Committee Watch

'Unlike any other he's ever seen'

2011-07-12T09:46:00.000-07:00

According to the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg, Keith Vaz said the session was 'unlike any other he's ever seen'. Was everybody watching the Home Affairs Committee's marathon on the phone hacking scandal with various senior police officers today? It was certainly trending on Twitter. The Committee warmed up with a pair of witnesses who had been invited to talk about something else (the new landscape of policing) but who included Lord Blair, ex-Metropolitan Police Commissioner. Having dealt with other matters, the Committee practised some of their phone hacking questions on him. Then they moved on to Assistant Commissioner John Yates, former Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke, former Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman and Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers (who is leading the current criminal investigation), each witness appearing alone.

Apart from the general excitement created by the phone hacking affair, the sessions were fascinating for the different approaches adopted by the different witnesses. The Committee had turned out in force for this high-profile occasion and were considerably pumped up. In response, Lord Blair was urbane and, well, lordly. John Yates ('Yates of the Yard') was described on Twitter as 'arrogant' and 'cocky' among other things. His problem was that he never gave a straight answer, which meant the Committee became increasingly enraged by him. Keith Vaz summed up his evidence as 'unconvincing'. Peter Clarke was serious, gloomy, showed concern for the victims of crime and succeeded in getting the Committee to listen to his prepared statement of the sequence of events - definitely a sign that he had largely won them over. He got good wishes from Keith Vaz at the end of his session. Andy Hayman came across as an East End charmer but failed to win trust - @sophyridge commented: 'Twitter is split into those who hated Andy Hayman, and those who want to give him his own cop show'. He was the one witness who got a laugh out of the Committee, but also sometimes gasps at his effrontery. Sue Akers, who had watched the rest torn to pieces, looked pretty scared but actually gave a reasonable account of herself.

Among the MPs, Julian Huppert continues to raise his profile, as did Chris Bryant, who is not even on the Committee (although he was present in the room). For my money, the most striking performance came from David Winnick, who showed extraordinary aggression for such a long-serving MP - perhaps he was showing solidarity with the 82-year old recently tasered by police to keep him quiet.

The Committee overran an unrealistic timetable by about an hour in total. But Keith Vaz nevertheless kept a firm grip on proceedings, while making sure every member got their say. His treatment of the witnesses was nuanced - brusque to the point of offensiveness with John Yates, relatively gentle with Sue Akers. The congratulations which he is now receiving are deserved, since this was not an isolated success for him and his Committee. It has been one of the most effective departmental Committees for some time now. All the same, clearly a day for him to remember.

Liaison with the Prime Minister

2011-05-18T07:45:00.000-07:00

The Prime Minister appeared for the second time yesterday before the Liaison Committee, made up of the Chairs of the other Select Committees. There had been a change of format. Instead of ranging widely over every subject the Committee Chairs could think of, as in the past, the session was restricted to 90 minutes and covered only two broad subjects: growth in the economy and UK interventions abroad. In this one can detect the hand of Alan Beith, the experienced LibDem Chair of the Committee. He has been keen from the start to question the Prime Minister "in depth" and explicitly drew a distinction between the Liaison Committee and the "political jousting" of Prime Minister's Questions in his introduction to David Cameron's first appearance in November. At that appearance the Liaison Committee failed to rattle Cameron or indeed to dig very deep. Ben Wright of BBC news commented at the time that "David Cameron handled his first liaison committee well and he knew it". Alan Beith presumably hoped that a tighter focus would be more productive.

But it cannot be said that the Committee got much further with the Prime Minister yesterday than they did in November. There was so little to grab the headlines that the hearing did not make the 6 o'clock news. Andrew Tyrie, Chair of the Treasury Committee, pressed David Cameron hard on the meaning of a "balanced economy" but, after a couple of false starts, the Prime Minister came up with a coherent answer that was hard to argue with. The information that there would be 400 troops coming out of Afghanistan over the next year was made less newsworthy by the statement that the "enduring level" of 9,500 would stay the same. And so on.

Possibly the Committee scored an own goal by restricting questioning to two subjects which made it easier for David Cameron to prepare. Possibly Alan Beith's very tight chairmanship, with every member sticking closely to time and to their Committee's interests, constrained rather than enabled the questioning. The only member to go even slightly off-piste was Margaret Hodge of the Public Accounts Committee on bank lending to small businesses, and Cameron has answered plenty of questions on that subject.

The Liaison Committee is due to see the Prime Minister three times a year in this new format. On this showing, he will just become more and more skilful at dealing with them as he gets more practice.

