Select Committees: What's next on the agenda?

6.30pm, Wednesday October 26, Thatcher Room, Portcullis House

Over recent months select committees have had increased publicity and exposure. This event, with a panel of select committee chairs, highlighted future inquiries, examined how the committees decide what issues to cover, what problems they encounter, what follow-up they do and how they judge an inquiry to be successful.

To view photos of the event, Please Click Here

To listen to this event in full, Please Click Here

Chair

Dr Ruth Fox (Director, Hansard Society's Parliament & Government programme)

Panel

Andrew Tyrie MP (Chair, Treasury Select Committee)

Dame Anne Begg MP (Chair, Work & Pensions Select Committee)

Clive Betts MP (Chair, Communities & Local Government Select Committee)

Graham Stuart MP (Chair, Education Select Committee)

In recent years, and indeed since the phone hacking scandal at the beginning of summer, select committees have gained more attention, both from the public and within Parliament itself. In addressing this shift from relative obscurity to public mouthpiece, questions have been raised over what powers select committees should have and how they can better utilise their current powers.

Clive Betts MP of the communities and local government committee was quick to highlight the greater levels of autonomy that select committees now have. A major turning point occurred with the election of committee members by Parliament, which has now been applied to nearly all select committee appointments – a power previously reserved to the party whips. As Graham Stuart MP of the education committee later pointed out, this system significantly altered the incentives for an MP to join a committee. To stand for election, MPs are, by and large, genuinely interested in the subject and in many cases have a professional or academic background in some of the areas covered by the committee. This tends to mean that mere party loyalty and aspiration are replaced by an honest desire to effect change in particular areas of government policy and legislation. Mr. Betts did however raise concerns over the amount of time sometimes left before a recommendation is finally taken on board by government, using the example of a report on data sharing, which was ‘finally’ adopted some years after it was published. In addressing what he called a ‘dismissive’ approach to committee recommendations, Mr. Betts proposed that these reports be voted on in the House.

Responding to Mr. Betts’ claim that government can be dismissive over committee recommendations, Dame Anne Begg MP commented on the ‘huge legislative burden’ caused by the number of bills currently going through Parliament, with particular emphasis on those coming from the Department for Work and Pensions. As a result of the sheer volume of bills under consideration, and the subsequent disproportionate amount of time granted to pre-legislative scrutiny, committees are under great pressure to address the various issues in any substantial manner. In some cases, therefore, any chance of committee recommendation is automatically made impotent. Dame Begg gave the example of the welfare bill and the amount of technical understanding of social security regulations required in order for it to be properly scrutinised, suggesting that the commons is unable to provide the appropriate degree of scrutiny.

Dame Begg emphasised the need for better access to the early pre-legislative draft stages of a bill; the green paper in particular. Andrew Tyrie of the treasury committee repeated this comment, explaining that there is a lot more time for scrutiny during the draft stages of a bill, allowing a more thorough investigation to be carried out, which is ‘better for legislation’. Mr. Tyrie did however stress that a lot more thought is needed in considering where in the process a committee should interject – i.e. white paper or green paper.

Notwithstanding the need for greater structure regarding the involvement of committees during the pre-legislative stages of a bill, there were also concerns over the apparent disregard among new MPs to stand for committee membership – something particularly apparent since the 2010 general election. Following on from Mr. Stuart’s comment, stating that it is the job of committees to probe into the issues behind the closed doors of government and ‘draw out the ministers’, Mr. Tyrie added that ministers don’t like to be on the wrong side of them, hinting that bypassing this crucial stage in the career of an MP may leave one ignorant of the process of scrutiny and inquiry, and so unprepared for it. The panel generally suggested that a recent trend in careerism within Parliament may have serious implications and is an ‘illusion’ of new MPs. Although not directly raised during this discussion, Mr. Tyrie argued that the backbenches, and select committees in particular, are fundamental to intra-parliamentary democracy. It would therefore seem that without champions of these committees in the front benches, this democratic process may become neglected.

Another pressing matter that gained a lot of attention from panellists and audience alike was the problem of crossover subjects and the frictions they cause between committees. Although the panel broadly agreed that procedures must be established for the effective distribution of subject matter between co-interested committees, they generally disagreed over the remedy. Mr. Stuart suggested that more sub-committees be set up to promote collaboration on shared subjects, though Mr. Tyrie quickly criticised the potential workload this would heap on the MPs in question. Dame Begg instead suggested greater movement of investigations between committees.

Besides the more contentious issues concerning application and procedure, the panel strongly supported the view that select committees must be allowed more time, and indeed in some cases even the chance, to scrutinise the pre-legislative, draft stages of a bill. In addition, they all argued that post-legislative scrutiny concerning implementation requires a lot more attention.

Further reading

Reviewing Select Committee Tasks and Modes of Operation
Alex Brazier and Ruth Fox
Hansard Society

Selective Influence: the Policy impact of  House of Commons select committees
Meg Russell and Meghan Benton
UCL Constitution Unit