2. Review of committees' work
8. This section highlights the work of committees
in helping ensure parliamentary accountability of Government,
including their fulfilment of the core tasks which the Liaison
Committee developed from the House's resolution of 14 May 2002,
and issued to committees in June 2002.
The core tasks of select committees
9. The core tasks provide the central scrutiny framework
for committees as they hold ministers and their departments to
account.Table
1: The core tasks
| OBJECTIVE A: TO EXAMINE AND COMMENT ON THE POLICY OF THE DEPARTMENT
|
Task 1 | To examine policy proposals from the UK Government and the European Commission in Green Papers, White Papers, draft Guidance etc, and to inquire further where the Committee considers it appropriate.
|
Task 2 | To identify and examine areas of emerging policy, or where existing policy is deficient, and make proposals.
|
Task 3 | To conduct scrutiny of any published draft bill within the Committee's responsibilities.
|
Task 4 | To examine specific output from the department expressed in documents or other decisions.
|
| OBJECTIVE B: TO EXAMINE THE EXPENDITURE OF THE DEPARTMENT
|
Task 5 | To examine the expenditure plans and out-turn of the department, its agencies and principal NDPBs.
|
| OBJECTIVE C: TO EXAMINE THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT
|
Task 6 | To examine the department's Public Service Agreements, the associated targets and the statistical measurements employed, and report if appropriate.
|
Task 7 | To monitor the work of the department's Executive Agencies, NDPBs, regulators and other associated public bodies.
|
Task 8 | To scrutinise major appointments made by the department.
|
Task 9 | To examine the implementation of legislation and major policy initiatives.
|
| OBJECTIVE D: TO ASSIST THE HOUSE IN DEBATE AND DECISION
|
Task 10 | To produce reports which are suitable for debate in the House, including Westminster Hall, or debating committees.
|
10. As we have noted in previous Reports, the core tasks represent
guidance to committees, not a rigid blueprint.[5]
It is important that committees retain the right to choose their
own inquiries and have the ability to adapt their work programme
at short notice, e.g. in response to urgent political events.
We would not wish fulfilment of the core tasks to become a box-ticking
exercise by committees. Nevertheless, experience shows that the
core tasks framework has encouraged a methodical approach to scrutiny,
and helps ensure that all areas of departmental work are covered
by committees.
11. Not all work by committees falls neatly into
the core tasks framework. This is especially the case for non-departmental
committees such as the Environmental Audit Committee and the Committee
of Public Accounts, which lack an annual report from an individual
government department on which to focus their investigation into
administration and expenditure. It is also true, for different
reasons, of the Northern Ireland Affairs, Scottish Affairs and
Welsh Affairs Committees. But even so, some of the committees
to which the core tasks do not fully apply have nevertheless scored
their work against them.[6]
Task 1: Scrutiny of policy proposals
12. The breadth of this core task challenges committees
to identify those UK Government and European Commission proposals
on which committees can most effectively influence policy as it
is being formulated. Committees need to be both selective in which
proposals they choose to examine in depth and imaginative in how
they can best contribute towards policy development. This means
in turn that the range of topics on which committees have sought
to comment and to steer ministers and departments is vast. For
instance, in 2007, the Science and Technology Committee alone
reported on 11 subjects, ranging from the Abortion Act 1967 to
the Government's space policy. [7]
13. The flexible nature of the core tasks framework
allows committees to fulfil this objective without always focusing
on a specific document or policy paper, as shown by the examples
in Table 2. Table
2: The variety of subjects covered, approaches taken and outcomes
achieved
Committee
| Policy area
| Committee approach
| Outcome
|
Defence
| Future of the UK nuclear deterrent
| Report ahead of White Paper publication(1)
| Informed debate a week later on the floor of the House
|
Home Affairs
| Treaty of Prm | Report(2)
| Obtained response from European Commission after criticism of new precedent set by the Treaty
|
Northern Ireland
| Community-based restorative justice schemes
| Inquiry and Report(3)
| Contributed to consultation on NIO's proposals for the schemes
|
Public Administration
| Pensions | Follow-up Report on previous work and changing policy(4)
| Contributed to helping 100,000 victims of pension wind-up schemes receive compensation
|
Treasury
| Unclaimed Assets | Inquiry and Report(5)
| Identified areas for improvement in forthcoming legislation
|
Work and Pensions
| Two White Papersreform of Child Support Agency, and introduction of Personal Accounts
| Inquiries and Reports(6)
| Provisions on 'naming and shaming' non-paying fathers excluded from CSA Bill
|
(1) Defence Committee, Ninth Report of Session 2006-07,
The Future of the UK's Strategic Nuclear Deterrent: the White
Paper, HC 225-i and -ii. (2) Home Affairs Committee, Third
Report of Session 2006-07, Justice and Home Affairs Issues
at European Union Level, HC 76. (3) Northern Ireland Affairs
Committee, First Report of Session 2006-07, Draft Protocol
for Community-based Restorative Justice Schemes, HC 87. (4)
Public Administration Select Committee, Fifth Report of Session
2006-07, Pensions Bill: Government Undertakings relating to
the Financial Assistance Scheme, HC 523. (5) Treasury Committee,
Eleventh Report of Session 2006-07, Unclaimed assets within
the financial system, HC 533. (6) Work and Pensions Committee,
Fourth Report of Session 2006-07, Child Support Reform,
HC 219-I and Fifth Report of 2006-07, Personal Accounts,
HC 220-I.
PROPOSED EUROPEAN LEGISLATION
14. Many significant legislative proposals emanate
from the European Union. The European Scrutiny Committee takes
primary responsibility for examining the details of EU documents
containing such proposals. In the 2006-07 Session it examined
1,079 documents, deeming 476 of legal and/or political importance
and recommending 78 for debate. Five were debated on the floor
of the House, and there were a further 31 debates in European
standing committees, sometimes on more than one document. The
Committee's highest-profile piece of work during the Session was
on the Lisbon Treaty.[8]
Its two Reports on the subjectwhich attracted considerable
public and media attentionprovided significant background
information as the House began its lengthy consideration of the
European Union (Amendment) Bill in early 2008.
15. In addition to the European Scrutiny Committee,
other committees also examined EU-related proposals in 2007. Examples
include reports from the Home Affairs Committee on Justice and
Home Affairs issues at European Union level,[9]
from the International Development Committee on EU Development
and Trade Policies,[10]
and from the Transport Committee on the Galileo satellite system.[11]
Task 2: To identify and examine
areas of emerging policy, or where existing policy is deficient,
and make proposals
16. A significant proportion of committees' time
is spent on analysing and commenting on emerging or deficient
policy. This is an area in which committees bring pressure to
bear on the Government to adapt its approach. It can be hard to
measure the precise impact that committees' work has in this respectthe
time taken for government responses to arrive, the changing shape
of policy and the influence of external pressures such as the
media or pressure groups all play their part. Nonetheless, reports
from select committees clearly play a role in identifying flaws
in policy and means to correct those flaws, as shown by the examples
in Table 3 below. Table
3: Emerging or deficient policy: impact of committees
Committee
| Inquiry/Report
| Impact
|
Communities and Local Government
| Is there a future for regional government?(1)
| Government brought forward proposals to create new parliamentary regional committees
|
Culture, Media and Sport
| Call TV quiz shows(2)
| Played significant role in exposure of malpractice in phone-in TV and radio programmes
|
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA)
| Single Payment Scheme for farmers(3)
| Helped expose major failings in the work of Defra and the Rural Payments Agency
|
Justice
| Role of the Attorney General(4)
| Concluded A-G's seemingly contradictory positions almost inevitably bring accusations of political bias
|
Public Accounts
| Government use of consultants(5)
| Identified up to £500 million a year of possible savings; the Cabinet Secretary is considering action
|
(1) Communities and Local Government Committee, Fourth
Report of Session 2006-07, Is there a future for regional government?,
HC 352-I. (2) Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Third Report
of Session 2006-07, Call TV quiz shows, HC 72. (3) Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Third Report of Session 2007-08,
The Work of the Committee in 2007, HC 250, paras 8-10.