The Justice Committee - a case for legal aid

2011-02-09T09:24:00.000-08:00

The House of Commons departmental Select Committees elected in the summer have now had several months to get to grips with their remits. Sufficient differences have opened up in their track records to allow some evidence-based judgments to be made about their relative effectiveness. Some curious discrepancies are apparent, the Justice Committee being a case in point.

The Justice Committee is chaired by Sir Alan Beith, a very experienced Parliamentarian, Chair of the Liaison Committee and with more than seven years' experience on the Justice Committee itself. Like many other Commons Committees since the General Election, its membership is generally less experienced, but it includes some of the more impressive of the 2010 intake of MPs, such as Claire Perry. Why then has it not been more effective?

The Committee has launched no less than seven inquiries but so far produced only two minor reports (compare seven reports produced by the Treasury Committee, for example). Many of its hearings have seemed unfocused, without a clear link to any of these inquiries, or else covering a range of questions which relate to several different inquiries. In spite of the fact that there are a number of barristers on the Committee, members often seem to pull their punches in questioning (Elfyn Llwyd being an honourable exception). Alan Beith manages the agenda very tidily and with the greater ease because all the members are so well-behaved, but he does not seem to be succeeding in giving the Committee a sense of purpose or direction.

It's all a bit disappointing. There are signs, however, that the Committee intends to make a real contribution in relation to the current Green Paper on reform of legal aid. We shall see whether they can do so convincingly.

You did get on with it!

2010-10-15T03:45:00.000-07:00

I have to congratulate the Public Administration Committee on getting out their report on Equitable Life the day after their hearings on the subject. Don't suppose they read my last blog before agreeing it, however nice it would be to think so!

"You must get on with it"

2010-10-14T09:04:00.000-07:00

The Public Administration Select Committee did not get off to the strongest of starts this summer. It always ran the risk of being overshadowed by its predecessor Committee, chaired by the great Dr Tony Wright. Then there appeared to be problems getting enough MPs to stand for election to it. And once it was appointed, it took a while to get its act together. It managed one omnibus hearing before the summer recess, during which it appeared to have successfully bounced Francis Maude into giving it a role in approving new or reorganised arm's-length bodies. But he baulked at extending that role to approval of abolition of existing bodies - and the Government has indeed gone ahead with today's announcement about a quango cull, without waiting for the fruits of the Committee's current inquiry into the subject.

So far the Committee has been concentrating not on quangos but on its other inquiry into 'UK Grand Strategy'. This inquiry is focusing on the National Security Council, and clearly reflects the Chair, Bernard Jenkin's, interest in defence issues, rather than public administration as usually understood. Hearings under this heading have included one on 9 September with three distinguished academics, who frankly - and enjoyably - took over control of proceedings to give the Committee the benefit of their collective wisdom. Professor Peter Hennessy even went so far as to give them instructions on how to do their job. Following a reference to the Comprehensive Spending Review and the Strategic Defence Review as an opportunity to achieve change, he adjured them: "It should be, but you're going to have to get on with it because it's nearly all done and dusted... You might, if you think it matters, Chairman, do a very quick interim report on this one because the clock is ticking. I'm serious. You must get on with it..." Bernard Jenkin offered that the Committee were aiming for the second week of October to publish the report (there is no sign of it yet, however). Peter Hennessy snapped back "too late". Shortly afterwards, he was giving more advice. "If you did an annual audit of this strategic question, a short one, it would concentrate minds... That's just a respectful suggestion".

But today, in "a short inquiry" (i.e. one morning's hearings) into Equitable Life, the Committee showed signs of finding its feet. Bernard Jenkin met and greeted witnesses with elaborate courtesy but also asked some very pointed questions ("How do you measure injustice?"). For their part, other members showed signs of throwing off the constraints he was trying to impose on them. After warming up with sessions with the Ombudsman and Sir John Chadwick, they were pretty much in full cry by the time the Financial Secretary, Mark Hoban, arrived from the Treasury. And they seemed to surprise him into admitting that he did not know for sure whether the amount to be allocated to compensation for Equitable Life members had yet been agreed, although it is to be announced as part of the CSR next week - which means it can't be a decision he is being allowed to make.

Some hopeful signs there then in terms of the Committee's developing effectiveness. But their report on Equitable Life will almost certainly appear too late to influence the decision which is out of even Mark Hoban's hands. They should stop pulling their punches. And in Peter Hennessy's words, they must get on with it.

