the work of committees in 2007–08...hc 291 published on 11 march 2009 by authority of the house of...

HC 291 Published on 11 March 2009

by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited

£0.00

House of Commons

Liaison Committee

The work of committees in 2007–08

First Report of Session 2008–09

Report, together with appendices and formal minutes

Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 5 March 2009

The Liaison Committee

The Liaison Committee is appointed to consider general matters relating to the work of select committees; to advise the House of Commons Commission on select committees; to choose select committee reports for debate in the House and to hear evidence from the Prime Minister on matters of public policy.

Current membership

Mr Alan Williams MP (Labour, Swansea West) (Chairman) The Chairmen for the time being of the Select Committees listed below: Administration – Mr Frank Doran MP (Labour, Aberdeen North) Business and Enterprise – Peter Luff MP (Conservative, Mid Worcestershire) Children, Schools and Families – Mr Barry Sheerman MP (Labour/Co-op, Huddersfield) Communities and Local Government – Dr Phyllis Starkey MP (Labour, Milton Keynes South West) Culture, Media and Sport – Mr John Whittingdale MP (Conservative, Maldon and Chelmsford East) Defence – Mr James Arbuthnot MP (Conservative, North East Hampshire) Environmental Audit – Mr Tim Yeo MP (Conservative, South Suffolk) Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – Mr Michael Jack MP (Conservative, Fylde) European Scrutiny – Michael Connarty MP (Labour, Linlithgow and East Falkirk) Finance and Services – Sir Stuart Bell MP (Labour, Middlesborough) Foreign Affairs – Mike Gapes MP (Labour/Co-op, Ilford South) Health – Mr Kevin Barron MP (Labour, Rother Valley) Home Affairs – Keith Vaz MP (Labour, Leicester East) Human Rights (Joint Committee) – Mr Andrew Dismore MP (Labour, Hendon) Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills – Mr Phil Willis MP (Liberal Democrat, Harrogate and Knaresborough) International Development – Malcolm Bruce MP (Liberal Democrat, Gordon) Justice – Sir Alan Beith MP (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed) Members’ Allowances – Mr Don Touhig (Labour, Islwyn) Northern Ireland Affairs – Sir Patrick Cormack MP (Conservative, South Staffordshire) Procedure – Mr Greg Knight MP (Conservative, Yorkshire East) Public Accounts – Mr Edward Leigh MP (Conservative, Gainsborough) Public Administration – Dr Tony Wright MP (Labour, Cannock Chase) Regulatory Reform – Andrew Miller MP (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston) Scottish Affairs – Mr Mohammad Sarwar MP (Labour, Glasgow Central) Selection – Rosemary McKenna MP (Labour Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) Standards and Privileges – Sir George Young MP (Conservative, North West Hampshire) Statutory Instruments – David Maclean MP (Conservative, Penrith and The Border) Transport – Mrs Louise Ellman MP (Labour/Co-op, Liverpool Riverside) Treasury – John McFall MP (Labour/Co-op, West Dunbartonshire) Welsh Affairs – Dr Hywel Francis MP (Labour, Aberavon) Work and Pensions – Mr Terry Rooney MP (Labour, Bradford North)

Powers

The powers of the Committee are set out in House of Commons SO No 145. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publications

The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/liaison _committee.cfm.

Committee staff

The current staff of the Committee are David Natzler (Clerk), Robert Wilson (Second Clerk), Kevin Candy (Senior Committee Assistant) and Lee Chiddicks (Committee Assistant). In the preparation of this report they were assisted by Rob Cope, Anne-Marie Griffiths, Matthew Hamlyn, Caroline Kenny, Michelle Owens and Richard Ward.

