Select committee effectiveness, resources and powers - Liaison Committee Contents

3  Committee activity 2010-12

Volume of activity

21. Overall, House of Commons select committees held 2,327 formal meetings during the long 2010-12 Session. Of these, 1,463 were evidence sessions. Committees published 575 reports and undertook 216 visits, 160 of them within the United Kingdom. These totals mask considerable variation amongst committees. As usual, the Committee on Public Accounts held the most meetings (108) and published the most reports (103). For departmental select committees, the number of formal meetings ranged from 102 (Treasury) to 42 (Northern Ireland Affairs) and the number of reports from 30 to 3 (also Treasury and Northern Ireland Affairs, respectively). Some committees had slightly fewer formal meetings, but a large number of informal meetings (notably, the Foreign Affairs Committee held 114 informal meetings, in addition to 67 formal meetings). The number of visits ranged from 18 (Scottish Affairs — all of them within Scotland) to 0 (Committees on Arms Export Controls).[17] Activity of itself is not a measure of effectiveness, and different subject areas require different levels, and different forms, of scrutiny; but the overall high level of committee activity this Parliament is a positive indicator of the commitment made by committees to the tasks they have been set by the House of Commons.

Member engagement

22. Despite the high level of committee activity, overall Member attendance has been reasonable. Average committee attendance for the departmental select committees in 2010-12 was 73%. This figure is affected negatively by the time taken to replace certain members who wanted, or were required, to leave the committee: until replaced they are counted as non-attending. The attendance rate for active members of committees — which is not recorded — would therefore be higher.

23. Turnover of Committee membership on the departmental select committees was 38% during the session 2010-12, and over 50% for some committees. A significant number of energetic committee members have left to take up ministerial posts, Parliamentary Private Secretary positions, or Opposition front bench posts. The reality is that most new Members of Parliament continue to see the front bench, even in Opposition, as a more desirable career path than scrutiny. Some turnover of membership is inevitable, but a percentage change of this level is regrettable and inevitably has a negative impact on committee cohesion and effectiveness.


24. In November 2009, the Wright Committee recommended that "there should be clear consequences for unreasonable absence from select committees".[18] This was a corollary to the Committee's recommendation that the average size of committee should be reduced, thus creating the need to "incentivise attendance and participation among that smaller group of Members".[19]

25. In January 2010, the Liaison Committee, in its report on the Wright Committee recommendations, fleshed out this suggestion recommending (in its eighth recommendation):

To fit in with the proposed new system of elections, any member of a select committee whose cumulative attendance during a Session is below 60% should be automatically discharged at the end of that Session on the basis of a report made by the Clerk of Committees to the Speaker. The Speaker would have discretion to waive the application of the rule in cases such as ill-health, etc. New elections should be held to fill the vacancies so created within two weeks of the opening of the next session.[20]

26. On 4 March 2010, a little over a month before the dissolution of the Parliament, the House debated the Wright Committee recommendations. To the motion "That this House takes note of recommendation 6 of the First Report of the Select Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons ... and endorses the principle that parties should elect members of select committees in a secret ballot by whichever transparent and democratic method they choose" Mr Alan Williams, then chair of the Liaison Committee, and 14 other committee chairs tabled an amendment:

and further notes and endorses recommendation 8 in the First Report from the Liaison Committee of this Session, HC 272, and directs that where the attendance of any member of a select committee in any Session is below 60 per cent. of the Committee's formal meetings, at the end of that Session the Speaker may invite the Chairman of the Committee of Selection to propose to the House that any such Member should be discharged and that an election to fill that vacancy should be held within two weeks of the beginning of the next Session.

27. There are a number of problematic issues about how this resolution should be implemented. In particular, its policy aim is to remove from committees members with poor attendance records without making any provision for exception on reasonable grounds in some cases. The House's resolution is rather ambiguous about whether the Speaker's role is to enforce the rule or to accept grounds for mitigation. Left with these uncertainties in the system set up at the end of the last Parliament, the Liaison Committee had to decide how to implement the resolution in practice.

