Conclusions and recommendations
1. 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. (Paragraph
24)
2. 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. (Paragraph
25)
3. 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. (Paragraph 32)
4. 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. (Paragraph 40)
5. 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. (Paragraph 42)
6. 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. (Paragraph 44)
7. 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. (Paragraph 64)
8. We have been concerned
by the length of time it has taken in some instances to appoint
and replace members of select committees. We urge the Leader of
the House, the Committee of Selection and the Government and Opposition
Whips to liaise more closely, and work together in order to speed
up the nomination process. We also urge the Whips of all parties
to ensure members are appointed to and discharged from committees
only after proper consultation with all those affected. While
we recognise the natural desire of the Whips to ensure attendance
of Members for important votes, we hope to work with them to achieve
greater certainty for the forward planning of committee business.
(Paragraph 74)
9. We are grateful to
members of the judiciary for their willingness to give evidence
to committees and otherwise to participate in their inquiries,
and we look forward to continuing our relationship with the Law
Commission, including on the development of post-legislative scrutiny.
(Paragraph 79)
10. We deplore the fact
that departments have in some cases taken an inordinate amount
of time to submit written evidence and responses to committees.
Departments should engage in a positive and timely manner with
select committee inquiries. This includes making information available
to committees unless there are compelling reasons to withhold
it. In this context, we welcome the Home Office's positive approach
to working with the Home Affairs Committee, and the FCO's commitment
to consider ways in which information in classified documents
could be made available to the Foreign Affairs Committee. We encourage
all departments to look upon parliamentary scrutiny as an important
process rather than a necessary evil, as sometimes seems to be
the case. We also commend the practice of committees in following
up inadequate government responses, as this is the most effective
way of ensuring better practice in the future. (Paragraph 85)
11. Online forums can
be a means of accessing information from people who would be hard
to reach through the routes traditionally used by committees,
and have the potential to encourage the public to engage more
fully with Parliament. We encourage more committees to consider
this approach to information gathering, where there are likely
to be communities of interest who would not otherwise participate
in committee inquiries. However, online forums can be resource-intensive
to set up and run, and so care should be taken that they are employed
only when they can add specific value to an inquiry. Committees
can make particularly effective use of the information they obtain
through this method by publishing a summary of the views expressed
and referring to online comments in their reports. In this way,
contributors to online forums can be reassured that their views
are being heard. (Paragraph 91)
12. Once again, we express
our appreciation of the specialist assistance the National Audit
Office provides to select committees. We believe such assistance
is most valuable when it responds to specific committee needs,
and we encourage committees to consider ways in which the NAO
can help them. (Paragraph 94)
13. We note the important
added value which the Scrutiny Unit has continued to bring to
the work of committees. (Paragraph 95)
14. We await the outcome
of the Modernisation Committee's inquiry into regional accountability,
and more detailed proposals from the Government. At this stage,
we reiterate the concerns put to the Modernisation Committee by
our Chairman and other Members, that establishing a group of select
committees on the regions, operating in the same way as the existing
departmental select committees, could lead to wasteful duplication
of effort, confusion over the roles of the different committees
and conflicting demands for resources and access to relevant witnesses.
We welcome the prospect of enhanced regional accountability, but
it must not be at the expense of replicating—or weakening—the
existing scrutiny system. (Paragraph 107)
15.
- The principle of parliamentary scrutiny for National
Policy Statements is welcome and we believe select committees
are the proper forum for such scrutiny;
- The Government should work closely with the committees
most affected to ensure that any new arrangements allow existing
committees adequate time to carry out effective scrutiny without
adversely affecting the rest of their programme of work, and
- Decisions on the statements should be made by
the House, informed by the committees' analyses, and the Planning
Bill should be amended to ensure that ministers may not designate
statements without the approval of the House.
We look forward to a continuing dialogue between
committee chairmen and the Leader of the House on how these aims
can best be achieved. (Paragraph 109)
| 
