4 Increasing committee impact
The impact of committees
61. The
consensus of those who gave us evidence is that committees are
successful in influencing Government. That
is not just the view of committees and external commentators,
but is also supported by academic research. The Constitution Unit
at University College London reviewed the impact of seven committees[75]
during the period 1997-2010, based on quantitative analysis of
the success rate of their recommendations and qualitative analysis
of their influence on Government through interviews with Ministers
and civil servants.[76]
Their overall conclusion was that committees were indeed influential
on government, though they identified some areas where they could
do better. They found that:
They [select committees] are largely taken seriously
in Whitehall, many of their recommendations go on to be implemented
(though sometimes not until years later), and they have an important
preventative effect in encouraging more careful consideration
of policy within government departments.
The UCL study also found that
some committees can have significant influence outside
government, including on industry. This influence comes in particular
through 'exposure'.[77]
62. However, the UCL research found there was "room
for improvement", mentioning in particular:
- committees' frequent failure
to follow up their recommendations;
- committees' relative inability to commission
their own research
- poor attendance and attention to detail by some
committee members
- failure by some in Government to take committees
sufficiently seriously
- committees' relations with the media: "media
attention may benefit committees' status and influence, but being
too media-driven can become a problem".[78]
These criticisms were echoed in evidence to this
inquiry.
63. While
we welcome the wide consensus that select committees have a significant,
positive impact, we take very seriously the critical feedback
received. We examine
below the areas in which our witnesses thought we could do better,
and make a number of recommendations to committees.
Strategic planning
64. Some of our witnesses suggested that individual
committees ought to be clearer about their objectives, both for
the longer term and for specific inquiries. In its 2011 review
of Select Committee Tasks and Modes of Operations the Hansard
Society recommended that each committee should publish and consult
on a strategic plan, and report on its achievements against that
plan.[79] We
note from the memoranda received from committees that many of
them have held, or are in the process of holding, meetings to
review their objectives, in discussion with their advisers and,
often, outside experts. We welcome this. It is important that
committees should have a clear understanding amongst themselves
about what they are seeking to achieve, and that they consider
their objectives for the whole Parliament, rather than focusing
only on the inquiry immediately ahead. It may not be possible
to do this at the beginning of the Parliament: the Chair may well
have a clear agenda but this may not be shared by all other members
of the committee: it takes time for committees to gel and for
new members to appreciate the value of a consensual approach.
But, now,
two years into the Parliament, is a very good time for committees
to take stock and agree their objectives for the remainder of
the Parliament.
65. It is not our role to prescribe to other committees
how they should interpret their role, or how they should spend
their time; but as a model
of "best practice", we recommend that committees:
a) have
a candid discussion amongst themselves about how they see their
purpose, and what they wish to achieve over the length of the
Parliament;
b) identify
what are the most important functions of their department's responsibilities
and design a programme of scrutiny to assess whether the department's
objectives have been fulfilled;
c) clearly
record their conclusions and remind themselves of them when considering
proposals for inquiry and programme planning;
d) review
this at least annually, with an "awayday" or at least
a longer, less formal discussion than is possible at a regular
deliberative meeting; and
e) canvass
opinion among the key players in their subject area about their
performance.
66. Whether it is sensible to publish a strategic
plan is more debatable. Committee members may be more cautious
about signing up to a strategy which is to be made public and
may see it as offering a hostage to fortune, or as setting themselves
up to fail: committee plans will inevitably have to change to
respond to events and new priorities. On the other hand, publishing
objectives would ensure that the committee thought carefully about
them, would demonstrate that they were thinking beyond the short-term
and would give the public and expert observers such as the Hansard
Society a yardstick against which to assess our effectiveness.
Committees might usefully consult their department and interested
stakeholder bodies on their draft objectives, and perhaps use
them to secure undertakings in return. Certainly committees will
not be able to achieve their objectives without the full co-operation
of the department and of the principal third party bodies on which
they rely for independent evidence. We
expect Government departments to be transparent about their objectives,
and we ought to practise what we preach. We commend to other
committees the practice of publishing strategic objectives, and
of consulting their department and other stakeholders on them.
67. With this in mind, we have drawn up our own objectives,
as a Liaison Committee, for the remainder of the Parliament, in
the knowledge that circumstances and priorities can change. We
set these out in Annex A to this report, as a draft for others'
views.