28. Statistics on individual members' attendance at committee meetings have been published for many years in the (annual) sessional return. (The percentage attendance is calculated from the time that the member was appointed to the Committee.) Overall, the figures show relatively few members who fall below the 60% attendance threshold at present. Committees engaged in scrutiny of Government have a better record of attendance than some internal committees. Anecdotal evidence suggests that in some cases a low attendance record can be attributed to one of these factors:

a)  A committee's regular meeting time clashes with another parliamentary commitment for an individual member — for example, members are often placed by the Whips on long-running public bill committees or on delegated legislation committees which clash with their select committee;

b)  Personal or family illness has limited a member's attendance.

29. If there are cases where a member's attendance falls below 60%, it may be that the individual member will indicate he or she wishes to leave the Committee and ask his or her party to find a replacement. In one case, an Opposition front bench member has remained a nominal member of a select committee for more than two years, but rightly he never attends. Our Committee has asked the Procedure Committee to consider whether members wishing to leave a committee could be counted as discharged, even if it means that the lack of an applicant leaves a vacancy on the committee. We reiterate the concern we expressed in the last Parliament about the size of select committees and support the Wright Committee's recommendation that the size of departmental committees should not normally be more than 11 members.[21]

30. We decided that each chair should discuss with the Chair of the Liaison Committee any examples of poor attendance in his or her committee and any extenuating circumstances. Such a discussion would cover personal circumstances or meetings clashing with other commitments. It would also include cases where members have asked to come off a committee because they are, for instance, now a PPS, but the party has not designated a replacement. It would then be open to either the chair of the committee or the Chair of the Liaison Committee to notify the Speaker and the Chair of the Committee of Selection that the rule ought to be invoked in that case. It may not be necessary for the formal process to be invoked. In any event, both we and the Committee of Selection are likely to pay attention to attendance records and some turnover of membership is likely. We have informed the Speaker and the Committee of Selection how we are handling this matter.

Coverage of the core tasks

31. The reports from individual committees demonstrate that they have given time and attention to the range of their responsibilities, as set out in the core tasks.


32. Scrutiny of Government policy remains the major focus of committee activity. High profile examples include the Science and Technology Committee's inquiry into the Government's alcohol guidelines[22], the Communities and Local Government Committee's inquiry into the Government's policy on localism[23], the Education Committee's inquiry into the proposals for an English Baccalaureate[24], and the Energy and Climate Change Committee's inquiry into Electricity Market Reform[25]. Several Committees have focused on major Government White Papers: for example, the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee reported on the 2011 Higher Education White Paper[26], the Defence Committee on the Strategic Defence and Security Review[27], and the Health Committee on the Liberating the NHS White Paper[28]. Other committees have highlighted policy areas which the Government was not addressing: for example, the Justice Committee's inquiry into the presumption of death.[29]


33. In addition to the work done by the European Scrutiny Committee, a number of departmental select committees have been also been active in scrutinising European matters. The work of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has been dominated by inquiries into the European Commission's proposals to reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and Common Fisheries Policy.[30] The Energy and Climate Change Committee has reported on the EU Emissions Trading System.[31] The International Development Committee has undertaken an inquiry into EU Development Assistance.[32] Some committees (Education and Home Affairs, for example) responded to the European Scrutiny Committee's specific request for an opinion on EU proposals.[33]

34. Over the last year, we, the Liaison Committee, have been in dialogue with the Minister for Europe, David Lidington MP, who has been keen to invigorate the UK Parliament's engagement in European matters. Our principal interest has been to ensure that departmental select committees are informed of developing policy within the European Commission so that we are able to influence it, before it is too far advanced to change. Committees which have visited Brussels have found UKRep staff very helpful in explaining where EU policy proposals have got to, and would like to access this knowledge when they are back in the UK. Indications are that the Government is open to this.

35. We understand that at the Scottish Parliament committees have appointed one of their Members to act as a "European reporter" monitoring developments in the European Union in their subject area. Westminster committees have, to date, made little use of rapporteurs, but this is a possibility which committees might wish to explore.

36. We welcome the European Scrutiny Committee's current inquiry into the European scrutiny system in the House of Commons and will be submitting evidence to it shortly, from the perspective of the departmental select committees. We also welcome the interest being taken by the Hansard Society in this area.