The first two weeks

2010-08-05T07:02:00.000-07:00

The new Commons departmental Select Committees for this Parliament were finally set up on Monday 12 July, after what appears to have been a tortuous series of elections. (The Lords Committees, being still unelected, got going much sooner). Some of them set off like greyhounds out of the trap - notably the Treasury Committee which held its first hearing, with three different sets of witnesses, less than 12 hours after the results of the elections were confirmed by the Committee of Selection. Three Committees even met on 28 July, after the Commons had gone into its summer recess, of which more below. Others have adopted - what shall we say? - a more measured approach. Several Committees have not yet held any hearings at all, namely Communities and Local Government, Energy and Climate Change, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Foreign Affairs. The EFRA Committee, alone among all the departmental Committees, has not yet announced its first inquiry, although it has invited the Secretary of State along for an initial hearing in September. Northern Ireland Affairs was not set up until later than the others, because of continuing problems in settling the Labour membership, but has now got under way.

So, which are the ones to watch? Certainly the Treasury Committee under the severe chairmanship of Andrew Tyrie. It is clearly ahead of the rest in terms of activity levels, with five hearings already held, four inquiries on the go and its first report published after only one week of operations. But the new Political and Constitutional Reform Committee under Graham Allen, which was set up to scrutinise Nick Clegg's work and which has also already published its first report, is running it a close second and the Home Affairs Committee under the continuing chairmanship of Keith Vaz is probably third.

The Public Accounts Committee is always in a category of its own. It has started its work by bidding for additional freedoms under Standing Orders to appoint expert advisers, over and above the collective might of the NAO already available to it, and to hold meetings when Parliament is adjourned. It had to postpone a planned meeting on 28 July while other Committees, as noted above, were able to go ahead.

Over the next few weeks, I propose to analyse the more active Committees' work so far in more depth - so watch this space!

A Milestone on the Road of Reform

2010-06-12T02:17:00.000-07:00

A big milestone has been passed in the process of reform of the House of Commons with the election of the Chairs of the departmental Select Committees this week. And it's good news and bad news for those who want to see a real difference in the way Parliament works.

First, the bad news from that point of view. Several Chairs from the previous Parliament have returned to their Committees in this: Keith Vaz (Home Affairs), Alan Beith (Justice) and James Arbuthnot (Defence) are the main examples. Without attempting a detailed appreciation of their strengths and weaknesses as Committee Chairs on this occasion (maybe another time!), the fact that three such important Committees continue under the same leadership hardly implies a wholesale revolution in the way that Committees operate. Secondly, one third of the new Committee Chairs were elected unopposed. The Liberal Democrats were only allocated two Committees and appear to have organised matters so as to avoid an election in both cases. Or perhaps they just did not have enough backbench MPs with the time to spare, what with being in government and all. But it implies a continuing role for the party managers in the new system. Barry Sheerman, indeed, claimed that Labour Whips had operated against him in the election. Perhaps there is bound to be an element of sour grapes in losers' comments. Nevertheless it is the case that in addition to the Chairs who have not changed, several of the winners look like people who might well have been selected by the Whips under the old system: Graham Allen (Political and Constitutional Reform), Tim Yeo (Energy and Climate Change) and Stephen Dorrell (Health) might all fall into this category.

And now the good news: there are some refreshing results in the mix. Margaret Hodge, scraping in as the first female Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, for one. She may have promised to start her work by looking at allegations that the Labour government spent recklessly before leaving office, but it is certain she will soon move on to the way that cuts are made by the Lib-Con government. So no major party will be immune from PAC criticism over the next few months and years. Neither she nor Andrew Tyrie, who beat the favourite Michael Fallon to chair the Treasury Committee, will be particularly comfortable figures for Ministers to face across the Committee room. Andrew Tyrie was a member of the Wright Committee which recommended elections for Committee Chairs. Before he knew that he had been successful, he commented in the Guardian:

"It's been intriguing to see MPs asking each other for support across party lines, rather than simply looking upwards to the whips for patronage. The culture is changing. Backbenchers of all parties are realising that they have a lot to gain from these elections."

Well, something to gain, perhaps. The next step is the election of the members of the Committees, which will take place within the Parliamentary parties, by methods which they will decide. I understand the Labour party for one has not yet worked out how it will do it. Perhaps the Lib Dems will simply come up with a generally agreed list, as they seem to have done for their Chairs. However it is done, it needs to be done soon to keep up the momentum. We need to make progress towards the next milestone. And let's hope there will be more new faces as Committee members.

Back to Business

2010-05-06T12:24:00.000-07:00

It's been several weeks, but with the election of a new Parliament, Committee Watch is back in business! We can't wait to see whether the reforms agreed in the last Parliament will be put into effect in this and what impact they will have.

