Examination of Witness (Questions 40 -
48)
WEDNESDAY 17 OCTOBER 2001
PROFESSOR LORD
NORTON OF
LOUTH
Joan Ruddock
40. If I might say so, on that point, it does
overcome the point that I made to Lord Sheldon about the vested
interests, because I think that it is clearly perceived there
are vested interests for the chair to be appointing people. May
I put it to you that the high profile cases of which we know,
the three cases of people being taken off the committee, not being
put forward for nomination to the committee, was not because nobody
would have them as members of that committee, but because, very
clearly, the expectation was, if they were a member of the committee,
that person would become the chair of the committee. And that
is something that is clearly perceived in advance, there is either
promotion of people for the chair or this pressure on the committee
to ensure that someone is elected. I think you agree with all
the points I make?
(Lord Norton) Absolutely; yes.
41. Which takes me to your recommendations about
payment. The stakes will be that much higher, especially, as you
suggest in your submission, that people could be paid even at
the level of a cabinet minister; and, I put it to you, if that
were to be the case, surely there ought to be a limit of a single
Parliament to anyone who chaired a select committee?
(Lord Norton) On your first point, I would not necessarily
accept fully the argument that there are vested interests in the
way you said, but I would accept that there is the perception,
and perceptions are all-important. I realise other people may
think there are vested interests, and I think that is the same
point with the role of the Whips, why we have got to get away
from the present system, it is not just the actuality but it is
also the perception, and I think that is absolutely fundamental.
No, I take your point; there would be competition, that is part
of what is in the report, because what we are concerned to do
is to actually build incentives into the system, to make being
involved in select committees more attractive, to want to bring
Members into it. Now, you are quite right, it may be that one
should, therefore, have a rotation rule, it works fairly well
in the Lords, it is a three-year rotation rule for chairmen, and
indeed for members, but I think, in this context, only for chairmen,
which could be for a Parliament, with perhaps a provision for
coming back at a later Parliament, whatever, but you cannot have
two continuous terms. So, yes, that would meet your point, and,
of course, it would maintain in the system some element of fresh
blood, in terms of chairing committees as well.
Chairman
42. Very good. Shall we move on to some of the
wider issues that you have raised about the select committees.
First of all, I noted in your report that I think you were more
sympathetic to the enlargement of the select committees than Lord
Sheldon indicated when Ann Coffey inquired; would you like to
expand on your thinking on the size of the committees?
(Lord Norton) Yes, certainly. I think there are a
number of arguments for it; one I touched upon earlier, if it
was felt there was a degree of expertise that would allow for
a committee to expand. And, again, coming back to Nick Winterton's
point, one is not setting a precedent there, because at the moment
select committees are not of a uniform size, so it is felt that
some subjects, for different reasons, require a slightly larger
membership; it may be because of the subject matter and the Members
one wishes to appoint, like the Northern Ireland Committee, or
it may be the nature of the subject matter lends itself to it.
So there is no rule that it necessarily has to be 11 members;
so I think there are grounds for some degree of flexibility there.
But there is another reason, which comes back to my point about
other goals of reform, which is that if you are to encourage the
committees to go beyond their existing practice of focusing upon
scrutiny of policy and issuing reports, so that they spend time,
for example, looking more at estimates, if they are going to engage
more in pre-legislative scrutiny, then there may well be a case
for them to appoint sub-committees; some may focus on the estimates,
but it might be preferable to allow the committee to get through
a fair amount of work to appoint, say, a sub-committee to engage
in some degree of pre-legislative scrutiny. For that purpose,
I do think there is a case for enlarging the committees, because
it would give them the flexibility, if they wished, and I think
a lot should rest on the committees themselves to decide how they
ought to proceed, but if they wished they would therefore have
the scope to appoint sub-committees. So that was one part of our
proposal, to allow them to expand what they do and to spend more
time on pre-legislative scrutiny, but it would not be the only
way we felt that they could accommodate that expansion, but it
is one of the proposals that we have put forward to allow them
to do that.