Contacts

All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerks of the Liaison Committee, House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 72195675; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]

1

Contents

Report Page

Summary 3

1 Introduction 5 Work of the Liaison Committee: an overview 6

2 Review of Committees’ work 7 The core tasks of select committees 7 Task 1: Scrutiny of policy proposals 8

Proposed European legislation 9 Task 2: To identify and examine areas of emerging policy, or where existing policy is deficient, and make proposals 10 Task 3: Scrutiny of draft bills 11

Number of draft bills published 11 Problems with the scrutiny process 13 Other legislative scrutiny by committees 15 Scrutiny of the Planning Bill 16 Scrutiny of secondary legislation in draft 17 The Government’s Draft Legislative Programme 17 Public Bill Committees 18

Task 4: To examine specific output from the department 18 Task 5: Scrutiny of expenditure plans and outturns 18

Departmental Annual Reports 19 Estimates 19 Other scrutiny of expenditure 20 ‘Recreating financial scrutiny’ 21

Task 6: Scrutinising Public Service Agreements and targets 22 Task 7: Monitoring the work of agencies and other public bodies 24 Task 8: Scrutiny of major appointments 25

Pre-appointment hearings 26 Task 9: Implementation of legislation and major policy initiatives 28

Post-legislative scrutiny 29 Task 10: Debates in Westminster Hall and the Chamber 30

Debates on departmental objectives and plans 32

3 Working practices 32 Changes to committees 33

Remits 33 Membership issues 33

Working with others 34 Cooperation between committees 34 Relations with government departments 35 Relations with the devolved administrations 37 Relations with the European Union 38

2

Information gathering 38 Seminars, conferences and informal meetings 38 Visits and visitors 39 Online forums 41 Video conferencing 41 Petitions 42 Sources of advice and assistance 43

Engaging with the public and the media 44 Media coverage 45

4 Activity and resources 46 Costs of select committees 49 Resources for select committees 50

5 Conclusion 51

Conclusions and recommendations 52

Annex 1: List of Sessional Reports of Select Committees for 2007–08 57

Annex 2: Letter from the Chairman to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury 58

Annex 3: Places on select committees, 1979–80 to 2008–09 60

Annex 4: UK visits by select committees, session 2007–08 61

Formal Minutes 66

Appendix 1: Letter from the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts 67

Appendix 2: The work of the Scrutiny Unit in 2007–08 74

Appendix 3: National Audit Office Support for House of Commons Select Committees in 2008 84

List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 88

3

Summary

The current structure of select committees is 30 years old this year. The scale and scope of their work has changed enormously since their creation, as has their public profile. The idea that each Minister and their department should be accountable to Parliament through a committee of backbenchers was a huge step change in 1979. The reality that senior ministers, from the Prime Minister downwards, should regularly have to justify their policies before committees has taken longer to achieve. Overall, the work of select committees is now more focussed, more extensive, more visible, better resourced and more engaged with the public than ever before.

Select committees play a key role on behalf of the public in holding Government and major public figures to account: has public money been wasted? Are officials serving the public properly? Have Ministers made the right policy decision? Are the consumer’s interests properly protected? Is this person suitable to be appointed? Our report records the breadth and depth of scrutiny: 326 Members of the House served on select committees during the 2007-08 session, with committees holding 785 public hearings and publishing 387 substantive reports. We also describe the variety of ways in which committees have carried out their task – developing innovative ways of obtaining information, engaging with the public and publicising their work. Particularly welcome are the live and archived webcasting of meetings on www.parliamentlive.tv and the growing use of online forums.

The level of achievement described in our report can only be sustained if committees have access to sufficient resources and full autonomy in carrying out their work programmes. One of the most significant pressures on committee resources is the availability of Members, who already face many demands on their time. These demands are only exacerbated by committees being too large, or too many committees being established. Committees’ autonomy is much prized by chairmen and Members. Although we welcome the fact that the Government is seeking to increase Government’s accountability to Parliament through a variety of initiatives involving select committees, a proper balance has to be struck to avoid overloading committees with tasks initiated by Ministers.

5

1 Introduction 1. The current structure of select committees is 30 years old this year. The idea that each Minister and his or her department should be accountable to Parliament through a committee of backbenchers was a huge step change in 1979. The apparatus and techniques of detailed scrutiny have taken some time to develop. Full transparency and access to information has not yet been achieved. But this report, reviewing the work of select committees in the 2007–08 session, is a record of large-scale activity that keeps Ministers and officials accountable to Parliament. The work of select committees is more focussed, more extensive, better resourced, more visible and more engaged with the public than ever before. But there is always room for better use of existing resources, including the time of Members and of staff.

