Neutral arbiter, partisan speaker, or asset of the coalition? Patterns of Oral Question Selection by the Speaker of the Lower House of the Dutch Parliament

Abstract The Speaker of Parliament is potentially a highly influential actor in parliamentary politics. Yet, we know surprisingly little about how they make decisions. In many parliaments, they, for instance, choose who gets to speak in question time. By examining a unique data set from the Netherlands, which lists all proposed oral questions and which ones were selected to be asked in parliament, this paper examines the considerations of the Speaker when selecting questions. This gives a unique insight into their considerations in general. Our central question is as follows: under what conditions are Speakers more likely to select an oral question? We look at the following three options: the neutral arbiter that seeks to treat all parties fairly; the partisan Speaker who defends the interests of their own party; and the asset of the coalition that protects the unity of the governing coalition. Our analyses indicate that Speakers are more likely to block questions that would drive a wedge in the coalition and are more likely to accept questions that meet established norms of urgency and importance.