House of Commons - The work of the Communites and Local Government Committee since 2010 - Communities and Local Government Committee

The work of the Communites and Local Government Committee since 2010 - Communities and Local Government Committee Contents

2 Methods of working

6. In this chapter, we consider how we have approached our work over the course of the Parliament. We set out the approach we have taken to collecting evidence, some of the difficulties that have arisen and also give examples of some of the more innovative approaches we have used.

Gathering evidence

7. In most cases, our inquiries have begun with a call for written evidence. Usually, this has been a general call, sent out to all those who have asked to be on our circulation list and to contacts in the media. Calls for evidence have also been put up on our website and, since 2013, tweeted from our Twitter account.[9] Over the last two years, we have taken particular steps to encourage local authority scrutiny committees to contribute to our inquiries.[10] We understand, however, that our calls have not always reached those working in local government scrutiny, and would encourage our successors to explore further how links can be made.

8. We have published on our website all written submissions that we have accepted to our inquiries. We regularly receive requests to keep evidence private and for private meetings. While recognising these requests are made for the best motives, we have resisted them as they can be an impediment to our work: our reports need to be based on evidence and we need to be able to cite evidence that is publicly available. Unless there has been a good reason to withhold material such as the need for confidentiality we publish it.[11]

9. When drawing up a programme for oral evidence, we have taken care to ensure we hear as wide a range of views as possible within the time available to us. The composition of panels giving oral evidence has varied depending on the nature of the inquiry and the aims of particular sessions. For longer inquiries, we have often taken a thematic approach, looking at a different aspect of the inquiry in each session. We have also found it useful to have witnesses with differing viewpoints on the same panel, enabling us to test the strength of the conflicting opinions and evidence.

10. As well as full inquiries, we have also held a number of 'one-off' oral evidence sessions. These have usually taken place in response to a particular development or announcement: one example was the session we held with the Housing and Planning Ministers in October 2012, after the announcement of a housing stimulus package the previous month.[12] In some cases, when wider issues have emerged during these sessions, they have led to a letter to the relevant Minister[13] or even a report.[14]

APPROACHES TO QUESTIONING

11. In 2013, we took advantage of the Committee Office's provision of support on questioning techniques from an external provider, in order to review not only our methods of questioning but also the techniques that some witnesses increasingly use to deflect questions. We found support on questioning techniques to be beneficial and would commend it to our successor committee, perhaps at an earlier stage in the next Parliament than we took it.

Other approaches to evidence gathering

12. We consider that our approach to gathering evidence ensured our inquiries were conducted transparently and in public. What is now as important—compared to previous Parliaments—is that the evidence is available quickly. With the move from printing to digital technology, we were one of the first committees to invite people to submit evidence through an online portal. This has enabled us to ensure that written evidence is published online shortly after we have reviewed it in committee and reported it to the House. In addition, we can now publish transcripts of oral evidence sessions more quickly, and they are also usually available to watch on the parliamentary website.

13. There are, however, limitations: not all people are comfortable submitting evidence to a parliamentary inquiry, and we recognise that some might be put off by the formality of our procedures. The layout and atmosphere of the committee room can make witnesses guarded in their responses to our questions: moving to a more informal setting can encourage them to open up. Moreover, as Professors George Jones and John Stewart said in evidence to this inquiry, "the process of question-and-answer can confine rather than extend the range of information and opinion available to the committee".[15] For some of our inquiries we therefore concluded it was necessary to go beyond the traditional approach of the witness-at-the-horseshoe. We supplemented that method with seminars, discussion forums, social media and visits.

