Co-operation between committees
and government departments
93. Some committees have commented, in their annual
reports, on the particularly good systems for information provision
which they have agreed with their respective government departments.
The Northern Ireland Committee describes the system it instituted
in 2002, whereby the Northern Ireland Office updates the Committee
about its activities at regular intervals, as an extremely useful
aid to scrutiny.[188]
The system alerts the Committee to the wide range of work in progress
across all parts of the NIO and the Northern Ireland departments.[189]
94. In a similar vein, the Transport Committee reports
that, as a result of discussions between committee staff and DfT
officials, the DfT has agreed to send a wide range of information
to the committee secretariat without it having to be specifically
requested, including all statutory instruments, departmental consultations
and agendas of forthcoming European Transport Council meetings.
The Committee comments that this system has increased the Committee's
overall awareness of DfT's activities, and given the Committee
the opportunity to intervene in these activities if it so wishes.[190]
Deficiencies in information provided
95. By contrast, some committees have commented in
their annual reports on deficiencies in the information provided
to them by departments. Committees' concerns relate to the timeliness
and quality of departments' responses to committee requests for
information or formal written evidence and of Government responses
to committee reports. Concerns are also expressed about departments
failing to keep committees adequately informed of important announcements
and decisions. For example:
- The Constitutional Affairs
Committee comments that it has not always received papers of an
adequate standard from the DCA and that it has had some difficulty
in getting trustworthy statistical analysis of data on several
occasions.[191]
- The Environmental Audit Committee
again raises concerns about the quality of Government responses
to its reports, which it describes as "extremely variable
in content".[192]
The Committee considered one Government response, in particular,
to be "lamentable" as it "scandalously failed to
respond at all" to several of the Committee's recommendations.[193]
The Committee notes that Government responses to its reports are
regularly late. The Committee acknowledges that this is sometimes
understandable, as responses have to be marshalled across several
government departments and collated within Defra, but states that
it is not always kept properly informed of possible delays.
- The EFRA Committee reports on the difficulties
it has sometimes experienced in arranging evidence sessions with
Defra ministers and expresses the hope that the Secretary of State
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will appear on a more
regular basis before the Committee than has hitherto been the
case. The Committee suggests that the problems it has experienced
in securing the attendance of ministers may reflect a wider lack
of understanding within Defra about the priority that should be
given to the work of the Committee and to Parliament as a whole.[194]
The Committee also draws attention to a general lack of timeliness
on Defra's part in responding to requests for information in writing,
for written memoranda on inquiries and in providing government
responses within the standard two-month deadline.[195]
- The Science and Technology Committee expresses
its frustration with the Government's response to its Report Scientific
Publications: Free for all?[196]
The response argued against a number of recommendations that the
Committee did not in fact make. The Committee also raises concerns
that a NDPB was put under pressure by the DTI not to submit an
independent, and divergent, response to the Committee's Report.
It regards the approach taken by the DTI as having been "unduly
sensitive" in this case. Finally, the Committee comments
on the particular difficulties it faces dealing with departments
across government, due to the cross-cutting nature of science
policy, a situation which the Committee feels has hampered its
investigations on a number of occasions.[197]
- The Work and Pensions Committee expresses its
disappointment about the Department for Work and Pensions' failure
to inform the Committee of several important publications and
statements, which it attributes to an apparent lack of co-ordination
within the DWP which leaves their liaison team ill-informed. The
Committee urges the DWP to ensure that the Committee has appropriate
information supplied at the earliest possible time, if necessary
by direction from the highest level.[198]
96. We note the concerns of some committees about
the quality of service provided by certain government departments.
Good working relationships between departments and select committees
are crucial to effective parliamentary scrutiny. We expect the
departments concerned to consult the relevant committee/s in order
to address committees' concerns. In particular, it is crucial
that departments:
- keep committees properly informed
of important announcements and decisions and of publication of
key documents;
- respond to committees' requests for information
in a timely fashion, with information of a high quality which
engages with the issues identified by committees; and
- keep committees informed of anticipated delays
to departmental responses to such requests.
97. We expect departments to ensure that Government
responses to committee reports are delivered within the standard
two-month deadline. Committees should be kept informed of any
anticipated delay, and the reasons for it. In its responses, the
Government should ensure that it engages meaningfully with the
substance of committees' conclusions and recommendations.
98. In the case of reports agreed ahead of a Dissolution,
we would expect Government responses to be published within two
months of the date of the General Election. This would ensure
that they are published without undue delay, and available to
any successor committee.
171 