(4) Justice Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2006-07, The
constitutional Role of the Attorney General, HC 306. (5) Committee
of Public Accounts, Thirty-first Report of Session 2006-07, Central
Government's use of consultants, HC 309.
17. The work of the Public Administration Select
Committee on the closure of final salary pension schemes is an
outstanding example of how committees can contribute to the effective
scrutiny of policy areas regarded as deficient.[12]
Through a mixture of reports and the tabling, by Committee members,
of back-bench amendments to the Pensions Bill, the Committee succeeded
in securing a review of the Financial Assistance Scheme, and the
Government accepted the review's conclusionechoing that
of the Committeethat there were no grounds for excluding
people from the scheme.[13]
The Committee credits "years of pressure from the Committee,
the Parliamentary Ombudsman and campaign groups such as the Pensions
Action Group" with securing an outcome which is a "superb
advertisement for what parliamentary democracy can achieve".[14]
Task 3: Scrutiny of draft bills
18. Committees are keen to contribute their specialist
knowledge to the legislative process through both the scrutiny
of draft bills and of other legislation. Conducting scrutiny of
draft legislation is a task on which, more than any other, committees
are dependent on government initiative. Their work is affected
by the number of bills published in draft and the timing of their
publication.
19. In our last annual Report, we registered our
disappointment that the Government had failed to live up to the
expectations it had previously raised about the number of draft
bills to be published, and recommended that this be increased
in future.[15] In its
reply, the Government stated that it remained committed to "publishing
as many bills in draft as possible" and expressed the hope
that the number of draft bills published each year "will
be above the number achieved in the 2005-06 Session".[16]
In the 2006-07 Session, the Government published four draft billsa
slight increase on the three published in 2005-06. The ratio of
draft bills to government bills introduced also increased slightly.
However, this is still a historically low number.[17]
The Government has announced that it intends to publish seven
draft bills in the 2007-08 Session.[18]
20. Table 4 shows the bills published in draft in
2007 and the parliamentary scrutiny they received.[19]
Table 4: Scrutiny
of draft bills: impact of committees
Committee
| Bill |
Scrutiny conducted
| Impact
|
Joint Committee; Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Environmental Audit
| Draft Climate Change Bill
| Pre-legislative scrutiny of draft bill
| Amendments made in response to recommendationse.g. on role of Committee on Climate Change
|
Joint Committee
| Draft Human Tissue and Embryos Bill
| Pre-legislative scrutiny of draft bill
| Amendments made in response to recommendationse.g. proposal to establish a Regulatory Authority for Tissue and Embryos was dropped
|
__
| Draft Regulatory and Enforcement and Sanctions Bill
| No scrutiny undertaken by committees
| __ |
Transport
| Draft Local Transport BillStrengthening Local Delivery
| Pre-legislative scrutiny of draft bill
| Amendments made in response to recommendationse.g. on employment rights for staff and new powers relating to road user charging
|
21. As in previous years, committees have registered concerns
about the handling of the pre-legislative scrutiny process. For
instance, the Transport Committee noted the "extremely challenging
timetable" for its scrutiny of the draft Local Transport
Bill, and expressed the hope that the Committee would have more
time to consider the draft Marine Navigation and Port Safety Bill
in Session 2007-08.[20]
The Joint Committee on the draft Climate Change Bill expressed
disappointment that there had been a long delay between the publication
of the draft Bill and the appointment of the Committee, meaning
that the pre-legislative scrutiny "was more hurried than
we, and those who gave evidence to us, would have liked".[21]
22. Similar concerns have been expressed by the House
of Lords Constitution Committee, which called on the Government
to ensure that all draft bills are published in good time, and
wherever possible that their release is spread throughout the
parliamentary year.[22]
23. Despite such concerns, committees also commented
on the value added by the pre-legislative scrutiny process. For
instance, the Transport Committee noted that its scrutiny of the
draft Local Transport Bill had "already had a significant
impact on the face of the Bill and it will continue to inform
debate in both Houses".[23]
24. Once again, we are disappointed at the comparatively
small number of draft bills published by the Government. But numbers
are not the most important aspect of the process. What matters
is the quality of pre-legislative scrutiny that takes place and
a crucial factor in accomplishing first-rate scrutiny is sufficient
time for committees to do their work. For this reason, we are
especially concerned that the Government does not appear to have
taken into account the need for committees to have adequate time
to plan and carry out effective pre-legislative scrutiny of draft
bills. We welcome the Government's intention to increase the number
of draft bills it publishes in 2008, but stress that sufficiently
early publication of such draft bills is a necessary condition
for proper scrutiny. The Government should liaise at an early
stage with committees to ensure they can set aside time in their
already busy work programmes to carry out their pre-legislative
scrutiny function.
25. As is apparent from Table 4 above, the draft
Climate Change Bill was scrutinised by a joint committee and two
select committees, in the case of the Environmental Audit Committee
as part of a wider inquiry. The Joint Committee was set up after
the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee had informed
the Leader of the House of its intention to carry out pre-legislative
scrutiny and indeed had announced its inquiry into the draft Bill.