37. So far this Parliament, the Government has published 18 bills (or other legislative provisions) in draft. Nine of these have been scrutinised, or are being scrutinised, by the relevant select committee; another (the draft Local Audit Bill) is currently being scrutinised by an ad hoc Commons select committee comprising members of the Public Accounts, Communities and Local Government, Health and Home Affairs Committees. Six draft bills have been considered by ad hoc joint committees established for this purpose, and the draft clauses contained in the Parliamentary Privilege Green Paper and the draft Care and Support Bill are also expected to be scrutinised in this manner.

Draft BillPublication date Department Scrutinising Committee
Session 2010-12
Draft Financial Services Bill June 2010HM Treasury Ad hoc Joint Committee
Draft Detention of Terrorists Suspects (Temporary Extension) Bills February 2011Home Office Ad hoc Joint Committee
Draft Defamation Bill March 2011Ministry of Justice Ad hoc Joint Committee
Draft Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill May 2011DBIS Business, Innovation and Skills Committee[34]
Draft House of Lords Reform Bill May 2011Cabinet Office Ad hoc Joint Committee
Individual Electoral Registration Bill June 2011Cabinet Office Political and Constitutional Reform Committee[35]
Draft Electoral Administration Provisions and Further Provisions July and September 2011 Cabinet OfficePolitical and Constitutional Reform Committee[36]
Draft Enhanced Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill September 2011Home Office Ad hoc Joint Committee
Draft Civil Aviation Bill November 2011Transport Transport Committee[37]
Draft Recall of MPs Bill December 2011Cabinet Office Political and Constitutional Reform Committee[38]
Parliamentary Privilege — draft clauses April 2012 (Ad hoc Joint Committee proposed)
Session 2012-13
Draft Energy BillMay 2012 DECCEnergy and Climate Change Committee[39]
Draft Communications Data Bill June 2012Home Office Ad hoc Joint Committee and Intelligence and Security Committee
Draft Care and Support Bill July 2012Health (Ad hoc Joint Committee proposed)
Draft legislation on family justice [Draft Children and Families Bill] September 2012Education Justice Committee
Draft Legislation on Reform of provision for children and young people with Special Educational Needs September 2012Education Education Committee
Draft Local Audit Bill 6 July 2012DCLG Ad hoc Commons Committee
Draft Water Bill10 July 2012 DEFRAEnvironment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee

38. We regret that more bills have not been published in draft, though the numbers are often low in the first session of a Parliament, and that the Government has not been able to provide us with more notice of their publication. On occasions — as with the draft Energy Bill and the draft Civil Aviation Bill — the time available for pre-legislative scrutiny has been unreasonably short.[40] In another case — the draft Grocery Code Adjudicator Bill — the committee altered its programme of work to carry out swift scrutiny to fit the Government's timetable, only for the Bill's introduction to be delayed to the following Session.[41]

39. We also regret that the Government has on occasion sought to establish a joint committee even when the relevant departmental select committee wished to scrutinise the draft bill. We appreciate that the House of Lords may also have a legitimate interest in pre-legislative scrutiny, and that members of that House may bring valuable expertise to this work; but — as we have made clear in correspondence with the Leader of the House of Commons — we feel strongly that there should be no departure from the principle that Commons select committees should have a first right of refusal. We have no doubt that it sometimes suits the Government for draft bills to be scrutinised by a joint committee which is nominated by the party whips, rather than by a departmental select committee whose members and chair are elected. If a joint committee is established to scrutinise a draft bill, we think it is important that the relevant departmental select committee should have the opportunity to nominate some of its own members to serve on the joint committee.


40. Detailed scrutiny of bills is done by ad hoc public bill committees, rather than by select committees, though select committees do frequently report to the House on bills or aspects of bills in order to inform debate in the House and in public bill committee. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, for example, reported on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill and the Fixed-Term Parliaments Bill, and the Scottish Affairs Committee reported on the Scotland and Postal Services Bills.[42] In addition, some members of select committees have been appointed to serve on the public bill committee for a bill in their subject area. Several of the Education Committee, for example, served on the Public Bill Committee on the Education Bill in 2011, and several of the Defence Committee served on the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill.[43] We are not in favour of select committees taking on responsibility for Committee stage scrutiny of bills (as is done in some other Parliaments), as this would take so much of their time; but we do think that there is scope for select committees to do more to inform debates on legislation. The relevant departmental select committee is much better equipped than a public bill committee to assess the cost of legislation, and the knock-on effects on departmental strategy and resources, and on other policies.