Planning inquiries
68. Several of our witnesses pointed to the importance
of committees carefully considering, and planning, their inquiries,
to make sure that they fitted with, or at least did not impede,
the committee's longer-term objectives. The joint memorandum from
the Hansard Society, Institute for Government and Constitution
Unit argued that:
Clear objectives should be set for each inquiry,
for example, through publication of a statement about what a committee
would like to achieve, separate from the issue and questions paper
that is normally published at the start of an inquiry.
It also underlined the benefits of giving witnesses
a sufficiently long deadline to produce evidence: short deadlines
reduced the prospects of broadening the evidence base.[80]
69. There is a tendency for committees to launch
inquiries without a great deal of forethought. Evidence points
to the benefit in committees doing some exploratory work before
inquiries are announced. We were told that timing of inquiries
is important: inquiries have most impact if they are at the right
stage of government decision-making. And a shared understanding
of what the committee wishes to achieve in an inquiry would provide
a useful and more strategic basis for media and communications
planning and support. We
recommend that, before they launch an inquiry, committees agree
a comprehensive minute setting out what they hope to achieve,
and the likelihood of success.
Scrutiny of departmental performance
70. Our discussion with civil servants at the Institute
for Government gave us much food for thought. They thought committees
spent too much time on post mortems of individual projects or
policies which went wrong, and missed the opportunity to hold
ministers and officials to account for the overall performance
and strategy of the department.
We agree that committees should be proactive and forward-looking
and devote less effort to raking over the coals of past
events unless there are lessons to be learnt and changes to be
recommended.
71. The Better Government Initiative argued that
departmental select committees should take evidence more often
from Permanent Secretaries as Accounting Officers, holding them
to account for spending decisions and for programme and project
management. They thought departmental select committees
should expect Permanent Secretaries, as now with
the PAC, to give evidence about current performance and planned
programmes and projects backed by the Government. They should
take responsibility for the quality of the advice given by their
departments on the key approaches considered and assumptions used
in the appraisals, any inadequacies in the evidence relied on,
perhaps due to an absence of evaluations of past projects or of
pilots of new ones. While we would not suggest SCs become embroiled
in second guessing management decisions, they should be able to
satisfy themselves that proper processes are in place for appraising
policies and investments and expect to be informed where there
are significant departures from established procedures.[81]
They thought this would lead to departments giving
greater attention to the quality of project and option appraisal
and to Permanent Secretaries taking greater interest in their
department having the necessary processes and skills in place.[82]
72. With competition for scarce resources becoming
ever greater, it is important for committees to assess policy
decisions alongside their financial implications, and vice versa.
Committees need not just consider the merits of policy and the
means of delivery, but whether the amount of public money allocated
and spent represent the best use of scarce public funds, and whether
better outcomes could potentially be delivered through different
spending patterns. This argues for "mainstreaming" financial
scrutiny in order that the financial aspects of a policy are considered
alongside the policies and outcomes. We
recommend that in future inquiries, as a matter of routine, committees
include consideration of the financial aspects and implications
of the policies being examined. This could include for instance,
what the justification for spending public money is, what evidence
there is that it will offer, or is offering, good value for money
to the taxpayer, what alternatives have been considered and whether
they would be likely to be more effective, and the outcomes expected
to be added to or improved upon by the spending.
73. In practice, departments are routinely making
financial decisions throughout the year. Those who make the decisions
are accountable to Parliament and the public for the use of public
funds. While the Public Accounts Committee has the lead role in
post-hoc analysis of how public money has been spent, departmental
select committees also have a role in ensuring that departments
evaluate options robustly on the basis of sound evidence, weigh
up options soundly and operate as fairly and openly as possible,
keeping spending under review to ensure it delivers the outcomes
desired. We encourage
committees to hold evidence sessions at least annually with ministers
and departmental accounting officers, and include within these
sessions consideration of how departments evaluate and take decisions
on spending, and how they assess the effectiveness of the spending
they undertake.
74. While successive Governments have taken steps
to open up the Whitehall machine, whether through the Freedom
of Information Act, or the transparency agenda, more can still
be done. Bare facts often require explanation and the Government
appears sometimes reluctant to explain not just the "what",
but the "why". More also needs to be done by Government
to link spending to performance. In 2009, our predecessor Committee
recommended that departments publish "Mid-Year Reports",
linking spending and performance.[83]
Steps are now under way to deliver this on a pilot basis in 2012,
with full implementation expected in 2013. We
encourage committees to review departments' Mid-Year Reports when
published, using them to identify relevant issues and questions
relating to finance and performance.