43. One other point, from your report. I personally
find myself very sympathetic to your comments on the character
and nature of the actual reports, I am not just talking about
the substance but the presentation of it, which has a certain
olde worlde charm, and I find myself impressed by your proposal
it should be made a more reader-friendly style. That, presumably,
is something that you attach some importance to, if we are going
to connect with the public?
(Lord Norton) It does, and I have done for some time.
Some of the recommendations in here and in the Liaison report
I was actually putting before the Procedure Committee in 1989/90
when it issued its report on the first ten years; both in terms
of strengthening committees but also the dissemination of reports,
I think they are extremely important. I know there may be those
who feel this is a rather small issue, but it is actually rather
important to the whole concept of disseminating reports. Committees
can do extraordinarily important work, excellent recommendations,
but the only people who sometimes read them will be the Government,
of necessity, because it has got to respond, and affected public,
the interest groups outside who want to see to what extent the
recommendations are taken on board; but they are the only captive
audiences. The other audiences, in terms of Parliament and the
wider public: what is there there to bring them to the reports?
There have to be ways of disseminating the reports to those wider
audiences. Part of that is presentation, in terms of how they
are designed, how they look, which is not unimportant, given that
MPs are not exactly short of material to read, so you need something
that is going to catch the eye, that stands out from other things.
But I would also ally it not just with the physical presentation
of a report but the mechanisms by which they are actually disseminated
to the wider public. I think there has tended to be too much of
a restrictive attitude, in terms of disseminating reports; it
is seen too much in terms of, "Well, if we print them, they're
going to cost quite a lot of money, we'll have charge people a
lot of money if they want to get hold of a copy." I think
there needs to be a different attitude, that these are reports
that really ought to be in the public domain, to see them as under
the ownership of the public, so that one presents them in an attractive
manner but then tries to ensure they are pushed out as widely
as possible to all those who might be interested in what is going
on. The Internet obviously is important in this context, it is
being redesigned in a way that I think will be clearly more user
friendly, and already, if you look at the number of hits that
committee reports get, it is quite encouraging. But if it were
redesigned in a way so that not just those who wanted to get the
reports got them immediately, I think there is an awful lot to
be done there. I think it comes back to my point about culture,
how you see these things, that there needs to be a completely
different attitude of mind about the dissemination of the outputs
of committees. It is a shame if they do wonderful work and yet
the band of output is so narrow. I think select committees have
been a great plus, they have done excellent work, but there is
a danger if there is not a sufficient linkage between the committees
and the chamber, and between the committees and the outside world.
And I think that ties in with my earlier point about linking it
with other changes, so that committee work feeds far more into
what goes on in the chamber and also feeds far more into that
wider environment, so that people outside are more aware and more
interested in what is actually going on, because committee reports
can be extremely educative for people and I think could add enormous
value to the reputation of this place.
Chairman: Thank you. I think we would
all say Amen to much of that.
Mr Pike
44. Could I just return to the pre-legislative
scrutiny of bills, because, obviously, the Modernisation Committee
reported on that, and at the moment we have given several options.
Now you will appreciate that some government departments have
a lot more legislation than others. Now there is a danger, would
you not accept, that some select committees could have their agenda
totally dictated by looking at these bills, and that, therefore,
the procedure recommended by Modernisation allows two or three
different avenues for this type of scrutiny, which I think is
the right thing, is a sensible approach, because, otherwise, I
am sure you will see some select committees would be almost totally
dominated? Now the other thing that I would ask, while I am raising
the question, is that the three reports that we are looking at,
your report, the Hansard and the Liaison Committee report, have
all suggested that we give select committees more powers, and
making them more important; do you think that that would, in the
end, result in members having better attendance? Because I know
I had to yesterday be having officers `phone round, the Clerks
of the House, to get people so that we could start our meeting,
and many chairs of committees are in that difficulty at times?
