Select Committee on Liaison First Report


7  Accountability of Government: revision of the guidance to officials

124. In our last Annual Report, we recorded our concern at the contrast between the level of access to information and people achieved by Lord Hutton in his recent inquiry, and that available to select committees.[224]

125. We expressed our view as follows:

The Government has undertaken to co-operate as fully as possible in the provision of information to Parliament.[225] It is therefore reasonable to expect that select committees should receive Government co-operation as fully as an inquiry set up by the Government itself.

During evidence to us on 3 February,[226] the Prime Minister agreed to undertake a review within Government of its guidance to officials relating to the availability of witnesses and evidence (usually known as 'the Osmotherly Rules').[227] The Leader of the House gave a similar undertaking on 5 February,[228] and we look forward to discussing the results of the review with him. We have drawn the Government's attention to particular aspects of the problem, about which we have been concerned for some time:

  • access to No. 10 policy advisers;
  • availability of current policy reviews and reports;
  • evidence on 'joined-up' policies from government departments involved, including HM Treasury. [229]

126. The Government's review took most of 2004, and eventually produced a new draft of Departmental Evidence and Response to Select Committees on which we took evidence from the Leader of the House, Rt Hon Peter Hain MP, on 19 October.[230]

127. The Guidance is a text produced by Government for its own officials. It is not a parliamentary text nor has it ever been endorsed by us or our predecessors. Its approach offers a signal of how fully Whitehall is prepared to make itself accountable to select committees.

128. Overall, many of the changes that appear in the new version simply reflect developments in the structure and practice of committees since the last edition issued in January 1997. Of more significance are:

  • The addition of the words "including special advisers" in para 43: "Where a Select Committee indicates that it wishes to take evidence from a particular named official, including special advisers, the presumption should be that Ministers will agree to meet such a request";
  • The reference to providing information largely through memoranda has been removed from paragraph 56. It used to read (as para 50): "The Government's commitment to provide as much information as possible to Select Committees is met largely through the provision of memoranda, written replies to Committees' questions and oral evidence from Ministers and officials. It does not amount to a commitment to provide access to internal files, private correspondence, including advice given on a confidential basis or working papers";
  • A new paragraph: "Government Departments should, wherever possible, co-operate fully with inquiries on joined-up policies" (para 61).

129. The overall position on provision of information to select committees is now described by the Government as follows in its current draft:

The Government is committed to being as open and as helpful as possible with Select Committees. The presumption is that requests for information from Select Committees will be agreed to. Where a Department feels that it cannot meet a Committee's request for information, it will make clear its reasons for doing so citing the appropriate exemptions in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (FOI Act from January 2005) or the relevant statute. Where a department feels it cannot disclose information in open evidence sessions or in memoranda submitted for publication, Departments will wish to consider whether the information requested could be provided on a confidential basis. (para 67)

130. When the Committee took evidence on the new text from the Leader of the House in October, we continued to express concern at the remaining gap between the access to information and persons enjoyed by outside reviews such as the Hutton Inquiry, and our own past experience in select committees. Nevertheless, we were encouraged by the Leader's new emphasis on "the presumption that the provision of information will be agreed to". He said:

We have made a number of positive and very significant changes in response: namely, making clear the presumption that Committees' requests on attendance of civil servant witnesses, including Special Advisers, will be agreed to; making clear the presumption that the provision of information will be agreed to, including the presumption of cooperation on joined-up inquiries, including a new paragraph on parliamentary privilege in relation to evidence from civil servants and non-departmental public body staff, and encouraging departments to be proactive in providing relevant information and documents to Committees.[231]

131. Mr Hain assured us that "there has not been such a clear-cut presumption before" (Q15) although Ministers' reserved the right to look at [access] on a case-by-case basis (Q11).[232]

132. In parliamentary terms, this is an encouragingly positive statement. The test will be in delivery, as always. Such warm words from the Leader of the House will need to be translated into action by his colleagues and their departments. We will put these and the other assurances to the test in individual committees. On the basis of our experience, and that of our successors in a new Parliament, in which we hope select committees will be nominated promptly, the Liaison Committee will judge ministers and departments on their performance in practice.


224   HC (2003-04) 446 Back

225   See the Resolution of the House on Ministerial Accountability to Parliament, CJ (1996-97) 328. Back

226   Liaison Committee, The Prime Minister, 3 February 2004, HC 310-i, Q 1 Back

227   Departmental Evidence and Response to Select Committees, Cabinet Office, 1997 Back

228   HC Deb, 5 February 2004, col 905 Back

229   HC (2003-04) 446, paras 87-90 Back

230   Liaison Committee, Evidence to Committees, 19 October 2004, HC 1180-i Back

231   HC (2003-04) 1180-i, Q1 Back

232   HC (2003-04) 1180-i Back


 
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 15 March 2005