Meanwhile looking back, the (former) Justice Committee's hearing on 24 February on the constitutional implications of a hung Parliament looks positively prophetic given the way the election campaign developed. With our lack of a written constitution, there was plenty of scope for the Committee and its witnesses - Lord Butler, who was a relatively junior official in No 10 in February 1974, Lord Turnbull, Professor Robert Hazell, Peter Riddell and Sir Gus O'Donnell - to play with speculation about the roles of the Prime Minister, the Queen, the Cabinet Secretary, the party leaders and others in the case of a hung Parliament. As an opportunity for well-informed luminaries to conduct an elaborate dance on a constitutional pinhead it was unrivalled.

But the nature of the discussion was essentially unsatisfying. It was unsatisfying because it was all about process, rather than content. As the polls close today, we all want political content - something most Committee members and witnesses seemed to feel inappropriate (with the notable exception of Douglas Hogg).

The most interesting questions were probably about what would happen if people did not play by the rules, written or unwritten. What if an outgoing Prime Minister who could not form a government simply continued to act as if he could, or else washed his hands of the whole situation and declined to advise the Queen on an alternative? What if an outgoing government during a period of uncertainty while a new government was formed took major policy decisions without consultation? What if a smaller party or parties forced a leadership election in a larger party as a condition of co-operation? In our system we tend to assume people will play by the rules and, on the whole, they do. That's both an advantage and a disadvantage. (After all, the real problem with the Parliamentary expenses scandal was not the very few MPs who broke the rules but the rules themselves).

If it's assumed people will play by the rules then business can carry on even in uncertain circumstances. On the other hand, it gives the opportunity to rule-breakers to seize the initiative. Who will be doing that tomorrow?

Don't Try This at Home

2010-03-25T04:53:00.001-07:00

The Select Committees may be running down towards the imminent end of this Parliament, but in spite of the fact that they are demob happy (or perhaps because of it) there is still plenty of fun to be had in observing the behaviour of Committee members and witnesses. Take the Public Accounts Committee hearing on problem drug use a couple of weeks ago. Edward Leigh, the Chair, who is retiring, began with the remark "400 [hearings] down; four more to go". We were then treated to the unusual experience of a witness answering back to him. Paul Hayes, Chief Executive of the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, told him "I recognise you want me to be brief but if you bring issues that are not within the Report to the table then what do you expect?" Luckily for him, this raised a laugh, in which Edward Leigh joined heartily.

Later, Austin Mitchell suggested that Paul Hayes was wrong about the trend in drug-related deaths. His response: "No, I am absolutely right." Edward Leigh: "Are you ever wrong?" Mr Hayes: "It has been known." More laughs - at least from Committee Watch.

How did Paul Hayes get away with it? It was not just luck. First, he was extremely well-informed, with all the facts and figures at his fingertips. He never looked at his brief - he just knew it. Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, he was patently passionate about his job and his subject and he demonstrated authentic concern for drug users, their families and the victims of drug-related crime. Thirdly, he had the ability to hold the attention of the Committee by making the statistics come alive through discussion of the motivations and behaviour of the individual drug user. Austin Mitchell actually referred to the "impressive manner" in which his evidence was delivered.

My advice to any witness tempted to answer back to a Committee is "don't". But if you can replicate Paul Hayes's knowledge, passion, sense of humour and communication skills, you might just get away with it.

Base Camp

2010-03-06T09:11:00.000-08:00

The debate on 22 February on the Wright Committee's recommendations was inconclusive (although some fine speeches were made) and only the more minor resolutions were passed without objection. This meant that expectations were not unduly high for the outcome of the votes on some of the more contentious recommendations after the resumed debate on 4 March. But those of us who had given up hope of progress after the long drawn-out agony of the government's handling of the report (see previous posts) were confounded. Finally, the House of Commons more or less got it together. They agreed that from the beginning of the next Parliament the Chairs (no longer "Chairmen") of the departmental Select Committees, the Environmental Audit Committee, the Public Administration Select Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the Procedure Committee will be elected by the whole House. And they endorsed the principle that members of Select Committees should be elected by the parties. They also approved the recommendation in the report for the establishment of a Backbench Business Committee.

So where exactly does this get us? Harriet Harman described it as "the most far-reaching package of reforms ever agreed". Sir George Young was more cautious but he said "I believe that the resolutions represent our best opportunity for decades to start rebalancing the terms of trade away from the Executive and to start strengthening Parliament and making it more effective, more accountable and more relevant to the people outside it". Others, however, took a slightly different line. David Heath, for the Lib Dems, said "An Everest of reform is necessary...if we were climbing Everest, we would simple be at base camp." Michael Meacher described the two main proposals on elected Select Committees and the Backbench Business Committee as "certainly not revolutionary. Actually, they are quite modest". It was Tony Wright, perhaps unsurprisingly, who summed things up:

"We have taken some steps in this Parliament that unfortunately have had the effect of weakening the institution. We all now know that the task is to strengthen it. These measures by themselves will not do that; all they do is provide a set of tools that people in the next Parliament, our successors, can use, if they want to, to make this place a more vital institution. That is our job today; it is their job tomorrow."

