Examination of Witness (Questions 87-98)
THE RT
HON ALAN
WILLIAMS, MP
WEDNESDAY 19 DECEMBER 2001
Chairman
87. Alan, welcome. Please feel relaxed because
we have a very informal style in this Committee. It is taken very
much as an informal discussion rather than a formal taking of
evidence, which we can use in future against you. We have made
this public. I think the rest of the public is probably recovering
from last night's Christmas parties, wherever they were, but we
are on the record so there will be a formal transcript of what
is said. I felt that at the opening you might want to be free
to make a few observations on what way we should go because I
know the Liaison Committee did have a preliminary session, quite
rightly, before this evidence and I would be interested to hear
from you what they see as the priorities for change and indeed
what anxieties they may have for change.
(Mr Williams) First of all can I declare
my credentials in that having spent 22 years on the Front Bench
I am now a convert to the role of the back bencher. I pointed
out to the House on one occasion, as no doubt you will all remember,
that one of the best things that could happen to Members of Parliament
would be that when they came in they had to spend their first
spell in the House on the Opposition Benches. There is nothing
like a spell in Opposition to convince you of the value of accountability
and of the importance of access. Your experience has been different
from mine. The departmental committees did not exist when I was
previously a back bencher and so I have been entirely on the Public
Accounts and Privileges side which works somewhat differently,
so I apologise for the difference in background but it helps me
to look at things perhaps from a slightly different perspective.
As many of you know, I am an absolute devotee of the role of the
PAC. I would sooner be the senior member on the PAC than a Chair
of almost any other committee, frankly. I have become increasingly
conscious of the absolute inadequacies of the system of scrutiny.
I repeat things which no-one listened to when I said them before
so I do not feel embarrassed about repeating them, but here we
are with committees generally, if you just take the financial
side, having over £700 billion worth of spending and income
to monitor for value for money, prudence, fraud and so on. It
is almost impossible for part-timers like ourselves to do it unless
we have back-up. It does not apply only on the financial side.
Because of the fragmentation of government into executive agencies
and so on (and I am not knocking that) in a managerial sense,
the job of the committee trying to hold the executive accountable
becomes more diffused. The lines are less clear than when we just
had the departments. That is my starting point. I also, with the
Chairman of the PAC, headed a rebellion in the last Parliament
that most people would never even know took place, but it was
of some importance in accountability in that we went on to the
Resource Accounting Bill with one of our Liberal colleagues, David
Rendel, as a PAC implant to put down amendments in order to focus
attention on the fact that actually the powers of the House were
continually being eroded with new quangos being set up which are
not accountable, for example, to the public, and as a result of
that action we had the Sharman Committee set up which came up
with the recommendations which recommended virtually everything
we wanted. I may be a late convert but I am a genuine convert.
88. There is far more joy for the sinner who
repents.
(Mr Williams) I have a lot of sins to repent so there
must be great joy. As far as the Liaison Committee is concerned
I am rather embarrassed to put forward this point of view when
you have Nick and Peter here who have been in on the evolution
of the thinking on the Liaison Committee. What I will do is set
up markers rather than go into depth on individual things because
you probably want to ask questions under some of the headings.
One of the big issues of contention, as was apparent in the debate
in the House a short while ago, is the issue of membership and
the selection of membership. I start from a basic proposition
here which is that the Standing Committees should be within the
control of the Front Benches to decide who best represents them
in bringing forward legislation and opposing legislation. I start
from the opposite point of view as far as the Select Committees
are concerned, and I think this is where the Liaison Committee
is as well. They are the property of the back benchers. They are
not the property of the House in general. Because we do not have
a separation of powers it is difficult for us to find ways of
observing that division but my view is that whatever formula you
arrive at in relation to membership, and the recommendation put
forward by the Liaison Committee of three wise men or three wise
men plus was turned down in the last Parliament, it is one of
the most difficult points to resolve because there is no denying
that the parties also have an important right in this. In the
same way that the committees are the creatures of the back benches,
they are also the creatures of the back benches in the various
parties and so it will be a very difficult task of trying somehow
to distance the executive. It is really a problem on the Government
side rather than in Opposition, whoever happens to be in government.