This duplication of scrutiny led to pressure on staff resources,
although these were alleviated by assistance from the National
Audit Office and some joint working by the staff of the committees
concerned. There was also pressure on Members' time, as seven
members of the EAC also served on the Joint Committee. More important,
this multiplication of scrutiny created some frustration and confusion
amongst external stakeholders10 witnesses gave evidence
to both the EFRA Committee and the Joint Committee. While we recognise
that some draft bills will be particularly suited to scrutiny
by joint committees, it is for the House, not the Executive, to
assess the most effective form of scrutiny, and we object strongly
to the fact that the Government has sought to pre-empt the House's
consideration of how to scrutinise draft bills by bringing forward
motions for the appointment of joint committees without proper
consultation. We reiterate the comment of our predecessor committee
in 2005: 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.[24]
OTHER LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY BY COMMITTEES
26. In addition to their work on draft bills, committees
have proved able to contribute to the debate on other bills. Table
5 gives some examples. Table
5: Examples of other bills scrutinised by select committees
Committee
| Bill |
Scrutiny conducted
| Impact
|
Health |
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
| Committee published Report on provisions in Bill before it reached Report stage in the Commons(1)
| Informed debate |
Justice
| Freedom of Information Bill
| Private Member's Bill including provision exempting Members from FOI Act; Committee argued this was contrary to culture of openness in the public sector
| Informed debate |
(1) Health Committee, Third Report of Session 2006-07,
Patient and Public Involvement in the NHS, HC 278-I
27. The Joint Committee on Human Rights continues
to scrutinise all government bills, and a range of other legislative
proposals, reporting on the significant human rights issues raised
by each bill. These reports also help inform the debates on billsin
both Houses. The Committee notes that in the majority of bills
on which it reported, its Report was available before report stage
in the first House to consider the bill.[25]
SCRUTINY OF SECONDARY LEGISLATION IN DRAFT
28. Committees examine draft secondary legislation
as well as draft bills. The two main subjects of such scrutiny
in 2007 were draft regulatory reform orders and the new draft
Legislative Competence Orders in Council. The former are monitored
by the Regulatory Reform Committee, which produced eight Reports
on four regulatory reform orders in 2007.[26]
29. Draft Legislative Competence Orders in Council
(LCOs) represent a new departure for parliamentary scrutiny of
draft legislation. The Government of Wales Act 2006 allowed the
National Assembly for Wales to seek to enhance its legislative
powers by way of LCOs. The Orders do not themselves change the
general law for Walesthey pave the way to subsequent changes
in the law applying to Wales within the devolved areas of legislative
competence. The Welsh Affairs Committee undertook an inquiry into
LCOs, as it was envisaged that the Welsh Affairs Committee would
play a key role in the procedure for scrutinising these orders,
possibly working jointly with committees of the National Assembly
for Wales. The Committee welcomed the opportunity to be involved
in the pre-legislative process of proposed Orders in Council,
but expressed some concern at the potential impact of this role
on the rest of its programme of work.[27]
The Committee published a Report on one draft LCO in 2007, on additional
learning needs. The Committee concluded that an LCO was the most
appropriate way forward for this proposal, and agreed that the proposed
Order should be proceeded with, subject to some changes.[28]
THE GOVERNMENT'S DRAFT LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMME
30. In its Green Paper, The Governance of Britain,
the Government announced that it intended to publish a draft version
of the forthcoming session's legislative programme for parliamentary
and public consultation.[29]
The first such draft programme was published on 11 July 2007.[30]
We considered the implications for committees of this development
and agreed that in 2007, given the limited time available to consider
the draft programme, individual committees should do what they
could to examine, and publish their views on, any legislative
proposals relevant to their work. The Leader of the House has
subsequently indicated that the Government expects the draft programme
to be published at Easter in future, thus providing "enough
time that the Government has got a sensible thing to put forward
but not so late that it is really too late for there to be substantial
changes".[31]
31. Our Chairman and two select committee chairmen
gave evidence to the Modernisation Committee's inquiry into the
draft legislative programme. In our evidence, we noted that:
- committees are ready to be
involved in scrutinising the draft programme, but cautious about
the impact this task might have on their existing work;
- committees need adequate notice of when the draft
programme is to be published, so that they can build their scrutiny
of it into their programme of work; publication around Easter
would be helpful to committees, and
- it is unlikely that the Liaison Committee would
be able to come to a single view on the question of balance within
the draft legislative programme, as this is a fundamentally political
question that does not sit well with the cross-party nature of
the Committee.[32]
We made similar points at our informal meeting in
October 2007 with the Leader of the House and the former Leader,
now Secretary of State for Justice and the principal author of
the Green Paper. The Modernisation Committee concluded that "publication
before Easter, for a Queen's Speech delivered the following November,
would provide enough time for select committees to integrate some
scrutiny of the Government's legislative proposals into their
programme".[33]
32. We welcome the publication of the Government's
draft legislative programme, which has the potential to further
enhance committees' engagement with the legislative process. In
order for this potential to be realised, the draft programme will
have to be published early enough for committees to be able to
examine those proposals that fall within their remit and report
on them in time for their views to be taken into account by the
Government in finalising its legislative programme. We therefore
welcome the Government's intention of publishing the draft programme
for 2008-09 around Easter 2008.
THE IMPACT OF PUBLIC BILL COMMITTEES
33. Public Bill Committees (PBCs), with the power
to take oral and written evidence on bills, have been in operation
since January 2007. In our Report last year, we noted our concern
that the new procedure might reduce the scope either for pre-legislative
scrutiny by select committees or their examination of bills once
introduced. So far, the existence of this new procedure does not
appear to have precluded select committees from examining government
bills when published, as shown by the example of the Health Committee
in Table 5 above. It is not yet clear what impact the new PBC
procedure will have on the Government's provision of opportunities
for pre-legislative scrutiny, which we have noted have dropped
back in recent years, but we will keep this issue under review.
Task 4: To examine specific output
from the department
34. This core tasks refers to specific outputs "expressed
in documents or other decisions". Most committees followed
up on specific circulars, guidance or other documents issued by
their departments during evidence sessions with their secretaries
of state and other ministers, although only a few committees undertook
discrete investigations into these subjects. One example of such
a dedicated examination is contained in the Health Committee's
inquiry into audiology services, launched in response to the Government's
announcement in March 2007 of a new framework for services, which
sought to address long waiting times suffered by patients who
wanted to upgrade their analogue hearing aids.[34]
Task 5: Scrutiny of expenditure
plans and outturns
35. One of the most important roles played by the
departmental select committees is scrutinising expenditure by
the government departments which they monitor. Other committees
also devote some of their time to this task, and the Committee
of Public Accounts is largely concerned with the examination of
departmental spending, through its consideration of reports from
the National Audit Office and evidence sessions with Accounting
Officers.[35] In our last Report we noted
a general consensus that committees' financial scrutiny of Government
was not as effective as it might have been.[36]
We set up a working group to examine how Parliament's financial
scrutiny could be improved, and we comment on this initiative further
in paragraph 45 below. In this section, we note some examples of
ways in which committees have continued to improve their financial
scrutiny of Whitehall over the past year.
DEPARTMENTAL ANNUAL REPORTS
36. The majority of financial scrutiny centres on
Departmental Annual Reports (DARs), published in May, and to a
lesser extent the Estimates, published at intervals throughout
the year.[37] The standard
procedure adopted by most committees is to analyse the DAR, supported
by the Committee Office Scrutiny Unit, and request additional
detail in writing from the department. The department's response
then forms the basis of an oral evidence session with senior officials,
or sometimes ministers, with many committees subsequently publishing
reports. In our last Report we welcomed the fact that many committees
reported to the House following their examination of the DARs,
and urged more to follow suit.[38]
In 2007, all but one departmental select committee held at least
one oral evidence session on their department's DAR, or were planning
to hold one early in 2008. As in 2006, about half the departmental
committees have published, or plan to publish, a report on the
Departmental Annual Report.
37. Examples of committee scrutiny of the DARs include:
- Scottish Affairs, whose evidence
session on the Scotland Office DAR was an opportunity to explore
the "Barnett formula", and[39]
- Foreign Affairs and International Development
both examined their department's Comprehensive Spending Review
(CSR) settlement as part of their inquiries into DARs.[40]
38. Autumn Performance Reports (APRs) update only
some of the material covered in the much fuller DARs, on performance
against PSA targets and efficiency targets. Most committees gave
less attention to departments' APRs than to DARs, with only a
handful holding hearings or producing Reports on APRs. Some committees
prefer to conduct examination of APRs by way of correspondence
with departments.[41] The Government's 'Alignment
Project' may, in due course, combine some of the existing financial
reporting documents, including DARs and APRs, which could increase
the importance that committees attach to examining the remaining
documents.
