This week, David Frost (UK head Brexit negotiator) made his first appearance before the @CommonsFREU and @LordsEUCom, alongside Michael Gove.

Despite covering similar ground, I'd say the Lords provided better scrutiny...

(Thread)

First, it's worth noting that it's widely acknowledged that the select committee format can make real cross-examination difficult. Time is tight, each questioner has only a few mins and qu, making follow up + probing qu difficult. MPs/peers are often not trained in asking good qu

The different nature of the two chambers also plays a role. The more 'political' Commons obviously means party politics and appealing to constituents matters more, whereas the more apolitical and 'specialised' or 'expert' Lords has more scope to go into detail.

These sessions were also different, in that they were the first time David Frost - a special adviser - had been accountable to parliament. Something that had been sorely lacking. As @timd_IFG argued- https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/blog/david-frost-scrutiny-brexit-negotiators

However - a comparison between the two committees suggests to me that there are some factors can help improve scrutiny.

1. Choose you topic + stick to it: many MPs tried to cover multiple topics - often resulting in just 1 question/issue, which limits follow up questions and get into the detail. In contrast, the Lords tended to stick to one specific topic (or sub-topic on security), allowing depth

2. Don't repeat the same qu as your colleagues: MPs were more likely to repeat qu asked by others. This can highlight when witnesses are avoiding qu and is understandable when high profile issues emerge. But ministers (+ in this case spads) are unlikely to change their line.

3. Make the most of the time available: both committees asked a broad range of questions. But the Lords was able to cover more ground, in part because of its focus. Although, of course, the Lords did have the benefit of coming second and building on answers to the Commons.

4. Don't ask questions that just repeat the government line: select committees are about scrutiny. MPs were more likely to ask questions that simply stated agreement with the gov position or invited witnesses to restate the gov line. Lords tended to ask more substantive qu

5. Be prepared to ask for commitments and clarification in writing: both committees did this. Often, letters from gov to committees are fruitful sources of information. It's also good when committees follow up on these letters - either in replies or later evidence sessions

Overall, the Commons focused far more on Frost's role and responsibilities (a valid qu that needed clarification) and the 'politics', while the Lords covered more ground on negotiations and detail. Both are needed, but the Commons could learn from the Lords' methods.

Plus both committees could do more to push the government on business and government readiness for the end of the transition period - especially given coronavirus. Both committees asked qu - but accepted vague answers and didn't push back.

. @DrHannahWhite has written a lot more on the effectiveness of select committees @instituteforgov https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/Under%20scrutiny%20final.pdf