On the protective benefits of scrutiny
|
On that question of how scrutiny makes a difference, have you thought about its protective benefits? The idea that scrutiny can be influential through anticipation. That just the possibility of scrutiny will cause decision makers to stop and think - with governance improved as a result. I was reminded about this the other day when, walking down the road, I saw a cyclist with a yellow sign on his back displaying a camera symbol. Is this something you’ve seen? The idea, I guess, is to encourage motorists to drive more carefully, knowing that any misdemeanours might be recorded on video. It’s hard to tell if this works, of course, as you can’t measure something that hasn’t happened. You could ask the driver, but would they even admit it has affected their behaviour, even to themselves? Some see scrutiny as doing something similar. Dr Hannah White at the Institute for Government, for example, talks about the ‘pre-emptive scrutiny’ of UK parliamentary select committees, influencing those in government, suggesting that ‘awareness that their actions could subsequently be subject to scrutiny shaped what they did in the first place’. Meg Russel and Meghan Benton, also looking at parliamentary select committees, talk about the capacity of committees to generate fear as ‘perhaps the most important, form of influence’. In their research they mention a committee chair who expressed the view that government ‘aims to make policy as committee-proof as possible’. This was a confirmed by various government insiders. The process of preparing for scrutiny meetings can also lead to changes that are not always visible. Have you noticed how reports will be tweaked and how portfolio holders will take the time to get more on top of their briefs? Is fear of scrutiny always a good thing though? Should scrutiny always be a source of fear for decision makers? Sometimes, perhaps. From an assurance point of view, it encourages 'good behaviour' and helps keep the executive in check. However, scrutiny also has an improvement role, and don’t we want executives and cabinet members to see scrutiny as a valuable source of help? To see not just possible sanctions but the improvement benefits of the scrutiny process as well? A valuable source of dialogue and a helpful way to test proposals? Fear doesn’t really help with dialogue. Nevertheless, whilst the protective benefits of scrutiny are difficult to measure, shouldn’t they be part of the conversation when asking about scrutiny’s impact and influence? We might then find out if those leading decision making are seeing the ‘yellow camera sign’ of scrutiny and driving more carefully as a result. I hope this was useful to reflect on 🙏 White, H (2015) Select committees under scrutiny, Institute of Government Russel, M and Benton M (2011) Selective influence: The Policy impact of House of Commons select committees, The Constitution Unit |
Dear scrutineer,
Get reflections like this straight to your inbox. I also share them on LinkedIn.
Councillor Smith has an officer draft his questions for him to read out at scrutiny committee meetings. But Vice Chair Jo doesn’t like it at all. What do you think? When I asked Councillor Smith about it, he told me that it gave him more confidence as the officer support is very good. He knows that it will be a question worth asking and he doesn’t always have time to work on the questions himself - scrutiny committee starts at 6.00 and he barely has time to get there from work, let alone have...
Dear scrutineer, here’s a question for you. Can you describe the difference between assurance and reassurance? Imagine that one day you are being interviewed by an inspector and they ask ‘how do you seek assurance? Or ’what gives you confidence that things are running as they should be?’ What might you reply? And my view? Well I’d start with this: Reassurance means that someone told me something and I trusted they were right. It’s a feeling. Assurance, on the other hand, means I’ve got good...
Is scrutiny a game? It’s an interesting one to ponder. Certainly, some seem to act as if it is. They play to win, whether for party political reasons or purely for control. Equivocation and even manipulation have been employed to achieve ‘victory’ for the executive or for the non-executive. But not every game is competitive. As you may know, dear scrutineer, there are also cooperative games and maybe scrutiny can be thought of in this way. I recently played my first cooperative board game....