APPENDIX 22
Letter from Mr Chris Mullin MP to the
Chairman of the Committee
I understand you are conducting an inquiry into
the workings of select committees. I should stress that I am writing
in a personal capacity, as someone who has spent seven of the
last nine years on the Home Affairs Committee, including nearly
three years as chairman.
I wish to address three issues:
1. PRE-LEG
SCRUTINY
There is huge scope for expanding the work and
relevance of select committees in this area. On the few occasions
pre-leg scrutiny has been tried, it has resulted in real improvements
in the quality of legislation. It has also saved time on the floor
of the House, since many problems can be identified and ironed
out in advance. As recently as last week, David Blunkett accepted
a number of significant amendments to his Anti-Terrorism Bill
which had been tabled as a result of prior scrutiny by the Human
Rights and Home Affairs Committees. I am told, although I have
no personal experience, that the passage of the Bill establishing
the Food Standards Agency was greatly eased by advance select
committee scrutiny. Pre-leg scrutiny is an idea whose hour has
come. It is overwhelmingly in the interests of both Parliament
and the executive. I hope you will do everything possible to encourage
ministers and their departments to make more Bills available in
draft.
2. PAY
It is my firm view that the single most effective
way of enhancing the status of select committees is to create
an alternative career structure and that means paying chairmen
of the departmental committees. I have not come to this view lightly.
As you know I have always taken a Puritan view of members' pay,
speaking and voting against both the above-inflation increases
of 1996 and 2001.
However, after seven years on one of the main
select committees, I have noted that many of the best and the
brightest backbenchers are tempted away by office or the prospect
of office.
While some cross-fertilisation between Parliament
and the executive is desirable, it is evident that at present
many of the more able members are either not attracted to select
committees or see them only as a stepping stone to Government
office. Some committees suffer a huge turn-over of members in
the course of a Parliament. My committee has had members who have
stayed for as little as two months before being tempted away by
an offer of a PPS-ship. Over the years I have heard much discussion
of ways in which the status of select committees can be improved,
but I do not believe anything will change unless the nettle of
pay is grasped.
There will be many views as to the level at
which pay should be set. My own is that it should be somewhere
between that of a Parliamentary Under Secretary and a Minister
of State. As you know, I have some brief experience of Government
and in my view the influence and responsibilities of a good select
committee chairman are substantially above those of an Under Secretary.
3. SIZE
I understand that you are contemplating increasing
the size of select committees in order to give more members a
chance to serve. I believe this would be a mistake. Eleven members
is quite enough. It is already difficult enough to give everyone
a fair chance to question witnesses at oral evidence sessions.
A committee with thirteen members would become unwieldy. Also,
in my experience, the main Opposition party has difficulty filling
its existing allocation. So much so that, in one or two cases,
it has had to appoint front bench spokesmen. This difficulty could
only be exacerbated by an increase in numbers.
23 November 2001
|