ESTIMATES
39. Most committees continue to quiz departments
about the content of the Estimates they lay before Parliament
throughout the year. Generally, this is conducted through correspondence.
However, some committees have also reported on particular Estimates,
and the Defence Committee has continued the practice it introduced
after the last election of reporting on all the Ministry of Defence's
Supplementary Estimates, in each case before the House of Commons
was asked to agree them. The Committee notes that the MoD's Supplementary
Estimates are of particular interest since they reveal the cost
of military operations, which have traditionally not been covered
in the Main Estimates.[42]
40. In our last Report, we commented on the quality
of the Estimates Memoranda sent to committees by departments,
which are intended to provide an explanation of the changes to
expenditure sought in the Estimate. We concluded that they were
not yet fulfilling their potential, even though they had improved
since their introduction in 2004.[43] The
Scrutiny Unit has continued to monitor the quality of memoranda,
and reports that, overall, Estimates Memoranda have continued to
improve, although there remain some problems with timeliness of
publication. In two cases, memoranda were rejected by the committee
concerned, and the department was obliged to provide a new and improved
text. We were pleased to note that the Communities and Local Government
Committee noted a "significant improvement in the Department's
provision of information" following its criticisms of the DCLG's
Estimates Memoranda.[44] The
Scrutiny Unit assists committees and departments in improving the
quality of memoranda, for instance through publication of guidance
to departments and the dissemination of examples of especially good
practice.[45] We welcome the
continuing improvement in the quality of information provided in
Estimates Memoranda, and the fact that pressure from committees
is ensuring that the quality of departments' Estimates Memoranda
is being further improved.
OTHER SCRUTINY OF EXPENDITURE
41. In addition to the annual cycle of DARs and APRs,
committees examine expenditure issues as part of their wider inquiries.[46]
Some also undertake additional scrutiny on expenditure, as set
out in Table 6 below.Table
6: Other scrutiny of expenditure
Committee
| Scrutiny activity undertaken
|
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
| Criticised Defra in a follow-up Report to its inquiry into the department's DAR for passing a £200m cut in its budget on to bodies responsible for delivery. This was apparently due to the Department misunderstanding the Treasury's rules on end of year flexibility; a National Audit Office report on Defra's financial management was published in March 2008.(1)
|
Health |
Continued its practice of scrutinising the Department of Health's use of its £90 billion budget through a written questionnaire submitted to the Department. The Department's responses form the basis of oral evidence sessions with the Secretary of State and officials.(2) These sessions give the Committee the opportunity to "explore important areas of financial expenditure by the Department in more depth than was possible in other inquiries".(3)
|
Home Affairs
| A short inquiry into Police Funding which considered "how increased investment [
] had been reflected in police performance and crime reduction".(4) It concluded that it was "difficult to assess how effectively the increased spending on the police in recent years has been deployed" and that as a result it was also "hard to assess the case made by the service and police authorities for more funding when there is no comprehensive measure of how well they have spent the money they have already received".(5)
|
Treasury
| Reports on prospects for the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) and on the final outcome of the CSR.(6)
|
(1) Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee,
The Work of the Committee in 2007, para 17. (2) Health
Committee, Public Expenditure on Health and Personal Social
Services 2006, 22 November 2007, HC 26-i & -ii and Public
Expenditure on Health and Personal Social Services 2006, 29
November 2007, HC 26-iii. (3) Health Committee, Second Report
of Session 2007-08, Work of the Committee 2007, HC 337,
para 28. (4) Home Affairs Committee, Work of the Committee
in 2007, para 44. (5) Home Affairs Committee, Fourth Report
of Session 2006-07, Police Funding, HC 553, para 28. (6)
Treasury Committee, Third Report of Session 2007-08,
Work of the Committee in 2007, HC 230, para 17.
42. Committees continued their effective scrutiny
of government expenditure over the last year. Such scrutiny of
expenditure is not limited to an annual examination of departmental
reports, important though this is. Committees have shown that
an awareness of expenditure issues informs a much wider range
of their work. We are pleased that most departmental committees
have taken oral evidence on departmental reports, but emphasise
that committees using this evidence to form the basis of a report
to the House can further improve the quality of departments' financial
reporting.
MERGING DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS AND RESOURCE ACCOUNTS
43. In 2007 two government departmentsHM Treasury
and Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR)piloted
a new publication which merged the DAR with the department's annual
resource accounts. (The Ministry of Defence has for some years
already published such a combined report.) We acted as a point
of contact for HM Treasury, which coordinated the pilot, ensuring
that the needs of committees in carrying out scrutiny of government
financial reporting were taken into account in planning the pilot.
The NAO has commented that integrating the reports more closely
"gives Parliament and the general public a better idea of
what is being delivered with financial resources at departments'
disposal".[47] The
Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR) Committee[48]
described the combined report produced by the former DTI as "an
impressively comprehensive document, and, in our view, an improvement
on earlier reports", but curbed its own enthusiasm with a
warning that:
It is too early to say whether the fact that
a combined document necessarily emerges later in the financial
cycle than the Annual Report it replaced will have any adverse
impact on our ability to consider the Estimates in normal years.[49]
The Treasury Committee was broadly positive about
the pilot, while noting that one consequence was the disappearance
of separate chapters on the Office of Government Commerce (OGC)
and the Debt Management Office (DMO). The Committee concluded
that, subject to adequate arrangements being put or remaining
in place for reporting on the performance of these bodies, the
pilot was an opportunity for "continued improvement in the
quality of financial reporting" by the Treasury Group.[50]
HM Treasury has indicated that the pilot may gradually be extended
to other departments.
44. The new combined departmental reports and resource
accounts are an opportunity to produce more helpful documents,
although we note the potential disadvantage that they will be
published later than the current DARs. The balance between the
greater usefulness of the combined document and its later publication
is one that can best be judged by the individual committees concerned,
on a case by case basis.
LIAISON COMMITTEE WORKING GROUP ON FINANCIAL SCRUTINY
45. As noted in our previous Report, we established
a working group consisting of our Chairman and the Chairmen of
the Treasury Committee, the Committee of Public Accounts and the
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to examine in more
detail ways in which financial information could be provided and
how committees might analyse and use that information.[51]
We will publish a Report based on the findings of this working
group on 21 April 2008. [52]
Task 6: Scrutinising Public Service
Agreements and Targets
46. Committees generally scrutinise Public Service
Agreements (PSAs) and associated targets as part of their annual
examination of DARs. PSAs are also often examined in the course
of policy-based inquiries, in one-off sessions with ministers
or secretaries of state, and occasionally through correspondence.
In 2007 committees measured performance against existing PSAs,
but also assessed the adequacy of the new PSAs introduced for
the period of the 2008-11 CSR.
