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.

/pdf/committee-hearings-of-the-uk-parliament-who-gives-evidence-ftjk1ymwbx.pdf

Committee Hearings of the UK Parliament: Who gives Evidence and does this Matter?

This article contributes to the literature on parliamentary design in general and the pioneer literature on parliamentary bodies specialized in gender equality in particular. It does so by establishing a frame for the critical assessment of the impacts of such an institutional design. Moreover, by using interviews and data on the behavior of committee members, it demonstrates the advantages of applying a mixed method within a field that has mostly relied on participant interviews. A systematic analysis of the impact of the Danish Committee on Gender Equality shows that although this particular committee has not succeeded in adding the perspective of gender equality to legislation, it has increased parliamentary control with the government. Furthermore, it has enabled much better interaction between parliament and civil society organizations.

/pdf/assessing-the-impact-of-parliamentary-design-the-case-of-the-16v844i2yb.pdf

Assessing the Impact of Parliamentary Design: The Case of the Danish Committee on Gender Equality

Les paradoxes d’une institution militante: La Délégation aux droits des femmes, « affaire de bonnes femmes » ou nouvelle « carte de visite » ?

A partir de l’etude de la Delegation aux droits des femmes de l’Assemblee nationale 2012-2017, cet article analyse les modalites de l’institutionnalisation de la cause des femmes au Parlement sous le double prisme des resistances institutionnelles opposees aux militantes de la cause des femmes et des usages strategiques de la Delegation par ses membres. La mise en evidence de trois postures ideales-typiques des deputes de la Delegation (les inactifs.ves, des intermittentes, des porte-parole) permet de penser les conditions de ses usages strategiques.

Les paradoxes d’une institution militante

Parliamentary Women's Delegations were set up in France in 1999 to introduce gender mainstreaming in legislation. This preliminary study tests their ability to open parliamentary hearings to women and civil society ‘to make women's voices heard in legislation’. It demonstrates that the Delegation does indeed consult significantly more women and women's groups than the legislative committees of the National Assembly and sheds light on how this input can be channelled into the legislative process. It sets out a framework for more extensive comparative analysis of gendered participation in parliamentary hearings in France and in other legislatures with dedicated gender-equality bodies, and asks how such bodies influence the balance between bottom-up participative-democratic and top-down expert-bureaucratic modes of operation.

Manda Green

Papers

The Parliamentary Women's Delegation in France: Making Women's Voices Heard?