel
{"title":"House of Commons Public Bill Committees and Oral Evidence: A Half-Step Forward?","authors":"H. Bochel","doi":"10.1093/pa/gsac013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The introduction of evidence sessions for House of Commons public bill committees in 2007, including oral evidence from witnesses, was widely seen as a potentially significant improvement in informing scrutiny of legislation. Drawing on interviews with officials and witnesses, and on data gathered from Hansard for the 2017–2019 session, this article examines the selection and some of the characteristics of witnesses, witnesses’ views of the process and how oral evidence is used in subsequent scrutiny of the legislation. While recognising that oral evidence does make an important contribution to scrutiny, the article notes that both the process as it currently exists, and the inevitable influence of political factors, mean that the impact of oral evidence on legislation remains very limited.","PeriodicalId":19790,"journal":{"name":"Parliamentary Affairs","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Parliamentary Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsac013","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The introduction of evidence sessions for House of Commons public bill committees in 2007, including oral evidence from witnesses, was widely seen as a potentially significant improvement in informing scrutiny of legislation. Drawing on interviews with officials and witnesses, and on data gathered from Hansard for the 2017–2019 session, this article examines the selection and some of the characteristics of witnesses, witnesses’ views of the process and how oral evidence is used in subsequent scrutiny of the legislation. While recognising that oral evidence does make an important contribution to scrutiny, the article notes that both the process as it currently exists, and the inevitable influence of political factors, mean that the impact of oral evidence on legislation remains very limited.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
下议院公共法案委员会和口头证据:向前迈进了半步?
2007年,英国下议院公共法案委员会引入了证据会议,包括证人的口头证据,这被广泛视为在告知立法审查方面的潜在重大改进。根据对官员和证人的采访,以及从2017-2019年会议记录中收集的数据,本文探讨了证人的选择和一些特征,证人对这一过程的看法,以及如何在随后的立法审查中使用口头证据。虽然承认口头证据确实对审查作出了重要贡献,但文章指出,目前存在的这一过程以及政治因素的不可避免的影响都意味着口头证据对立法的影响仍然非常有限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Parliamentary Affairs
Parliamentary Affairs POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
8.30%
发文量
26
期刊介绍: Parliamentary Affairs is an established, peer-reviewed academic quarterly covering all the aspects of government and politics directly or indirectly connected with Parliament and parliamentary systems in Britain and throughout the world. The journal is published in partnership with the Hansard Society. The Society was created to promote parliamentary democracy throughout the world, a theme which is reflected in the pages of Parliamentary Affairs.
期刊最新文献
Cleaning Up UK Politics: What Would Better Lobbying Regulation Look Like? Big Little Election Lies: Cynical and Credulous Evaluations of Electoral Fraud Paralysed Governments: How Political Constraints Elicit Cabinet Termination What Do We Call an ‘MP’? On Categories of Thought in the Anthropology of Parliaments Beyond Institutional Adaptation: Legislative Europeanisation and Parliamentary Attention to the EU in the Hungarian Parliament
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1