Search

Between 2017 and 2020 a comprehensive review of the framework of investigatory scrutiny committees in the House of Lords was undertaken. This process led to a far-reaching set of recommendations and reforms. Although carefully couched in the language of evolutionary change, this article argues that these reforms possess a transformational dynamic that is difficult to deny. The challenge, however, is likely to emerge from the existence of a largely hidden disjuncture between the accountability ambitions embedded within this reform agenda and the institutional, constitutional and political matrixes within which the 'new' committee system in the Lords is expected to operate. A three-dimensional lens emphasising inter-, intra-, and extra-institutional dimensions is utilised to expose and dissect the existence of potential disjuncture and, through this, offers a 'review of the review' informed by broader literatures on legislative organisation and policy analysis that will be of interest to both practitioners and scholars. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two separate, but inter-linked, dilemmas have highlighted the importance of design-led thinking. First, the crumbling physical fabric of the Palace of Westminster has prompted a multi-billion rebuilding project, which will require the parliamentary studies specialism to engage with questions of design, space, and architecture. Separately, political science more generally has been challenged to utilize the insights of design-thinking and design-practice: a challenge to which it is culturally and methodological ill-equipped. This article considers what a design-led approach to political science looks like in theory, and in practice, in the case study of the Restoration and Renewal of the Palace of Westminster. This represents a first attempt at how such a fusion could be beneficial for both politics as theory and politics as practice. The main conclusion is that although design-orientated political science is not a panacea for the challenges of modern democratic governance – in intellectual or practical terms – it does appear to offer significant potential in terms of theoretically-informed but solution focused research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite concerns regarding its practical utility the convention of individual ministerial responsibility remains central to any analysis of the British constitution. The convention forms the ‘buckle’ in the relationship between parliament and the executive. It is widely acknowledged that throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the executive has gained the ascendancy in this relationship. Consequently, the enduring centrality of the convention rests not in its use by parliament as a tool with which to scrutinise the executive but, conversely, as a tool used by the executive to dismiss reform proposals that threaten its dominant position. This article reviews the way in which British government developed and particularly how this evolution gave primacy to a convention that contained mutually supportive yet contradictory strands. It then demonstrates the core argument of this article by examining two case studies ‐the introduction of freedom of information legislation and the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights. The article concludes by considering the wider implications of the continuing centrality of ministerial responsibility and the paradoxes and challenges it presents. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]