Conclusions and recommendations
1. Committees
are continuing to make an important contribution to high profile
policy debates; furthermore, they are also ensuring that the spotlight
of parliamentary scrutiny is directed at lower profile areas of
policy, thus directing Ministers' attention to areas which might
otherwise be ignored. (Paragraph 19)
2. We welcome the
recent growth in the number of bills published in draft form and
encourage the Government to raise the proportion further. (Paragraph
29)
3. We welcome the
innovative approaches taken by committees in seeking to ensure
the quality and utility of scrutiny work on draft legislation.
(Paragraph 33)
4. We are grateful
to the Leader of the House for establishing the practice of providing
us with advance notice of the possible scope and timing of the
publication of draft bills. (Paragraph 34)
5. The Government
must ensure that appropriate consultation has taken place on the
policy behind a draft bill prior to its publication. The full
benefit of the pre-legislative scrutiny process can be realised
only if draft legislation is published in a sufficiently developed
state. (Paragraph 36)
6. Committees are
eager to examine draft bills thoroughly and thoughtfully, in order
to make it more likely that well-considered legislation is presented
to Parliament, and to enable Parliament to carry out better-informed
scrutiny of the Government's legislation. The Government must
ensure that it sends clear signals to committees in order to enable
them to organise their programmes appropriately. (Paragraph 37)
7. There should be
"a presumption in favour of draft bills going to departmental
select committees for pre-legislative scrutiny, where they are
ready and willing to undertake this." (Paragraph 38)
8. We note that, twice
in 2004, the Government appears to have sought to have a departmental
committee scrutinise a memorandum containing proposals for a bill,
rather than publishing a draft bill for scrutiny. However, given
the support the Government has expressed for the pre-legislative
scrutiny process, we would be extremely concerned if this process
came to be regarded as a substitute for, or an alternative to,
pre-legislative scrutiny of a draft bill. We consider that such
a process is more appropriate for use in the case of minor or
uncontroversial legislation, and we urge the Government to ensure
that its use is considered only in such cases. (Paragraph 41)
9. We are doubtful
whether the creation of a Joint Liaison Committee, which would
inevitably be a rather unwieldy body, would be justified by any
benefits it might produce. (Paragraph 43)
10. Committees have
continued to build on their role of examining expenditure, through
analysis and review of departmental annual reports, Supplementary
Estimates, departmental resource accounts and 2004 spending review
settlements. In comparison with 2003, an increased number of oral
evidence sessions on departmental annual reports were held and
an increased number of committees examined the Supplementary Estimates.
(Paragraph 49)
11. We repeat our
recommendation that the Treasury should take steps to ensure that
committees receive draft Estimates at the earliest practicable
date. (Paragraph 51)
12. Committees have
raised important and constructive concerns about both the substance
and functioning of PSA targets. Committees have also demonstrated
their flexibility in considering PSA targets in the context both
of examining departmental annual reports and of wider policy-based
inquiry work. Given each committee's extensive experience in overseeing
the activities of a particular government department, we expect
the Government to give careful consideration to concerns raised
about such targets. (Paragraph 63)
13. Where practicable,
we encourage committees to adopt a planned programme of scrutiny
of the work of agencies, NDPBs and other associated public bodies
falling within their remit. (Paragraph 68)
14. We conclude that
the success of formal joint working between the Welsh Affairs
Committee and Committees of the National Assembly presents a strong
argument for making permanent formal joint working in the next
Parliament. (Paragraph 81)
15. 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. (Paragraph 96)
16. 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. (Paragraph 97)
17. 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. (Paragraph
98)
18. While departmental
select committees value their autonomy in deciding their own programmes
of work, there is a case for more systematic scrutiny of such
significant statutory instruments which amend Acts of Parliament.
Otherwise the detailed scrutiny of super-affirmative legislation
might be an appropriate task for the Committee on the Merits of
Statutory Instruments if it is converted into a Joint Committee.
This issue should be addressed early in the new Parliament. (Paragraph
104)
19. The liaison work
by the select committee media officers has proved not only effective
but also, we understand, has been well received by journalists.
The aim is not just to increase the quantity of media coverage,
but also to improve its quality. Over time it is likely that their
role could be developed further, but already some improved coverage
for committee work is being seen, not only in the national press
and broadcast media but also in the regional press and in specialist
publications. (Paragraph 112)
20. Direct access
for the public to select committee meetings via webcasting is
a welcome achievement, which we hope can eventually be extended
to visual coverage of all public meetings. (Paragraph 113)
21. We welcome the
promotion of the work of select committees to the public as part
of the House's communications strategy. (Paragraph 117)
22. As we develop
the promotion of the work of committees with the extra staff resources
which have recently been put in place, we will bear in mind the
need to publicise and explain our work not only to the media,
but also directly to the public. One recent innovation was the
production of notes for visitors who attend our evidence sessions.
But improved websites and the webcasting service enable us to
engage with the wider public who do not visit the Palace of Westminster.
We would support a further enhancement of these services. (Paragraph
118)
23. The Guidance 'Departmental
Evidence and Response to Select Committees' 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. (Paragraph 127)
24. In parliamentary
terms, the evidence given to us by the Leader of the House on
19 October contained 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. (Paragraph 132)
| 