2. In the period reviewed in this report, select committees have challenged the Government on a wide range of topics – energy prices, the financial crisis, access to dental services, the surveillance society – to give just a few examples. Committees have a low profile in much of their work, and the formal remit of departmental committees sounds fairly dry: the “expenditure, administration and policy” of Government departments. But this involves questions which are highly relevant to the average voter: has public money been wasted? Are officials serving the public properly? Have Ministers made the right policy decision? Are the consumer’s interests properly protected? Is this person suitable to be appointed? By tackling such issues, committees can stimulate wider debates of direct relevance to the public. In this way, their work has gained an increasing profile in the print and broadcast media, deepening the accountability of central Government and other authorities which serve the public.

3. 326 Members of the House served on select committees during the session, with committees holding 1,204 formal meetings and publishing 387 substantive reports.1 19 select committees monitor the work of each Government department. The work of others, such as the Committee of Public Accounts (PAC), Environmental Audit Committee (EAC) and Public Administration Committee (PASC), cuts across the whole range of Government departments. Human rights, another cross-cutting issue, is the responsibility of a joint committee of both Houses, the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

4. Our previous reports on the activities of select committees have been published on an annual basis, mainly drawing on material provided by committees in their own annual reports. We have decided that committees’ reports, and therefore our own, will from now on be based on the parliamentary session rather than the calendar year. This will allow an alignment with activity statistics already produced for the Sessional Return, in which the House publishes consolidated data from all committees. As a result, statistical data for each committee are included in annexes to their reports. Furthermore, in a general election year committees could aim to publish sessional reports in advance of an election – in the past annual reports have had to be set aside or held over in these years.2 A full list of

1 Sessional Returns, Session 2007-08, HC 1

2 Decision of the Liaison Committee, 15 November 2008

6

committees’ sessional reports is at Annex 1.3 We encourage those who have a particular interest in a specific committee to read the relevant individual report. In Chapters 2 and 3 of our report, we summarise their activities and pick out particular examples of their work, as well as highlighting our own work as the body which brings together all the select committees.

5. It is fitting, in a report which deals with scrutiny of Government by Parliament, to pay tribute to one of its most fearless inquisitors, the late Gwyneth Dunwoody. Gwyneth Dunwoody served as a member of the Transport Committee in its various forms for more than two decades. She chaired the transport sub-committees of the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee and the Local Government and the Regions Committee from 1997 until 2002, and subsequently chaired the Transport Select Committee from 2002 until her death in April 2008. Her understanding and love of Parliament was matched by her vigorous activity in challenging Ministers. She also made a huge contribution to the development of the Liaison Committee as a forum for dialogue with ministers. Like her colleagues on the Transport Committee, we would like to record our sadness at her sudden death, and also to salute her work in setting “a gold-standard for independent and robust parliamentary scrutiny”.4

Work of the Liaison Committee: an overview

6. The Liaison Committee represents all the select committees of the House, through their chairmen.5 Over the years, our role has developed from being an internal forum in which matters of mutual interest could be settled to that of the House’s champion of select committee scrutiny. Our support for committees includes seeking the necessary resources for their work (both staff and Members), also seeking full cooperation from Ministers and officials and access to information and witnesses, and helping enhance public awareness of their work. In particular, we engage with the Government on issues that affect the committees’ ability to do their work. As later passages of this report make clear, we remain dissatisfied on some issues, but we welcome the continuing dialogue that has taken place with the Leader of the House and other Ministers.

7. We carry out our role through correspondence and informal meetings with Ministers, notably the Leader of the House, acting as a channel of communication between them and the committees, and through evidence given by the Chairman and other committee members to the Modernisation Committee. In 2007-08, we also held two informal meetings with the Government and Opposition Chief Whips.

