Government response
The Government welcomes the Committee's Report, which
identifies the central role that select committees play in the
House's scrutiny function.
Work of the Liaison Committee: an overview
1. (Recommendation 1) We are grateful for
the positive way in which the Leader of House and other Ministers
co-operated with us on issues of mutual concern relating to the
work of committees during the session.
(Paragraph 8).
2. (Recommendation 2) We believe that our
regular evidence sessions have the potential to provide a valuable
extra means of holding the Prime Minister to account but that
this potential has not yet been fully realised. While we look
forward to continuing these in the new Parliament, we will therefore
keep the detailed arrangements under review. (Paragraph 10)
The Government agrees that the Prime Minister's appearances
before the Liaison Committee provide a valuable additional degree
of scrutiny of the work of Government. The Government would be
happy to consider any specific proposals from the Committee for
changes to the detailed arrangements..
Scrutiny of draft bills
3. (Recommendation 3) We are pleased that
the Leader of the House has embraced a more transparent system
for the allocation of draft bills to committees for scrutiny.
The Government did not publish enough draft bills in the last
session to test properly the efficacy of the new system so we
will continue to monitor progress into the current session and
next Parliament. (Paragraph 32)
The Government has announced the publication of three
draft bills, on parliamentary privilege, House of Lords reform,
and defamation. Consideration is being given to further draft
bills which might be published for consideration in the current
Session.
The Government is committed to consulting interested
parties in both Houses about the best route for pre-legislative
scrutiny of each draft Bill. However, scrutiny by a joint committee
is likely to be more appropriate than scrutiny by a select committee
of the Commons for bills of major constitutional importance.
4. (Recommendation 4) If the Government is
serious about the role that pre-legislative scrutiny can play
in making better legislation, it needs to ensure that the committees
tasked with conducting that scrutiny are given a reasonable amount
of time in which to do it. We reiterate our view that this means,
at a bare minimum, twelve weeks. If the Government is unable to
ensure that the appointment of joint committees takes place more
quickly than has been the case in the past two sessions it needs
to publish draft bills earlier, to allow sufficient time for the
committees to do their work. (Paragraph 36)
The Government remains committed to a three-month
minimum period for pre-legislative scrutiny. We hope that the
long first Session will provide a longer lead time for the production
of draft bills for scrutiny in 2009-10.
Scrutiny of expenditure plans and outturn
5. (Recommendation 5) We welcome the co-operation
of the Government in helping to build a more coherent and understandable
system for financial reporting, and look forward to the Government
responding equally favourably to our suggestions and those of
the Reform of the House of Commons Committee to improve the ability
of Parliament to use the information to scrutinise and challenge
Government expenditure in the future. (Paragraph 54)
The House approved the Government's proposals for
the Alignment (Clear Line of Sight) Project on 5 July.
The establishment of the Backbench Business Committee
provides new opportunities for the House itself to schedule debates
on any aspect of the Government's spending plans, including debates
on non-binding Motions on Government expenditure. The Committee
could also schedule debates on the Spending Reviews and Pre-Budget
Reports
Scrutiny of major appointments
6. (Recommendation 6) The Government's original
rationale for pre-appointment hearings was based on "increasing
democratic scrutiny of public appointments" and on providing
"greater public reassurance that those appointed to key public
offices are appointed on merit". The UCL Report concludes
that this objective "has been achieved" although the
improvement brought about was "simply an incremental step
- and quite a small one". On balance, we concur with the
cautious assessment of the new arrangements and in principle support
the continuance of the pre-appointment hearings on a permanent
basis...We recommend that existing guidance relating to the hearings
process be consolidated—if agreed between the Cabinet Office
and the Liaison Committee—in a single document containing
precise indications of the purpose and possible content of pre-appointment
hearings. (Paragraph 68)
7. (Recommendation 7) We recommend that a
list of criteria governing the posts subject to pre-appointment
hearings be established and a revised list of such posts agreed
between the Government and the Liaison Committee. (Paragraph 70)
8. (Recommendation 8) We recommend that departments
consult the relevant select committee on the job specification
of any post that is to be subject to a pre-appointment hearing
prior to the start of the recruitment process. (Paragraph 71)
9. (Recommendation 9) We recommend that the
revised set of guidelines governing pre-appointment hearings include
provision for a private meeting between a Minister and a committee
at the committee's discretion, in cases where a committee is inclined
to make a negative report on the preferred candidate for an appointment.
(Paragraph 72)
The Government notes these recommendations and agrees
that there may be scope to improve the arrangements for pre-appointment
hearings. The Minister for the Cabinet Office will write to the
Committee to consider how this could be taken forward.
