目錄 |
| List of Figures | x |
| List of Tables | xi |
| Preface and Acknowledgements | xii |
1. | Introduction | 1 |
| Discredited scrutiny | 2 |
| Understudied and overshadowed | 3 |
| Why should we care about committee work? | 6 |
| Aims and structure of this book | 7 |
2. | The Role and Function of Bill Committees | 10 |
| Committees and the legislative process | 11 |
| Moving upstairs | 15 |
| Purpose | 16 |
| Sittings and membership | 16 |
| Committee procedure | 19 |
| Programming | 23 |
| Evidence taking | 25 |
| Beyond scrutiny | 27 |
| Limitations and opportunities | 29 |
3. | The History and Development of Bill Committees | 31 |
| Gladstone introduces standing committees | 32 |
| A watershed moment | 34 |
| Select committees and Special Standing Committees | 36 |
| Attempts at programming | 37 |
| Post-1997 reforms | 38 |
| The 2006 reforms | 39 |
| An end to standing committees | 40 |
| Introduction of evidence taking | 41 |
| Public reading stage | 43 |
| From efficient to effective committees? | 44 |
4. | Measuring Committee Impact | 45 |
| Measuring parliamentary impact | 46 |
| The viscosity of the process | 47 |
| Measuring committee impact | 49 |
| Formal indicators of viscosity in committee | 50 |
| How many bills are amended? | 52 |
| How many amendments are made? | 53 |
| Success of government amendments | 53 |
| Government defeats in committee | 55 |
| Success of non-government amendments | 57 |
| What do amendments actually change? | 59 |
| The Hunting Bill 2002--03 | 61 |
| Explaining low viscosity in bill committees | 64 |
| Strong committee discipline | 64 |
| Ministerial reluctance to accept amendments | 66 |
| Alternative means of constraint | 67 |
| Overwhelming compliance | 67 |
5. | The Other Side of Committee Work | 69 |
| Indicators of viscosity | 69 |
| Indicators at committee stage | 70 |
| Changes made elsewhere | 71 |
| Commitments to reconsider amendments | 71 |
| Commitments to table amendments at report stage | 71 |
| Compromises | 71 |
| Indicators at report stage | 72 |
| Ministerial undertakings in committee | 73 |
| Between committee stage and report | 75 |
| Committee influence at report stage | 80 |
| The content of report stage amendments | 81 |
| Other changes at report stage | 83 |
| NHS Redress [HL] Bill | 84 |
| Why is committee impact greater at report stage? | 86 |
| Maximising policy impact | 89 |
| Committee impact in the House of Lords | 91 |
| The full picture of committee scrutiny | 92 |
6. | Engaging with Experts | 94 |
| Initial impressions | 94 |
| Who gives evidence? | 97 |
| A scrutiny weapon | 100 |
| Informing members | 101 |
| Probing amendments | 102 |
| Use of evidence in committee | 103 |
| Agenda setting | 104 |
| Amendment supporting | 104 |
| Amendment drafting | 105 |
| Trailing amendments | 107 |
| Formal impact of evidence taking | 108 |
| Evidence taking and ministerial undertakings | 110 |
| The Health and Social Care Bill (2007--08) | 111 |
| Expected patterns of scrutiny behaviour | 112 |
| An opposition tool | 115 |
| Impact at report stage | 116 |
| An imperfect process | 117 |
7. | Evaluating Bill Committees | 119 |
| Capacity and reality | 120 |
| Changing expectations | 121 |
| Interrupting the flow of government legislation | 122 |
| Maximising committee impact | 125 |
| A very British method of scrutiny | 126 |
| Note on Sample of Bills | 128 |
| Notes | 133 |
| References | 134 |
| Index | 139 |