(Lord Norton) Indeed; I agree very much with what
you are saying. On your first point about pre-legislative scrutiny,
in our report we say something similar to Modernisation, in that
we recognise the need for some degree of flexibility. As I mentioned
earlier, I am not for being too rigid in terms of what committees
do, because I think committees have to adapt to their particular
needs, for the very reason you have mentioned, so some committees
dealing with domestic policy areas are going to be extremely busy
if they are looking at all the bills coming before the House;
others like Foreign Affairs are not exactly going to be overwhelmed
by pre-legislative scrutiny. Therefore, I think committees do
need some degree of flexibility in how they respond; that would
tie in with my earlier point, for example, about possibly even
enlarging certain committees, giving them scope perhaps for one
or more sub-committees, and, of course, there is the point that
in some areas it would lend itself more to a joint committee,
and on occasion an ad hoc committee; and, as we mentioned,
the committees will not necessarily be obliged to engage in pre-legislative
scrutiny, it will be up to them whether they engage in it. So
I take your point exactly, I have no disagreement with what you
said. I think it is up to committees to adapt to their particular
circumstances, and they need the resources and the capacity to
do that; and, as I say, we take that point completely in our report.
On your second point, again, I agree completely, and what we address
in the report explicitly is how do you provide incentives for
members to be involved in the process, what is it that will make
them attend? You cannot just say, "You should attend,"
or rely on their sense of duty, because there are competing demands
on their time, so what is it that will draw them to committees?
Well, making the committee work more relevant, not necessarily
in formal powers, but if you make the committee members feel they
are going to have some impact on what Government may be doing,
not in terms of formal sanctions, but if you have actually got
the opportunity, for example, with the estimates to propose transfer
of funds from one head to another, make it more relevant from
their point of view in terms of what the committees are doing.
I think, as well, there is the point about paying the chairs.
But, of course, another recommendation is that each committee
should be allowed to appoint a deputy chair as well. This would
be part of a package of incentives. Of course, if you have sub-committees
someone has got to chair them, which could be an ordinary member
of the committee, and, again, I think you can build in things
like that, which are incentives. So I am all for giving select
committees a range of things to do without overburdening them,
so that you build in the resources, the capacity for sub-committees,
so they are not overburdened, but in a way that makes them more
relevant to the members, so, in other words, make them actually
feel, "Yes, there's something worthwhile in attending, I'm
not just making up numbers, I'm not just going to pop in for a
minute so I am on the attendance list, I'm actually interested
in the work of the committee and therefore I will attend it."
So we were very much driven by what underpinned your question,
that is, what is it that we can do to actually make members want
to attend the committees, just telling them they should will not
necessarily bring them there, there has actually got to be something
in it for them that makes the whole exercise worthwhile. And that
was what we were very much concerned with, incentives for the
committees, and indeed incentives in terms of the chamber as well,
what is it that will bring Members back into the House. That was
very much at the heart of our thinking, what are the incentives
for Members to make use of what is there? We can provide all the
structures, all the procedures you like, but if Members are not
interested and are not prepared to commit themselves then the
whole exercise will be for nothing.
Mr Knight
45. Do you think there is a case for saying
that prolonged non-attendance without reason should trigger a
committee vacancy?
(Lord Norton) I am very much drawn to that. It is
the other side of the coin, because I think there should be both
carrots and sticks; so carrots to attend make it worthwhile to
attend, and if you do not attend then you are off the committee.
I think there is a lot to be said for that. You could argue, in
a way, it also then becomes a carrot, because presumably no Member
would like to be seen to have been kicked off a committee for
not attending; so I have tremendous sympathy with that. And, on
the point of principle, it is not fair on the committee; for the
committee to do its work, members have to attend, they have got
to apply themselves, and it is not fair if someone is not doing
that. I think that would be a reason for removing them, because
otherwise, and I think it is probably the only reason I am keen
to keep members on committees, because I think it is important
to develop a sort of collective ethos on the committee for the
purpose of continuity, so I think we want to discourage members
from leaving, as far as possible, certainly those who have been
active in committee, but, if it is someone who is clearly not
participating, it is not fair on the committee. Indeed it is not
fair on somebody else if they actually want to be on the committee
and would be willing to commit their time to it, so I think you
should give them the opportunity.
46. And do you think that should be an automatic
trigger or a power which is vested in the committee?
(Lord Norton) I think you need to have at least some
basic rule about it, which would be that four, five or six consecutive
non-attendances should normally trigger removal, unless the Member
is able to present, either to the committee itself or perhaps
to whoever is responsible for appointing the committee, some reasonable
excuse; obviously, if a Member has been in hospital, or something
like that, you do not want to penalise them for that, but if they
have no reasonable excuse I think you need something that would
trigger that anyway, but with some flexibility.