Whatever structure you have, and, as the recommendation of the
Liaison Committee was turned down you will probably evolve another
one, it probably will not work unless in some way the executive,
the Government (including Whips), is excluded from the decision
making process. I see a smile on your face thinking, "Here
we go again", but nevertheless it is worth stating the basic
principles. We have to consider the role also of front benchers
from the Opposition parties on the committees and how we deal
with the problem of how long it takes to get replacements when
people are taken off. The membership issue is a very complex one.
I do not envy you your task there. The second one, which is the
emerging issue, is the issue of size. The Liaison Committee had
a discussion on this just last Thursday morning in anticipation
of this occasion. There was virtual unanimity against an increase
in size. George Young argued for an extra couple of people on
Treasury but there was almost overwhelming agreement that it would
be damaging to the nature of the committees if we just used them
to put tails on seats, to occupy the unoccupied, or to be, as
one of our colleagues put it, a piece of work experience. Their
feelings were strongly against that. I kicked it around and thought
about it and thought, "Is there any advantage in it?",
and the only one I can see, and I would not push this hard against
the disadvantages, is that it would help to develop what I would
call a scrutiny culture in the House of Commons. We have enormous
turnover of Members at every Parliament and we all remember our
first delighted euphoric days in the House of Commons and then
the gradual emergence of disillusionment or reality or whatever
you care to call it, and I had, as I say, a spell in Opposition.
I look with (I hope well suppressed) glee at some of our colleagues
on what to me is the other side of the House in my party role,
who are now sitting there enduring what we had to endure when
we were in Opposition, but that is one of the tragedies of the
House of Commons. Once things start going wrong the other side
says, "Yah boo", and repeats it. The importance of the
scrutiny culture is that a new Member coming in inevitably is
full of loyalty for his or her party, full of enthusiasm, and
it takes time for people to recognise that part of the job is
to ask questions even of your friends, that it is not disloyal
but it is a key role of Parliament because you do not do your
friends any favours if you let them make silly mistakes. That
seems to me to be one of the strongest propositions that have
been put forward in favour of having larger numbers, but I think
the arguments against it are very strong indeed. All members referred
to the lack of identity, the lack of cohesion that they felt there
would be. It is like when you go on a deputation to a minister.
If there are three of you, you get worked on. If the whole of
the Welsh group turns up everyone has a say, you are patted on
the head and you go home. That in effect is what the Select Committees
would become like if we accepted the proposition, which originated
in the Hansard Society, that 17 should be a standard. I can see
cases for 17 in the very large departments. If the House and the
Government will large departments we have to will the means to
monitor them, but in that case it is important that they then
be divided into sub-committees. A very interesting argument was
put forward the other morning by Peter against this. The argument
he put forward was, and he described his committee as being one
of the less popular committees, that if you enlarge big committees
it is going to be very difficult to man the smaller committees.
One other thing is financial accountability and possibly using
the sub-committee structure (and it could be that that might depend
on how much extra work they take on) might be an additional argument
in support of those who favour the bigger committee. I think however
I would be misleading you if I suggested for one second that the
Liaison Committee is in any way inclined to support an expansion
of the idea of larger committees. The other things one needs to
look at are pre-legislative and sub-committees and debates on
reports, which are issues which are important to the Liaison Committee,
but I have jabbered on, it is the end of term and I think it would
be better if I let people ask questions.
89. Thank you very much, Alan. You have obviously
had a very interesting and full discussion. It might be helpful,
since we only have this morning to discuss this, if the Clerk
of the Liaison Committee were not to put in a formal minute because
that would require approval of the Liaison Committee but were
to advise our Clerk of the general tenor of the discussion and
that would help us to make sure we were fully informed on their
views as we prepare our text. Can I just begin with the question
of the size? I understand the points that you make and Donald
Andersen's letter is very precise and vigorous on the practical
problems of an increased committee. The other side of the coin
of course is that on the larger committees—and generally
speaking they are the more prestigious committees—there
always are a large number of members who do not get on and who
wish to get on, so I think the case for the larger committees
is that it would enable more members who wished to to take part
in those committees. I utterly agree that we should not have a
blanket rule of everything going up by 20 per cent or whatever,
and we could make a case in the Deregulation Committee for reducing
the size of the committee which would ease Peter's problems somewhat
there. When one looks at a committee like Foreign Affairs, or
indeed the Treasury, which are committees of great prestige, status
(and indeed rightly so because of the importance of their policy
areas) they cover such vast areas of different policy that I find
myself asking whether it would not be reasonable to increase them
from 11 to 14, say, which would accommodate another three members
who are very keen to get on those committees.
