Post-legislative scrutiny in the UK Parliament: adding value

Philip Norton

doi:10.1080/13572334.2019.1633778

Abstract

ABSTRACTLegislatures appoint committees for different purposes. Both Houses of the UK Parliament separate legislative committees from non-legislative, or select, committees. Each is unusual in that it utilises select committees to engage in post-legislative scrutiny. We examine why each engages in this type of scrutiny, given competing demands for limited resources. Distributive and informational theories are utilised to explain the difference between the two chambers, identifying why the form of asymmetrical bicameralism to be found in the United Kingdom facilitates scrutiny that would otherwise not be undertaken. The genesis and impact of post-legislative scrutiny committees are considered, with a focus on the House of Lords and why the use of such committees plays to the strengths of the House.

Highlights

Provision for the appointment of investigative committees is longstanding, such committees were rarely used after the emergence in the 19th Century of partydominated adversarial politics
In looking at what the legislature can do after a measure has been enacted, one can distinguish between oversight and scrutiny, in effect between the legal and the political
To fall within the political, or interpretative, dimension, one would need to assess the consequences of the secondary legislation

Summary

PHILIP NORTON

The Commission recommended wider consultation, and more structured involvement by Parliament This, it considered, could normally take the form of House of Commons select committees examining proposals embodied in Green or White Papers. Looking at the legislative process was somewhat outside its usual role It consulted with parliamentarians, the chair of the Lords Constitution Committee (who wrote the 2004 report),i Parliamentary Counsel, Parliamentary clerks, government departments, academics and others The House of Lords was not part of the process detailed in the government response, the House has ascribed itself the task of engaging in such scrutiny and routinely appoints committees to engage in post-legislative scrutiny.

WHY DIFFERING APPROACHES?

WITH WHAT EFFECT?

THE WAY AHEAD?