2020Journal of Legislative StudiesRequires access

The UK post-legislative scrutiny gap

Thomas Caygill

Open publisher page 2 citations

Abstract

It is now 10 years since the introduction of the systematic approach to post-legislative scrutiny in the House of Commons and assessments have shown that it is yet to become a regular part of committee work, at least from the perspective of published reports. Although the procedures in the House of Lords are different, the extent of post-legislative scrutiny has also remained limited. This article attempts to identify the post-legislative gap and provides insight into why this gap is occurring. The article begins by analysing the limited amount of post-legislative scrutiny that has taken place to date, before analysing which government departments have been producing post-legislative memoranda and whether these memoranda are being picked up by departmental select committees. In so doing, the article analyses which committees have not, so far, been undertaking post-legislative scrutiny and explores some of the reasons for why they have not engaged.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

It is now 10 years since the introduction of the systematic approach to post-legislative scrutiny in the House of Commons and assessments have shown that it is yet to become a regular part of committee work, at least from the perspective of published reports. Although the procedures in the House of Lords are different, the extent of post-legislative scrutiny has also remained limited. This article attempts to identify the post-legislative gap and provides insight into why this gap is occurring. The article begins by analysing the limited amount of post-legislative scrutiny that has taken place to date, before analysing which government departments have been producing post-legislative memoranda and whether these memoranda are being picked up by departmental select committees. In so doing, the article analyses which committees have not, so far, been undertaking post-legislative scrutiny and explores some of the reasons for why they have not engaged.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 2 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

It is now 10 years since the introduction of the systematic approach to post-legislative scrutiny in the House of Commons and assessments have shown that it is yet to become a regular part of committee work, at least from the perspective of published reports. Although the procedures in the House of Lords are different, the extent of post-legislative scrutiny has also remained limited. This article attempts to identify the post-legislative gap and provides insight into why this gap is occurring. The article begins by analysing the limited amount of post-legislative scrutiny that has taken place to date, before analysing which government departments have been producing post-legislative memoranda and whether these memoranda are being picked up by departmental select committees. In so doing, the article analyses which committees have not, so far, been undertaking post-legislative scrutiny and explores some of the reasons for why they have not engaged.

Key concepts: Scrutiny, Legislature, House of Commons, Political science, Government (linguistics), Public administration, Commons, Law

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The UK post-legislative scrutiny gap — Research Paper | ScholarLens