All depends, therefore, on the way that the MPs new to Parliament who will make up the bulk of backbenchers after the election respond to the opportunities created for them. Which means in fact that it is up to me and you, the electorate, to make sure that those we elect are the right people and understand our expectations of them. If all goes well, however, the decisions made on 4 March shoudl mean that we can look forward to more effective scrutiny of the Executive in future. Let's continue to scrutinise the scrutineers to ensure that happens.

"Act courageously"

2010-02-20T09:16:00.000-08:00

On Monday the House of Commons will at last debate the recommendations of the Wright Committee report on Rebuilding the House. There was a flurry of activity in this area leading up to the half term recess. After weeks of fending off demands for a debate on the report (as previously discussed by Committee Watch - see A Matter of Urgency on 11 January), Harriet Harman announced a full day's debate. But further protests from Opposition spokesmen and backbenchers followed almost immediately as it was realised that the government proposed to table unamendable motions which would require unanimity to get through. Although Harriet Harman has presented this approach as sensible ground-clearing before focusing on the more controversial proposals (saying "I do not do devious. I am trying to assist the House"), many see it as a recipe for inaction, as lone mavericks block proposals which have general support amongst MPs.

Meanwhile the Liaison Committee published its views on the recommendations relating to Select Committees on 27 January. It noted that many of them echoed past recommendations of its own. It also noted that "some will not...command universal and unqualified support, even within the Liaison Committee". The recommendations referred to here included in particular that on the election of Committee Chairs. But the Committee continued: "doubts cannot be used as an excuse for inaction. We should be prepared to take some risks if the prize to be won is sufficient." And in conclusion it urged the House of Commons to "act courageously".

All of this might look like bad news for those, like Committee Watch, who want to see things move forward. Acting courageously is not necessarily what one would expect from a House of Commons on the brink of an election. One is reminded of Sir Humphrey's description of a risky Ministerial decision as "brave". But then again, many MPs who are planning not to stand again have little to lose. And the Wright Committee has by no means given up. It called Harriet Harman in on 10 February together with her opposite numbers, Sir George Young and David Heath, to explain her approach. At the hearing some Members were clearly impatient with her position. And increasingly, the recommendations on Select Committees are starting to look relatively straightforward compared to the proposal for a House Business Committee with backbench participation, to which the government is opposed.

So there is much to play for in Monday's debate. Let us see whether the House of Commons will indeed "act courageously".

A Step Forward

2010-01-23T11:00:00.000-08:00

A date has finally been set for the House of Commons to debate the Wright Committee report on Reform of the House of Commons. 23 February is not as early as some would wish but it should be early enough for the debate to go ahead before the election is announced. What is more, the Government has signalled support for some of the key recommendations, including the election of Chairs and members of Select Committees. As Jo Swinson pointed out in Questions to the Leader of the House on Thursday, it is not for the Government to accept or reject the proposals. Nevertheless their support is significant becasue they will control the wording of the motion on 23 February. They have made it clear, however, that they will not table the Resolution drafted by the Committee and some recommendations may not get through.

Further, Harriet Harman has laid a lot of stress on reaching consensus before 23 February if any resolutions are to be put into effect before the election (which is essential if progress is to be made on a reasonable timescale). So we can expect a few steps forward, perhaps, but not wholescale reform.

Many will be disappointed by this, but in the looking-glass world of Parliament progress is not always made by the most straightforward means. The key thing is for the House of Commons to take at least one step forward. We will see what then ensues.

Sleight of Hand?

2010-01-19T07:16:00.000-08:00

More trouble over pre-appointment hearings. In a combative session yesterday with Ed Balls, the Secretary of State for Education, the Children, Schools and Families Committee returned to the issue of pre-appointment hearings (see the earlier post on this blog). This time it was over the lack of an opportunity to hold a pre-appointment hearing at all for the new Chair and Chief Regulator of Ofqual. Or at least, not really new, according to Ed Balls, because Kathleen Tattersall was appointed as Head of the shadow Ofqual back in 2008 before the system of pre-appointment hearings was introduced and has simply been re-appointed now that the relevant legislation has been passed and Ofqual has a legal status. It would not be fair, apparently, on her or on the organisation to call her appointment into question now with a pre-appointment hearing.

