The LGHPC committee has produced a tracker report https://bit.ly/44EAWDT to monitor progress over time with recommendations being implemented. They plan to do this annually, using it as a prompt to SG to follow up on commitments. We think it would be interesting for other committees to try a similar approach, to improve scrutiny of SG and also demonstrate to stakeholders (who could potentially be asked for feedback on implementation too) that work the committee has done is being followed up.
Evidence from inquiries in other legislatures suggests that more rigorous monitoring and follow-up helps committees stay focused and achieve impact. See: https://shorturl.at/sLM69 and https://shorturl.at/wxNS5.
Not quite 'against', but committees have finite time, and need to consider the balance between volume of activity, depth of inquiry, and leaving space to follow-up and assess work.
Can see a real benefit to this from a Budget scrutiny perspective as many issues/recommendations are perennial. Consideration needed for how such an approach could be used to help committees understand where there is overlap between recommendations, i.e. where multiple committees are recommending very similar things, and drawing attention to this might make subsequent recommendations stronger
really valuable and would help to create more of an incentive to (re)engage - at the third sector in parliament conference last year, and during the 2022 citizens panel on participation, we heard from a lot of people that timeous feedback was critical in building trust
Really good idea, only point against is possible resource implications of doing this for every piece of work.
Might another benefit be that this leads to shorter, fewer and more meaningful recommendations?
Is there a risk that members may be less prepared to sign up to some recommendations on party political grounds if this approach became common?
Committees could be given a range of options for following up recommendations - eg. quarterly or six monthly consideration for more pressing issues. And they could choose to write directly to the SG to get a response on particular issues, or get a minister in to discuss progress.
There might be some work in here to track areas Conveners Group has identified as key cross cutting areas too
Back to group
Back to group
This content is created by the open source Your Priorities citizen engagement platform designed by the non profit Citizens Foundation