Examination of Witnesses (Questions 80
- 86)
WEDNESDAY 24 OCTOBER 2001
RT HON
LORD NEWTON
OF BRAINTREE,
MR PETER
RIDDELL AND
MS ANNA
COOTE
Mr Stunell
80. My point is a different one but I will ask
it anyway even if it is discarded. There was an indication that
you may think there are too many ministers or too much government,
or whatever, are there too many select committees or are there
not enough? Do you have a view about whether we need more select
committees or concentrated select committees? What sort of structure
does the Society have in mind?
(Lord Newton of Braintree) Again this is going to
be a bit off the cuff, because I have always more or less taken
for granted and thought to be broadly right the matching of departmental
select committees to the structure of government departments,
for a variety of reasons. I think that probably would remain my
view, certainly at this moment. I did feel, and indeed made one
or two moves in this direction, if I remember rightly, there ought
to be more scope for select committees working together or creating
joint sub-committees, for example, so you could have joined-up
select committees in the same way as we talk these days about
joined-up government. I personally have not got some great new
structure which I think would improve things. Picking up the point
made by Lorna, I do slightly wonder—and this is no more
than wonder, I have no idea what the truth is—whether the
existence and creation of this committee may not have made the
Procedure Committee seem a little less attractive because of the
apparently more strategic role of this Committee and its overlap.
That may be something which could be looked at. I do not know
whether it is the intention there should be a Modernisation Committee
and a Procedure Committee forever, but there are some obvious
overlaps.
Mr Winterton
81. I have to say—
(Lord Newton of Braintree) I thought I might provoke
you!
82.—I was looking to merge Modernisation
into my Committee on Procedure. I suspect you would not take too
kindly to that, Chairman! My own view is that I think there is
a role for both, because of course Procedure looks very much at
how the House of Commons deals with legislation and holds the
Government of the day to account. Many of the aspects of modernisation
are, as it were, more strategic and perhaps less detailed than
that. At the moment, for instance, we are undertaking an inquiry
into the whole subject of parliamentary questions and also motions
as well, for instance whether they can be tabled electronically
rather than actually physically being taken in.
(Lord Newton of Braintree) It was not my purpose to
stir up trouble in the Committee!
Chairman: Let me reassure you, Tony, we work
in happy harmony!
Mr Winterton
83. We work in happy harmony, as Robin says!
(Lord Newton of Braintree) I was just slightly puzzled
by Lorna's question because I do not recall huge difficulty in
getting people to go on the Procedure Committee, in the days when
it would have looked at the strategic issues as well as some of
the more limited ones. But, as I say, that is clearly not the
main focus this morning. Coming back to the main thrust of the
question, I would broadly continue with the structure as it is,
give select committees more resources, probably more people, more
capacity to operate in sub-committees or through rapporteurs,
and more capacity to work in conjunction with other select committees
where the cause seems good.
Chairman
84. Let me put a question which will enable
you to make a last response, because I am conscious your report
is very rich and very broad and there may be points you would
wish to put to us before we close. In your report you are actually
commendably frank about your opinion of the performance of the
select committees, and you make some very strong observations,
for instance, as Peter has indicated, about the failure to follow
up the work of the external regulators which have proliferated
without necessarily achieving the necessary status in select committee
thinking. You are critical of the performance in the financial
over-view of select committees. One point you do suggest is there
should be annual objectives and performance indicators for select
committees. I was struck by the thought that whilst I could see
its merits I could also see immense problems there. Who sets the
objectives and performance indicators. Who does the report on
them? How do we avoid the circularity of getting into the position
in which the executive scrutinises the committees which are scrutinising
the executive. How do you see that working and basically have
you anything else to say to us?
(Lord Newton of Braintree) Can I bring Anna in on
this because this is one of the things she feels particularly
strongly about?
(Ms Coote) On the question of setting performance
indicators, there is a cliché in that which does not sound
very appealing, but we were struck by the fact that in any self-respecting
institution outside Parliament, whether in the commercial world
or the voluntary sector or wherever, it is now quite routine for
people who set about a task to say what they are going to do and
how they think they will judge their success and make that transparent
in some way, and perhaps produce targets or indicators which would
help them track whether they are obtaining their objectives. The
main thing is to have some kind of routine planning on the part
of the committee so they can say, "This is what we are going
to do this year, this is what we are aiming to do", not setting
out every inquiry because they have to be responsive and flexible,
but setting out what they think they can achieve and how they
are going to achieve it, and making that open so people can look
at them and say, "Are they doing what they say they are going
to do?" I accept your point there is a danger of circularity,
who is going to do the evaluation of the work of the committee,
but something like the Liaison Committee or whatever replaces
it could play a role there to see whether select committees are
doing the job they are supposed to be doing and doing it well.
This has to be linked with a much more purposeful role for Parliament
in training and developing the capacity of its members to fulfil
their scrutiny function. So transparency, statement of aims, some
kind of indicators so people can track progress, and training
and development for members.
(Lord Newton of Braintree) How can I best put this?
I thought you asked some very good questions, as it were, in your
general questions and I personally think that this would work
best on the basis Anna has just indicated, that is to say committees
themselves if you like as a piece of self-discipline setting objectives
at the beginning of the year and making some attempt to measure
their achievements against those objectives at the end of the
year rather than having some external force telling them. In fact
I think it is probably the only way in which it could be made
to work. The only other point I personally would like to add,
because one way or another we have managed to work in most of
the points you had not asked in the course of this—training,
communication and various others—is that the one I feel
most strongly about, and it goes beyond select committees but
I think they can have an important role, is the scrutiny of legislation
in draft before it is put before Parliament at all. One of the
things which animated me in my fairly lengthy period as Leader
of the House was to move things in the direction of far more Bills
being published in the session before they were actually going
to be introduced, but published as detailed draft Bills so the
people who were going to be affected could really look at the
detail and not just the broad generalities. The present Government
has continued, I think I am right in saying, to seek to move in
that direction and I heartily approve of that. Part and parcel
of it would be that select committees would regard it as quite
an important part of their duties, once a Bill had been published,
to look at that Bill in a much broader way with less nit-picking
amendments moved; some of the less productive work of standing
committees. I think select committees could bring a different,
broader approach and play a material part in improving the ultimate
quality of the legislation.
Mr Shepherd
85. It does interrupt the work of select committees
in other fields. The Home Affairs Select Committee is going to
be doing pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft of three Bills
in November, December and January.
(Lord Newton of Braintree) I can understand that and
of course when Governments, as all Governments have from time
to time, produce a lot of legislation in one area, or just a lot
of legislation anyway, there is no way of avoiding some of the
problems that creates. All I was saying was it would be a lot
better that select committees should have some input into trying
to problem-spot before the Bill is passed and assist in improving
the legislation that way, than them having to conduct a lot of
post-legislative inquiries into crises and difficulties which
have arisen.
Chairman
86. Could I thank all three of you for what
has been a very helpful and stimulating session. Some of your
thoughts you may well find reflected in our future work.
(Lord Newton of Braintree) Thank you, Chairman, for
the open and friendly way in which the proceedings have been conducted.
I have to say I found it much more fun than some of the grillings
I had when I was a minister!
Chairman: Thank you very much.
|