Evidence sessions
75. Taking evidence is a fundamental feature of select
committee activity. Our strength lies in ensuring that our conclusions
are evidence-based, in giving a platform to experts and to those
with personal experience, and in challenging those with responsibility.
But they can be a bit dull, and they are not always the best way
of extracting information particularly from government
witnesses.
76. Several of those we met during our inquiry questioned
the effectiveness of our tradition of going round the table, with
each member asking questions in turn. We were told that the knowledge
that a member would only have five or ten minutes before having
to hand over to a colleague encouraged witnesses to flannel, knowing
that they would soon be off the hook. It was suggested that chairs
should allow successful questioners longer to develop their line
of inquiry, or even for committees to delegate questioning to
one or two members at each evidence session: they would then know
it would be worthwhile putting time into preparation. There is,
of course, a downside in this approach (committee members may
not be very keen to sit through meetings at which they have no,
or little, opportunity to contribute) but it could work, if the
arrangement was reciprocal. And it would recognise the reality
that committee members do not always have time to prepare well
for every evidence session. We
recommend that committees experiment with different approaches,
such as appointing a rapporteur to lead on a particular inquiry,
or choosing "lead questioners" for an evidence session.
77. Another important area is the diversity of witnesses.
Witnesses before committees are by no means just "the great
and the good". Some committees have been particularly successful
in involving a diverse range of witnesses and representatives
of groups who are usually disengaged from the political and parliamentary
process. But some inquiries and subject areas lend themselves
more to this than others; and there can be a tendency, particularly
if time is short, to call in "the usual suspects". This
is boring and, in limiting the breadth of the evidence base, detracts
from the quality of committees' conclusions. Committee inquiries
provide an important opportunity to engage underrepresented groups
in the parliamentary process, and to contribute in a significant
and concrete way to the aims of the House of Commons Diversity
and Inclusion Scheme. We
recommend that committees make every effort to broaden their range
of witnesses, and to take into account the principles of diversity
and inclusion in planning their inquiries and committee programme.
Commissioned research
78. Several of our witnesses argued for committees
to make greater use of commissioned research. This was seen as
a key contributor to an effective report not just by academic
observers (whom one would expect to be in favour of research)
but also by the civil servants we talked to. The joint memorandum
from the Hansard Society, Institute for Government, and Constitution
Unit and others said that committees "can be at their most
effective when they conduct original research, providing a new,
clear evidence base for their recommendations (as, for example,
the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee did in surveying
pub tenants for its Pub Companies report)."[84]
There seems to be low awareness that committees already have the
facility to commission research, and the Committee Office's budget
for this purpose is often underspent. A discouraging factor is
that commissioning research is time-consuming (work has to be
planned, put out to tender and then carried out) and this does
not always fit with the immediacy of committees' requirement.
However, some committees have commissioned research. In 2010-12,
the Transport Committee commissioned research on the HighSpeed2
link.[85] More recently,
the Public Administration Select Committee has commissioned a
market research company to conduct polling on public attitudes
to national security issues. Others have commissioned research
on a pro bono basis. For example, the Political and Constitutional
Affairs Committee has made an agreement with the Centre for Political
and Constitutional Studies at King's College London to do research
on codifying the constitution, supported by the Nuffield Foundation
and Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust.[86]
Committees
should bear in mind the option of commissioning research when
planning their long-term strategies, and, if necessary, the House
authorities should increase the money available for this purpose.
Reports
79. The Constitution Unit's report Selective Influence
found room for improvement in the way committee reports are drafted:
There is some lack of clarity in how select committees
express their conclusion and recommendations. It is sometimes
unclear whether a paragraph included in the 'conclusions and recommendations'
section of the report is actually a recommendation or not, and
therefore whether it demands a government response. Such unclear
wording obviously risks letting government off the hook.[87]
They pointed out that some reports contained a great
many recommendations and considered that report would lose impact
if the number got too large.[88]
They suggested that reports should identify which the main recommendations
are, to ensure that those responding cannot avoid the key issues
and to make it easier to follow up if the most important recommendations
have been acted upon. We take this feedback seriously. We
encourage committees to keep their reports short and accessible,
and to avoid too many recommendations. A clear indication of which
recommendations are most important will help the committee achieve
impact and make follow-up easier. We recommend that the usual
template for committee reports be changed to distinguish clearly
the recommendations targeted at the Government. We suggest that
conclusions should be in bold, with recommendations in bold italics,
and that it should be clearly stated to whom the recommendation
is addressed.