Sleight of hand to avoid giving the Committee a chance to question Ms Tattersall? Well, it certainly seemed like it to the Committee, in spite of the conviction with which Ed Balls put his argument across. Barry Sheerman, the Chairman, used that very phrase. The Committee's conclusions on the Children's Commissioner were ignored, and now they have been "cheated" (the Chairman's word again) of a hearing with the Head of Ofqual. Ed Balls asserted that he was very much in favour of pre-appointment hearings, but the Committee were paying more attention I fancy to his deeds rather than his words. Barry Sheerman questioned the point of giving Select Committees the power to conduct pre-appointment hearings if their enquiries were blocked and sidestepped.

It is the same issue which has arisen on the Wright report (see the last post on this blog). The government say they support reform, but their inaction means backbenchers are very far from convinced that they really want to see any shift in the balance of power between Parliament and Executive.

A Matter of Urgency

2010-01-11T01:20:00.000-08:00

No news yet on when the Wright Committee's report on House of Commons Reform will receive substantive consideration, in spite of the fact that it has been raised by Opposition Front Bench spokesmen and others from all parties at every Business Questions since it was published. The Government line is that it is consulting on the wording of an appropriate motion, to which the riposte is that the Committee itself provided a draft Resolution in the report, in the hopes of smoothing the path to an early debate. The delay raises suspicions, which Martin Salter summed up in a debate in Westminster Hall on 15 December, when he said "dark forces are gathering and manoeuvrings are taking place".

There are concerns over a number of possible scenarios:
(i) that a substantive debate will be delayed so long that it will be overtaken by the election and will fall to the bottom of the priority list in the new Parliament;
(ii) that there will be an inconclusive debate on a watered-down Resolution, which will effectively consign the report to a place in the long list of failed attempts at reform; and
(iii) that the Government will cherry-pick a few minor changes to take forward, while dodging the report's main thrust which is about shifting the balance of power between the Executive and Parliament. Harriet Harman seemed to signal that this might be the most likely approach when she said on 7 January "we will make progress on this matter - not in one big bang, but we will establish the direction of travel on a consensus within this House. Steps will be taken".

Does it matter if the outcome is a few minor changes only or even none at all? Well, yes. The report's recommendations, in its own words, "are designed to make an immediate and practical contribution to the enterprise of rebuilding trust in the ability of the House of Commons to act as the vigorous guardian of democratic accountability". In November, Committeewatch ("The Start of a Process") described the report as a genuine opportunity to strengthen the House of Commons and rebalance the relationship between Parliament and government. But a start must be made soon if its recommendations are to have any impact on the new House of Commons to be elected shortly and the confidence of the public in it. Mark Fisher said on 15 December: "To leave such a debate to the next Parliament would be a terrible mistake" and David Heath for the Lib Dems described it as "a matter of urgency, of massive import and [one that] cannot be delayed".

The longer the report lies on the table, the more questions will arise. It is indeed a matter of urgency.

Happy Christmas

2009-12-25T07:49:00.000-08:00

A Happy Christmas and a well-governed New Year to all our readers!

Questioning styles

2009-12-23T07:52:00.001-08:00

In his statement last week at the completion of four weeks of public hearings by the Iraq Inquiry, Sir John Chilcot said "We have not been trying to ambush witnesses or score points. This is a serious Inquiry. We are not here to provide public sport or entertainment. The whole point of our approach has been to get to the facts. We ask fair questions and we expect full and truthful answers .... witnesses have responded to this approach by being commendably open and candid."

Now, is there a glance in Sir John's comments at the questioning style of Select Committees? It has long been a subject for debate: does the aggressive style sometimes adopted by Committee members help or hinder the search for truth? Does browbeating a witness serve the cause of anything but the questioner's ego? And to what extent is it legitimate for Committees to treat oral hearings with central government witnesses in particular as a species of blood sport? Should the questioning style of some members (one thinks of Charles Wardle when on the Public Accounts Committee questioning witnesses about the passports fiasco of summer 1999, but there are many other examples) have been banned along with hunting with dogs?

On the other hand, the Iraq Inquiry itself has come under some criticism for a "too gentle" style of questioning - it was at least partly in response to these criticisms that Sir John made the remarks in his statement. The media certainly like to see witnesses given a hard time and the public also do not want to see them let off the hook.

