On 9 September, members of the Climate Assembly UK (CAUK) visited the Houses of Parliament to remind parliamentarians and government that a year had passed since the publication of its groundbreaking report ‘A Path to Net Zero’. A few days earlier, the House of Commons Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee had chastised the government for failing to fulfil its promise to “provide a comprehensive and point-by-point response to the recommendations in CAUK’s ambitious report”.
The return of the assembly members to Parliament indicates a weakness in the practice of citizens’ assemblies – randomly selected bodies in which members learn, deliberate and come to collective decisions on contentious political issues. While time after time assemblies have generated impressively well-considered recommendations, too often they are ignored or cherry-picked by political authorities. Across the world, rare examples exist of assemblies being given decision-making powers, but for most authorities this is a step too far. The lack of ongoing scrutiny and oversight of how public authorities respond to assembly recommendations is a design limitation of the assembly concept.
A common practice is a requirement for governments and/or parliaments to respond within a particular time frame. But that still leaves the question of who will be providing oversight and scrutiny of the government response. After all, the assembly will have finished its work and members will have returned to their communities. Similarly, the assembly’s governing and delivery bodies will have dispersed.