41. Most committees now have annual evidence sessions with Secretaries of State and/or Accounting Officers which include coverage of financial issues and performance. Many committees also routinely correspond with departments questioning financial decisions and their impacts. The Defence Committee, for example, highlighted its regular scrutiny of the department's Report and Accounts and of the Estimates and reported that "this apparently dry and routine work has produced some interesting results"; but it also noted that the Ministry of Defence was persistently failing to adhere to the Government's Accounting Rules and to provide the full cost of military operations.[44] The Communities and Local Government Committee complained of the difficulty of comparing performance data before and after the 2010 Election.[45]

42. In doing this work, committees have been greatly assisted by the House of Commons Scrutiny Unit (a section within the Committee Office bringing together a number of staff with financial and legal expertise, as a shared resource for committees), and also by the National Audit Office (NAO).[46] In addition to its support for the Committee on Public Accounts, the NAO has given significant assistance to the Environmental Audit Committee and provided several departmental select committees with a commentary on the departmental annual report, as well as background briefings on particular inquiries.[47] We encourage other committees to make use of the support of the Scrutiny Unit and to discuss with the National Audit Office how its programme of work might help support the work of the committee.

43. With our encouragement, the Scrutiny Unit has worked with Treasury officials to improve the comprehensibility, consistency and simplicity of financial information routinely produced by Government. For instance, the "alignment project" has resulted in much greater consistency in financial information between Government publications, more logical and easier to understand financial information, and comprehensive Annual Reports and Accounts which cover not just the activities of the central departments, but also those which are delivered through arm's length bodies. While some committees have had cause to complain about the quality of the estimates memoranda received from their department[48], there has been an overall improvement, so that they explain better how and why Government plans to spend money.

44. While these developments are welcome, this is an area where there is scope for committees to do more, and we return to this in the next chapter.


45. Departmental select committees are tasked by the House to scrutinise their department's "associated public bodies" as well as the department itself, and many of them have conducted inquiries, or held scrutiny sessions, with the agencies or non-departmental public bodies in their area. For example, the Education Committee has reported on the role and performance of Ofsted, and the Welsh Affairs Committee reported on S4C (the Welsh language broadcaster).[49]


46. Several committees highlighted the work they had done to scrutinise public appointments. For example, the Public Administration Select Committee described a case where the Government's preferred candidate withdrew following the pre-appointment hearing, and two cases in which members of the Committee took part in the selection panel.[50] Altogether, select committees have held 41 pre-appointment or pre-commencement hearings this Parliament. Some committees have expressed dissatisfaction with the information provided by the department or with the Government's response to their recommendation.[51] We published a report on Public Appointments and Select Committees in 2011, making modest proposals to strengthen the accountability of ministerial appointments and to clarify the role of select committees and the expectations on departments when pre-appointment hearings take place.[52] We reported again in September 2012 to highlight the inadequacy of the Government's response to our proposals.[53] We await the Government's further response.


47. The Government is now committed to evaluating legislation and to publishing post-legislative assessments three to five years after enactment.[54] These assessments are sent to the relevant departmental select committee which can decide whether or not to conduct post-legislative scrutiny. Because of other demands on their time, only a few committees have yet done this: examples include the Culture, Media and Sport Committee's inquiry into the Gambling Act, the Justice Committee's recent inquiry into the Freedom of Information Act and the Public Administration Select Committee's current inquiry into the Charities Act.[55] Rather more often, committees have evaluated past legislation as part of a wider inquiry into departmental policy. Post-legislative scrutiny is likely to be a greater demand on committee time in future.