(Mr Williams) There I think you really have to go
by the experience of those who are on those committees you have
named. They were less than enthusiastic. Donald was one of those
who argued strongly for not increasing the size. As in all cases,
they vary in priorities. The overwhelming priority for a Select
Committee has to be its prime purpose, which is effectiveness
in monitoring. Any change that is made in whatever committee it
happens to be has to be judged against that criterion. That is
why I said that if the Government wills large departments then
the House has to will a committee that is capable of covering
the whole range of that department, but in the case of Foreign
Affairs that is a static department. Its role has not changed
over a very long time and as far as I am aware there may be more
people wanting to get on but I do not think the Committee feels
that it is incapable of doing its work with its present number
of members, and indeed they argue that if 17 members are all going
to have their turn in asking questions there is going to be a
considerable amount of repetitiveness. I think it is horses for
courses. You judge in each individual case, but you must have
a clear priority. The Select Committees are there to monitor.
What is best to enable them to carry out that monitoring function?
Mr Tyler
90. I did want to follow up this point about
size. I do not think we were thinking in terms of massive increase
in any case. I understand their reservations but I am rather worried
and I would like to tease out what exactly was meant by this phrase
"work experience". It sounds as if that was used in
a derogatory sense. In this place we keep saying that everybody
should have work experience, not least Members of Parliament.
I suppose therefore what I would be thinking is that if you are
not prepared to consider the way in which people come into the
system by enlarging the committees we would have to think in terms
of limitation of term, ie, no Member sat on a committee for more
than five years, because otherwise we are never going to get new
Members coming forward and gaining experience. I do not want this
to sound derogatory but I just wonder whether the view of the
Liaison Committee is not that of those who are sitting comfortably
in the committees and have gained that experience and are not
recognising that we have to bring on a new generation.
(Mr Williams) Ii think that would be a problem if
it were not for the high rate of turnover on the committees. Most
committee Chairmen complain to me that their problem is that they
lose a lot of Members, understandably, because if they perform
well on a committee or if they have been put on a strong committee
they are probably people who have good prospects of advancement
anyhow and they are going to be moved on. If there were a work
experience argument then that enhances our case that we must ensure
that there is quicker replacement because I understand that in
the last Parliament there were very long delays. As to the time
limit on membership, as someone who has been 11 years on my present
committee you will understand that I have a vested interest in
what I am about to say, but I think my vested interest is somewhat
limited in duration, so I think I can say it reasonably objectively.
When these committees were first set up the House has experimented
with committees for over a century and we had these generalist
committees. When the Select Committees were first set up there
was fierce opposition from certain very prominent Cabinet members
at that time because they felt that the committees would develop
an identity of their own, would become their own creatures, but
also would develop an expertise which was the great edge that
the minister always had over the committee. One minister on average
serves perhaps only two and a half to three years in any one department
and then moves on. Nevertheless, immediately they move in they
have the back-up of the Civil Service. It takes longer for us
to build up anything like a comparable knowhow. The great advantage
of the committees is that there are now a great many Members who
speak with undeniable authority on their subjects and would not
have been able to do that with the same authority or with the
same background knowledge had they not served for a considerable
period there. Again I keep coming back to fundamentals on it.
What is it we want to do? If our objective is to ensure that,
limited though our capability is to do it, ministers are answerable
to this House as fully and as effectively as possible, we have
to ensure that the committees are as effective as possible.
