Playing to its strengths: Parliament and Select Committees

Playing to its strengths: Parliament and Select Committees

Alex Brazier, Director, Parliament and Government Programme

In the past few years, the Hansard Society has produced a number of reports and studies which have looked at the role and operation of select committees. A consistent theme of this work has been that they represent one of the most successful aspects of the parliamentary process. The report of the Hansard Society Commission on Parliamentary Scrutiny (2001), chaired by Lord Newton on Braintree, argued that select committees had a number of different strengths; their activity is not primarily determined by party political considerations; their structure provides a way to monitor the work of government departments and agencies; and they provide an important arena for scrutiny and accountability work which is not prescribed by the government’s business agenda. Also, further development of committees could provide MPs with an alternative career path which does not rely solely on the patronage of the political parties or involve making a career in government.

For these reasons, the Scrutiny Commission proposed reforms which sought to build upon the best aspects of select committees and many of these have been subsequently implemented. These included the guidelines for core tasks for select committee work and the provision of improved support, which has been achieved through the formation of the Scrutiny Unit. We also proposed that select committee chairs should be paid to encourage as an alternative career path, although the extra payment awarded falls short of the Commission’s proposals that select committee chairman should be paid a salary equivalent to a junior minister.  Other developments, as varied as the appearance of the Prime Minister before the Liaison Committee and the appointment of media officers, which have significantly improved the coverage that select committee reports received, have in total improved the way that select committees hold government to account. A 2005 Hansard Society report, New Politics, New Parliament? concluded, ‘Several important reforms to the system have been agreed and implemented during 2001-2005 which have increased Parliament’s capacity to scrutinise the executive.’

More recently,  proposals in the Government’s Green Paper, The Governance of Britain,  may enhance the role of select committees, including greater scrutiny of public appointments and the formation of regional committees (although this latter proposal raises numerous issues about their structure and operation which the Modernisation Committee is currently considering). There are still many others reform outstanding. For example, government replies should be standardised and conform to set minimum standards. These should include an undertaking that a reply should address each of the committee’s recommendations in detail and engage more fully with the report’s evidence and conclusions. There should be greater support for chairmen, including additional staff and a substantially enhanced budget to undertake external research. Committees themselves should more systematically follow-up their work by publishing a review (three to five years after the original report) assessing how far their recommendations have been implemented.  There is also scope for further consideration of draft legislation and of financial matters.

That is quite a list of potential tasks and clearly there is a limit to what committees can do with their current structure, especially bearing in mind the demands on their members. For that reason, the Hansard Society has put forward a range of options that would provide greater capacity, utilising the resource of the large number of backbench MPs who do not currently sit on a select committee.  These include having more select committees (possibly based around some cross-cutting themes e.g. the family, the elderly, or through splitting the responsibilities of some of the committees looking at the work of the bigger departments). Another possibility would include committees having more members, perhaps working through sub-committees. More fundamentally, Westminster should consider whether it wants to become a more committee-based institution and consider whether the chamber should not meet for one day a week to allow much more time for committee work (including also Public Bill Committees).

But in addition to improved output and effectiveness, there is another important reason why select committees should strive for a greater role and impact. In the course of the Hansard Society’s work, it has become very clear that the public like the style of work that select committee undertake – at least once explanation was given about how they operate and their functions explained. The majority of people responded positively to their non-partisan nature, which was perceived as a more constructive way of working and allowed for real questioning of ministers and officials. Many supported the idea of select committees taking evidence across the country, and this has taken place successfully on a number of occasions already.

It makes good sense for any organisation to play to its strengths, particularly one which has to deal with issues of disconnection from those it serves. For that reason, giving a more central role to select committees, particularly within the Commons, should be a priority for future parliamentary reform.

-- This article was originally published in the House Magazine