80. In the longer term we would like to see the format
of committee reports modernised, and made more accessible to the
increasing number of readers who access them electronically.
Follow-up
81. Evidence
to our inquiry was critical of the lack of follow-up of committee
reports. Our witnesses said that committees tended to move on
too quickly to the next inquiry, and did not put enough effort
into making sure that recommendations are implemented. The joint
memorandum for the Institute for Government, Hansard Society and
Constitution Unit argued that:
Improving follow-up is a key area where committees
could improve performance. They are often most successful in areas
where they are most persistent. However, there is a strong tendency
to move on quickly to new subjects, without always making the
most of previous inquiries; a more rigorous approach is needed.
Some committees do systematically log and track implementation
of past commitments but the practice is patchy and unsystematic.[89]
Several committees (International Development, for
example, and the Public Administration Select Committee) have
been following up earlier inquiries, but we accept that this is
not systematic. Following up old inquiries (particularly ones
from previous Parliaments which current committee members may
not have been involved in) can be unexciting; but we are guilty
of a tendency to "fire and forget". If we are to be
successful in influencing change in Government policy, we need
to do more than just present a cogent argument and hope that Government
will listen. We need to make sure that the message has been heard
by the right people in Government and then need to chivvy to make
sure that they do what we want. There are a range of tools at
committees' disposal: we can get leverage through the support
of stakeholder bodies and coverage of the media; we can seek debates
in the House or ask Parliamentary Questions, requiring Ministers
to explain how the Government is responding; and we can issue
follow-up reports.
82. We
also accept the need for longer-term follow up, to track whether
accepted recommendations actually have been implemented. Departments
need to know that committees will revisit subjects of inquiry,
and monitor progress. Given the pressures on committee time, much
of this can be done as a paper-based exercise: a full follow-up
inquiry would only be appropriate for major reports, with continuing
relevance.
83. We recommend
that each committee should appoint a member of staff, or an adviser,
or an outside body, who will monitor follow-up to recommendations
in respect of each report. The committee should report to the
House at least once in each parliamentary Session upon how many
of its recommendations the Government has acted, and what follow-up
is proposed on outstanding recommendations.
Joint inquiries
84. Some of our witnesses argued for more joined-up
working between committees, with inquiries on themes which cross
departmental boundaries.[90]
This was also a recommendation made in the report of the Speaker's
Advisory Council on Public Engagement, which argued that such
inquiries would be more relevant and interesting to the public.[91]
There have been some positive examples of joint activity
since the beginning of the Parliament, as illustrated in paragraph
56 above. However, but practical difficulties of timetabling etc,
and differences in committee culture, discourage this; and there
is a risk that departmental select committees can have something
of the silo mentality which we criticise in Government departments.
The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, on which
the chairs of several departmental select committees sit, is an
attempt to overcome that problem, but it is a very large committee
which therefore cannot operated in the way that a departmental
committee can. The Chair of the Transport Committee has suggested
that the sensible approach is "to take a more relaxed view
of committees ranging across departmental boundaries where it
is sensible to do so for effective scrutiny, but involving the
chairs of affected committees more proactively in discussions
about plans for the inquiry".[92]
It is
sensible for departmental select committees to be able to cross
departmental boundaries when this is in the interest of effective
scrutiny of matters which go beyond a single department, but they
should do so in ways which respect the role of other departmental
select committees and in full consultation with the chairs of
those committees.
Communication
85. Much of our informal discussion during the inquiry
focussed on how to improve the communication of committees' work.
Our work is pointless if it is not effectively communicated, but
we do not always put sufficient thought into whom we need to communicate
with, and why, and sufficient effort into doing it. On the other
hand, at a time of limited resource and increasing media
diversity we need to be hard-headed about what is effective.