48. Under the Standing Orders, 20 Thursdays each Session are specifically set aside for debates in Westminster Hall on select committee reports, chosen at the discretion of the Liaison Committee.[56] These debates are welcome to committees as an opportunity to air the report and question the Minister on the Government's response; but they are often not very well attended and the debates take place on a non-substantive motion (an adjournment motion) so there is no opportunity to seek the House's endorsement of the report or to express a view on any aspect of the report. To make best use of the time available, we have begun scheduling two separate debates on some of these days, allowing a committee to hold debates on two of its reports or sharing the three hour slot with another committee. We believe that the value of these debates would be greatly enhanced if they were considered on a substantive motion. We note that this is possible under the Standing Orders — substantive motions have recently been used for debates on e-petitions in Westminster Hall — though any division would need to be taken on the floor of the House. Where the committee concerned thinks this is appropriate, and subject to the agreement of the Chairman of Ways and Means, we intend to use this approach in future.

49. Select committees now have the additional opportunity to apply to the Backbench Business Committee for a debate in the Chamber during backbench time. These debates (unlike Westminster Hall debates) can be on substantive motion, allowing the committee to get the support of the House for a report or a particular recommendation. Through this route, for example, the Foreign Affairs Committee won the support of the House for a motion expressing concern about the funding of the BBC World Service in May 2011, the Transport Committee had a debate on a substantive motion on the cost of motor insurance, and the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee won the support of the House for a motion critical of the department's proposals for reform of the pub industry in January 2012.[57]

50. Another welcome development this Parliament is the opportunity for select committees to obtain a short slot in the Chamber in primetime after Questions to present the publication of a report to the House (or — one recent occasion — to launch a select committee inquiry). This procedure — so far taken up by the Public Accounts, Public Administration and Transport Committees — allows the chair to outline the report (or the inquiry) briefly and to answer questions from other members. However, a number of restrictions apply. First, unlike a minister making a statement to the House, select committee chairs are not allowed to make a statement and then take questions, but have to make a speech and take questions in the form of interventions. This can make for a clumsy presentation and undermines the authority of the subject matter. Secondly, the report must be published on the day of the presentation slot. This makes the procedure unattractive, since it significantly complicates the business of launching a select committee report. We were in correspondence with the former Leader of the House on this and had reached agreement on all elements of a draft Standing Order proposed by him, which mirrored the format of a ministerial statement, save his insistence that committee reports could be presented only on the day of publication and that these statements could be made only on days allocated to backbench business. The Procedure Committee is currently examining this issue. The timing rule should be relaxed to provide that a statement on a select committee report should be within a reasonable period of the publication of the report: say, within 10 sitting days (so that reports launched when the House is not sitting are not precluded). Finally, we recommend that it should be for the Speaker, in consultation with the Chair of the Liaison Committee, to decide whether a select committee report is sufficiently topical and significant to merit a statement on the floor of the House on any sitting day. It would remain the responsibility of the Backbench Business Committee to decide what select committee reports merit debate in backbench time.

51. In addition to debates in Westminster Hall, or in the Chamber in time allocated by the Backbench Business Committee, committees can also apply to the Liaison Committee for debates in the House on Estimates Days, which occur twice a year. On these occasions, the debates must be relevant to the department's Estimate (its spending proposals for the year), although this is often interpreted quite generously. As a result, Estimates Day debates have tended to focus on recent committee reports, but it is quite possible instead for a committee to propose a debate on the spending plans included in the Estimate itself, for instance if a committee were concerned at levels of, or changes in, funding allocated for particular purposes. This would require the Government to respond. We will continue to give priority for Estimates Day debates to committee reports which focus on departmental expenditure and performance.

52. Committees may also be "tagged" on the Order Paper as relevant to other debates — on stages of bills, on Government motions, or on Opposition Day debates, for example. There were 84 of these tags in 2010-12.

Different approaches

53. The memoranda from committees also highlight a range of different approaches to the work of scrutiny, in addition to the traditional format of inquiry and evidence taking.