Mr Winterton
91. Two things to the Chairman of the Liaison
Committee. Clearly there is a difficulty in ensuring not just
that Her Majesty's Opposition, which is the Conservative Party,
is properly taken care of in representation on Select Committees,
but also there are minority parties and although Andrew Stunell
can speak for them, as he does seek to do, to represent their
interests, clearly there can be a problem of ensuring reasonable
opportunities for minority parties on Select Committees. Might
that not be a reason for a very modest increase in size? Along
with that, is there any need on Select Committees for the ratio
of Members in each party to be exactly that which reflects that
of the political parties in the House? I am increasingly of the
view that it is not necessary. The number of votes that take place
in Select Committees are pretty few and to an extent Members are
there for the contribution that they can make, not the party view
that they can make. The second main point, which I am again coming
round to, and it may be absolutely out of the question but I often
ask questions that are out of the question, is this. Is it not
actually worth us considering having Select Committees that do
not just monitor departments but actually monitor major government
functions? I am worried that we have got huge departments like
DEFRA and Local Government, Transport and the Regions. I personally
believe that there should be again a Select Committee for transport.
It is a major issue for government. With Gwyneth we have a super
Chairman who knows a lot about it, but I am wondering whether,
and I know it is something that has not been considered because
we have been monitoring government departments, we should not
have Select Committees that monitor major functions of government
and not just departments. That of course would give greater opportunities.
Whether there would be sufficient Members in one or two of the
parties to do justice to that I am not sure, but I pose those
questions.
(Mr Williams) Certainly the position of a minority
party has to be protected. I cannot pretend I have any authoritative
view on how it is best done. I apologise for that but I have had
no experience of having to grapple with the sort of problems that
our colleagues have to deal with. On the issue of balance of voting,
it is difficult to know how to do it. My suspicion here, and this
again is if you like a piece of geriatric cynicism which comes
of having been around the House a little while, is that the nearer
you get to marginality on the committees the more likely divisions
become. On Don Andersen's Committee early in the last Parliament
he had a couple of people from our own side who were known as
of independent disposition. I think it is great that people of
known independent disposition get on committees but it does make
for rather unpredictable outcomes as far as the committee is concerned,
which is what it is intended to do. However, it meant that there
were votes being forced that would probably not have been forced.
One of the problems of being a departmental Select Committee is
that because you deal with policy there is a difference between
us in the PAC and you: we have not got that advantage and that
excitement of dealing with policy. We deal with nuts and bolts
and it is money and it is easy when you are dealing with quantities
to have a common view. But when you are on a Select Committee
you are Members of Parliament, you are party politicians. There
is a strong disposition for you to divide according to party and
it takes a considerable development of the ethos of a committee
for Members to overcome that. I cannot think of any fairer way
of allocating the seats than doing it as we do it at the moment.
I do not think I have anything to offer on that one. On the second
one I do have strong views. I referred to the nature of the committees'
remit. I said that the Government has been experimenting with
Select Committees for over a century. Many of us remember the
old Science and Technology Committee and the Lords have their
Science and Technology Committee and they still do cross-boundary
work. Many of us remember the old Nationalised Industries Committee
and so on. They were ineffective as an only method of monitoring
because they were too generalist. They never got the expertise
on them. This is great, the enormous and invaluable power of the
departmental committees, their sheer knowledge and depth, but
government evolves. We are moving into the days of joined-up government.
Only on Monday we were dealing on the Public Accounts Committee
with the National Audit Office report on the various experiments
that are being carried out headed by a team in the Cabinet Office
to try to get cross-departmental co-operation over a whole range
of functions. We have all called for it. We all know as Members
of Parliament when we sit down and think, "Who do I write
to about this one?" when we are dealing with a constituency
case. The move to joined-up government is highly desirable. The
House has always been alert to reflect changes that take place
in the executive. If the executive changes its form of working,
and it is not for me to question that as an individual, I am not
concerned about whether it is right or whether it is wrong, but
for whatever managerial reason they do it, when they do it we
must be sure that it does not leave us disadvantaged, "us"
being the rest of the House of Commons. If government is moving
more into joined-up activities in order to deliver more and deliver
better, then we have to ensure that we have systems that will
match that. Let us take the Department of Public Administration.
That is a generalist committee and it will present difficulties
but I think something we may have to consider is more joint operation,
which is what the Liaison Committee envisaged in its last report.