Mr Winterton
47. Following up really the question that Greg
Knight and Peter Pike asked relating to attendance, anecdotal
evidence I always think is quite important. In the last Parliament,
the Procedure Committee had one member, I do not intend to make
mention of the name or constituency, who did not attend for nearly
three years. I do not blame the individual member, because he
had requested to be replaced but his party did not wish to replace
him, and he had just been told not to turn up if he did not wish
to do so. That does, as Lord Norton has said, put further pressure
upon the other members of that committee, and, therefore, the
present system clearly does not work and does not represent the
best interests of the House. Relating to estimates, and I think
Peter Pike also made mention of that, as did you, Lord Norton,
of course the Procedure Committee has made a recommendation to
the House, and Andrew Stunell and Paul Tyler have been well aware
of that, from the past, that part of the job of a select committee
should be to examine the estimates of the department that they
are scrutinising. Now, of course, there is some reluctance to
do that because there are more high profile, attractive things
to do, but you are saying to this Committee that examining the
estimates clearly is an important task. And, finally, because
of your concern to get higher profile for select committees, and
I fully endorse that, would you agree with me, and I am not necessarily
going to get support from my colleague on my right, do you not
feel that the experiment of Westminster Hall has given the House
a much greater opportunity to debate, perhaps not quite the chamber
but it is a public exposure of the very important reports, Philip,
to which you have made mention, that are produced by select committees;
and do you therefore think that the Westminster Hall experiment
has been a success, particularly in respect of select committee
reports?
(Lord Norton) You have raised three points. The only
thing I can say on the first one, you are absolutely right, though,
of course, you have now offered us all an incentive to rush off
and look at the membership of the Procedure Committee during that
period and then look at the attendance list, but you are absolutely
right, and, of course, if you have the sort of mechanism I mentioned,
which is a triggering mechanism, after so many non-attendances
you go off unless there is reasonable excuse, would meet that
very case you have mentioned. On your second point about estimates,
you are quite right; I think there is a case for select committees
to be encouraged to fulfil the different aspects of their terms
of reference, and we know from the data presented in the Liaison
Committee report that there is an overwhelming emphasis on the
policy aspect rather than administration expenditure. So, again
in our report, we are trying to think of ways of giving incentives
to committees to broaden the scope of what they do, so they would
look more at expenditure. One possibility which was put before
us was that one might require select committees to report each
year that they have considered the estimates; that would be one
way of doing it. Now the committee may decide just to look at
the estimates and report they have looked at them without really
doing anything, but at least it would prompt them, would require
them to report to the House they have considered the estimates,
so you can provide prompts in that way, and, as I mentioned earlier,
build in resources to provide them with that scope. So we felt
certainly that committees should be encouraged perhaps to spend
a little less time on policy, because 70 or 80 per cent of the
time is spent on that, and move a little more towards the estimates;
so I agree completely with you on that, and I think they could
be given a nudge in that direction, which I think would be rather
important. Westminster Hall has provided a forum, certainly opened
up the scope for more debate of select committee reports; so I
would agree with you in that any opportunity for Members to debate
select committee reports is to be welcomed. I also agree with
the Liaison Committee, I would like to see it taken further and
closer links between those reports and the chamber itself, because
on occasion I think that is rather important; rather than just
a `take note' debate, sometimes select committees do bring forward
matters where I think the whole House needs to be given the opportunity
to debate it, and, if necessary, on a substantive motion. And
therefore I think you have got to be careful about just saying,
"Westminster Hall has been very good;" it comes back
to the point we make about select committees in our report, it
is the half full, half empty bottle, so, okay, the bottle is filling
up, but we need to be conscious that it is not full, and, for
the health of the political system, I think that bottle needs
to be brimming.
Chairman
48. Thank you very much, Philip, that has been
very helpful, it was a very interesting session. We are very grateful
to you for your guidance.
(Lord Norton) My pleasure.
Chairman: We hope we will have something,
at the end of the day, that will go with the grain of your thinking.
Thank you.
|
