APPENDIX 17
Further letter from Mr Andrew Tyrie MP
to the Chairman of the Committee
CHOOSING SELECT COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN BY ELECTION
Last year, I published a paper which examined
some of the reasons for parliament's decline in recent years at
the hands of the executive and the media and made some suggestions
on what to do about it. One of my suggestions was that Chairmanships
of Select Committees be chosen by election and I am writing particularly
to ask that the Committee consider the proposal. Perhaps I could
set out in a little more detail than I did in the paper how this
might be approached.
At the moment, although processed by the Committee
for Selection, almost all the important decisions to create Select
Committees are taken by the Whips. The three most important decisions,
all taken by them, are: (i) the division of Chairmanships of the
various Committees between the various parties; (ii) the membership
of Committees; (iii) the choice of individual Chairman for each
Committee (this is dominated by the Whips although nominally each
Chairman is chosen by the membership at the first meeting);
I suggest leaving (i), the Whips' horse-trading
for the division of Chairmanships between the parties, unchanged.
It is a welcome feature of our Select Committee system that the
dominant party does not arrogate all the Chairmanships to itself,
as happens in a number of other parliaments. It is, incidentally,
a particularly healthy feature that the Gladstonian precedent
of giving the PAC Chairmanship to a member of the opposition party
has stuck.
The need for greater independence from the Whips
of the appointment of members to Committees (ii) is suggested
by allegations that the Whips pack Select Committees with the
compliant—too often appointment (rightly or wrongly) has
come to be seen as a party reward—and also because in some
instances the expertise of members has been blatantly overlooked.
The minimalist improvement would be to take
most of the Whips off the Selection Committee when considering
Select Committee appointments (the appointment of Sir George Young
is a step in the right direction) and otherwise carry on as before,
leaving parties to decide whether and to what extent to democratise
selections for Select Committees. More adventurously, MPs could
be invited to nominate themselves for Select Committees, with
the nominations published. Transparency may do something to curb
concerns about "reward" and neglect of expertise.
An objection to publication might be that most
MPs would be seen to get their second preferences, since the bidding
would be highest for the plum Committees, but I don't think the
public would look askance at that. I have also heard it said that
publication would reveal a depressing tendency on the part of
MPs to bid for Committees that travel. Were things so bad (which
I am confident they are not) that we could not risk publication
because of what it might reveal about colleagues I would argue
all the more strongly for a little sunlight.
It is from reform of the appointment of Select
Committee Chairmanships (iii) that the most benefit to Parliament
can come; it is also the most amenable to practical change. The
public visibility, effectiveness and accountability of Select
Committees already largely depends on the authority and quality
of the Chairmen. We already have a good cadre but if Select Committees
are to play a larger role in parliamentary life it is the position
of the Chairman, above all, which will need to be further strengthened.
I suggest that the process be democratised.
Election by fellow MPs would give Chairmen an enhanced status,
greater independence from the executive and a sense of direct
accountability to Parliament. After completion of (i)—the
horse-trading to decide which party controls which Committee Chairmanship—by
the usual channels, election should be by secret ballot, preferably
of the whole House. In this way, nominees for Chairmanships would
expect to seek cross party support. Election on such a basis would
greatly increase not just their status in the House but also their
authority when speaking on behalf of parliament outside it. Alternatively,
and somewhat less attractively, election could be by electoral
college of the party which has secured the Chairmanship in the
horse-trading, although the Modernisation Committee is in no position
to instruct parties on how to go about this.
Election by the whole House might seem a radical
step but, in an increasingly democratic age, a wider public will
find something curious if all the decisions remain a backstairs
"political fix".
The results should of course, be published.
My guess is that only a small number of candidates for each post
would emerge—members would not want to risk the humiliation
of a derisory showing. Election of Chairmen would break the tradition
of Chairmen being elected by newly appointed Committee members
but, in practice, the Chairmanships are normally "stitched
up" before the first meeting, anyway. It should of course
remain open to members of a Select Committee to vote down a Chairman,
thereby triggering a "by election", but the instances
of that are likely to be rare.
In view of the extremely interesting and important
reforming work on which your Committee is now engaged I thought
members of the Committee might also want to see a copy of the
full paper and I have passed copies for members to the Committee
Clerk. In Chapter six, "Stopping the rot", in addition
to election for Select Committee Chairmanships, I set out the
case for a number of changes, including: Prime Ministerial appearances
before Select Committees; more pre-legislative scrutiny; scrutiny
of Departmental expenditure by Select Committees; better treatment
of Select Committee Reports on the floor of the House; changes
in the parliamentary timetable to create more space for Committee
work; salaries for Chairmen and better staffing.
I also enclose a copy of a letter I sent earlier
this year to the Procedure Committee which contained a proposal
on the handling of minority reports by Select Committees and which
may be of some relevance to your review.
7 November 2001
Letter from Mr Andrew Tyrie MP to the
Chairman of the Procedure Committee
PROCEDURE FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT
SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS
I am writing to suggest a modification to the
way this is conducted. The rules of procedure governing the consideration
of draft Select Committee Reports derives from the way legislation
is approved and in particular the way business is taken in the
committee of the whole House. I'm not sure that this is entirely
appropriate.
At the moment, minority Reports have to be submitted
before the Chairman's Report is considered. Amendments to the
Chairman's Report (or the one which obtains approval) are then
taken. This can have perverse consequences of reducing the likelihood
of reaching a consensus in the committee. Someone who disagrees
with the Report has to take a decision on whether to submit a
minority Report before he knows whether his amendments, which
might make the Chairman's Report acceptable to him find favour
with the Committee. He is therefore faced with a dilemma: either
submit a minority Report, which once taken cannot be withdrawn,
even if the committee subsequently accept amendments to make Chairman's
draft acceptable, or rely on obtaining support for the
amendments which, if not forthcoming, leaves him without the option
of tabling a minority Report.
Would it not be helpful if, after all the amendments
have been considered for a Report members of Select Committee
had an opportunity to submit a minority Report or at least a statement
indicating the reasons for their dissent? This would remove the
incentive to submit a dissenting minority report at the start
and maximise the opportunities for consensus building during consideration
of amendments. Of course, a device would be needed to stop the
process developing into an endless round of consideration of minority
reports.
Andrew Tyrie
1 March 2001
| 