8. In addition, we undertake our own scrutiny role through public evidence sessions with the Prime Minister. We are grateful to the Prime Minister for continuing his predecessor’s practice, established in 2002, of appearing before us at least twice a year. We believe that these sessions, which give Members the chance to question the Prime Minister more extensively than at the weekly Prime Minister’s question time, and in a

3 The Committee of Public Accounts (PAC) does not publish a sessional report, but instead the Chairman of the

Committee writes a letter to the Chairman of the Liaison Committee describing its work. This is published as Appendix 1 to our Report.

4 Transport Committee, First Report of Session 2008-09, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, HC 211, para 3

5 Its membership excludes the Chair of the Modernisation Committee, who is the Leader of the House.

7

less partisan atmosphere, represent a valuable addition to the House’s in-depth scrutiny of the Government. However, we intend to review the frequency and format of these sessions before the beginning of the next Parliament, in the light of our experience over the last seven years.

Table 1: Liaison Committee—formal evidence sessions, Session 2007–08

Date Meeting

29.11.07 Oral evidence from the Prime Minister, Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP

03.07.08 Oral evidence from the Prime Minister, Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP

Table: 2 Liaison Committee—informal meetings, Session 2007–08

Date Meeting

29.11.07 Informal meeting with Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP, Government Chief Whip, and Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin, Opposition Chief Whip

08.05.08 Informal meeting with Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP, Government Chief Whip, and Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin, Opposition Chief Whip

21.05.08 Informal meeting with Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and Rt Hon Harriet Harman MP, Leader of the House of Commons

9. During the session we have kept under consideration such issues as scrutiny of Government spending, scrutiny of draft bills and post-legislative scrutiny, Parliamentary scrutiny of Government appointments, regional accountability and scrutiny of National Policy Statements on planning issues. We have also continued our oversight of committees’ working practices. We comment on these issues as part of our commentary on the work of committees in Chapters 2 and 3.

2 Review of Committees’ work 10. This chapter of our Report highlights the way in which committees have helped ensure parliamentary accountability of Government, particularly through the fulfilment of the “core tasks” developed by the Liaison Committee from the House’s Resolution of 14 May 2002, and issued to committees in June 2002.

The core tasks of select committees

11. The core tasks provide the central scrutiny framework for departmental committees as they hold Ministers and their departments to account. As we have noted before, the core tasks represent guidance to committees, not instructions. Committees are rightly keen to reserve to themselves the right to choose their own inquiries and adapt their work programme at short notice, allowing them to respond rapidly to events. Nevertheless,

8

experience shows that the core tasks framework has encouraged a methodical approach to scrutiny, and helps ensure that all areas of departmental work are covered by committees. They have also stood the test of time: we reviewed them in July 2008 and concluded that they did not need to be changed.

12. The core tasks are set out in Table 3 below.

Table 3: The core tasks

OBJECTIVE A: TO EXAMINE AND COMMENT ON THE POLICY OF THE

DEPARTMENT

Task 1 To examine policy proposals from the UK Government and the European Commission in Green Papers, White Papers, draft Guidance etc, and to inquire further where the Committee considers it appropriate.

Task 2 To identify and examine areas of emerging policy, or where existing policy is deficient, and make proposals.

Task 3 To conduct scrutiny of any published draft bill within the Committee’s responsibilities.

Task 4 To examine specific output from the department expressed in documents or other decisions.

OBJECTIVE B: TO EXAMINE THE EXPENDITURE OF THE DEPARTMENT

Task 5 To examine the expenditure plans and out-turn of the department, its agencies and principal NDPBs.

OBJECTIVE C: TO EXAMINE THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT

Task 6 To examine the department’s Public Service Agreements, the associated targets and the statistical measurements employed, and report if appropriate.

Task 7 To monitor the work of the department’s Executive Agencies, NDPBs, regulators and other associated public bodies.

Task 8 To scrutinise major appointments made by the department.

Task 9 To examine the implementation of legislation and major policy initiatives.