SEMINARS

14. At the start of some major inquiries, we held a seminar to gather preliminary information to inform our later work. One example came at the start of our inquiry into fiscal devolution. We brought together a number of 'key players' to give us their views on the issues raised by our terms of reference.[16] The information helped to inform the lines of questioning we took during formal, oral sessions. On a few occasions, seminars have been hosted by external organisations, such as the Local Government Association for our inquiry into councillors and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors for some of our housing and regeneration inquiries. Professors Jones and Stewart in their written submission told us that the use of seminars could be "helpful both at the start of an enquiry and at a later stage when the Committee is forming its views".[17] We agree but we add a word of caution. The purpose of the seminar needs to be clear—for example, at the start of an inquiry we have found that a seminar that set out facts and issues objectively was helpful but we would not be comfortable with a seminar that was a lobbying exercise for interested groups (though we must add that none of those we participated in fell into this category). During our roundtable discussion, it was suggested that our successors could also hold seminars to help determine potential topics for future inquiries.

DISCUSSION FORUMS

15. One innovative approach has been the use of discussion forums to ensure we reach out to a wider group of people. For our inquiry into councillors, with the Parliamentary Outreach service, we invited to parliament around 30 people who had been identified through the service's database. They included serving councillors, former councillors and, a group that was difficult to reach—people who had chosen not to be councillors but to serve their communities in other ways. To ensure we each heard from as many people as possible, we adopted a 'speed dating' approach, with each of us separately moving between tables to hear from small groups of participants. Notes were taken of the points made and published as an appendix to our report, but comments were not attributed to individuals.[18] This ensured that the points made were on the record, whilst enabling people to speak freely. We held a similar event during our inquiry into the operation of the National Planning Policy Framework, to ensure we heard from the large number of community groups and parish councils who had submitted written submissions about the impact of development.[19] In his written submission to this exercise, Richard Bate, one of our specialist advisers, referred to the benefits of this type of approach which he said could take "various forms, with either Committee members or other chosen individuals providing a panel for a 'Question Time' type of event, […] discussion in groups, short presentations followed by views from the floor, or other options".[20] We found the use of discussion forums useful and beneficial when we came to deliberation on our report. Not only would we commend their use and that of informal approaches but we hope our successors in the next Parliament will develop the format.

TWITTER

16. Since 2013, we have had our own Committee Twitter account, which we use to publicise details of evidence sessions, reports and inquiries. We also 'live tweet' our oral evidence sessions, summarising key aspects of the discussion. Our number of followers has grown steadily and is now approaching 2,500—including councillors, people working in local government and the communities sector and media professionals. A number of us retweet the Committee's messages from our own Twitter accounts.

17. We have also used Twitter to source input to some of our inquiries. In December 2013, we launched our first #AskPickles exercise, taking questions via Twitter to put to the Secretary of State, Rt Hon Eric Pickles MP.[21] We repeated the exercise in December 2014.[22] In both cases, we gave a subsequent account of the exercise using Storify.[23] In our view, #AskPickles was a success, and enabled us to have input from those who would not usually contribute to our inquiries and to put matters of concern to ministers on a wide range of topics that we would not cover in an inquiry. It was recognised in the recent report from the Speaker's Commission on Digital Democracy, which described how, as a result of an #AskPickles question, the Secretary of State changed the law to enable councils to circulate agendas electronically.[24] We would stress, however, that this approach has its limitations and does not necessarily allow us to follow up on questions in the way we would normally do. We have used Twitter to source questions as a complement to some of our regular inquiries.

18. We have also posted Vines and longer videos to publicise our work, including one of our evidence session at The Ivy House pub, a first we believe for a select committee, and subsequent report on Community Rights. After using tweeted questions in our session with Mr Pickles, we tweeted links to the YouTube video of his response, including the Twitter handle of those who submitted questions so they could see what impact their questions had. London Councils in its submission on our work suggested we build on our use of Twitter with more detailed tweets, a live Twitter feed running during sessions and a Storify account of them afterwards. We leave that for our successor committee to consider.