There is of course a middle way - a style of questioning which is objective and challenging, polite but probing. It works best when the Committee are acting as a team. A good example was Clive Betts' question during the Communities and Local Government Committee's hearing on 14 December on Preventing Violent Extremism. He asked the academic witnesses in front of the Committee (I paraphrase) how he should have advised some young Muslim men who came to see him concerned about a mosque's role in radicalising young people unhelpfully. The question was not put aggressively, nor was Clive Betts trying to catch anyone out. It was just a very good - and a very difficult - question. In spite of back-up from the Chair and from another member, Clive Betts never did get a satisfactory answer to it.

A style of questioning which is genuinely challenging while being "fair" (to use Sir John Chilcot's word) is much more difficult to achieve than onlookers tend to think. While some Committee members manage it now, perhaps the cause of truth would be better served if those asking the questions on behalf of us all had more training and support to do so effectively.

The Start of a Process

2009-11-24T10:20:00.000-08:00

It may be too early to judge the likely impact of today's report from the House of Commons Reform Committee. Dr Tony Wright, Chairman of the Committee, has himself described it as the start of a process which it will be for the next Parliament to carry forward. In some ways it is an opportunistic initiative. Although the report itself refers to the row over MPs' expenses in its first paragraph, it is actually an expression of much longer-standing backbench aspirations. We assume the members of the Committee believe that the expenses scandal has prepared the ground for those aspirations to be pursued.

That's not to say that the Committee's recommendations are by any means merely self-serving. They do genuinely offer ways to strengthen the House of Commons as an institution and to rebalance the relationship between Parliament and government, as well as modestly to increase the influence of the public on Parliament. For example, the proposal for Select Committee chairs and members to be elected - chairs by the whole House and members by party groups - holds out the prospect of more independently-minded Select Committees, which could lead to more interesting Select Committee reports. Whether they will be more influential remains to be seen.

As does a great deal more. Although the government has said it will make time to debate the report and although Sir George Young has said that reform will be a manifesto commitment for the Conservatives, there is plenty of scope for the Committee's recommendations to be watered down or to slip from view altogether between now and the General Election. But the current system of departmental Select Committees was agreed under one government 30 years ago and implemented under another. It would be rather neat if the biggest change in the system since then happened in the same way.

Reform of the House of Commons

2009-11-17T08:34:00.000-08:00

The report from Tony Wright's Committee on Reform of the House of Commons was originally due to be published last week but now looks as though it will not be out until next week. The word is it will be making modest but worthwhile recommendations for reform, including (of particular interest to Committeewatch) that Select Committee Chairmen should be elected by all members of the House of Commons. Watch this space!

Pre-appointment hearings

2009-10-20T08:49:00.000-07:00

Departmental Select Committees first acquired the additional function of holding pre-appointment hearings for certain key posts almost 18 months ago. The development did not attract much attention at the time or subsequently, although some observers had misgivings that it was the thin end of the wedge which could lead to wholesale politicisation of public appointments. But the list of posts subject to pre-appointment hearings was fairly limited; the government reserved the right not to be bound by Committees' views; and for some time all the hearings went off quietly.

The Children, Schools and Families Committee has changed all that with its refusal to endorse the appointment of Maggie Atkinson as Children's Commissioner for England. The decision has been presented as a personal challenge by Barry Sheerman, Chairman of the Committee, to Ed Balls and, by extension, to Gordon Brown. Barry Sheerman himself has helped to create this impression with remarks about Ed Balls being a "bit of a bully". But Ed Balls' working relationship with Ms Atkinson is hardly relevant to her fulfilment of the role. She does not take up post until March, and with a General Election coming up Ed Balls is likely to move on as Secretary of State - one way or another - very soon afterwards.

The row is interesting however as heralding a new direction for Select Committee pre-appointment hearings. The decision not to endorse Ms Atkinson's appointment was taken unanimously by the Committee. Their reason was that she came across to them, not just from her track record but also from her answers at the hearing, as too much of an establishment figure. She expressed a preference for working behind the scenes rather than public campaigning. The Committee wanted a different approach.

They also wanted more powers in this area. Their first conclusion was not about Ms Atkinson but on this point:

"We welcome the opportunity afforded by the pre-appointment hearing process to increase scrutiny by Parliament, on behalf of the public, of key public appointments. However, our role is closely circumscribed, which limits the value of involving select committees in the process, particularly as we have no means of comparing the preferred candidate with other applicants."

The point was taken up on the floor of the House and in television interviews too.

A decisive step has been taken by the Children, Schools and Families Committee and there is no going back now. Expect tougher pre-appointment hearings in future, more Committees declining to endorse appointments and more complaints from Committees if their views are ignored by Ministers.

Regional Select Committees - a seven day wonder?