OBJECTIVE D: TO ASSIST THE HOUSE IN DEBATE AND DECISION

Task 10 To produce reports which are suitable for debate in the House, including Westminster Hall, or debating committees.

Task 1: Scrutiny of policy proposals

13. The scope of this core task is vast, encompassing as it does the scrutiny of policy proposals from both the UK Government and the European Commission. The breadth of this challenge means that committees have to be selective about which proposals they choose to examine in depth. Even so, committees have managed to address a wide range of topics. Committees have continued to pursue inquiries into high-profile topics such as the

9

Government’s counter-terrorism proposals or the London 2012 Olympic Games.6 They have also shed valuable light on less prominent but equally important issues, such as looked-after children and carers.7

14. The examples in Table 4 below demonstrate the range of policy areas examined by select committees. These examples underscore the varied nature of the impact made by committees on the shaping and refining of Government policy.

Table 4: Examples of the impact of select committee scrutiny

Committee Policy area Committee approach Impact

Business and Enterprise

Energy prices and fuel poverty

Inquiry and Report [1] Ofgem probe into energy markets; implementation of Committee’s recommendations

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966

Inquiry and Report [2] Stimulated vigorous debate within the veterinary profession

Home Domestic Violence Inquiry and Report [3] Government accepted recommendations on identifying cases of forced marriage abroad and in the United Kingdom, and on the effectiveness of schemes to ensure the safety of victims in their homes

Treasury Abolition of 10 pence tax rate

Inquiry and Report [4] Influenced Government decision to reduce the impact of the change on low-income households

(1) Business and Enterprise Committee, Eleventh Report of Session 2007-08, Energy prices, fuel poverty and Ofgem, HC 293-I. (2) Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2007–08, The Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, HC 348. (3) Home Affairs Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2007–08, Domestic Violence, Forced Marriage and “Honour”-Based Violence, HC 263-I. (4) Treasury Committee, Thirteenth Report of Session 2007–08, Budget Measures and Low-income households, HC 326, and Third Report of Session 2007–08, Work of the Committee, 2007–08, HC 173.

Proposed European legislation

15. Primary responsibility for the examination of legislative proposals emanating from the European Union falls to the European Scrutiny Committee, which assesses the legal and/or political importance of EU documents deposited in Parliament by the Government. In the 2007–08 session it examined 886 documents, of which it deemed 398 to be of legal and/or political significance. It recommended 50 documents for debate, of which two were

6 Home Affairs Committee, First Report of Session 2007-08, The Government’s Counter-Terrorism Proposals, HC 43-I;

Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2007-08, London 2012 Games: the next lap, HC 104-I; Committee of Public Accounts (PAC), Fourteenth Report of Session 2007-08, The Budget for the London Olympic and Paralympic Games, HC 85, Forty-Second Report of Session 2007-08, Preparing for sporting success at the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games and beyond, HC 477, and Fiftieth Report of Session 2007-08, Preparations for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, HC 890

7 Children, Schools and Families Committee, Minutes of Evidence, Session 2007-08, HC 442; Work and Pensions Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2007-08, Valuing and Supporting Carers, HC 485-I

10

debated on the floor of the House; 24 debates, sometimes covering more than one document, took place in European Committees. In addition to this scrutiny of documents, the Committee also produced two substantive reports during this Session.8

16. Other committees also chose to examine EU policy proposals. The Foreign Affairs Committee, for example, produced a report on foreign policy aspects of the Lisbon Treaty.9 Other committees examined specific documents or policy papers: for example, the Transport Committee, working in conjunction with the European Scrutiny Committee, raised concerns about developments in European Commission proposals for the Galileo project.10

17. The European Scrutiny Committee has the power to ask departmental committees for their opinions on European documents.11 In the 2007–08 session, for example, the Committee asked the Culture, Media and Sport Committee to submit an Opinion on the European Commission’s White Paper on Sport. The Committee published a report which provided this Opinion and also informed the House as a whole.12

Task 2: To identify and examine areas of emerging policy, or where existing policy is deficient, and make proposals

