Select Committee on Liaison First Report

ANNEX A

Draft bills

Recommendation 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)

The Government remains committed to seeking to publish as many bills as possible in draft form to allow them to receive pre-legislative scrutiny. The numbers will inevitably fluctuate according to circumstances, with such events as General Elections affecting the pattern.

Recommendations 4 and 7: 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) 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)

It remains our policy to provide such information as soon as it can be made available. Where a general election takes place in the spring/summer, as in this year, it will be difficult to produce the list at the beginning of the session. The list for the remainder of the present session is attached. I hope that, as in previous years, you will find the list helpful in enabling committees to plan their work, though I know you will be aware of the extent to which the list is provisional. The Government acknowledges that departmental select committees are usually likely to be the most appropriate means of scrutinising a draft bill. There will continue to be, however, a minority of draft bills which are best scrutinised by a joint committee of both Houses.

Recommendation 5 and 6: 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) 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)

The Committee draw attention to difficulties for committees if draft bills are published later than envisaged, or in an incomplete state or where policy has not been widely consulted on beforehand. The Government recognises the value of enabling the pre-legislative exercise to take place as smoothly as possible. The situation in respect of each bill will be different and cannot always be foreseen. In some cases, it may be better to issue the draft bill in an unfinished state earlier on rather than to delay it, which might risk allowing insufficient time for scrutiny; there is always a balance to be drawn. We remain committed to publishing draft bills as early and in as complete a state as possible.

Recommendation 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)

There will be circumstances in which the making available of such a memorandum to a select committee will allow the committee concerned to begin to address the issues likely to arise in a proposed bill. But the Government agrees that such a process is not a full substitute or alternative to pre-legislative scrutiny of a draft bill, which allows the committee concerned an opportunity to judge the proposals in a much more informed way.

ESTIMATES AND PSA TARGETS

Recommendation 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)

Following discussions about aspects of the Supply process between the Treasury and several committees, including the Liaison Committee, during 2003-04, agreement was reached to amend House of Commons Standing Order No. 55 to extend the time that must elapse between presentation of the Estimates and the ensuing parliamentary consideration from 7 clear days to 14 days. This change ensures that committees now have at least two weeks to consider the final versions of relevant Estimates. The Treasury will always seek to publish the Estimates as soon as it is able to do so. For example, the winter Supplementary Estimates 2005-06 were published on 17 November 2005, which was 21 days before the parliamentary consideration (8 December).

In addition, departments are now required to provide an explanatory 'Estimates Memorandum' to the select committee explaining the changes sought through the Estimate. The Treasury has asked departments, and will remind them to do so during each Estimate round, to provide a final draft of the departmental resource Estimate to the committee alongside the Estimate Memorandum and to do so as soon as the Estimate is signed off as final. In practice, for many departments the tight timetable for producing Supplementary Estimates means that they are completed only very shortly before they are printed and published versions presented to Parliament.

Recommendation 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)

The Government welcomes the interest of select committees in PSA targets and notes the Liaison Committee's recommendation. The Government has worked to improve the target setting process over successive spending reviews, reflecting the views of Parliament, delivery agents and stakeholders and will consider concerns raised as that process is taken forward.

JOINT WORKING WITH NAW

Recommendation 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)

The provision allowing for members of specified committees of the National Assembly for Wales to participate in the proceedings of the Welsh Affairs Committee was made part of the permanent standing orders as part of the changes agreed in July this year (Standing Order No 137A(3).

COOPERATION BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS AND COMMITTEES

Recommendation 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)

The Liaison Committee describe a number of problems which individual committees have drawn to their attention in respect of cooperation between committees and departments. The Government agrees that any such difficulties should be discussed between the department and committee concerned in the first instance. The recently re-issued Guidance on Departmental Evidence and Response to Select Committees (July 2005) emphasises at various points obligations on departments to cooperate with committees—for example in terms of providing information (paras 9, 53, 68) and to keeping them informed so far as possible of forthcoming announcements (para 66).

Recommendations 16 and 17: 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) 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)

The Guidance on Departmental Evidence and Response to Select Committees (July 2005) reasserts the commitment for departments to aim to provide a considered response to select committee reports within two months of publication (para 108), and departments are of course expected to address meaningfully those conclusions and recommendations which are addressed to the Government. The Guidance also makes clear that there are circumstances in which it may not be possible or appropriate to reply within two months, but that in such cases the committee should be kept informed. Clearly, there will be some occasions in which the occurrence of an election after the publication of a report could be a relevant factor in creating a delay, but in such a case the reasons concerned should be explained to the committee in accordance with the Guidance.

SCRUTINY OF SUPER-AFFIRMATIVE STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Recommendation 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)

The Government agrees that scrutiny of any "super-affirmative" orders, where Parliament is able to influence the content of secondary legislation, is important. In most cases, there is a specific procedure laid down for parliamentary consideration, as with Regulatory Reform Orders. There are no plans to establish a Joint Committee on the merits of statutory instruments.

'DEPARTMENTAL EVIDENCE AND RESPONSE TO SELECT COMMITTEES'

Recommendation 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) 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)

As the Committee has noted, the Government has revised its guidance for the provision of evidence to select committees in a new (July 2005) version of the document 'Departmental Evidence and Response to Select Committees'. The revised guidance indicates that there is a presumption that Ministers will agree to requests for particular officials to give oral evidence. However, the final decision on who is best able to represent the Minister rests with the Minister concerned and it remains the right of a Minister to suggest an alternative civil servant to that named by the Committee if he or she feels that the former is better placed to represent them. The Government notes the interest of the Liaison Committee in monitoring how the new guidance is working and would of course be happy to consider any comments the Committee wishes to make in relation to the operation of the guidance.

---

---

Prepared 30 January 2006