Post-legislative scrutiny in the UK Parliament: adding value

References

• Beer, S. H. (1982). Britain against itself. London: Faber.
   Google Scholar
• Benton, M., & Russell, M. (2013). Assessing the impact of parliamentary oversight committees: The select committees in the British House of Commons. Parliamentary Affairs, 66(4), 772–797. doi: 10.1093/pa/gss009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caygill, T. (2019a). A critical analysis of post-legislative scrutiny in the UK Parliament (PhD thesis). University of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne.
   Google Scholar
• Caygill, T. (2019b). A tale of two houses. European Journal of Law Reform, 2, 87–101.
   Google Scholar
• Commission to Strengthen Parliament. (2000). Strengthening Parliament. London: The Conservative Party.
   Google Scholar
• Constitution Committee, House of Lords. (2004), Parliament and the legislative process, 14th Report. Session 2003–04, HL Paper 173-I.
   Google Scholar
• Constitution Committee, House of Lords. (2005). Parliament and the legislative process: Government’s response, Session 2004–05, HL Paper 114.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, G. W., & McCubbins, M. D. (1993). Legislative leviathan: Party government in the house. Berkeley: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, House of Lords. (2015). Post-legislative assessment of the legislative and regulatory reform Act 2006, 20th Report, Session 2014–15, HL Paper 132.
   Google Scholar
• De Vrieze, F., & Hasson, V. (2017). Post-legislative scrutiny. London: Westminster Foundation for Democracy.
   Google Scholar
• Engle, G. (1983). “Bills are made to pass as razors are made to sell”: Practical constraints in the preparation of legislation. Statute Law Review, 4(2), 7–23. doi: 10.1093/slr/4.2.7
   Google Scholar
• Gilligan, T. W., & Krehbiel, K. (1990). Organization of informative committees by a rational legislature. American Journal of Political Science, 34(2), 531–564. doi: 10.2307/2111460
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griglio, E. (2019). Post-legislative scrutiny as a form of executive oversight: Tools and practice in Europe. European Journal of Law Reform, 2, 118–136.
   Google Scholar
• Hansard Society. (1993). The report of the Hansard Society Commission on the legislative process. London: Hansard Society.
   Google Scholar
• Hasson, V. (2019). Establishing a legislative scrutiny framework: The case of delegated legislation in the Parliament of South Africa. European Journal of Law Reform, 2, 189–193.
   Google Scholar
• HM Government. (2013). Government response to the second report of the House of Lords select committee on adoption legislation of Session 2012–13: Adoption: Post-Legislative Scrutiny, Cm 8717.
   Google Scholar
• House of Commons Procedure Committee. (1990). The working of the select Committee System, 2nd Report, Session 1989–90, HC 19-I.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, R. (2015, August 13). Pre-legislative scrutiny under the coalition government: 2010–2015 (Briefing Paper 05859). London: House of Commons Library.
   Google Scholar
• Krehbiel, K. (1990). Are congressional committees composed of preference outliers? The American Political Science Review, 84(1), 149–163. doi: 10.2307/1963634
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krehbiel, K. (1992). Information and legislative organization. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Law Commission. (2006). Post-legislative scrutiny, Law Com No. 302, Cm 6945.
   Google Scholar
• Leader of the House of Commons. (2008). Post-legislative scrutiny – the government’s approach, Cm 7320.
   Google Scholar
• Leader’s Group on Working Practices, House of Lords. (2011). Report of the leader’s group on working practices, Session 2010–12, HL Paper 136.
   Google Scholar
• Liaison Committee, House of Lords. (2013). Review of select committee activity and proposals for new committee activity, 1st Report, Session 2013–14, HL Paper 145.
   Google Scholar
• Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A radical view (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Martorano, N. (2006). Balancing power: Committee system autonomy and legislative organisation. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 31(2), 205–234. doi: 10.3162/036298006X201788
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McIntosh of Pickering, Baroness. (2018, July 11). Oral evidence, House of Lords Liaison Committee.
   Google Scholar
• Norton, P. (2013). Parliament in British politics (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Norton, P. (2017). Reform of the House of Lords. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Norton, P. (2018, July 10). Opening address, Westminster Foundation for Democracy (WFD) Academic Seminar on Post-Legislative Scrutiny, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, University of London.
   Google Scholar
• Norton, P., & Wood, D. M. (1993). Back from Westminster. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.
   Google Scholar
• Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord. (2013). The form and Language of legislation. In D. Feldman (Ed.), Law in politics, politics in law (pp. 65–83). Oxford: Hart Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Russell, M. (2011). “Never allow a crisis to go to waste”: The Wright Committee reforms to strengthen the House of Commons. Parliamentary Affairs, 64(4), 612–633. doi: 10.1093/pa/gsr026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaw, M. (1979). Conclusion. In J. D. Lees & M. Shaw (Eds.), Committees in legislatures (pp. 361–434). Oxford: Martin Robertson.
   Google Scholar
• Shepsle, K. A. (1978). The giant jigsaw puzzle: Democratic committee assignments in the modern House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shutt of Greetland, Lord. (2018, July 11). Oral evidence, House of Lords Liaison Committee.
   Google Scholar
• Westminster Foundation for Democracy. (2018, July 10). Academic seminar on post-legislative scrutiny, Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, University of London.
   Google Scholar