54. Not all inquiries involve oral evidence: a lot of scrutiny work is based on written evidence alone. This allows committees to cover more ground, and to prioritise committee member time on matters where oral evidence is most useful; but there can be a risk that members are disengaged from the inquiry, or that the inquiry becomes staff-led. More typically, an inquiry might involve a single "one-off" evidence session, perhaps with the department or an arm's length body, with written evidence gathered in advance. There is no set format for inquiries, but committees are tending to have shorter inquiries with just one or two evidence sessions rather than the lengthy inquiries of previous years and to intersperse their longer inquiries with "one-off" evidence sessions. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, for example, pointed to the effectiveness of its "short, sharp inquiry" into Air Passenger Duty.[58] The Scottish Affairs Committee, similarly, emphasised the value of quick inquiries in response to urgent events, such as the implications of the reform of the student visa system for Scotland and on the impact of the January 2012 storms on power distribution in the Highlands and Islands.[59] The Public Administration Select Committee is holding a series of inquiries without oral evidence on the work of the UK Statistics Authority and the government statistical service.

55. Several committees referred to the benefits of holding informal seminars, particularly at the beginning of inquiries. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee reported that "discussing the issues surrounding an inquiry topic with stakeholders at the beginning of the process help us to draft better terms of reference and identify potential sources of evidence, which frequently add an interesting and informative counterpoint to our 'usual suspects'".[60] The Defence Committee pointed to the value of exchanging ideas with defence experts, on a confidential basis.[61]


56. While there was a perception among our witnesses that committees are not very joined-up in the way they work, committees' memoranda show a number of examples of joint working. The Business, Innovation and Skills, Defence, Foreign Affairs and International Affairs Committee have continued to meet jointly on a regular basis as the Committees on Arms Export Controls.[62] The Welsh Affairs Committee held a joint pre-appointment hearing with the Culture, Media and Sport Committee for the new Chair of S4C, and also a joint meeting with the National Assembly for Wales Enterprise and Business Committee to look at transport in Wales.[63] The Energy and Climate Change Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee produced a joint report on Solar Power Feed-in Tariffs.[64] The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee cooperated in scrutinising the draft Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill (with BIS's report reflecting evidence taken by EFRA).[65]


57. Several committees emphasised the importance they attached to engaging with the public and mentioned some interesting approaches which have succeeded in broadening the committee's audience and evidence-base. The most spectacular innovation was perhaps the Education Committee's use of the Parliamentary Twitter account, under an "#AskGove" hashtag, to elicit 5,000 questions from the public to the Secretary of State for Education in January 2012. The Education Committee also ran a successful online consultation on youth services in partnership with the student website The Student Room.[66] The Chair of the Transport Committee launched an inqury on YouTube.[67] The Justice Committee held a webforum on the role of probation officers, and the Health Committee has recently held one to gather testimony from women affected by PIP breast implants.[68] The Chair of the Health Committee also took part in a broadcast on Radio 4's You and Yours, as part of its social care inquiry.

58. Many committees stressed the value of getting out of Westminster, to talk to those directly affected about the issue under inquiry. 18 evidence sessions were held out of Westminster during 2010-12. For example, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee took evidence from local fishermen in Hastings on reform of the Common Fisheries Policy; and the Education Committee took evidence in York from headteachers.[69] Other committees have preferred to hold informal public meetings. For example, the Work and Pensions Committee held an open meeting in Burnley on the migration from incapacity benefit to Employment and Support Allowance, and another in Neath Port Talbot on the introduction of Personal Independence Payments to replace Disability Living Allowance.[70] The International Development Committee held a meeting with members of the Afghan diaspora in Hammersmith.[71]

59. As well as informing committees' inquiries, visits also provide an opportunity to engage the public in parliamentary activity and to explain the role of select committees. The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, for example, followed an evidence session in Sheffield with an informal meeting with local sixth form politics students to discuss the work of committees and the wider world of politics.[72] The Scottish Affairs Committee took part in a public seminar in Sterling, and the Welsh Affairs Committee held events at the National Museum in Cardiff and at Venue Cymru in Llandudno, as part of the first Parliament Week in November 2011.[73] Committees have been greatly assisted in this work by the Regional Officers of the Parliamentary Outreach service.[74]


60. Committees' memoranda also record a number of concerns: about the co-operation they receive from Government, about the limitations to their powers, and about the resources that are available to support them. We address these concerns — which committees see as a barrier to their effectiveness — in chapters 5 to 7 below.