18. Committees devote a large proportion of their time to the examination and analysis of emerging or deficient policy. Although it is difficult to measure the precise impact of this work on the evolution of government policy, it is clear that committees play an important role in bringing pressure to bear on the Government, and in recommending ways of improving deficient policies. Examples of select committees having a direct influence on policy are set out in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Committee impact on emerging or deficient policy

Committee Inquiry/Report Impact

Communities and Local Government

Existing housing and climate change [1]

Government accepted amendment to the Climate Change Bill enabling the introduction of financial incentives for microgeneration

Environmental Audit Biofuels [2] Government announced a consultation on the reduction of biofuel targets

Foreign Affairs Overseas Territories [3] Following a Committee recommendation, Commission of Inquiry on Turks and Caicos Islands appointed

Health Dental Services [4] Revealed that the Department’s original goal

8 European Scrutiny Committee, Twenty-fifth Report of Session 2007-08, The Conclusions of the European Council and

the Council of Ministers: Follow up report, HC 606 and Thirty-third Report of Session 2007-08, Subsidiarity, National Parliaments and the Lisbon Treaty, HC 563

9 Foreign Affairs Committee, Third Report of Session 2007-08, Foreign Policy Aspects of the Lisbon Treaty, HC 120-I

10 Transport Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007–08, para 11; First Report of Session 2007–08, Galileo: Recent Developments, HC 53

11 Standing Order No. 143(11)

12 Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2007-08, European Commission White Paper on Sport, HC 347

11

that patient access to dental services would improve from April 2006 had not been realised

IUSS Biosecurity [5] Government accepted two recommendations: that an inter-agency body with the role of improving strategic planning and co-ordination of high containment laboratories be created, and that a Ministerial group should meet to discuss biosecurity

(1) Communities and Local Government Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2007–08, Existing Housing and Climate Change, HC 432-1. (2) Environmental Audit Committee, First Report of Session 2007–08, Are biofuels sustainable?, HC 76-I and Environmental Audit Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2007–08, Are Biofuels Sustainable? The Government Response, HC 528. (3) Foreign Affairs Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2007–08, Overseas Territories, HC 147-I (4) Health Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2007–08, Dental Services, HC 289-I. (5) Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2007–08, Biosecurity in UK research laboratories, HC 360-I. 19. The impact of a select committee report is not always felt immediately; its effect on policy may become apparent in the sessions following that of its publication. For instance, the influence of the International Development Committee’s report on Sanitation and Water, publish in session 2006–07, was acknowledged by the Department for International Development (DFID) when it launched its new Water and Sanitation Policy in October 2008.13 The Department’s policy document took account of many of the Committee’s recommendations, and the Committee particularly welcomed its focus on sanitation and water resources management.14

Task 3: Scrutiny of draft bills

20. In this section we first consider the scrutiny of draft bills by select and joint committees, then examine other aspects of legislative scrutiny by committees.

Number of draft bills published

21. In our last report, we drew attention to the “historically low” number of draft bills published by the Government in the 2006–07 session, when only four were published. We welcomed the Government’s intention of publishing more bills in draft in the 2007–08 session.15 In 2007–08, nine draft bills were published, as well as draft clauses of the Banking Bill.16 The Government has also announced the publication of seven draft bills in the current session.17 The Government has expressed the hope that this “higher rate” of publication can be maintained, while noting that the total number of draft bills published should not be an end in itself.18 We welcome the increase in the number of Government

13 International Development Committee, Sixth Report of Session 2006–07, Sanitation and Water, HC 126-I; Water: An

increasingly precious resource. Sanitation: A matter of dignity, DFID, October 2008

14 International Development Committee, First Report of Session 2008–09, Work of the Committee in Session 2007–08, HC 138, para 27

15 Liaison Committee, Third Report of Session 2007-08, The work of committees in 2007, HC 427, para 19

16 These clauses were published as part of Financial stability and depositor protection: special resolution regime, Cm 7459.

