Search

In what ways do practices, relationships and interpretations of scrutiny affect accountability relationships in legislatures? This article examines this question through a detailed study of select committees in the UK House of Commons. Drawing on a number of qualitative methods, this article argues that we can understand accountability in the House of Commons more effectively if we examine the underlying beliefs and practices about scrutiny by MPs and parliamentary officials. This article makes an important contribution in helping scholars to better understand how committees behave and from where they derive their authority. These affect the priorities of committee-based accountability, the style and focus of committee hearings, and the ability of committees to build consensus, with wider implications for the study of accountability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While evidence hearings by House of Commons select committees have received increasing attention by the public and the media in recent years, academic research on this topic has remained rather thin. Drawing on both quantitative and qualitative methods, this article examines this topic. It begins by explaining why evidence is important: (i) it is fundamental to sustain detailed scrutiny; (ii) it builds individual-level and institutional-level expertise; and (iii) the range of evidence gathered is used by committees to engage with the public. The article then presents empirical data of the pool of witnesses on which committees rely, which arguably does not reflect the UK population, which raises important further questions over the representative claims of committees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]