When considering
how to make an impact with the media, committees have a wider
range of choices than ever before, and this means we need to give
more thought to what we really want to achieve and target resources
effectively.
86. Effective communication is essential in order
to get the evidence we need. Different inquiries need to engage
different audiences: some inquiries will be of interest primarily
to specialists and experts in the field; some need to draw on
the experience of people who are not easily reached through the
mainstream news media. To access new audiences, we need to exploit
new media as well as traditional mainstream news. Social media
may have a role here, as well as in increasing our direct impact
amongst more 'niche' stakeholder groups. Where committees have
used the Parliament website to hold e-forums, success has been
varied; some have found it more productive to work with third
party hosts with established communities (as in the Education
Committee's successful partnership with the website Student
Room[93]). Committees
particularly through individual Members are making
increasing use of social media to engage interest in their work
and to encourage people to give evidence (as in the Education
Committee's #askGove session[94]).
Broadcast media can be useful in engaging a wider audience: committees
have regularly worked with Radio 4's You and Yours, for
example, providing committee content with chair interviews and
phone-ins. Where appropriate, launch events can be helpful to
attract more attention for a report.
87. Once a report is agreed, it is important that
it is communicated to its target audience, but committees do not
always stop to think clearly about who that is or why
or what specific objective the media coverage should help to achieve.
The Committee Office's small team of media officers works hard
to secure coverage through print, broadcast and online media,
including both mainstream and specialist publications (and it
is important to remember that traditional media outlets still
deliver the largest audiences). The committee heard evidence which
suggested that in some areas, coverage may be reaching saturation
point on Radio 4's Today, for example particularly
at certain times of year. Committees need to work harder to avoid
clashes, and to exploit slower news periods: in recent years,
20 to 50 reports have been published during the summer recess,
and this has consistently worked well. Some issues will resonate
with a wider audience in local and regional media, improving public
understanding of committee work as something which has direct
relevance and impact outside the 'Westminster bubble': some chairs
have used the BBC's General News Service where large numbers
of interviews are organised back-to-back with local radio around
the country with great success. Much committee work is
faithfully covered by specialist trade press; however, in some
areas such as science and law, specialist bloggers are increasingly
influential, providing authoritative reporting, comment and analysis
comparable to and often of higher quality than
traditional specialist media. More could be done to engage their
interest in committee work.
88. Media interest is not limited to the publication
of reports. An evidence session or a visit can
be used for the basis of a story, and to attract interest in the
committee's inquiry. And committee chairs are acquiring a growing
personal profile, which can be maintained by, for example, releasing
comments in response to events, or securing spots for planned
articles.
89. The parliamentary website is a crucial communications
tool for committees and we would like to see committee teams putting
more effort into exploiting it. The evidence we received from
Parliament's Web and Internet Service pointed to a number of areas
where more could be done.[95]
While we recognise the need for committee webpages to conform
to some common standards, we believe there is scope for adapting
them more to the needs of particular committees and their different
audiences. All committee pages would benefit from richer audio-visual
content: not just better photos and embedded evidence sessions,
but, for example, chair interviews on current issues, calls for
evidence, short films about aspects of an inquiry, and report
launches. And this content needs to be readily 'pushed' to other
sites, as well as attracting traffic to committee pages.
90. The discussion we had with members of the Parliamentary
Lobby gave us a better understanding of the time pressures under
which journalists and broadcasters operate, and the huge amount
of material which they have to sift. Committees are more likely
to be covered if they help by providing advance warning, giving
pointers to newsworthy evidence, and avoid taking evidence at
the same time as Statements in the House. The bunching of committees
meeting on Tuesday morning inevitably limits their chances of
coverage.
91. It was suggested in our inquiry that the House
could usefully increase journalists' understanding of Parliament
by providing training (perhaps by providing input into National
Council for the Training of Journalists courses for graduate trainees).
An important aspect is to make sure that they are able to distinguish
between Select committees, appointed by the House to examine matters
impartially, and All Party Parliamentary Groups, which
though they may support worthy causes are essentially
campaigning groups of Members who have joined the group to pursue
a shared objective or area of interest. Now
that select committees are elected by the House and taking a higher
profile, we urge editors and broadcasters to introduce reports
of parliamentary committees in such a way as to indicate their
official status, with words such as "the House of Commons
Education Committee" or "the Parliamentary Education
Committee", rather than somewhat absurdly saying a report
has been produced by "a group of MPs" (which the broadcasters
seem to use regularly) suggesting that such a group is self-selecting
at random and has no official status (rather like referring to
the BBC as "a group of broadcasters").
