Evaluating and Theorising Committee Scrutiny: A UK Comparative Perspective

Abstract

This article addresses committee scrutiny undertaken through the three main UK devolved institutions (the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly). This is undertaken using a framework derived from scholarship about House of Commons select committees and a substantive comparative literature. Devolved committee scrutiny is thus compared and contrasted in relation to a three-phase analysis in terms of selection, evaluative and output elements.

The findings are also discussed in relation to core elements of institutional theory – institutional path dependency, ideational path dependency, the logic of appropriateness and the logic of consequence. This connection is used to develop several testable theoretical propositions concerning committee scrutiny. Findings about UK devolved committee scrutiny (and also scrutiny undertaken through House of Commons select committees) are also related to scholarship about local government scrutiny in Britain and contrasts and similarities specified. Furthermore, some testable theoretical propositions are applied to British local scrutiny.

Key Words:

• Scrutiny
• devolution
• institutionalism
• local government

Notes

^1. Four witnesses and two clerks were interviewed with regard to each institution. The institutional breakdown of political interviewees was as follows – MSPs (15); AMs (12); MLAs (14).

^2. The breakdown of the politicians interviewed was as follows – MSPs, Conservative (3); Labour (4); Liberal Democrat (2); SNP (5); Green (1) – AMs – Conservative (3); Labour (4); Liberal Democrat (2); Plaid Cymru (3) – MLAs – Ulster Unionist (2); DUP (4); SDLP (3); Sinn Fein (2); Alliance (1); Green (1); Other (1).

^3. Not including the committee shadowing the Office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister.

^4. The statistical data refer to the core departmental and finance committees and the NAfW legislation committees.

^5. Substantive scrutiny generating reports and recommendations rather than short one-off sessions and also excluding legislative scrutiny and scrutiny of specific draft budgets. However, we included in this list one SP inquiry from 2009 which involved reviewing the entire budgetary scrutiny process.

^6. Nine of these reports were published by the scrutiny committees and 12 by the legislation committees.

^7. There were and are 129 MSPs, 108 MLAs and 60 AMs.

^8. Does not include law officers.

^9. Departmental and finance committees included in the first three rows.

^10. Two of those reports concerned single-study visits.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Michael Cole

Michael Cole is a lecturer at the University of Liverpool Management School (ULMS). He has published widely on a range of subjects which includes devolution, local governance, quangos, the UK parliament and elections. He currently has teaching interests which cover comparative local government and relations between government and business.

Laura McAllister

Laura McAllister is a professor at the University of Liverpool Management School (ULMS) and Co-Director of the Heseltine Institute for Public Policy and Practice. She also holds several significant public appointments, most notably as the Chair of Sport Wales. Laura has also advised the Welsh Assembly Government on many occasions. Her research and publications focus on devolution, principally Welsh institutions.