PSA TARGETS AS PART OF EXAMINATION OF DEPARTMENTAL ANNUAL
REPORTS
47. Most committees continue to investigate progress
on PSA targets as part of their annual scrutiny of departmental
reports in 2007. Table 7 below gives some examples.Table
7: Scrutiny of PSA targets during DAR scrutiny
Committee
| PSA scrutiny undertaken
|
BERR |
Took a particular interest in the PSAs for the newly created department, and their relationship to the PSAs of the Department for Trade and Industry.(1)
|
Constitutional Affairs
| Used its evidence session with the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Justice to focus on progress towards PSA targets relating to delivery and public confidence in the criminal justice system.(2)
|
Culture, Media and Sport
| Followed up its work on the DAR with an evidence session with the Secretary of State and senior officials, discussing policy matters and performance against PSAs.(3)
|
Foreign Affairs
| Departed from the approach of its previous DAR inquiries by taking evidence on departmental performance not only from departmental officials, but also from high profile witnesses from outside the FCO, including Rt Hon Lord Ashdown and former ambassadors. This helped the Committee to put together a case study on the FCO's performance against its PSA target on conflict prevention.(4)
|
(1) Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee,
The work of the Committee in 2007, para 18. (2) Constitutional
Affairs Committee, Ministry of Justice: Aims and Objectives,
17 July 2007, HC 938-i. (3) Culture, Media and Sport Committee,
Third Report of Session 2007-08, Work of the Committee in 2007,
HC 234, para 13. (4) Foreign Affairs Committee, The Work of
the Committee in 2007, para 43.
PSA TARGETS ASSESSED IN THE COURSE OF INQUIRY WORK
48. Committees regularly touched on PSA targets in
the course of their policy-based inquiries over the past year,
as shown in Table 8.Table
8: Scrutiny of PSA targets during inquiries
Committee
| PSA scrutiny undertaken
|
Communities and Local Government
| Report on Equality proposed that all equality strands be covered by a single PSA, in order to improve government action against discrimination. This recommendation was later adopted by the Government.(1)
|
Health |
Examined the Department of Health's PSA targets in its long-running annual Public Expenditure Questionnaire exercise. In particular, the Committee focused on whether the DoH would reach the PSA target on hospital waiting times, given that media reports had suggested the target would be softened.(2)
|
Committee
| PSA scrutiny undertaken
|
Home Affairs
| Considered a number of individual Home Office targets as part of their inquiry into Police Funding. The Report concluded that the Government's key crime reduction target, 'offences brought to justice', was not a good indicator of success in relation to the types of crime the public feared most, and recommended a better balance under new PSA targets.(3)
|
Transport
| Inquiries into the Government's Motorcycling Strategy and Novice Drivers both examined progress towards the target of reducing road deaths.(4)
|
(1) Communities and Local Government Committee, Sixth
Report of Session 2006-07, Equality, HC 468, para 56. (2)
Health Committee, Work of the Committee 2007, para 27.
(3) Home Affairs Committee, Police Funding, para 30. (4)
Transport Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2006-07, Novice
Drivers, HC 355-I and Fifth Report of Session 2006-07, The
Government's Motorcycling Strategy, HC 264.
49. The Public Administration Select Committee used
correspondence to undertake ongoing, extensive scrutiny of Cabinet
Office accounts, expenditure and performance in relation to its
targets.[53]
GENERAL CONCERNS ABOUT PSA TARGETS
50. Committees continued to raise concerns about
certain aspects of PSA targets, in particular their adequacy for
measuring the work of government departments, as shown in Table
9.Table 9:
Concerns about PSA targets
Committee
| Concern about PSA target
|
Communities and Local Government
| Expressed concerns about the extent to which the Department for Communities and Local Government could be held accountable for poor performance against its PSAs, stating that almost all of them 'relied on the actions of someone else if their goals were to be achieved and on data collected elsewhere if they were to be accurately measured and assessed'.(1)
|
Environmental Audit
| Examined the usefulness of PSAs in driving the Sustainable Development agenda across Government. The Committee concluded that such PSAs could only be effective if accompanied by cross-Government consensus and clear political will.(2)
|
Foreign Affairs
| Expressed disappointment that it had not been consulted in the drafting of the FCO's new PSA framework. The Committee expressed particular concern about the appropriateness of the performance target structure as related to the work of the FCO, and also recommended that targets and priorities be simplified and reduced in number.(3)
|
Committee
| Concern about PSA target
|
International Development
| The specific link between the Department for International Development's PSAs and the Millennium Development Goals continued to present difficulties in measuring DFID's effectiveness. The Committee concluded that the inclusion of specific indicators under the new PSAs should help to make their assessment of DFID's performance more meaningful.(4)
|
(1) Communities and Local Government Committee, Second
Report of Session 2007-08, DCLG Annual Report 2007, HC
170, para 1. (2) Environmental Audit Committee, Ninth Report of
Session 2006-07, The Structure of Government and the Challenge
of Climate Change, HC 740, para 48. (3) Foreign Affairs Committee,
The Work of the Committee in 2007, para 44. (4) International
Development Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007, para
44-47.
51. As part of the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review,
the Government introduced a set of 30 new PSAs, intended to supersede
the 110 PSAs in existence at the time of the 2004 Spending Review.
All the new PSAs are cross-departmental, and according to Ministers
"articulate the Government's highest priority outcomes for
the CSR07 period and span departmental boundaries, setting out
a shared vision and leading collaboration at all levels in the
delivery system". Each of the new PSA targets is supported
by a Delivery Agreement. Alongside the new PSAs, the Government
introduced a new form of target: Departmental Strategic Objectives
(DSOs). These are intended to cover the business carried out by
a particular department. The Treasury Committee examined the new
PSAs and DSOs in their Reports on the CSR. The Committee welcomed
the distinction between DSOs and PSAs in principle, but noted
that the cross-departmental nature of the new PSAs posed a challenge
for a system of accountability currently based on departmental
reporting and the work of departmental select committees. The
Committee recommended that performance against outcome indicators
in each of the new PSAs be reported on in new cross-departmental
publications, twice a year. The Committee hoped that such publications
would encourage more effective cross-cutting scrutiny of PSAs
between the select committees concerned.[54]
Task 7: Monitoring the work of
agencies and other public bodies
52. Committees adopt varying approaches to monitoring
the work of the agencies and public bodies within the remit of
their departments: through their scrutiny of Departmental Annual
Reports; through inquiries into a specific body, or a group of
related bodies; and in the course of wider, policy-focused inquiries.[55]
Examples of each approach are given in Table 10 below. Table
10: Monitoring the work of agencies and other public bodies
Committee
| Scrutiny of agency or public body
|
EFRA |
Undertook detailed analysis of the working of the Rural Payments Agency and the Single Payment Scheme.(1)
|
Foreign Affairs
| Took evidence from the British Council and the BBC World Service as part of its inquiry into the FCO DAR.(2)
|
Public Administration
| Inquiry into Ethics and Standards focused on the role and constitutional status of five of the non-departmental public bodies sponsored by the Cabinet Office.(3)
|
Transport
| Examined the Olympic Delivery Authority during its inquiry into Transport for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.(4)
|
(1) Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee,
The Work of the Committee in 2007, paras 8-10. (2) Foreign
Affairs Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007, paras
49-50. (3) Public Administration Select Committee, Fourth Report
of Session 2006-07, Ethics and Standards: The Regulation of
Conduct in Public Life, HC 121-I. (4) Transport Committee,
Third Report of Session 2006-07, Transport for the London 2012
Olympic and Paralympic Games: The Draft Transport Plan, HC
199.
