Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Written Evidence


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


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 8 April 2005