Now that councils are required to establish overview and scrutiny committees, suggest a discussion model or seminar rather than question-and-answer sessions, says George Jones and John Stewart.

Faced with the requirement to set up overview and scrutiny committees, many local authorities – even if some still hankered after the traditional committee system – looked at departmental select committees of the House of Commons as a model to be followed.

The traditional layout of a committee room, as used by select committees in the House of Commons.

It had a superficial attraction since such select committees had a prestige associated with Parliament, and the Government initially wanted scrutiny committees to be like select committees – only later, under pressure, was 'overview' added to their title.

National publicity in the media is often given to their reports and, sometimes, evidence sessions are shown on television.

Yet this model has serious defects. Parliamentary select committees are imprisoned by outmoded practices. The dominant way committee members work is through question-and-answer, in which even the layout of the room where sessions are held follows the traditional practice of committee members arrayed in a horse shoe with witnesses at a table facing them.

Evidence is given through committee members, led off by the chairman, taking turns to ask questions.

Television has highlighted dramatic occasions when a committee challenges key witnesses on issues such as the phone-hacking and the Libor scandals.

MPs seem to treat some witnesses as if they are in the dock, seeking to expose their guilt. Often sessions prove disappointing in practice, since MPs are often not effective in their questioning. Some move in and out of the room and there are absentees.

A focus on 'kangaroo court' sessions can mislead those councillors who may dream of playing the dramatic role of fighter for the public in exposing local scandals.

Most of the work of select committees is scrutinising administration to expose inadequacies and improve performance, and helping to shape policy by exploring issues and developing recommendations on policy.

The problem is the dominance of question-and-answer sessions. Issues raised are often only touched upon and not explored in-depth or systematically as the questions pass on to another member who can have different issues to raise.

Substantial discussions do not take place between members and witnesses. And even if there is time for a member to ask more than one or two questions, the witness may not know the MP's thinking before the baton is passed to the next member.

Rather than over-dependence on question-and-answer sessions, there is a case for use of a discussion model or seminar, where issues are discussed between members and those whose evidence they want to hear.

Such seminars have been used by some committees, but only to a limited extent when compared with the dominant model of question and answer.

The dependence on witnesses who are normally the usual suspects – government departments, the stakeholders, interested organisations, known academics and experts, drawn largely from standard lists of those to whom invitations are routinely sent – do not give the committees access to the views of a wider public.

There can be attempts at a more extensive consultation, as with the political and constitutional reform committee's consultation on a code to govern central-local-government relations, but such consultation is not common.

Although too many local authorities have placed their emphasis almost exclusively on question-and-answer sessions, fortunately others have recognised the need to innovate. We single out areas for innovation.

The first has been the development of studies undertaken not just by the full committee but by small task groups, which may report back for the committee to consider and, where appropriate, adopt their report.

Such smaller groups can use flexible ways of working, adapting their timetable, creating informal ways of collecting evidence, using discussions rather than, or as well as, question-and-answer sessions, which can have smaller numbers of members that allow more follow-up discussion.

New forms of meeting have been developed for overview and scrutiny, starting with the way rooms are arranged and how issues are posed, departing from the forms of traditional committees and not following the horse shoe seating arrangements of select committees.

Overview and scrutiny can use methods to encourage discussion and deliberations which have been used in training or in developments in democratic practice, such as citizens' juries, themselves examples of overview and scrutiny, although by members of the public rather than councillors.

Some overview and scrutiny committees have sought to involve the public in different ways, holding meetings outside council offices in neighbourhoods or parishes. The public have been invited to suggest issues for committees to consider.

Special meetings can be held for groups whose views would not otherwise be heard, possibly involving members of such groups in seeking specific views, as has been done in using young people to search out the views of other young people.

Councillors can use in-site meetings not merely to see areas of interest but to initiate local discussions. Councillors can carry out their own surveys ensuring direct contact with the public they represent.

Some authorities have evaluated the performance of overview and scrutiny, not merely the quality of their reports or the extent to which they influenced action, but also self-evaluation considering the effectiveness of a particular evidence session and how the committee handled its role in seeking evidence.

Some councillors feel scrutiny of the work of others does not provide them with a satisfying role. While some local authorities may seek to restore the traditional committee system, which involved elected members in taking decisions about services, most will stay with the separation of executive from non-executive functions laid down in the Acts of 2000 and 2007.

But even in these arrangements there is scope for collaboration between executive members and other councillors in joint task forces which explore policy issues, especially 'wicked issues' that cross departmental boundaries and seem intractable, as long as they are not decision-making bodies.

Such joint discussions will enable all councillors to feel they are contributing constructively to shaping the development of their localities.

There is a capacity for innovation in overview and scrutiny which some authorities have used, and from which others could learn.

The key is to break away from the assumption that departmental select committees provide an adequate model. Indeed, select committees could learn from the innovations of local government.

As is so often the case, ministers, MPs and civil servants in Westminster and Whitehall have much to learn from local government, if only they realised it.

George Jones is emeritus professor at the London School of Economics, and John Stewart is emeritus professor at INLOGOV, at Birmingham University.