17 See www.commonsleader.gov.uk

18 Liaison Committee, Second Special Report, Session 2007-08,The work of committees in 2007: Government Response to the Committee’s Third Report of Session 2007-08, HC 595, p 2

12

bills published in draft, although we agree that the number of bills published is not the only measure of success.

22. Table 6 shows the bills published in draft in the 2007–08 session, along with the parliamentary scrutiny that they received from select committees and joint committees of both Houses.

TABLE 6: Scrutiny of draft bills by select and joint committees

Committee(s) Draft bill Scrutiny conducted Government response

Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills; Children, Schools and Families

Draft Apprenticeships Bill (Cm 7452)

Inquiries and reports (HC 1062-I and HC 1082)

IUSS response awaited Children, Schools and Families Committee, First Special Report of Session 2008–09, HC 259

— Draft Construction Contracts Bill (Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, July 2008)

— —

— Draft Counter-Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill (Placed in House of Commons Library 13 October 2008)

— —

Culture, Media and Sport

Draft Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill (Cm 7298)

Inquiry and report (HC 693)

Cm 7472 (joint response)

Joint Committee; Public Administration; Justice (on provisions relating to the role of the Attorney General)

Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill (Cm 7342-II)

Inquiries and reports (HC 551-I, HC 499, HC 698)

Awaited


Draft Heritage Protection Bill (Cm 7349)



Home Affairs Draft (Partial) Immigration and Citizenship Bill (Cm 7373)

Inquiry into ‘Managing Migration’ suspended pending publication of full draft bill

—

Joint Committee; Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (on coastal access provisions)

Draft Marine Bill (Cm 7351)

Inquiries and reports (HC 552-I and HC 656-I)


Transport Committee Draft Marine Navigation and Port Safety Bill (Cm 7370)


HC 1104

Note: The Business and Enterprise Committee considered draft clauses relating to construction, but not this draft bill, in its inquiry into construction. Business and Enterprise Committee, Ninth Report of Session 2007–08, Construction matters, HC 127.

13

Problems with the scrutiny process

23. Committees which conducted pre-legislative scrutiny in the 2007–08 session raised a number of concerns about the process, which echo those we expressed in our report last year: the way in which decisions are taken about the choice of committee to conduct scrutiny and the length of time it takes to appoint joint committees on draft bills.

24. We are once again concerned about the way in which certain draft bills— in the 2007–08 session the draft Marine Bill and the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill—were allocated to joint committees of both Houses. In the case of both draft bills, there was keen interest among departmental committees in undertaking pre-legislative scrutiny, but this did not appear to have been taken into account by the Government. This is despite the comment, in our March 2008 report on The work of committees in 2007, that “it is for the House, not the Executive, to assess the most effective form of scrutiny, and we object strongly to the fact that the Government has sought to pre-empt the House’s consideration of how to scrutinise draft bills by bringing forward motions for the joint committees without proper consultation”.19 The Government responded that future consultation would “include the various parties in each House, as well as the existing Commons select committees”.20

25. Unfortunately, the extent and nature of consultation in the 2007—08 session left much to be desired. Joint committees were appointed on the draft Marine Bill and the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill even though the EFRA Committee and the Justice Committee had made clear their interest. The EFRA Committee described the way in which the Government dealt with the House over the arrangements for pre-legislative scrutiny as “vague and uncommunicative”.21 The Justice Committee rejected what it described as “the assumption that the Government should decide the means by which Draft Bills are scrutinised”.22

26. The end result was that—as in 2006–07—draft bills were considered by both joint committees and departmental select committees. Although there can be merit in a division of labour between committees, in the case of both bills committees went over the same ground. For instance, the Joint Committee on the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill and the Justice Committee both examined provisions relating to the Attorney General, often asking identical questions to identical witnesses in the same month. This overlap of inquiries can lead to problems, when several committees approach the same witnesses with requests for evidence on the same, or subtly different, issues within a period of weeks. The Joint Committee on the Draft Marine Bill experienced this problem of ‘witness fatigue’ in that it sought evidence from witnesses on coastal access and the ports, at the same time as the EFRA Committee, and the Transport Committee’s inquiry into the draft Marine Navigation Bill.