Relations with Government departments
10. (Recommendation 11) We warmly welcome
the fact that committees continue to maintain positive working
relationships with their respective departments. Nevertheless,
committees continue to bring to our attention instances of Government
memoranda and Government responses that arrive late or are of
poor quality. We accept that there may be good reason for late
submissions; in such cases, the department should ensure that
the Committee is kept informed of the expected length of the delay.
But there can be no excuse for the submission of responses that
fail to engage with the evidence and arguments advanced by a committee.
Honest and open debate should be the hallmark of the dialogue
between Government and Parliament. Current Government guidance
on responses does not seem to be having the desired effect. We
urge the Leader of the House to ensure that all departments are
aware of the need for proper and specific engagement with arguments
advanced in select committee reports. (Paragraph 92)
The Government is committed to supporting and sustaining
the positive working relationship between select committees and
the departments which they scrutinise.
In the light of the Committee's recommendation, the
Leader of the House will write to all departments reminding them
of their responsibility to provide full, accurate and timely information
to select committees, including replies to reports. The Government
agrees that replies must always seek to engage fully with the
committees' reports and address the evidence on which they are
founded.
11. (Recommendation 12) We note that it has
been the practice of successive governments to make sensitive
and, in some cases, classified information available to select
committees (or to their Chairs alone) in confidence, and that
there has been no complaint of a breach of this confidence. We
accept that the Government may have good reason for not wishing
this material to enter the public domain. We would be concerned
if the refusal to provide information was aimed at depriving committees
with information for political rather than security reasons. (Paragraph
94)
The Government will continue to supply sensitive
information to committees in confidence, where appropriate. However,
this is subject to the overriding need to protect information
where its disclosure could lead to harm.
Requests from Parliament for information, whether
from a select committee or in the form of a Parliamentary question,
should not be refused if the Government would be required to disclose
the information under the Freedom of Information Act.
National Policy Statements
12. (Recommendation 17) We are pleased that
the Government has listened to our representations about the mechanisms
of parliamentary scrutiny of National Policy Statements and welcome
the way in which these concerns have been reflected in the changes
proposed and agreed by the House. Whilst welcoming the involvement
of select committees in the new planning process, we still have
some concerns about the potential workload imposed by large numbers
of NPSs and the consequent resource implications. We will keep
under review the impact that the new procedure has on those committees
involved. (Paragraph 133)
The Government acknowledges the potential for the
consideration of National Policy Statements to impose a significant
burden on committees. The Liaison Committee's power to appoint
a National Policy Statement Committee can be used to mitigate
this problem to some degree.
The Government will consider any representations
from the Liaison Committee or from the individual committees concerned,
should the burden of scrutiny become too great.
Amendments by select committees
13. (Recommendation 18) We accept that further
detail is required on how committee-sponsored amendments would
work in practice, but we do not believe that the difficulties
are insuperable. We look forward to the development of further
detailed proposals. (Paragraph 136)
The Leader of the House will pursue this proposal
with the Procedure Committee.
Post-legislative scrutiny
14. (Recommendation 19) We encourage Government
departments to abide by the commitments they have made on the
publication of post-legislative memoranda in 2010 and to produce
memoranda that are as informative as possible to the process of
scrutiny. We will keep the quality of these memoranda and the
use made of them by select committees under review. We also plan
to monitor the extent to which post-legislative work impinges
on committees' primary roles, especially for the departments which
have heavy legislative workloads. (Paragraph 139)
The Government welcomes the Committee's intention
to keep the quality and use of post-legislative memoranda under
review. As the Committee notes, individual committees have now
agreed with their departments a timetable for submission of memoranda.
A total of seven memoranda have now been published,
though none has yet been the subject of a select committee inquiry.
The Leader of the House wrote to all Cabinet ministers
in June to advise them on the process and draw their attention
to the guidance contained in the Cabinet Office's Guide to
Making Legislation.
Mainstreaming select committees
15. (Recommendation 24) For a mainstream select
committee, such as a departmental committee, a Member of Parliament's
work on the committee, if it is to be done well, should represent
a significant portion of their working time. (Paragraph 162)
16. (Recommendation 25) We recommend that
the Committee of Selection take into account whether a Member
is a member of a select committee in appointing members of legislative
and other general committees. (Paragraph 164)
17. (Recommendation 26) We recommend that
the Procedure Committee and the Leader of the House in the next
Parliament examine the options for ring-fencing time for select
committee meetings—for example by having "committee
weeks" once a month or more regularly. (Paragraph 166)
18. (Recommendation 27) The House must recognise
that the work of select committees is fundamental to the discharge
of its democratic function, and individual Members must recognise
that service on a select committee is both a privilege and a core
part of their role as democratic representatives. It demands consistent
concentration and commitment. (Paragraph 167)
The Government agrees that the work of select committees
is a central and essential part of the work of Parliament. The
Leader of the House will be happy to contribute to any inquiry
by the Procedure Committee into ways in which protected time could
be made available for select committee activity.
| 