VISITS

19. We always looked to include at least one visit in our longer inquiries. Over the course of the Parliament, we have made the following visits to the following places and, where relevant, for the inquiries indicated in parentheses:

· the Olympic Park, East London to see plans for the legacy of the 2012 Games;

· Exeter and Torbay, Devon (Localism);

· Croydon, South London (Localism);

· Greater Manchester (Regeneration and Fiscal devolution);

· the West Midlands (Financing of new housing supply);

· the Netherlands (Financing of new housing supply);

· Bournemouth (Park homes);

· Lambeth, South London, (Co-operative councils);

· Sunderland, (Councillors and the community);

· Kent (The role of local authorities in health issues);

· Stockholm, Sweden (The role of local authorities in health issues);

· Berlin, Germany (Private rented sector);

· Leeds (Private rented sector);

· Sheffield (Local government procurement);

· City Hall, London, to meet the Mayor of London;

· Lyon, France (Fiscal devolution);

· Gloucestershire (Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework); and

· Nunhead, South London (Community Rights).

Increasingly during the Parliament we took some of our inquiry evidence sessions on the road, hearing from witnesses in Bournemouth, Cheltenham, Leeds, Manchester, Sheffield and Sunderland, as well as the Ivy House pub in Nunhead. In addition, we have found it beneficial to make annual visits to DCLG, as well as visits to the Local Government Ombudsman (in preparation for our second inquiry into the Ombudsman's work) and the Planning Inspectorate (in preparation for our inquiry into the Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework). We must put on record our thanks to all those who made the arrangements for our visits and to all those whom we met.

20. Richard Bate suggested that our successor committee should undertake more visits to see for itself the application of policy and practice.[25] We agree as visits have given us an important opportunity to see the impact of policies 'on the ground' and to meet a range of people. For instance, when we visited Greater Manchester as part of our regeneration inquiry, we were able to see places where regeneration had been successful and others in need of regeneration, and to discuss opportunities and obstacles with civic leaders and local residents.[26]

Use of research

21. In addition to the evidence we have gathered, a number of inquiries have been informed by research. We have received research in the written submissions to our inquiries and we have commissioned two pieces of research ourselves: one into the nature of planning constraints and one on the labelling of electrical products in large retail stores. We discuss our use of research further in chapter 3.

Joint working with other Committees

22. While it is our role to scrutinise the policy, administration and expenditure of DCLG, the nature of DCLG's functions means that there is sometimes overlap between our work and that of other committees. On these occasions, we have sought to keep the other committees fully informed about what we are doing. We have also had the opportunity to undertake joint work with other committees. In particular, we have worked with the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee (PCRC) on the prospects for a constitutional settlement for local government. PCRC's Chair, Graham Allen MP, has twice given evidence to us on this matter,[27] and our Chair has also given evidence to PCRC.[28] The Environmental Audit Committee contributed to our inquiry into the draft National Planning Policy Framework, by considering the sustainable development aspects of the proposed framework.[29] Occasionally, where we have had particular concerns about the use of public money, such as the mismanagement of the FiReControl project,[30] we have referred the matter to the Committee of Public Accounts.

23. The debate about devolution has generated a renewed focus on the need to break down silos, especially those in which central government departments often operate. It would be easier for our successors to make the case for more joined-up government, if they were leading by example, in terms of their relationship with other select committees. We would encourage our successors to explore opportunities for joint working and collaboration with other select committees. In our view, there would be particular merit in close co-operation with the Committee of Public Accounts.

Reflection: John Stevenson MP
Reflecting on my time as a member of the Communities and Local Government Select Committee I would conclude that it has been interesting and worthwhile. I felt it was a real opportunity to make a difference and try and influence policy.
As an individual MP your ability to influence can be limited. However being part of a Select Committee allows you to develop a greater knowledge and understanding of one department of Government and therefore have a better opportunity to influence Government. It also gives you a chance to gain a degree of expertise.
My particular experience was positive. Interestingly the Committee although politically mixed was quite collegiate and remarkably united around the simple fact that virtually all members were supporters of the concept of localism believing in devolution and local decision making. There were, of course, differences as to how this should be implemented.
The key part of the Committee was taking evidence and preparing reports. These helped as over time you became aware of the key issues and developed your own knowledge. There are two points I would make. I did feel that politicians giving evidence were much less effective than those actually directly involved in the subject; I also think it is important for the Committee not to take on too heavy a workload which would therefore dilute the effectiveness of reports.
I also believe that Parliament needs to see ways to incentivise members of the Committees to make a proper commitment to the Select Committee and ensure that they are well attended. This Committee was well supported but there were times when one or two members did not attend as I believe they should.
Overall I consider it to have been a positive experience and would encourage any backbench MP to get involved in a Select Committee.

