Develop a toolkit on how to turn a broad inquiry idea into detailed remit. There is sometimes a gap between the agreement of a broad remit at a business planning discussion and the production of a detailed and workable remit. A toolkit could help teams to pin down the remit, ensuring that there is a shared understanding among members and the team of the intended outcome, and that activities/resources are directed towards this.
As with case studies, this would be a good way to increase meaningful participation. Assuming that these two processes go hand in hand - the toolkit shows the options, and the case studies demonstrate these in practice. It also helps to outline ways in which both very broad, unfocused topics can be narrowed down, and how challenging/divisive subjects could be explored in a collegiate way. Better understanding of resource and timing implications for approaches from the outset will be very useful.
Agree with several comments. Rather than a new toolkit, a Sharepoint hub on effective scrutiny could bring together existing and new resources, including guidance, case studies, checklists and the SDIA tool. Guidance on Committees could usefully be revised to include the 'how' as well as the 'what' of committee work, e.g. use best available research evidence, engage with a diverse range of people, follow-up on findings. See for example: https://shorturl.at/hiIJZ and https://shorturl.at/wxNS5.
There's a stage before discussion at business planning or other work programme sessions. This is the space SPICe inhabit, around scanning for topics which may not be in the public view yet, but are on the way. We could think about how we improve interaction with those that have this intelligence outwith the parliament - and how we can bring that in. That could help committees with strategy work running through entire sessions, or part of sessions.
It would be useful if a toolkit like this also built in something on the specific need for/added value of public participation so as to start thinking about that as early as possible, we (PACT) could then use this as a starting point for working up our more detailed participation plan
Flowcharts to show differing scrutiny approaches could help. Embedding thinking on key strategic elements from inception to delivery (such as: comms & public engagement, accessibility, diversity/inclusion issues, climate impacts, equality/human rights, preventative spending etc). Using an ‘inclusion by design’ approach to such elements could help refine members thinking on measurable outcomes to achieve from scrutiny, as opposed to remits responding to political ‘hot topics’ of the day
I think we already have the toolkit, in the form of the SDImpact Assessment Tool?
This content is created by the open source Your Priorities citizen engagement platform designed by the non profit Citizens Foundation