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.
“What’s the secret of a good scrutiny recommendation?” Chairperson Alex asked me this the other day and we spent a little time trying to work it out over a coffee. It’s not so much, Alex tells me, that recommendations from scrutiny inquiries don’t get accepted, they nearly always do, it’s more that not much seems to happen as a result. The response that annoys Alex the most is ‘accepted in principle’. For Alex, this often means: “Sounds like a good idea but we’re not going to do anything as...
On your website it says that scrutiny’s purpose is ‘holding decision makers to account’. But is it clear to you what this actually means? If you were writing an annual report, could you confidently say scrutiny 'held the executive to account’ or ‘ensured accountability’? And how might you back that up? OK, so perhaps it doesn’t worry you too much. After all, everyone knows what accountability means, right? Well, maybe. Let’s unpack it a little and see if we are on a similar page. We can start...
“Scrutiny meetings feel like a conveyor belt, just one item after another”. This is something I’ve heard a few times when talking to scrutiny committee members. They say: “Just when you are starting to get into the details of something it’s time to move on. You are really only ticking a box and sometimes only noting things. You don’t feel like you can make a difference to anything.” When I ask what they would prefer instead, they talk about having the time to really get into things, maybe...