Administration CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by the Institute for Government
The Institute for Government submission is concerned mainly with the part of your inquiry about training in parliamentary procedures and activities. Our views are based on the important Institute programme on Learning and Development which involves working with MPs, ministers and potential ministers, and is run by one of the authors (Zoe Gruhn, who has long experience in mentoring and advising). In particular, both of the authors of this submission were involved in helping with the induction of new MPs, as well as ministers, after the May 2010 election (Zoe Gruhn at the Institute and Peter Riddell, both at the Institute, where he was then a Senior Fellow, before becoming Director at the end of 2011, and as chair of the Hansard Society, which he was until June 2012). The Institute and the Hansard Society have collaborated on this work.
1.Our starting point is that MPs, both new and existing ones, do not receive sufficient access to high quality development and mentoring support on a continuing basis of the kind that they would have, and expect to receive, in other organisations in the public, private and voluntary sectors.
2.There is widespread evidence—from various Hansard Society reports (“A Year in the Life” after the 2005 and 2010 elections and the 2001 report of the commission on parliamentary scrutiny) and the 2011 book on “Parliamentary Socialisation” by political scientists Michael Rush and Philip Giddings—that new MPs are often ill-prepared for their parliamentary duties, notably what is involved in scrutinising the executive on a select committee.
3.The induction activities organised by the House authorities in 2005 were much better than after previous elections thanks to the preparatory work by various departments. This ensured that when new MPs arrived after polling day, they were helped with quickly obtaining security passes, orientation on the parliamentary estate, advice on the employment of staff and there was an excellent session in the Commons chamber with senior MPs from the main parties and senior clerks. There were some problems—most obviously over the introduction of the new expenses regime with IPSA. This produced loud complaints from new and old members alike in the summer of 2010. This should not be repeated in 2015. And there were familiar complaints over the length of time to get offices for members and staff.
4.The Institute and Hansard Society organised some briefing sessions focussing on scrutiny work and select committees. The aim was to add value to the core package of induction support provided by the House authorities, avoiding duplication of effort.
5.The quality of these sessions was high—with perceptive and valuable advice from a number of senior MPs, as well as the current Clerk of the Commons and the Deputy Speaker, and staff of the two organisations and outside speakers. But while those members who did attend found the sessions useful—as reported back in comments made at the time and subsequently—attendance was not high and fell over time. So later sessions were cancelled. This reflected understandable induction fatigue in the summer of 2010 by busy new MPs—already stretched and tired after intensive campaigning running up to polling day and then all the stresses and demands of arriving at Westminster.
6.From this experience and subsequent discussions with the House authorities—and looking at how other legislatures around the world deliver induction and development support—we have drawn a number of conclusions:
induction should not be regarded as a quick one-off process in the first few days and weeks of a new MP’s arrival at Westminster but as a continuing process, recognising the many, competing calls on any MP’s time. After the initial induction, it makes sense to have a session six weeks or two months later after new MPs have formed their first impressions in order to focus on how MPs can be more effective at Westminster;
specific induction/preparatory sessions should be organised for new MPs elected to be member of select committees; and
further sessions should be held at regular intervals throughout the parliament at which experiences of Westminster work could be discussed—these have proved to be particularly valuable with ministers.
7.The Institute for Government’s core mission is to improve the effectiveness of government. In Westminster terms, this covers scrutiny work, especially on select committees, and support for ministers and potential ministers (both on the government and opposition sides). This excludes both the constituency and specifically party sides of an MP’s work. We can use the experience built up from our extensive work with ministers and civil servants in Whitehall and with select committees to provide support for new MPs. As a non-parliamentary organisation, we offer a detached viewpoint and an ability to bridge the worlds of Whitehall and Westminster. This is reflected in our close relationship with the Liaison Committee which has twice asked us to host seminars on the work of select committees which has involved both civil servants and MPs.
8.We have already started discussions with the House’s General Election Planning Working Group about what contribution we could make to sessions after 2015. These include:
making an impact as a new member—using experienced current or recently retired members passing on lessons/collective memory—setting a series of questions for new MPs to consider as they decide their priorities/approach;
an introduction to Whitehall—exploring the relationship between MPs and the civil service, seeking to increase understanding of the machinery of government, of the extent of change within departments and of the links with the work of backbenchers and, especially with work on select committees. This would also cover the House of Lords which is little understood by members of the Commons;
the scrutiny role of MPs—how to make the most effective use of time on select committees as well as through other procedures; and
financial scrutiny—explaining the budget process, public spending controls and financial management.
9.Our intention would be to involve outside authorities, including academics, consultants and Institute staff, as well as current and recently retired MPs, senior civil servants and parliamentary staff.
Zoe Gruhn
Director of Learning and Development
Rt Hon Peter Riddell CBE
Director
February 2013