53. Most committees aim to scrutinise key agencies
and public bodies on a regular basis. For example, the BERR Committee
sets out to examine one or two of the Department's associated
public bodies each year.[56]
The Transport Committee endeavours to take evidence from each
of the Department for Transport's associated public bodies over
the course of a Parliament, while the Defence Committee has adopted
a rolling programme of short inquiries on the work of individual
defence agencies.[57]
Task
8: Scrutiny of major appointments
54. Up to now, select committee scrutiny of appointments
has mainly consisted of evidence sessions once the job-holder
is in post, and the role of these sessions is generally to assess
the subject's views and priorities rather than directly evaluating
their appointment. Several committees held early hearings with
newly-appointed ministers, which were regarded as acting to some
extent as "induction" hearings. The Cabinet reshuffle
in June 2007 provided select committees with many such opportunities,
including the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the
Home Affairs Committee and the Health Committee.[58]
55. Committees have scrutinised
the appointment of senior officials and other related posts. Some
examples from 2007 are given in Table 11.Table
11: Scrutiny of major appointments
Committee
| Scrutiny of appointment
|
Defence
| Monitors all significant appointments to the Ministry of Defence, its associated agencies and public bodies, as well as the Armed Forces, and considers whether these appointments merit scrutiny.
To date, it has not seen any reason to take further action. However, there are plans to take evidence from the new Service Complaints Commissioner after a year in post.(1)
|
Health |
Took evidence from the new Director General of NHS Finance, Performance and Operations as part of their work on the Public Expenditure Questionnaire.(2)
|
Joint Committee on Human Rights
| Following the launch of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, met informally with the Chair of Commissioners and the Chief Executive.
The JCHR will seek to take oral evidence from the Commission in 2008, once the new organisation is fully up and running.(3)
|
Transport
| Took evidence from the new Permanent Secretary of the Department for Transport, alongside the Secretary of State.(4)
|
Treasury
| Continued to scrutinise appointments to the Monetary Policy Committee, holding hearings with two members re-appointed to the MPC.(5)
|
(1) Defence Committee, The work of the Committee
in 2007, paras 41, 44. (2) Health Committee, Work of the
Committee 2007, para 36. (3) Joint Committee on Human Rights,
The Work of the Committee in 2007 and the State of Human Rights
in the UK, para 59. (4) Transport Committee, Work of the
Committee in 2007, para 36. (5) Treasury Committee, Work
of the Committee in 2007, para 23.
GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS ON PARLIAMENTARY SCRUTINY OF APPOINTMENTS
56. The Governance of Britain Green Paper
proposed that Parliament, through its select committees, should
become more involved in "the appointment of key public officials",
with committees holding pre-appointment hearings with nominees
for certain posts.[59]
The Treasury Committee undertook the first pre-appointment hearing
under the new procedure, with the first nominee to the post of
Chair of the new Statistics Board, Sir Michael Scholar. It published
a Report, in advance of the Commons debate on the subject, supporting
Sir Michael's nomination, and made recommendations drawing on
its experiences of the pre-appointment hearing process.[60]
57. The Public Administration Select Committee published
a Report on the Government's proposal to involve select committees
in public appointments, which aimed to clarify the purpose of
pre-appointment hearings and to establish criteria to determine
which posts should be subject to such procedures.[61]
58. The Government consulted the Liaison Committee
about how the new procedures should work. We in turn consulted
the chairmen of the relevant select committees, and published
a Report in March 2007 setting out their views and our preferred
approach. Our Report concluded that:
The Government's proposals are a welcome response
to our belief that select committees can add value to an appointments
process [
] it is our firm view that committees will now
wish to work together with Ministers and their departments to
carry forward a developing series of evidence sessions that can
be helpful to the postholder and the department while providing
enhanced accountability to Parliament.
We also approved the list of appointments which the
Minister proposed should be subject to the new procedurewith
the exception of that of the Comptroller and Auditor General,
given the unique method of appointment to that postand
recommended that additional posts should be included, while noting
that the list should be kept under review.[62]
In its recent White Paper The Governance of BritainConstitutional
Renewal, the Government noted the publication of our Report
and stated that it will continue to work with us on a final list
of suitable posts for pre-appointment hearings.[63]
We look forward to continuing to engage with the Government on
its proposals for pre-appointment hearings.
Task 9: Implementation of legislation
and major policy initiatives
59. We have already noted that committees examine
policy proposals, and legislation either in draft or during its
passage through Parliament. But committees also scrutinise the
implementation of new legislation, and the effectiveness of existing
legislation. Examples of this type of scrutiny in 2007 are given
in Table 12 below.Table
12: Scrutiny of implementation of legislation
Committee
| Scrutiny of implementation of legislation
|
Health |
Examined a range of significant legislation since 1999, especially the implementation of the NHS Plan 2000, as part of its inquiries into Workforce Planning and NICE.(1)
|
Public Administration
| Held an evidence session on the demands and difficulties in implementing the 'public benefit' requirements in the Charities Act 2006.
Another evidence session concerned some of the consequences and implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.(2)
|
Transport
| Held an inquiry into the new National Boatmasters' Licence. The inquiry was particularly timely because the Government had been forced by a decision of the European Court of Justice to implement directives from which both the European Commission and the Government believed the UK had negotiated an exemption.(3)
|
Committee
| Scrutiny of implementation of legislation
|
Treasury
| Examined the effectiveness of the provisions of the Bank of England Act 1998 as part of its inquiry on the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England.(4)
|
(1) Health Committee, Work of the Committee 2007,
para 37. (2) Public Administration Select Committee, Work of
the Committee in 2007, para 37. (3) Transport Committee, Work
of the Committee in 2007, para 16. (4) Treasury Committee,
Work of the Committee in 2007, para 26.
60. Committees also monitor the implementation of
EU legislation. For instance, the EFRA Committee inquired into
the implementation in the UK of the European Union Environmental
Liability Directive.[64]
61. The Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) continues
to monitor the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998. In
particular, an evidence session in June 2007 with the then Attorney
General, Lord Goldsmith, addressed the matter of the applicability
of the Human Rights Act to people detained by the military overseas,
and the implications of this in the wake of allegations of torture
and inhuman treatment by British troops in Iraq. The Committee
hopes to return to investigate this topic further in 2008.[65]
The JCHR also made recommendations on how to improve the coordination
of action dealing with adverse judgments of the European Court
of Human Rights within Whitehall and the provision of information
to Parliament.[66]
62. In fulfilment of this core task, committees also
examine the implementation of major policy initiatives. Table
13 below gives some examples.Table
13: Scrutiny of implementation of major policy initiatives
Committee
| Scrutiny of implementation of major policy initiatives
|
BERR |
Inquiry on the Implementation of the Report of the Women and Work Commission.(1)
|
Constitutional Affairs
| Looked at the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, expressing concern that measures proposed by the Government could restrict the flow of information into the public domain.(2)
|
Defence
| Published an updating Report on the implementation of the Government's 2005 Defence Industrial Strategy.(3)
|
Scottish Affairs
| Inquiry into Poverty which included an examination of the effectiveness of programmes such as Welfare to Work and Tax Credits.(4)
|
(1) Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee, Second Report of
Session 2007-08, Jobs for the Girls: Two Years On, HC 291-I
and -II. (2) Constitutional Affairs Committee, Fourth Report of
Session 2006-07, Freedom of Information: Government's proposals
for reform, HC 415. (3) Defence Committee, Sixth Report of
Session 2006-07, The Defence Industrial Strategy: Update,
HC 177. (4) Scottish Affairs Committee, Second Report of Session
2007-08, Poverty in Scotland, HC 128-I and -IIs. POST-LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY
63. Committees have an important role to play in
scrutinising Acts of Parliament. In our Report last year we noted
the report by the Law Commission on this subject and our productive
meeting with the then Chairman of the Law Commission, Sir Roger
Toulson. We also noted our appointment of a working group to take
forward discussions on how a new mechanism for more systematic
post-legislative scrutiny might operate.[67]
In March 2007, the working group held an informal meeting with
the then Leader of the House, at which the group's proposal that
post-legislative scrutiny could be undertaken by a dedicated committee
of the House of Lords, with Commons committees reserving the right
to undertake scrutiny of particular pieces of legislation within
their remits, was discussed. The subject of post-legislative scrutiny
was also raised at our meeting with the new Leader of the House
and the former Leader, now Secretary of State for Justice, in
October 2007,[68] and
at our meeting with the Chairman of the Law Commission, Sir Terence
Etherton, in May 2008.