The Cartwright Committee is a case in point. We are going to have
to look at more cross-boundary methods of either working together
or—and this may help to solve your problem of numbers, Robin—possibly
even setting up additional committees which have specific cross-boundary
functions. That is something we need to look at. Government is
changing. If we do not change the outcome will be that, as Gwyneth
has just been arguing, rightly or wrongly, in relation to whether
she has the powers to get the Chancellor before her because of
the role of the Treasury. She sees it in relation to the Tube.
The more you have cross-government co-operation the more diffused
the accountability becomes. Therefore, since we are about accountability,
we must adapt ourselves or supplement ourselves in a way which
will match government changes.
Mr Pike: I have two issues on the size. Is it
not important that we understand that what was being said by the
Chairman, if I understood it correctly, at the Liaison Committee
was that most of those in the Chair in the various committees
did not feel that those committees were any better with an increase
in numbers and indeed those who have a larger committee said that
they only work by splitting it into two main committees? Is that
not important, that we should take note of that point? The second
point is on the Deregulation Committee which you referred to in
your opening comments. Is it not important that we should note
that although that committee is a large committee of 18, it has
only so far ever had 17 members put on it in this Parliament?
There are at least five members wishing to get off that committee
at the present time. It is extremely difficult to get a quorum
of five members to sit, and indeed last week with great difficulty
the clerks told me that we could get a quorum for one hour exactly
on Tuesday morning, so I had to ensure that the business was concluded
before two members had to leave to go on to Standing Committees.
If we were to widen the scope would it not be accepted that I
know that there are members of my committee now, if they saw the
opportunity of going on Foreign Affairs or Environment or other
committees would also wish to add to that number who wish to come
off? The final point that I would make is, is it not essential
that we remember that the Deregulation Committee by Act of Parliament
legislates and has to work against a rigid timetable that is established
within that Act?
Chairman: I do not think, Alan, you need to
feel compelled to answer those questions. You can make a fairly
robust comment. What I cannot help asking myself though is why
do we have 18 on a committee on which Members do not want to serve
and 11 on committees on which lots of Members do want to serve?
There seems a logic instead for reducing you to 11 and increasing
others to 14 or whatever.
Mr Salter: First of all, Alan, you mentioned
the fact that perhaps we should be looking at functions rather
than just departmental scrutiny. An example comes to mind: animal
welfare, not an issue that exercises me particularly but exercises
our constituents. It is split among three departments—the
Home Office, DTLR and DEFRA. I am sure if we racked our brains
we could find many other policy areas that are split all over
the place and therefore has our scrutiny caught up? Answer: clearly
no. The point I want to press you on is this. Robin's memorandum
on modernisation and the general (and welcome) drift towards pre-legislative
scrutiny clearly envisages a much more robust role for Select
Committees. I would put it to you that a number of people go on
Select Committees for a number of different reasons. Some people
like to get to grips with the big policy issues. Other people
get excited by the prospect of pre-legislative scrutiny and are
prepared to go through legislation on a line by line basis, and
we all bring different talents to the show as it were. Is there
not a case, given that situation is likely to increase, for a
larger committee size which will enable the committees themselves
to break down into more effective sub-committees to at times take
on what would be very onerous and time-consuming task of pre-legislative
scrutiny, particularly if there are situations such as we had
recently where the Home Office had three or four Bills published
almost at the same time? Can you imagine the Home Affairs Committee
being able to cope with a constrained timetable for pre-legislative
scrutiny on the basis of 11 members and carrying out its very
important work on other matters?
Chairman: Thank you, Martin. Joan?
Joan Ruddock
92. I want to make essentially the same points
about the pre-legislative role which we see as being increased
and enhanced and I would suggest to you and ask for your comments
on the fact that having larger numbers would enable committees
to split down into sub«groups. If we are going to deal with
functions, which I certainly think is a good thing and I am glad
you raised it, Alan, people coming together from two sub-groups
on different committees would clearly make sense in quite a number
of cases. May I also ask you to consider that in the case specifically
of the Foreign Affairs Committee, because we have had the letter
from Donald as well as your own comments this morning. Is it not
the case that many people go on to Foreign Affairs because they
have an interest a particular country or group of countries and
although it is not obvious because it is not the same as other
departments with such disparate things as local government, transport
and the regions, none the less ministers reflect, and the whole
foreign service reflects, country groupings? There does not have
to be the suggestion that every member of this Committee will
be travelling on every trip. I suspect there are key interests
that people have and therefore maybe a third of the committee
would want to go to one country only and a third of the committee
to another. I do think that the Foreign Affairs Committee, which
is being held up as a particular example, needs some consideration
because I am not convinced that it is so utterly different from
any other and I ask you to reflect on that.
