Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Dr Tom Caygill
This is the authors' accepted manuscript of an article that has been published in its final definitive form by Eleven International Publishing, 2019.
For re-use rights please refer to the publisher's terms and conditions.
In the last decade a more systematic approach to post-legislative scrutiny has been taken by both the UK Government and Parliament. Currently, due to a lack of systematic scrutiny we do not know how both Houses of the UK Parliament are undertaking post-legislative scrutiny. The aim of the paper is to determine the similarities and differences between the House of Commons and House of Lords when undertaking post-legislative scrutiny. This paper addresses this gap in knowledge through the use of four case studies from both Houses. These case studies address how they select legislation for review, what recommendations they produce and how they deal with the follow up to government responses. The paper finds that there are a number of differences in the way legislation is selected by both Houses and also highlights the differences between them in terms of the output of their recommendations. Overall this paper contributes to our knowledge of the processes available to the UK Parliament for the undertaking of post-legislative scrutiny. This is important as post-legislative scrutiny, as a formalized activity is relatively new, and there is a contribution to be made here in terms of how such procedures can be utilized in other legislatures.
Author(s): Caygill T
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Published
Journal: European Journal of Law Reform
Year: 2019
Volume: 21
Issue: 2
Online publication date: 01/03/2019
Acceptance date: 02/01/2019
Date deposited: 14/01/2019
ISSN (print): 1387-2370
ISSN (electronic): 1875-8274
Publisher: Eleven International Publishing
URL: https://www.elevenjournals.com/tijdschrift/ejlr/2019/2/EJLR_1387-2370_2019_021_002_002
