APPENDIX 30
Letter from the Chairmen of the Transport,
Local Government and the Regions Select Committee to the Chairman
of the Committee
We write in response to the Modernisation Committee's
consideration of select committees. A number of matters have been
raised.
SCRUTINY OF
LEGISLATION
We favour pre-legislative scrutiny. Our predessor
Committee examined a number of bills and draft bills in the last
Parliament. We are happy to do more. The problem is that the Government
has brought forward very few bills in draft, and when it has,
has not always left sufficient time for proper scrutiny. We are
rather suprised to read in your Memorandum that "the Government
will continue to seek to produce more legislation in draft scrutiny".
What is stopping it?
Scrutiny of draft bills is particularly appropriate
where a fundamental unravelling of important systems and structures
are proposed. We would, therefore, see those aspects of the Government's
proposed reforms to the planning system which require legislation
as ideal for a draft bill.
Where departmental Select Committees have to
decline the opportunity to look at pre-legislative proposals because
of the lack of resources, or more important business, they could
be considered by some other body, eg a Special Standing Committee.
We also strongly favour post-legislative scrutiny,
and have begun an inquiry into the working of the Local Government
Act 2000. This task would be made much more effective if more
Government bills required the Secretary of State to lay an Annual
Report before Parliament in respect of the implementation of its
provisions.
SIZE OF
COMMITTEES
The key prinicpal is that the number of Members
on Committee should be determined by what makes for the most effective
scrutiny. This leads us to oppose attempts to increase their size
on the basis of providing a role for Members who have little to
do. It is extremely difficult to scrutinise Ministers if there
are large numbers of Members present.
SCRUTINY OF
EXPENDITURE
Our Committee and its predecessor (Environment,
Transport and Regional Affairs Committee) have considered every
year the Department's Annual Report and Estimates. We would be
able to do so more effectively with greater support from the National
Audit Office.
COMMITTEE HALF
HOURS
We are strongly in favour of Committee half
hours. There would be sufficiEnt reports. They could be very topical
ones or on important but minor subjects which might not merit
a long debate. In the previous Parliament the ETRA Committee would
have almost produced sufficient reports on its own.
RESOURCES FOR
COMMITTEES
As you say in your memorandum "The Departmental
Select Committees are the most developed vehicle through which
MPs can carry out detailed scrutiny of government policy and Ministerial
conduct." To do this effectively they need more resources,
and in particular more staff. The deployment of the staff will
we assume be a matter for the Committees themselves and the Liaison
Committee.
POWERS FOR
COMMITTEES
Lord Birt has recently refused to appear before
the Committee to account for his work on the future of transport
for the Prime Minister. The present ability of members of the
Lords to refuse to account for themselves before the Departmental
Select Committees is an anachronism. Committees should be able
to summon Members of the other House as they would any other potential
witness.
Mr Andrew Bennett
Mr Gwyneth Dunwoody
31 January 2002
| 
