What does good scrutiny look like?

More importantly it reminds us that how the Commons is organised and managed is key to ensuring that it fulfils its important constitutional functions. Key among these functions is its role in scrutinising government, the subject of a new briefing note published today by the Institute for Government. Just like any other activity, scrutiny has costs in terms of money, time and human resources. But surprisingly little parliamentary time and effort is spent evaluating the outcomes of scrutiny, still less considering how they might be improved. Some academics have attempted the task, but as we argue in the note, there has been a tendency to focus on parliamentary processes and outputs, such as select committee reports, rather than the actual impact these might have, particularly on government. That is why the IFG is researching the impact of parliamentary scrutiny on government and what is distinctive about the contribution it can make. The briefing note looks at what Parliament does in terms of scrutiny (with some very detailed tables setting out what each House scrutinises and by what mechanism) but importantly pushes the analysis further to consider what might actually change within government as a result of these scrutiny processes. It identifies both good and bad impacts which scrutiny can have and sets out some thoughts on what ‘good scrutiny’ might look like. These are the sorts of issues that those engaged in scrutiny need to consider if they want to drive improvements in the scrutiny system. Those involved in the management of the House – on both the political and the bureaucratic side – need to find ways of creating space for these conversations to happen. In May we’ll make our own contribution to this task by publishing the results of our research into the impact of select committee inquiries and making recommendations – in good time for new (or re-elected) Chairs and members to read before they get down to work in the new Parliament.