Howard Boots Wrote:A system of monitoring or "following up" scrutiny reviews to ascertain whether recommendations have been implemented and the outcomes really means much more ...
Does lack of follow-up tell you that scrutiny is ineffective or that the Executive is? As the system stands, the latter are at liberty to reject Scrutiny's recommendations, however well-argued and supported by evidence. (Endless forms of words for this can be found in Hansard
, should anyone wish to draw on best practice).
Scrutiny can however set itself some standards: have we seen all the relevant witnesses, identified the salient issues and made clear recommendations about them, have we got the evidence to back it all up, what are the lessons for the next review etc?
Another question that can be asked is whether members found the investigation itself rewarding to carry out - did they learn something useful from it?