ENHANCING SCRUTINY
Letter to the Clerk of the Committee from
the Parliamentary Relations and Devolution Department, Foreign
and Commonwealth Office, 15 March 2004
ENHANCING SCRUTINY:
ORAL EVIDENCE
SESSIONS
We have discussed in the past the Committee's
practice—rare, if not unique, among select committees in
both Houses—of not giving FCO witnesses even an informal
indication of possible areas of questioning in advance of evidence
sessions. I wonder if I could, through you, request that the Committee
reconsiders this approach, for the reasons set out below.
You will recall that the drawbacks and benefits
of such advance briefing were discussed at the joint training
workshop held in early June 2003 involving a group of FCO staff
and some of the Members and staff of the Committee.
The Foreign Secretary, Ministers and senior
officials set great store by the FCO having a productive relationship
with our principal parliamentary watchdog, and FCO colleagues
warmly welcomed last year's workshop. They learned much more about
the importance of the Committee's scrutiny role and the nature
of its relationship with the FCO. I hope we can repeat the workshop
before the Summer Recess. By then, I would like to update Ministers
on how officials have worked to improve our working practices
with the Committee over the past year.
The culmination of the Committee's fact-finding
before publication of a report is, of course, the Ministerial
oral evidence session. At the workshop, you will recall participants
discussed how to get the most out of these meetings. In particular,
FCO staff asked whether the Committee had considered giving an
informal indication in advance about the line of questioning Members
might take. There was a general feeling that such an informal
indication would help better prepare the Minister to give the
Committee more informed answers, increase the chances of more
fruitful exchanges and reduce the number of occasions on which
Ministers have to respond by promising to write.
No-one expects, or wants, Ministers to be given
an easy ride at evidence sessions. It is an important part of
the scrutiny process that Ministers are fully prepared to answer
any questions as comprehensively as possible. We also recognise
that the considerable amount of Ministerial and official preparation
done beforehand is as important a part of the parliamentary scrutiny
process as the public questioning at the session.
On the other hand, other Committees that authorise
their staff to give an informal advance indication of possible
areas of questioning, albeit with heavy "health warnings",
still seem satisfied that they are able to scrutinise their Departments
effectively. The experience of FCO Ministers appearing before
other Committees does bear this out. It also allows witnesses
to prepare in particular detail for issues in which they know
the Committee is interested, which can reap real mutual benefit
in terms of the quality of evidence provided.
Of course, Members can and should challenge
Ministers with quite unexpected lines of questioning. No-one wants
ministerial appearances to be "scripted". But I would
suggest that other Committees have found this kind of informal
approach to be effective.
I would be interested to learn the Committee's
views in due course.
Matthew Hamlyn
Parliamentary Relations and Devolution Department
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
15 March 2004
| 