64. The Government published a Command Paper on its
approach to post-legislative scrutiny, incorporating its response
to the Commission's report, on 20 March 2008.[69]
The Command Paper takes account of our views,[70]
and states:
[
] the basis for a new process for post-legislative
scrutiny should be for the Commons committees themselves, on the
basis of a Memorandum on appropriate Acts submitted by the relevant
Government department, and published as a Command paper, to decide
whether to conduct further post-legislative scrutiny of the Act
in question.
Such memoranda would be published as Command Papers
between three and five years after Royal Assent, and provide information
on the Act's implementation and operation. The relevant select
committee would decide whether it wished to conduct a specific
post-legislative inquiry into the Act, or perhaps to include it
as part of another inquiry within its work programme. Publication
as a Command Paper would allow "Lords and other interests
to take up points raised in it". However, "the prime
responsibility would rest with the Commons Committee initially
to consider the Memorandum". The Government notes that in
some cases it might be appropriate for a different parliamentary
bodywhether a Lords or Commons committee, or a joint committeeto
conduct further scrutiny, "though not ordinarily if the Commons
Committee has decided to conduct a review".[71]
The Government "does not at this stage envisage establishing
a permanent committee dedicated to post-legislative scrutiny".[72]
We look forward to examining the Government's proposals for more
systematic post-legislative scrutiny, and discussing their implementation
with ministers. At this stage, we welcome the Government's recognition
that post-legislative scrutiny is, in the first instance, a matter
for Commons select committees.
Task 10: Debates in Westminster
Hall and the Chamber
65. Core Task 10 relates to "assisting the House
in debate and decision", through the production of reports
suitable for debate. Select committee reports often inform, or
form the basis for, debates on the floor of the House and in Westminster
Hall. In many cases, a report is 'tagged' on the Order Paper as
being of particular relevance to the debate, and in this way the
committee's findings can inform proceedings. In addition, there
are dedicated debates on committee reports. The Liaison Committee
chooses the subject for six debates each year in Westminster Hall,
and some Reports, also chosen by the Liaison Committee, debated
on three days a year on the floor of the House.[73]
66. In 2007, there were 23 debates in Westminster
Hall on committee reports, as set out in Table 14an increase
from 21 in the previous year.[74]
25 reports from 14 select committees were debated. Debates on
committee reports can attract significant interest from Membersfor
instance, the debate on the former Trade and Industry Committee's
Report on Post Office restructuring had the highest attendance
of any Westminster Hall debate on a select committee report to
date.[75]Table
14: Committee reports debated in Westminster Hall in 2007
Committee
| Report or issues
| Date of debate
|
Communities and Local Government
| Coastal towns | 7 June 2007
|
Constitutional Affairs
| Coroners' system and death certification
| 8 March 2007 |
| Carter review (legal aid)
| 12 July 2007 |
Culture, Media and Sport
| Protecting and preserving our heritage
| 25 January 2007 |
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
| British Waterways |
25 April 2007 |
Environmental Audit
| Emissions trading |
25 October 2007 |
Foreign Affairs
| East Asia | 1 February 2007
|
| FCO's human rights annual report 2006
| 11 October 2007 |
Health |
Independent sector treatment centres
| 10 May 2007 |
Committee
| Report or issues
| Date of debate
|
International Development
| Peacebuilding and post-conflict reconstruction
| 22 March 2007 |
| Development assistance and the Occupied Palestinian Territories
| 5 July 2007 |
| DFID assistance to Burmese internally displaced people and refugees on the Thai-Burma border
| 6 December 2007 |
Joint Committee on Human Rights
| Human trafficking |
24 May 2007 |
| Treatment of asylum seekers
| 13 December 2007 |
Quadripartite
| Strategic export controls
| 22 February 2007 |
Science and Technology
| Drug classification |
14 June 2007 |
Trade and Industry / Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform
| New nuclear? Examining the issues
| 19 April 2007 |
| Post Office restructuring
| 29 November 2007 |
Transport
| Parking policy and enforcement
| 18 January 2007 |
| How fair are the fares? Train fares and ticketing
| 26 April 2007 |
Treasury
| Administration of tax credits
| 15 March 2007 |
| Financial inclusion
| 15 November 2007 |
Work and Pensions
| Government employment strategy
| 17 May 2007 |
67. In addition to Westminster Hall debates, committee reports
are considered in Estimates Day debates on the floor of the House,
as set out in Table 15. Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts
were debated on the floor of the House on 19 April and 23 October.Table
15: Committee reports debated on Estimates Days in 2007
Committee
| Subject of Report
| Date of debate
|
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
| Rural Payments Agency and the implementation of the Single Payment Scheme; UK Government's "Vision for the Common Agricultural Policy"
| 9 July 2007 |
Health |
NHS deficits | 12 March 2007
|
Public Administration
| Ethics and Standards: The Regulation of conduct in public life
| 5 December 2007 |
Science and Technology
| Scientific Advice, Risk and Evidence Based Policy Making
| 9 July 2007 |
Transport
| Local transport planning and funding
| 12 March 2007 |
Work and Pensions
| Benefits simplification
| 5 December 2007 |
5 e.g. Liaison Committee, First Report of Session 2005-06,
Annual Report for 2005-06, HC 406, para 7 Back
6
e.g. Public Administration Select Committee, Fourth Report of
Session 2007-08, Work of the Committee in 2007, HC 236.
