Evidence-informed or value-based? exploring the scrutiny of legislation in the UK Parliament

Abstract

This article argues that three types of factorprocess, subject and political circumstanceare likely to affect the extent to which claims of evidence are made during legislative scrutiny. It draws upon case studies of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, the Academies Act 2010 and the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016, utilising interviews with those involved and information from Hansard. The article concludes that these cases highlight that while there might be potential benefits from a yet more robust legislative scrutiny process, including greater use of pre-legislative scrutiny and the ability of public bill committees to take evidence from a wider range of witnesses and on all bills, subject and political factors would be likely to mean that the use of claims of evidence would continue to vary widely.

Who’s listening to whom? The UK House of Lords and evidence-based policy-making on citizenship education

“…By bringing the policy community into the policy-making process, this networked approach to governance should encourage better evidence-based policy decisions. Begley et al (2019) argue, however, that the role of evidence in the legislative process can be influenced, amongst other things, by process factors such as when and where evidence is gathered and political factors that encompass the extent of politicking between political parties in the media and in parliament around a certain issue. In the case of citizenship education, reforms to the subject (as part of a broader package of education policies like the Prevent agenda and 'Fundamental British Values'), have arguably been affected by a number of these political factors.…”