92. The support of professional media officers has
been crucial in increasing committees' media profile, and we argue
in chapter 6 below for a modest increase in their number. We also
welcome efforts being made to increase the media awareness of
other committee staff through a programme of talks by Lobby representatives,
visits to the broadcasting studios in 4 Millbank, and attachments
to work alongside the media officers.
93. One factor which reduces the chances of media
coverage is the fact that many committees choose to meet on a
Tuesday morning. This puts considerable pressure on facilities,
and increases the competition for rooms with full broadcasting
capability. It remains to be seen whether the change in Tuesday
sitting hours, which came into effect in October, has an impact
on committees' choice of sitting times.
Professional development
94. The most important resource available to committees
are the skills of their members. Witnesses to our inquiry argued
that the House of Commons should put more effort into the induction
and continuing professional development of committee members
committee chairs included. Evidence pointed particularly to the
need to develop Members' questioning skills.
95. There seems to be a growing acceptance among
Members that they need training or professional development, just
like other professionals. However, there was poor take-up of training
offered to new Members at the beginning of the Parliament, and
designing training in a form that is attractive to busy Members
is difficult. And there is a risk that those most in need of training
do not seek it.
96. New members of committees are given a small
induction pack with background information about the committee's
work and subject area and a short Guide for Select Committee
Members, setting out, among other things, the requirement
to maintain the confidentiality of committee proceedings, the
rules on the declaration of interests and a warning about the
risk of removal of those attending fewer than 60% of meetings.
But new committee members and particularly those joining
later in the Parliament are largely left to pick up from
the Chair or from other Members what are the expectations upon
them, in terms of attendance and committee etiquette. We
recommend that the introductory briefings offered to new committee
members be given more formality, and include a meeting with the
chair or another experienced committee member. When there is significant
turnover following a reshuffle, for example, a programme of collective
briefings for new committee members should be arranged.
97. Committees frequently have factual briefings
or seminars on matters in their subject area, sometimes with their
own advisers or committee staff, sometimes with external experts
or bodies such as the National Audit Office. Occasionally they
have awaydays to look more broadly at their method of operation.
A few committees for example, the Environmental Audit
Committee[96]
have made specific use of trainers to help them develop their
questioning or media-handling skills. We understand that the National
Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Parliament have made rather
more systematic use of trainers, in particular bringing in a senior
Scottish advocate to facilitate training for committees. Most
committee evidence sessions do not require forensic questioning
techniques, but asking questions succinctly and clearly, and in
a manner which does not discourage the witnesses, is an essential
skill, and most of us would benefit from occasional expert feedback
on how we go about it. We are assured that funding will be made
available for such training at Westminster if there is demand
for it. We recommend that
committees consider the benefits of using professional trainers
to help them refresh and develop their questioning skills.
98. New chairs should also be offered training in
chairmanship and media-handling skills, and mentoring by an experienced
chair. Experienced Members of Parliament may feel that they have
acquired these skills already, but there is always scope for improvement
and it is good to show other members that even chairs recognise
the importance of continuous development. Established chairs too
may benefit from refresher training.
99. At present there is no clear statement of what
the role of the committee chair involves. We note that the National
Assembly for Wales has adopted a "job description" for
chairs (which we reproduce in Annex B), and the Scottish Parliament
has guidance for committee conveners which performs a similar
function.[97] We do not
wish to go so far as to prescribe a generic job description for
chairs, as each committee is different, but we set out in Table
4 below some broad expectations as a guide to chairs, and to prospective
chairs, and for the information of others.