(Mr Williams) Most of what Peter said I agree with.
I accept the point that you made, that it would make sense to
cut the size of his Committee. Certainly it would in no way help
his problem if the more popular committees became larger. Martin
made the point about function, which I agree with, that we do
have to agree because more and more of these areas of policy we
are discovering it is difficult to deal with because of their
spread and government is finding it difficult and therefore they
have set up this special unit. We do have to, as I have already
said, consider adapting our structure of committees or the way
the committees work. The pre-legislative work I am an enthusiast
for, I must admit. I have only ever once been to Australia about
seven or eight years ago, and they described to me how it worked
there where they use it particularly in relation to Standing Committees
so that the Standing Committee got experience particularly on
technical Bills before they went into the legislative phase. That
struck me as a very desirable process. I think it is very important
that the Select Committees build on this function. I am not saying
this out of politeness, but I welcome your new document, Robin,
and I welcome particularly what it said in relation to this and
we intend to get earlier draft Bills available. I can see that
much of what we have said today may change if Robin is able to
deliver post-consultation on what he says in relation to pre-legislative.
The argument is being put forward here that one of the difficulties
is the problem of draftsman, and there has traditionally been
an almost standing 20 per cent shortage of parliamentary draftsmen.
They are hard to obtain. It seems to me that if another of his
proposals, the rollover into the next session takes places, then
it now becomes much easier, regardless of the draftsmen problem,
that the Bill is eventually going to emerge and therefore, because
of the rollover process and the removal of the buffers in October
next year, it will be far easier, and it should be far easier,
for committees to carry out pre-legislative. This is where you
have a chance of real input into policy making and development.
Indeed, our Clerk related this story to me yesterday where a very
eminent ex-Cabinet Minister on the other side, when they tried
an experiment like this, commented afterwards that he saw his
Bill dissolve before his eyes. It seems to me that that is a good
thing. There are many Bills which would be better with a bit of
dissolving. It saves a lot of time in the committee. One final
point. I have circulated a letter I have had. Because of what
I said about the role of the PAC I am anxious that since the PAC
is a bottleneck, we can only do 50 hearings a year, I differ in
my view from the previous Chairman of the PAC, I think it is important
that the financial role of the Select Committees be enhanced.
The PAC just cannot cope with it. We have to have a second PAC.
As soon as I heard that I was joining the Committee—one
of my other functions is that I chair the Public Accounts Commission—I
spoke to Sir John Bourn, the C&AG, and asked him if he would
prepare me an initial paper on the way in which he could help,
and then he and George and I and two senior colleagues had a meeting
last week. I reported this to the Liaison Committee the other
day, the result of which is, knowing that I was coming here, Sir
John has prepared this report of his outline of the things he
thinks he can do that would help the committees. I think one of
the most important things there is the way in which he is willing
to consider secondees, short term or even medium term. I would
ask you to have a look at this. I think it is a very helpful development.
Chairman
93. I have been given a copy of that letter
this morning and every member of the Committee also has it. We
are very seized of the need to provide more resources for the
Select Committees and indeed it is a classic case where the one
place that resource needs to be there in terms of professional
expertise and assistance is on financial scrutiny. I can assure
you that our own discussion on this earlier shared the same commitment
that you have just given to making sure that we encourage Select
Committees and the group Select Committees to do a better job
on financial scrutiny. Can I move on to one or two other areas?