DEVOLVED ASSEMBLIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

24. We have also contributed to the work of committees in devolved assemblies and local government. Following the publication of our report into park homes, our Chair gave evidence to the Communities, Equalities and Local Government Committee of the National Assembly for Wales about our findings.[31] Our Chair has also attended meetings of the London Assembly, to discuss our report on the role of the Assembly,[32] and Westminster City Council's Scrutiny Commission, to discuss our report, Councillors on the Frontline.[33]

25. There is a wider issue here brought into relief by the Scottish referendum on independence in September 2014. With devolution of responsibility for the bulk of the DCLG functions outside England to the parliament and assemblies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland each appears to be operating—quite reasonably—with its focus on its own arrangements. In contrast the guidance from the Liaison Committee here at Westminster does not appear to have kept pace with devolution. First, it is clear that policy on matters affecting local government England will increasingly diverge from the other countries of the UK but the issues to be tackled may not. The committee scrutinising communities and local government policy in each country may benefit from finding out how a sister committee and the administration in that country have dealt with similar issues. We were able to do this to a limited extent on the question of whether we should recommend to DCLG that the fees charged by letting agents to tenants should be banned as they have been in Scotland. We sought and were provided with written evidence from the Scottish Minister and housing organisations in Scotland,[34] although it would have been more useful to have met them and taken oral evidence. Going further we were struck, after our Chair met a delegation from the Tynwald in the Isle of Man, that our report on fiscal devolution might have benefitted from input from the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, which have the equivalent of extensive fiscal devolution. Second, the outcome of the referendum in September 2014 was that Scotland will remain within the UK but the governmental structure of the UK has changed in the past 15 years. With devolved matters such as local government the four countries within the UK are developing their own structures and arrangements. The result is that we as parliamentarians have less and less contact with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

26. We suggest that the Liaison Committee in the new Parliament consider revising the guidance on core tasks to encourage greater formal and informal contact between select committees at Westminster and their counterparts in the parliaments and assemblies in the UK, and, if appropriate, in the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.

9 See Twitter: @CommonsCLG. Back

10 See, for example CLG Committee, 'Call for evidence on fiscal devolution', 27 November 2013; 'Community Rights: Terms of Reference', 9 June 2014. Back

11 For example, in our inquiry into Park Homes we redacted details that would have identified those living in park homes who may have been at risk of retaliatory action by site owners¯see CLG Committee, First Report of Session 2012-13, Park Homes, HC 177-I. Back

12 CLG Committee, Oral and Written Evidence, 15 October 2012, HC (2012-13) 626-i Back

13 See, for example, CLG Committee, Oral Evidence, 30 January 2013, HC (2012-13) 940-i and subsequent Letter from Committee Chair to Nick Boles MP, dated 13 February 2013. Back

14 See, for example, CLG Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2012-13, The Committee's response to the Government's consultation on permitted development rights for homeowners, HC 830. This followed the Committee's 15 October evidence session on Planning, Housing and Growth. Back

15 Professor George Jones and Professor John Stewart (WSC 007) para 13 Back

16 CLG Committee, First Report of Session 2014-15, Devolution in England: the case for local government, HC 503 Back

17 Professor George Jones and Professor John Stewart (WSC 007) para 13 Back

18 CLG Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2012-13, Councillors on the Frontline, HC 432-I Back

19 CLG Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2014-15, Operation of the National Planning Policy Framework, HC 190 Back

20 Richard Bate (WSC 012) para 9 Back