Skip to site navigation

Press Release: House of Commons select committees influence policy by ‘generating fear’

29 June 2011

Press release

A large-scale study of select committee influence by UCL's Constitution Unit has found that a third of committee recommendations calling for significant policy change are implemented by government. But committees’ main form of influence may not be in making recommendations at all, but in ‘generating fear’ in government. Ministers and senior officials increasingly think about how something would look if examined by a committee. This helps keep them on their toes, making for better decision-making.

Selective Influence: The Policy Impact of House of Commons Select Committees is based on detailed study of seven departmental select committees from 1997 to 2010, and over 50 interviews with parliamentary and government insiders. The study was funded by the Nuffield Foundation.

“Select committees are well respected” said the Unit’s Deputy Director and report co-author Dr Meg Russell. “But there is wide scepticism about the extent to which they influence policy, and some believe that committee reports are routinely ignored by government. Our research shows that this is not true: many committee recommendations find their way into policy.”

“Our interviews found that select committees can sometimes catalyse opinion and act as a tipping point in a debate, as when the Health Select Committee intervened in the smoking ban debate in 2005” added Dr Meghan Benton, report co-author. “But most importantly committees have a deterrent effect: government insiders often think 'how would this look if exposed by the committee', and change policy accordingly. This key form of influence is largely invisible.”

Other findings include:

  • Committees are highly prolific, and producing increasing numbers of reports. Between 1997 and 2010 select committees probably produced almost 1500 inquiry reports (or 110 a year) and almost 40,000 recommendations and conclusions, of which 19,000 (or 1450 a year) were aimed at central government.
  • Committee recommendations call for a wide variety of actions by government. Relatively few (around 20%) relate to flagship policies. Around 40% call for a small policy change or continuation of existing policy, while the remainder call for larger changes.
  • Around 40% of recommendations are accepted by government, and a similar proportion go on to be implemented. Calls for small policy change are more likely to be accepted and implemented, but around a third of recommendations calling for significant policy changes succeed.
  • The report identifies seven additional types of influence: contribution to wider debate, drawing together evidence, spotlighting issues and changing ministerial priorities, brokering (improving transparency within and between departments), accountability, exposure, and generating fear.
  • Select committees are most influential when they are strategic, timely or persistent. They could do more to follow up on previous inquiries, and monitor the progress of their recommendations. Media attention is also a double-edged sword. Public embarrassment is a key form of influence, but committees can sometimes veer towards ‘ambulance chasing’.


The full text of the report can be downloaded here.

Media

  • David Walker, writing in the Guardian, has made reference to Selective Influence and describes it as "a well-timed and weighty appraisal by the Constitution Unit at University College, London paid for by the esteemed Nuffield Foundation."

Notes for Editors

  • The report results from a year-long study of the policy impact of select committees, funded by the Nuffield Foundation. It benefited from help from seven parliamentary volunteers during the 2010 dissolution period and summer recess. The report can be viewed at http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/research/parliament/select-committees.
  • Meg Russell and Meghan Benton are available for interview. Meg Russell can be contacted on 0207 679 4998 or meg.russell@ucl.ac.uk. Meghan Benton can be contacted on 0207 679 4912 or m.benton@ucl.ac.uk.
  • The Constitution Unit is an independent and non-partisan research centre based at University College London (www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit).
  • The Nuffield Foundation is an endowed charitable trust that aims to improve social well-being in the widest sense. It funds research and innovation in education and social policy and also works to build capacity in education, science and social science research. The Nuffield Foundation has funded this project, but the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Foundation. More information is available at www.nuffieldfoundation.org.

Join the Debate

Blog

News

Graham Gee: The Lord Chief Justice and Section 5 of the Constitutional Reform Act

Mon, 14 Apr 2014 10:06:17 +0000

This is posted on behalf of Graham Gee and originally appeared on the UK Constitutional Law Association Blog. The Constitutional Reform Act redrew relationships between the senior judiciary and Parliament in a number of ways. Amongst the most significant was removing the right of the LCJ to speak in the Lords. Earlier this month, the […]

Read more...

Jenny Watson’s lecture on the modernisation of the electoral administration system

Thu, 10 Apr 2014 15:15:57 +0000

In the latest Constitution Unit seminar, Jenny Watson, the Chair of the Electoral Commission, provided the audience with a very eloquent account of the challenges and opportunities presented by the imminent and future work towards electoral modernisation. Drawing upon the effective steps that have already been taken by the Labour administration and most recently the […]

Read more...

Concerns about the Steel/Byles Lords reform bill: a summary

Wed, 02 Apr 2014 16:01:07 +0000

David Steel’s Lords reform bill (previously sponsored in the Commons by Dan Byles) had its second reading in the chamber on Friday. Last night the Constitution Unit and Constitution Society jointly hosted a meeting in the Lords to discuss concerns about the bill. Its main provisions – allowing peers to retire, and for the expulsion of serious criminals - have […]

Read more...
Mailing List

Connect with us

RSSFlickr

Footer menu