One point on which we must invite your views before close is the
question of whether or not the Chairs of the Select Committees
should be paid. Before I turn to that one, in the course of our
discussion we have been reflecting on whether in return for the
greater resources, greater freedoms, of the Select Committees
there might not also be a requirement for some more discipline
and order in how Select Committees go about their business. It
is a very delicate area and we want to tread carefully and delicately
on it. The Hansard Society report, for instance, did suggest that
there should be a core statement of the functions and the role
and the jobs of Select Committees, what should be their objectives,
which in a way brings us back to financial scrutiny because such
a statement of core tasks could list financial scrutiny among
them. Would you see it being acceptable for Select Committees
to have a common mission statement for what is the job of the
Select Committee over the course of the session: to carry out
financial scrutiny, to make contact, for instance, with the outside
regulator? The other question is perhaps less delicate and possibly
a touch more brutal and one that is rather less controversial:
should the Chairs of Select Committees have the right to report
to the House or whoever is going to have regard to the nominations
to Select Committees those Members who had poor attendance and
who repeatedly failed to attend without showing good cause? Plainly
it is not something that Peter is likely to do in the circumstances
of his committee but it does seem unreasonable that where there
are committees for which there is a queue of Members wanting to
join there should continue to be Members on them who do not necessarily
always attend.
(Mr Williams) In the order in which you have put them,
first, the paid chairmanship, the Liaison Committee seems to be
completely split on this. I can only give you a personal view
which is again a matter of priorities. If resources are limited
it is more important that resources are put into the committees
than that they go in payments. I regard it as a great privilege
to be chairing the Liaison Committee at the moment. It does involve
quite a lot of work. I am not being sanctimonious when I say that
I do not want to be paid for doing it. I enjoy doing it. It is
connected to priorities but that is the same for all Chairmen.
That is a purely personal view. The Committee was very split on
that.
94. When you say "split", was it 50-50
or was there a prevalence either way?
(Mr Williams) You can say 50-50 for the few who said
anything and the few who said anything were very much a minority
of those who were present, so there was a considerable silence.
It could be that some were sitting and hoping and not wanting
to express a criticism. Can I jump back to how you started your
comments. You referred to resources. What amazed me, coming into
this job, was that there is no authoritative basis for resourcing
these committees. It seems to me very cap in hand. I would like
to float the thought, which may sound somewhat heretical, that
the National Audit Office as our parliamentary watchdog has a
vested interest in and is committed to the monitoring role, but
also is committed to efficiency and effectiveness. It would seem
to me not a bad idea, as it is going to be several months before
you produce your report, to ask the C&AG to carry out a study
on the resourcing of the Select Committees. The advantage of that
would be if you could give the Liaison Committee and the Select
Committees an authority when they speak to the Commission and
when they speak to Government in relation to resources. At the
moment we go to the Commission and we have no what I would call
quantifiable provable basis on which to ask for resource. I think
it is about time we became more professional about resources.
Resources are not being used efficiently. Let us find out. In
parallel with what someone else said in relation to committees
going away as a whole committee all the time on overseas visits,
I floated at the last meeting the idea of more specialist groups
possibly going away. Can I leave the really important point I
want to make with you, which is please consider, even if you reject
it, the possibility of asking the C&AG to do a study on the
resource provision and needs of the Select Committee system in
the House of Commons.
Chairman: I think that is a very interesting
and helpful idea. We may well wish to pursue it. I am not sure
that we could pursue it in the timescale of issuing our report,
but there is no reason whatsoever why we should not recommend
more resources and say that we have asked the C&AG to advise
on it. Do you agree, Nick?
Mr Winterton
95. Yes, I do.
(Mr Williams) That is a very helpful response; I appreciate
that. As your core statement I think that would be thoroughly
desirable. I think the committees have found, and I am told this
and George will be more experienced and so will the two colleagues,
that the discipline of producing annual reports seems to have
focused attention and minds much more. Anything that leads to
committees having a clear sense of focus and direction is desirable
and I certainly would favour that. The final point was poor attenders.
It seems to me that the first sanction would be the near equivalent
of the withdrawal of passport. A sanction which I quickly formed
the opinion is very meaningful in terms of some people serving
on Select Committees is the frequency of use of their passports
and therefore if people were told that non-attendance could lead
to non-membership of delegations and that priority would be given
to those who are frequent attenders, I think that is a good idea.
But that is an interim thing that the committees could do for
themselves. They do not need any recommendation to do it. They
can do it now. It is essential that they have power to offload.