2009-10-07T09:31:00.000-07:00

They were introduced in a climate of scepticism and political disagreement. They have been buffeted by the fallout from the row over MPs’ expenses and they are struggling to remain quorate. Nevertheless Regional Select Committees are showing signs of fulfilling a genuinely useful purpose and making a distinctive contribution to our democracy. So what’s the longer term outlook for them?

Achievements so far

The Regional Select Committees were set up in March 2009 – uniquely for Parliamentary Select Committees with Labour membership only (see The Political Debate below). While some got off to a slow start, several got energetically stuck in to their job of holding regional organisations to account. Half the Regional Select Committees managed to publish their first reports before the summer break and one more in the middle of September (the South East Committee’s report was published to coincide with the first South East Regional Grand Committee debate). And there is no lack of ambition in the themes they have tackled – all generally focused on the state of the economy and the role of the Regional Development Agencies in responding to it.

As well as fulfilling a traditional scrutiny function, they seem determined both to champion their own regions and bring Parliament to the people through holding hearings in the regions as far as possible. Paddy Tipping MP, Chairman of the East Midlands Committee, is a good example. The press notice he issued following his election as Chairman quoted him saying “The Committee intends to ensure that EMDA and other agencies working in the East Midlands are held to account. What’s more we want to promote the region and the regional agenda”. And at the Committee’s first hearing he said “we will try…to have a kind of local style, rather than a Westminster style”.

Background on Regional Select Committees

The Government first proposed the establishment of Regional Select Committees in July 2007 in the Green Paper, The Governance of Britain. The House of Commons Modernisation Committee supported the proposal in its report on Regional Accountability, recommending “that the most effective way to strengthen regional accountability to Parliament is to establish a system of regional grand and select committees”. The House of Commons endorsed the Committee’s recommendation on 12 November 2008, agreeing to create eight regional select committees covering the eight administrative regions of England. The remit of these committees is to “examine regional strategies and the work of regional bodies” in their region. On 25 June 2009 the House of Commons agreed to establish a ninth Committee for London.

Although the Committees are made up only of Labour MPs, they have not pulled their punches in their recommendations. Several have pressed for Regional Development Agency budgets to be protected or increased and there are strong challenges to the Regional Ministers in particular. For example, the South West Committee recommends “that the Regional Minister considers how he can more clearly demonstrate that his influence, either alone or in co-ordination with the Regional Economic Council, has brought about changes for the benefit of the South West”.

Strengths

Some of the strengths which the Committees have already demonstrated are:

- their closeness to people and issues. Because the members’ constituencies are all in the region they have an intimate knowledge of what is going on and in many cases already know the witnesses. Comparisons might be drawn in this respect with Committees of the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly;

- their informality. Hearings have been held in universities, museums, village halls as well as the more predictable Council chambers. First names are frequently used;

- working together. There has been commonality of theme and, in many cases, recommendations which reinforce each other;

- their size. Because of the issues over nominating members, these Committees are exceptionally small, with five members each, and this means they can be relatively speedy and focused.

And Weaknesses

But they have also demonstrated weaknesses, of which the first is:

- their size! With a Committee of five and a quorum of three, they are particularly vulnerable to absences and distractions. The East of England Committee has been completely disabled by the departure of Ian Gibson and the preoccupation of Margaret Moran, the Chair, because of the expenses row. They are also more likely to fall prey to individual members with bees in their bonnets;

- their lack of political balance. Several Committees have regretted this in their reports and it is undoubtedly a threat to their longer term existence.

The political debate on Regional Select Committees

Labour advocated Regional Select Committees to plug the accountability gap between local government scrutiny arrangements and Departmental and other Select Committees at national level. The Conservatives oppose many aspects of the government’s regional policy and many would solve the problem by abolishing the regional bodies which the Committees have been set up to scrutinise. The Liberal Democrats are mainly angry that Committee membership is supposed to reflect the political make-up of the House of Commons, rather than the region – particularly important for them in the South West, where there is a high concentration of Lib Dem MPs.

Future prospects

So what are the prospects for the future of Regional Committees? On paper they look bleak. The Conservatives have said they would abolish them if and when they come into power.

But Ben Bradshaw, the former Regional Minister for the South West, said when he appeared before the Committee on 30 March at their first hearing “that will be very much in your hands, as to whether you do a good job, and are seen to be doing a good job at doing the work that the House has asked you to do on their behalf”. And the Committees themselves seem to have a considerable degree of self belief. Several future inquiries have already been announced, with a broader range of themes this time.

And the desire for accountability at a level between that of local Councils and the UK as a whole is not confined to the Labour party. Some Conservatives – including for example John Redwood - would like to see a Parliament for England, to balance those for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We may find that the Regional Select Committees, if they do not survive in their current form, will have to be reinvented as something else.