TABLE 4: GUIDELINES FOR COMMITTEES CHAIRS
Committee chairs are expected to
- Encourage the committee to adopt a consensual and cross-party approach and to engage actively in its work
- Encourage the committee to develop a clear understanding of its objectives and shared expectations of behaviour
- Acquire and maintain a strong knowledge of the committee's subject area, in order to operate effectively in committee and in the media
- Influence the committee in its decision-making, ensuring that it follows the rules and practices agreed by the House, works within its order of reference, and is mindful of the core tasks
- Give strategic direction to the clerk in the management of the committee programme and the staff team, ensuring that the committee is appropriately resourced and supported
- Act impartially in the chair, treating members of the committee with equal respect, ensuring that all have a fair opportunity to express their views and question witnesses
- Enhance the reputation of the House of Commons by ensuring that committees treat witnesses, members of the public and staff with respect and courtesy
- Act as an ambassador for the committee, accessible to ministers, overseas visitors, stakeholder bodies and the media
- Show commitment to professional development, continuously developing chairmanship, questioning, speaking and media skills
- Take interest in the welfare and development of the committee staff team and assist with the recruitment and appraisal of staff and advisers
|
100. We recommend that chairs
discuss with their committee how they see their role, and seek
their endorsement for it. At this stage in the Parliament, there
may be benefit in chairs asking their committees for individual
feedback on their chairmanship, as an aid to the chair's professional
development and to encourage committee engagement.
Committee behaviour
101. A sensitive area raised during our inquiry is
the impact of the behaviour of some committee members on the overall
reputation of select committees. Several witnesses pointed out
what a bad impression it gives to witnesses and the public when
committee members do not stay the course for evidence sessions
or appear to be more interested in their correspondence than the
evidence.[98]
102. An area of particular importance and
one in which committees have occasionally been criticised
is the treatment of witnesses. The great majority of witnesses
are very willing participants, eager to get their views across
to the committee; but the media focus is on the minority of cases
where the witness may be given a hard time by the committee. It
can be legitimate and necessary for committees to subject witnesses
to tough questioning (and the public expects us to do so); but
they should always be treated with respect and courtesy, and given
a fair hearing and it damages the reputation of select
committees when they are not. Members of Parliament are used to
an environment in which we are quite rude to each other without
taking personal offence; witnesses may not be. It was clear from
our meeting at the Institute for Government that some civil servants
have felt unfairly treated by select committees, unable to defend
themselves because of the confidentiality of advice to Ministers.
The result is defensiveness and non-cooperation, so from
the Committee's perspective it is counterproductive.
103. It is inevitable, and right, that committees
will from time to time wish to criticise individuals or to highlight
others' criticism of them. These criticisms should be based on
evidence and the individuals should be made aware of them prior
to publication. In exceptional circumstances the committee may
feel it appropriate to seek further comment from the individual
concerned.
104. The core tasks set out what committees should
do; they do not give committees any guidance on how they should
go about their work. Some of our practices our formal
procedures are determined by the rules of the House, as
set out in the Standing Orders, or by its established custom and
practice. In other respects, an understanding of best practice
has been established over the years, with this Committee playing
an important role in allowing chairs to share experience and agree
common approaches. In some areas, this Committee has agreed written
guidance (notably, our guidelines on overseas travel and our guidance
on pre-appointment hearings); in others it is left to committee
clerks to share best practice and recommend it to their committees.
While committees need to maintain their freedom to respond to
their particular circumstances, we believe there is a case for
setting some principles of good practice. It is our intention
to prepare a set of guidelines for this purpose.
75 BIS, Defence, Foreign Affairs, Health, Home Affairs,
PASC and Treasury. Back
76
Selective Influence: The Policy Impact of House of Commons
Select Committees, Meg Russell and Meghan Benton, Constitution
Unit, UCL, June 2011. Back
77
Ibid, p 8. Back
78
Ibid, para 8. Back
79
Parliamentary Affairs, Vol 64 No. 2, 2011, p 363; Ev 11, para
5. Back
80
Ev 11, paras 6-7 Back
81
Ev w 76 Back
82
Ibid. Back
83
Liaison Committee, Second Report of Session 2008-09, Financial
Scrutiny: Parliamentary Control over Government Budgets, HC
804, para 81. Back
84
Ev 11, para 8 Back
85
Ev w49 Back
86
Ev w41 Back
87
Selective Influence, p 94. Back
88
Selective Influence, p 25. Back
89
Ev 12, para 17 Back
90
Ev 11, para 10 Back
91
www.parliament.uk/business/commons/the-speaker/parliament-and-the-public/speakers-advisory-council-on-public-engagement Back
92
Ev w68 Back
93
See paragraph 58 above. Back
94
Ibid. Back
95
Ev w62-63 Back
96
Ev w21 Back
97
www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/20955.aspx Back
98
Eg Q 20 Back
|