17   See Sessional Return 2010-12, HC 1, Session 2012-13, p 159. The figure for reports does not include Special Reports. Back

18   Select Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, First Report of Session 2008-09, Rebuilding the House, HC 1117, para 55. Back

19   Ibid, para 54. Back

20   Liaison Committee, First Report of Session 2009-10, Rebuilding the House: Select Committee issues, HC 272, para 16. Back

21   Liaison Committee, First Report of Session 2008-09, The work of committees in 2007-08, HC 291, paras 78-81; HC 1117, paras 54-55. Back

22   Science and Technology Committee, Eleventh Report of Session 2010-12, Alcohol guidelines, HC 1536. Back

23   Communities and Local Government Committee, Third Report of Session 2010-12, Localism, HC 547; and Ev w8-9. Back

24   Education Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2010-12, The English Baccalaureate HC 851-I; and Ev w12. Back

25   Energy and Climate Change Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2010-12, Electricity Market Reform, HC 742; and Ev w15. Back

26   Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2010-12, Government Reform of Higher Education, HC 885; and Ev w4. Back

27   Defence Committee, First Report of Session 2010-12, The Strategic Defence and Security Review, HC 345; and Sixth Report of Session 2010-12, The Strategic Defence and Security Review and the National Security Strategy, HC 761; and Ev w10. Back

28   Health Committee, Third Report of Session 2010-12, Commissioning, HC 513-I; and Fifth Report of Session 2010-12, Commissioning: further issues, HC 796-I; and Ev w33. Back

29   Justice Committee, Twelfth Report of Session 2010-12, Presumption of Death, HC 1663, and Ev w37. Back

30   Ev w22-23 Back

31   Ev w16-17 Back

32   Ev w36, para 16 Back

33   Ev w13 Back

34   Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, Ninth Report of Session 2010-12, Time to bring on the referee? The Government's proposed Adjudicator for the Groceries Code, HC 1224. Back

35   Political and Constitutional Affairs Committee, Tenth Report of Session 2010-12, Individual Electoral Registration and Electoral Administration, HC 1463. Back

36   Ibid. Back

37   Transport Committee, Thirteenth Report of Session 2010-12, Draft Civil Aviation Bill: Pre-Legislative Scrutiny, HC 1694. Back

38   Political and Constitutional Affairs Committee, First Report of Session 2012-13, Recall of MPs, HC 373. Back

39   Energy and Climate Change Committee, First Report of Session 2012-13, Draft Energy Bill: Pre-legislative scrutiny, HC 275-I. Back

40   Ev w47 Back

41   Ev w5 Back

42   Ev w40-41; Ev w46 Back

43   Ev w13 and Ev w10 Back

44   Ev w10 Back

45   Ev w9, paras 17-18 Back

46   Eg Ev w13, w17 Back

47   Ev w 20 [EAC]; Ev w55 [W&P]  Back

48   Eg Transport Committee, Fifteenth Report of Session 2010-12, Counting the cost: financial scrutiny of the Department for Transport 2011-12, HC 1560. Back

49   Ev w12; Ev w53 Back

50   Ev w 43-44 Back

51   Eg Ev w6-7, Ev w14 Back

52   Liaison Committee, First Report of Session 2010-12, Select Committees and Public Appointments, HC 830. Back

53   Liaison Committee, First Report of Session 2012-13, Select Committees and Public Appointments: the Government's response, HC 394. Back

54   See Post-legislative Scrutiny - The Government's approach (Cm 7320), March 2008. Back

55   Justice Committee, First Report of Session 2012-13, Post-Legislative Scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, HC96-I. Back

56   Standing Order No. 10 (15). Back

57   Ev w32; Ev w49, Ev w5-6 Back

58   Ev w39 Back

59   Ev w46-47 Back

60   Ev w23 Back

61   Ev w11 Back

62   Ev w3 Back

63   Ev w53, para 12 Back

64   Ev w15 Back

65   Ev w22 Back

66   Ev w13 Back

67   Ev w49 Back

68   Ev w38; Ev w34, para 8 Back

69   Ev w23, Ev w14 Back

70   Ev w55 Back

71   Ev w36, para 21 Back

72   Ev w7 Back

73   Ev w46, para 9 Back

74   For evidence from Parliamentary Outreach, see Ev w62. Back

previous page contents next page

© Parliamentary copyright 2012
Prepared 8 November 2012