Liaison Committee inquiry on Scrutiny of Strategic Thinking Across Government:

Submission from House of Commons Climate & Environment Hub

About the Climate & Environment Hub

The Climate & Environment (C&E) Hub is one of three pilot Hubs launched in April 2023 as part of work arising from a review of careers in the policy, research and analysis (PRAC) community for House of Commons staff. The PRAC community comprises colleagues from the Select Committee Team, Chamber & Participation Team and Research & Information (including the House of Commons Library and the Parliamentary Office for Science & Technology [POST]). In addition, the C&E Hub is open to staff in equivalent teams in the Lords.

The Hub sits alongside existing team structures, to better enable staff across different teams to deliver policy, research and analysis for Members, collaborate and develop professionally. It also aims to facilitate better connections with relevant internal and external stakeholders.

Request for evidence

The Head of the C&E Hub received a request from the Clerk of the Liaison Committee (LC) on 9th January 2024 seeking evidence about the practice of select committees in scrutinising strategic thinking, to feed in to the LC Sub-Committee inquiry on Scrutiny of Strategic Thinking Across Government, launched in June 2023. The question posed was:

• What attempts have been made by select committees to engage in strategic thinking on specific policy questions, or scrutinise Government’s strategic thinking, including those using methods that supplement the usual formal means of written and oral evidence taking?

Rather than seeking separate submissions from a range of committees, the Hub was asked to coordinate a response drawing on the experience and knowledge of the PRAC community in the Climate & Environment policy area, in light of the fact that one of the three case studies referred to in the call for evidence was the UK’s net zero commitments while maintaining energy security.

Focus Group

In response to the request, the C&E Hub held a staff focus group discussion on 1st February 2024. The group considered the headline question outlined above alongside other relevant questions in the inquiry Terms of Reference.

Submission

The key points raised in the focus group discussion were as follows:

• Committees have employed a number of methods to scrutinise strategic issues including:

      Formal joint sessions/inquiries

      Informal ‘guesting’ arrangements

      ‘Umbrella’ inquiries (which typically feature a series of one-off evidence sessions linked by a particular theme – an example being the Environmental Audit Committee’s ‘Technological Innovations and Climate Change’ work stream)

      Follow up sessions or inquiries scrutinising progress against long-term strategies

• The climate and environment policy area is, in theory, well suited to strategic scrutiny given the existence of long-term SMART targets, strategies and legal obligations, such as those under the Environment Act and the Climate Change Act. Committees can monitor progress towards these, drawing on evidence from statutory advisory bodies such as the Climate Change Committee and the Office for Environmental Protection. However, there are gaps in advice to Parliament following Government decisions to defund some bodies, such as the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. Also, the comparatively short-term nature of the political cycle – for both governments and committees – can inhibit strategic scrutiny.
• Select Committees in the Commons are largely based around departmental scrutiny; this inherently makes examining strategic cross-government issues such as net zero and biodiversity challenging.
• While there are some committees with wider remits, such as the Environmental Audit Committee, select committees do not have scrutiny of strategy which ranges beyond single departments specifically written into their core tasks. A change to Standing Orders to enable this could be beneficial.
• Committees without specialist climate and environment support may struggle to identify or handle relevant issues during the course of their work. There is a need to consider how specialist support and advice on cross-cutting issues, such as net zero and environmental improvement, can be provided across Select Committees. This is beginning to happen to an extent with the creation of the Climate & Environment Unit
• It is noted that the Environment & Climate Change Committee in the House of Lords often responds to its thematic remit by considering broader issues of a strategic nature.
• It is observed that responses from different government departments to calls for evidence on strategic questions can vary considerably in quality, and that ministerial engagement is similarly variable. Some committees find it difficult to engage His Majesty’s Treasury in scrutiny; this is challenging as HMT is a key player in shaping and delivering policy across Government.
• Mandatory assessment of the carbon impact of fiscal events would help ensure Treasury spending is consistent with net zero considerations and ensure constant movement towards long-term goals.
• It is not always clear where ministerial responsibility lies when it comes to cross-departmental strategies, and ministers (and on occasion even the Prime Minister) are seen to be increasingly reluctant to talk about anything outside their own very narrow briefs; this poses challenges for accountability. Having more named ministerial leads for strategic issues would help address this by providing clarity of responsibilities as well as providing a focal point for leadership of such strategies.
• There is some concern that DEFRA as a department has insufficient power and influence to play the lead role required of it in long-term climate and environment strategies (for example, the National Adaptation Programme); similar concerns were raised about DESNZ’s ability to lead cross-Government work on net zero. In comparison, structures set up for COP26 were helpful in pushing the Government’s strategic approach to net zero, but they appear to have since been dismantled.
• Select Committees are frequently told that Cabinet committees constitute the primary method by which cross-governmental strategic programmes are coordinated, monitored and delivered. However, there is a paucity of information available about these committees, with only the titles and memberships made public. This gives rise to a considerable scrutiny gap. Enabling committees access to additional information, such as the frequency, attendance, duration and agendas of Cabinet committee meetings, could assist in scrutinising their likely effectiveness as governance mechanisms. It was noted that the National Security Council routinely provides more information and so could provide a model.
• It was noted that, in the Scottish Parliament, while committees are able to decide their own subject-based inquiries, they agree the scrutiny of proposed legislation with the government in advance; this allows for a more planned, strategic approach. Also, the Government of Finland produces a ‘Report on the Future’ each electoral term, laying down a basis which enables more strategic scrutiny.
• The system of scrutinising EU documents provides an example of scrutinising policy with a cross-cutting theme (the EU), where the Government as a whole is able to engage with Parliament in one voice through Explanatory Memoranda and correspondence.
• Many committees have, over periods of many years, experienced a lack of coordination between government departments when it comes to cross-cutting strategic issues.
• Government monitoring and evaluation of implemented policies – including the collection of appropriate data – is seen to be a significant weakness.
• The relatively high turnover of both committee staff and civil servants can result in a lack of acquired skills and institutional knowledge, as well as making it more difficult to maintain productive working relationships between the two organisations. Within the House of Commons, the introduction of thematic Hubs may go some way towards addressing this. It is noted that there tends to be lower turnover, and therefore more retained knowledge, among staff in the House of Commons Library
• Strategy documents often lack a clear implementation plan. It is unclear what training and guidance civil servants have in terms of drafting such documents.
• Increased scrutiny of the development of legislation could be beneficial, as research and consultations undertaken by Government prior to legislating often provides clues as to the government’s subsequent strategy.
• There is not always sufficient coherence and consistency between linked policies.