If we are going to have efficient committees then if they are
not to be enlarged to make up for the absentees you have to get
rid of the absentees as quickly as possible because being too
small can also mean being ineffective.
Mr Kidney
96. Going back to the question of pay for the
Chairs of Select Committees, what do you make of the argument
from the independent reports we have received that it enhances
an alternative career structure to wanting to be a minister in
this place?
(Mr Williams) Yes, it can do that. It depends whether
you need to be paid to do that. I had a wonderful time being in
Parliament. Twenty two years is a long time. Unfortunately for
most of it our party was not in government. I have spent more
time as a minister which was an experience I will never forget.
Since then, and I can only speak personally here, I have found
working with the PAC more of a duty than a pleasure because judging
your colleagues on the work they are doing over the years is no-one's
idea of fun. I find that the stimulus of doing what I am here
to do as a Member of Parliament is to help the Government govern
by voting for it more often than I vote against it and by monitoring
what they do and the way they carry out their duty, whichever
party happens to be in power. That is what I was elected for and
that is what I see as being a Member of Parliament. I can always
say no to the Chairman's job, as can anyone else if they find
it too onerous, but I cannot pretend to speak on behalf of the
Committee in that respect. I do go along with this argument about
the alternative career structure. I think it is going to lead
to a lot of animosity as well between Members.
Mr Winterton
97. Could I go back to the very first thing
that Alan mentioned, which is also very high on our list of changes
that we need to make: appointment to Select Committees? You are
quite right, Alan, that in the last Parliament the Liaison Committee
put forward the proposal of the three wise individuals. Clearly
that was not acceptable to the Government or, for that matter,
to the House. What mechanism would be acceptable? Would a mechanism
using the Chairman of Ways and Means and other senior Members
of the House, probably primarily taken from the Chairmen's Panel,
a committee of, shall we say, eight, who would consider appointments
to Select Committees, be acceptable to your committee, to you
as Chairman, ie, taking control of the appointment out of the
hands of the executive? Parties would still of course be able
to submit lists but individual Members would also be able to make
application or submit an application to the committee or the Panel.
Would this, do you think, be the answer? Do you think that this
would be a meaningful and worthwhile alternative to the suggestion
of the proposal of the Liaison Committee in the last Parliament?
(Mr Williams) I think it was rejected last time. Obviously
it was unacceptable then probably to the Government and therefore
to the majority of the Government Members. That does not mean
it is not worth revisiting and not worth considering revision.
I think that it would be infinitely better than what we have at
the moment. There is a confusion indeed within the Select Committee,
and it is a problem for the Committee of Selection, that they
have been there, their main role is to ensure that Government
has its standing committees from all sides, and therefore they
can quite easily slip into the idea of just rubber-stamping whatever
comes from the whips. Therefore, I think separating the organisation
that deals with the standing committees from that which deals
with the select committees must be an advance in itself, further
separating the whips' involvement from it; because the whips are
involved, though it has varied all the time, in the Committee
of Selection. Starting from my basic proposition of distancing
the Select Committee from the Government as a prime need, the
formula you put forward certainly seems to meet that need. I would
find it an interesting and acceptable experiment. I think that
whatever happens, we have to see how it works. No one can guarantee
that whatever system you recommend is going to be acceptable after
several years when you get people who have not been selected and
feel they blame the system. I think we have to try something that
is different from, clearly more transparent than and hopefully
a bit better than, what we have at the moment.
Chairman
98. Thank you very much. Does any other colleague
wish to raise any other point? If not, then, Alan, can I thank
you very much for the time you have spent with us, sharing with
us the views of the Liaison Committee. I think that we are very
much on the same wavelength on a number of the issues which we
have discussed, and my impression is that you and the Liaison
Committee will be broadly pleased with the recommendations that
we make. There are one or two areas obviously on the size of committees
where we shall have to reflect and get the balance right between
the views of those who are the chairs of committees and the views
of those members who hope to join some of those committees, but
we are trying to find the right balance.
(Mr Williams) Thank you for having me.
I hope my tactic of speaking at enormous length means that you
will not be encouraged to invite me again to see you. Thank you
very much.
Chairman: It has been a very pleasant and useful
occasion. Thank you.
|