Joint Committee on Human Rights, Sixth Report of Session 2007-08,
The Work of the Committee in 2007 and the State of Human Rights
in the UK, HC 270 Back
7
Science and Technology Committee, Twelfth Report of Session 2006-07,
Scientific Developments Relating to the Abortion Act 1967,
HC 1045-I. See also Seventh Report of Session 2006-07, 2007:
A Space Policy, HC 66-I. The Committee was abolished at the
end of the 2006-07 and its functions transferred to the Innovation,
Universities and Skills Committee; see para 69 below. Back
8
European Scrutiny Committee, Twelfth Report of Session
2007-08, The Work of the Committee in 2007, HC 315,
para 9 Back
9
Home Affairs Committee, Justice and Home Affairs Issues at
European Union Level Back
10
International Development Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2006-07,
EU Development and Trade Policies: An update, HC 271 Back
11
Transport Committee, First Report of Session 2007-08, Galileo:
Recent Developments, HC 53. See also para 70 below for information
on cooperation between the European Scrutiny Committee and other
committees. Back
12
Public Administration Select Committee, Sixth Report of Session
2005-06, The Ombudsman in Question: the Ombudsman's report
on pensions and its constitutional implications, HC 1081 Back
13
Department for Work and Pensions, Financial Assistance Scheme
Review of Assets-Final Report, December 2007, para 47 Back
14
Public Administration Select Committee, Work of the Committee
in 2007, para 29 Back
15
Liaison Committee, Annual Report for 2005-06, para 14 Back
16
Liaison Committee, First Special Report of Session 2006-07, Annual
Report for 2005-06: Government Response to the Committee's First
Report of Session 2006-07, HC 920, para 1 Back
17
Details of the number of draft bills published since 1997-98 are
included in Appendix 3 (The work of the Scrutiny Unit). Back
18
See www.commonsleader.gov.uk Back
19
The Home Affairs Committee also considered draft clauses of the
Counter-Terrorism Bill, made available in confidence by the Home
Office. See Fourth Report of Session 2007-08, Work of the Committee
in 2007, HC 226, para 42. Back
20
Transport Committee, Third Report of Session 2007-08, Work
of the Committee in 2007, HC 248, paras 20, 23 Back
21
Joint Committee on the Draft Climate Change Bill, First Report
of Session 2006-07, Draft Climate Change Bill, HC 542-I,
para 5 Back
22
House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution, Fourth Report
of Session 2007-08, Pre-legislative Scrutiny in the 2006-07
Session, HL 43, para 21 Back
23
Transport Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007, para
23 Back
24
Liaison Committee, First Report of Session 2004-05, Annual
Report for 2004, HC 419, para 38 Back
25
Joint Committee on Human Rights, The Work of the Committee
in 2007 and the State of Human Rights in the UK, para 33 Back
26
Sessional Returns, Session 2006-07, pp. 244-45 Back
27
Welsh Affairs Committee, Third Report of Session 2007-08, Work
of the Committee in 2007, HC 325, para 12 Back
28
Welsh Affairs Committee, Second Report of Session 2007-08, Proposed
Legislative Competence Orders in Council: Additional Learning
Needs, HC 44, paras 30 and 70 Back
29
Ministry of Justice, The Governance of Britain, Cm 7170,
para 101 Back
30
Office of the Leader of the House of Commons, The Governance
of Britain-The Government's Draft Legislative Programme, Cm
7175, July 2007 Back
31
Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, First
Report of Session 2007-08, The Government's Draft Legislative
Programme, HC 81, para 20 Back
32
Ibid., paras 20-21, 30, 39 Back
33
Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons, The
Government's Draft Legislative Programme, para 22 Back
34
Health Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2006-07, Audiology
Services, HC 392 Back
35
Information about the work of the Committee of Public Accounts
is included in the Chairman's letter to the Liaison Committee,
Appendix 2. Back
36
Liaison Committee, Annual Report for 2005-06, para 34 Back
37
For a full account of the system of financial reporting to Parliament,
see Liaison Committee, Second Report of Session 2007-08, Parliament
and Government Finance: Recreating Financial Scrutiny, HC
426, to be published on 21 April 2008. Back
38
Liaison Committee, Annual Report for 2005-06, para 42 Back
39
Scottish Affairs Committee, Third Report of Session 2007-08, Work
of the Committee in 2007, HC 278, para 14 Back
40
Foreign Affairs Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2007-08, The
Work of the Committee in 2007, HC 287, paras 51-52. International
Development Committee, Third Report of Session 2007-08, Work
of the Committee in 2007, HC 255, para 43 Back
41
e.g. Work and Pensions Committee, First Report of Session 2007-08,
Work of the Committee in 2007, HC 317, para 29 Back
42
Defence Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2007-08, The work
of the Committee in 2007, HC 274, para 31 Back
43
Liaison Committee, Annual Report for 2005-06, para 33 Back
44
Communities and Local Government Committee, Fourth Report of Session
2007-08, Work of the Committee in 2007, HC 211, para 21 Back
45
See http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/scrutinyunit/reports_pubs.cfm Back
46
See e.g. Transport Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007,
para 25. Back
47
NAO, Managing financial resources to deliver better public
services, Session 2007-08, HC 240, para 4.25 Back
48
On 11 March 2008 the House agreed to change the name of the Business,
Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee to the Business and
Enterprise Committee. In this Report we refer to the Committee
under its previous name, as this is what it was called in the
year under review. Back
49
Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee, First Report
of Session 2007-08, The work of the Committee in 2007,
HC 233, para 17 Back
50
Treasury Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2007-08, Administration
and expenditure of the Chancellor's departments, 2006-07,
HC 57, para 41 Back
51
Liaison Committee, Annual Report for 2005-06, para 34 Back
52
Liaison Committee, Second Report of Session 2007-08, Parliament
and Government Finance: Recreating Financial Scrutiny, HC
426, to be published on 21 April 2008 Back
53
Public Administration Select Committee, Work of the Committee
in 2007, para 43 Back
54
Treasury Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007, para
19. See also First Report of Session 2007-08, The 2007 Comprehensive
Spending Review, HC 55, paras 31-37. Back
55
e.g. the Culture, Media and Sport Committee's inquiry into the
London 2012 Olympic Games. Work of the Committee in 2007,
Annex, table 1 Back
56
Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee, The work
of the Committee in 2007, para 21 Back
57
Transport Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007, para
33. Defence Committee, The work of the Committee in 2007,
paras 37-39 Back
58
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, The Work of
the Committee in 2007, para 23. Home Affairs Committee, Work
of the Committee in 2007, para 39. Health Committee, Work
of the Committee 2007, para 36 Back
59
Ministry of Justice, The Governance of Britain, Cm 7170,
July 2007, paras 74-76 Back
60
Treasury Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007, para
24 Back
61
Public Administration Select Committee, Third Report of Session
2007-08, Parliament and public appointments: Pre-appointment
hearings by select committees, HC 152 Back
62
Liaison Committee, First Report of Session 2007-08, Pre-appointment
hearings by select committees, HC 384, para 16 Back
63
Ministry of Justice, The Governance of Britain-Constitutional
Renewal, March 2008, Cm 7342-I, paras 251-53 Back
64
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, The Work of
the Committee in 2007, para 24 Back
65
Joint Committee on Human Rights, The Work of the Committee
in 2007 and the State of Human Rights in the UK, para 64 Back
66
Ibid., para 66 Back
67
Liaison Committee, Annual Report for 2005-06, paras 101-05 Back
68
See also para 31 above. Back
69
Office of the Leader of the House of Commons, Post-legislative
Scrutiny-The Government's Approach, Cm 7320, March 2008 Back
70
Cm 7320, Appendix, para 19 Back
71
Cm 7320, para 9 and Appendix, paras 16, 19, 21 Back
72
Cm 7320, Appendix, para 25 Back
73
Standing Orders No. 10 (13), 54 and 145 (3) Back
74
Sessional Returns, Session 2005-06, pp. 40-46 Back
75
HC Deb, 29 November 2007, col 135WH Back
|