A Wider Membership
44. Our investigations were in part the result of
the controversy last summer that arose from the competition between
a large number of Members for a small number of places on the
departmental select committees. We have therefore considered whether
some of that controversy could be reduced by providing a wider
opportunity for Members to serve on the select committees by increasing
their size.
45. There is no standard size for the scrutiny committees.
They vary from a membership of seventeen in the case of the Transport,
Local Government and the Regions Committee and the Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs Committee down to eleven in the case of
Foreign Affairs, Treasury, Home Affairs and others. It may be
thought surprising that the latter group, which covers some of
the most important Departments, should have the smaller membership.
46. In the last Parliament the larger size of the
Education and Employment Committee and the Environment, Transport
and Regional Affairs Committee was justified on the grounds that
they had the power to set up sub-committees and required a larger
pool of members for this purpose. However, following rule changes
last July departmental scrutiny committees now have the power
to set up sub-committees or to form joint committees with others.
The statement of core tasks which we have proposed sets out the
heavy workload on scrutiny committees which will continue to grow
as their role expands. For instance, the new stress on pre-legislative
scrutiny, to which the Modernisation Committee attaches importance,
will significantly increase the pressures on those select committees
which cover departments with a substantial legislative programme
such as Home Affairs. In these circumstances we would expect most
select committees eventually to appoint sub-committees of an ad
hoc or a semi-permanent character.
47. There have been contrary views expressed in the
course of our study. It has been objected that in a larger committee
it would be more difficult to ensure that every Member could ask
a question at evidence sessions and that there would be greater
difficulty in securing consensus on reports.[18]
We do not find these arguments conclusive. Not every Member needs
to ask a question at every evidence session. Committees with a
larger membership, such as the European Scrutiny Committee with
a membership of sixteen and indeed ourselves with a membership
of fifteen, appear able to function coherently. We recommend
that the standard size of departmental scrutiny committees should
be fifteen. Such an increase would retain the membership of
any one committee to a manageable size but would enable up to
fifty more Members of Parliament to play a full part in committee
scrutiny.
48. We recognise that there will be individual cases
where there may be good cause to vary the standard size of membership.
There is no compelling reason why we should reduce the present
membership of seventeen of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
and Transport, Local Government and the Regions Committees, both
of which straddle wide policy areas. Nor is it necessary to increase
the size of the territorial committees which have a smaller pool
of constituency Members on whom to draw. Indeed we note the letter
we received from Mr Michael Mates,[19]
Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, which set
out a persuasive case for keeping its present size at thirteen
to accommodate the unusual complexity of party balance in Northern
Ireland.
49. It is important that those Members appointed
to a scrutiny committee should play a full part in its work. It
will not be possible for committees to fulfil the workload we
have described for them unless every member shoulders his or her
share of the burden. It is also unfair to deprive willing Members
of a place on a scrutiny committee if that place is blocked by
an absentee member. We recommend that the scrutiny committees
should have the right to report to the Committee of Nomination
any member who has a record of poor attendance without good cause
and that the Committee of Nomination should have the right to
replace that member. In coming to a view on whether to report
a member on grounds of poor attendance, the scrutiny committees
will be entitled to have regard to attendance over the totality
of a meeting and not only a token appearance for the record.
50. Conversely there are some select committees on
which it is difficult to find Members to serve and even more difficult
to secure their attendance. For example the Modernisation Committee
heard from one of our number, Mr Peter Pike, of his difficulty
in securing a quorum at meetings of the Deregulation and Regulatory
Reform Committee, which has a membership of seventeen. We see
no merit in retaining a committee size that is greater than Members
are prepared and willing to fill. We recommend a reduction
in size of the membership and of the quorum of select committees
where there has been a persistent problem securing attendance.
18 Eg Q 89, Ev p 44, 46, 57, 60. Back
19
Ev p 57. Back
| 
