I- Background
- Parliament and Government are not the same thing: Parliament consists of the Commons, the Lords, and the Monarch and scrutinises Government. Government consists of only some MPs and Lords and is accountable to Parliament
- Lords Committees are typically staffed by a Clerk who is responsible for managing Committee work, a policy analyst, and a Committee assistant. But they can also include specialists who work on individual projects and support staff from other bodies such as POST UK
- The parliamentary bodies that use research are the Lords and Commons Select Committees, the Lords and the Commons Libraries, and POST, a bicameral body that synthesises peer-reviews briefings. Research is also used by Public Bill Committees, All Party Parliamentary Groups, and MPs and Lords researchers
II- Getting involved
- Look out for relevant Select Committee inquiries and submit written evidence – this may lead to an invite to give oral evidence
- Get in touch, make the case for why you should submit oral evidence, and submit written evidence which is just as useful
- If you are not sure whether you have something relevant to say on a Select Committee inquiry, just contact the staff of the committee for a chat – contact details will be on the committee webpage
- Committees sometimes appoint a specialist adviser when expertise is needed to inform oral evidence sessions or shape a report. Advisers are usually academics/expert practitioners
- Follow Committees on Twitter, or sign up for email alerts via www.parliament.uk
- Offer to host a visit for a Select Committee, or give a private briefing
- Suggest a subject for a Select Committee inquiry to the Clerks/staff or to Members of that Committee
- Know the political position of any MPs or Peers you approach
- Be prepared for short timescales
III- Communicating research
- Present your research in a way that is easily understandable by lay people
- Market yourself/outline your expertise
- Critically review other people’s research (do not make it personal)
- Present your work in a friendly format by using summaries and numbered paragraphs
- Make sure you answer the question posed by the examined parliamentary inquiry
- Feel free to make policy recommendations
IV- Advice on submitting written evidence
- Be concise and relevant
- Answer the question(s) – link back to the question(s)
- Structure around the terms of reference being addressed
- Include discussion on the topics of you feel it is relevant to the aims of the inquiry
- The ‘so what?’ question – relate back to people/constituents
- Keep submissions under 3,000 words (unless otherwise stated in the inquiry TOR)
- Don’t feel that you must respond to every single term of reference, but be clear which ones you will cover
- Ring the select committee to discuss submission
- Collaboration across departments or institutions very useful
- Presentation and structure
- Include the date, number the paragraphs and include clear headlines and sections
- Briefly establish your background and knowledge of the issues up-front (i.e. flag yourself as an expert of you are!): introduce yourself at the start (background, experience, expertise). But don’t feel like you will ‘discredit’ your relevance by indicating your background is slightly outside the topic – select committees are interested in multiple perspectives.
- Clarify whether the views expressed in your submission are your own or those of an organisation
- Use sub-headings bullet points, and provide an executive summary at the start so that readers know up-front what you will be covering
- Highlight key questions, conclusions and recommendations you wish to bring to the Committee’s attention throughout the submission
- Include a summary
- Make policy recommendations
- Don’t just diagnose the problem
- Be specific whenever possible
- Don’t just call for more research
- Trust your own expertise
- Written evidence must be unique/not previously published
- Target recommendations towards government policy
- Content
- Think carefully about what you or your organisation can contribute to the debate which others might not
- Write for an interested, intelligent, non-expert audience: avoid too many acronyms, jargon, politicised language and academic feuds
- Think about your audience – what are their relevant aims, backgrounds and contexts?
- Cite the latest evidence
- Use the TOR and don’t copy/paste other reports
- Include any factual information you have to offer from which the committee might be able to draw conclusions, or which could be put to other witnesses for their reactions
– Hyperlinks useful
- Include any recommendations for action by the Government or others which you would like the committee to consider
- Spell any caveats or context out clearly. For example, if you are talking about evidence that comes from a different country then note this. This does not mean it will not be looked at/included, it will just make it more usable for your reader. International comparisons are well received.
- Case studies are a good way of making evidence real and meaningful
- Consider what are the key points that you are trying to get across
- Be more comprehensive – don’t ignore other options to suit your argument (i.e. you can focus on one solution, but should address other alternatives and their upsides/downsides). Fairly evaluate evidence that counters your view. Don’t use it as a chance to attack other people’s work. If you wouldn’t put it in an academic article, don’t bring your conflicts into the evidence submission
- You may quote from published material. However, references that are just a list of names and dates aren’t very helpful. How can you make them more accessible/useable for your reader? Hyperlinks and clear titles for references and footnotes might be useful
- Keep in mind that most Parliamentarians don’t have access to paid-for journals. Therefore, summaries are valuable
- Do not publish your submission anywhere until the Committee has accepted it as evidence – otherwise it might not be accepted
- You should be careful not to comment on matters currently before a court of law, or matters in respect of which court proceedings are imminent. If you anticipate such issues arising, you should discuss with the clerk of the committee how this might affect your submission
- Once submitted, no public use should be made of any submission prepared specifically for the committee unless you have first obtained permission from the clerk of the committee. If you are given permission by the committee to publish your evidence separately, you should be aware that you will be legally responsible for its content
- Online submissions
- Should be less than 25 MB in size and in Word (doc, docx, rtf, txt ooxml or odt format, not PDF)
- Contain as few logos or embedded pictures as possible
- Contain no macros
- Comprise a single document. If there are any annexes or appendices, these should be included in the same document
V- Advice on giving oral evidence
- Prior to the hearing
- Committee staff will contact you to inform of any administrative arrangements
- Committee staff will usually be able to give you an informal briefing highlighting potential lines of questioning
- You should let committee staff know the name and job title of the witnesses
- Contact committee staff if you suspect your evidence may relate to proceedings which are before a court of law, or court proceedings are imminent
- On the day of the hearing
- Please arrive 20 minutes before you are due to appear
- If other witnesses are to appear before you, it is helpful if you can attend their session, so that you are in a position to comment on that evidence
- The session is in the form of a question and answer session
- You must answer questions put to you by the committee carefully, fully and honestly
- Stick to your knowledge
- Keep answers clear (and write down the points you want to make)
- Try and keep calm!
- After the hearing
- Send any further information you have agreed to provide the committee to the committee staff as soon as possible