19 Liaison Committee, The work of committees in 2007, para 25

20 Liaison Committee, Second Special Report of Session 2007-08, The work of committees in 2007: Government Response to the Committee’s Third Report of Session 2007-08, HC 595, para 2

21 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Second Report of Session 2008-09, The work of the Committee in 2007-08, HC 95, para 18

22 Justice Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2007-08, Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill (provisions relating to the work of the Attorney General), HC 698, para 10

14

27. We discussed the problems with these arrangements at our informal meeting with the Leader of the House. She responded constructively to our concerns over the present arrangements for consulting interested parties in both Houses about the scrutiny of draft bills. The Leader already writes to us at the start of each session with a list of the draft bills the Government plans to publish, so that we can consult among committee chairmen and inform her of what interest they have in undertaking pre-legislative scrutiny. In addition, the Leader proposed that she inform us of the outcome of her soundings among the usual channels, including indications of any interest in joint committee scrutiny. Further discussions would take place as necessary, with a view to agreeing a programme of scrutiny satisfactory to all parties.

28. If the Government is serious about consulting the House, there needs to be a more transparent and better-organised process for deciding upon arrangements for pre-legislative scrutiny than has been the case in the past. We therefore welcome the Leader of the House’s commitment to us to engage in genuine consultation about the programme of pre-legislative scrutiny. We hope to work with her and her fellow ministers during the current session to make the new system work as effectively as possible. We expect Ministers to take full account of our response in taking forward plans for pre-legislative scrutiny of draft bills.

29. Another unsatisfactory aspect of pre-legislative scrutiny in the 2007–08 session was the time which elapsed between the publication of the draft Bills and the appointment of the relevant joint committees. Joint committees are appointed by agreement between the two Houses, following consultations among the ‘usual channels’ over committee membership. In the 2007–08 session there was a delay of over a month between the publication of each bill and the first meeting of the joint committee appointed to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny, as shown in Table 7.

TABLE 7: Time elapsed between bill publication and first meeting of Joint Committees

Stage Draft Constitutional Renewal Bill Draft Marine Bill

Publication of bill 25 March 2008 3 April 2008

First meeting of joint committee

6 May 2008 14 May 2008

Time between publication and first meeting

1 month, 11 days 1 month, 11 days

Source: House of Commons Votes and Proceedings

30. We referred to the importance of having sufficient time to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny in our last report.23 The Joint Committee on the Draft Marine Bill noted that the Government “remains committed” to the Cabinet Office Guide to Legislative Procedure, which sets down the minimum period for a pre-legislative scrutiny inquiry being three months.24 In the case of the joint committees on draft bills in the 2007–08 session, there


24 Joint Committee on the Draft Marine Bill, Session 2007-08, Draft Marine Bill, HC 552-I, para 4

15

appears to have been a failure by the ‘usual channels’ to get the committees up and running promptly.

31. We welcome the fact that draft bills were published earlier in the 2007–08 session than has sometimes been the case in the past. It is however regrettable that, having succeeded in this aim, the process of appointing joint committees to examine them was held up in the ‘usual channels’. It should have been possible for committees to meet as soon as the bills were published, or even beforehand. Pre-legislative scrutiny, if it is not to be rushed, takes a good twelve weeks. Anything short of this will either place unreasonable demands on Members, Peers and staff, or compromise the depth of the joint committee’s consideration.

32. We also note two other comments from departmental committees that undertook pre-legislative scrutiny. The Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee complained that the Government departments concerned did not agree a timetable with the Committee for pre-legislative scrutiny; showed no appreciation that the Committee already had programmes of work planned, into which scrutiny of the Bill had to be fitted; and announced the Committee’s inquiry without consulting the Committee.25 The Culture, Media and Sport Committee was “extremely disappointed” that, after it had worked hard to meet the Government’s timetable for scrutiny of the draft Cultural Property Bill and the draft Heritage Protection Bill, “the Government then decided to drop them from the legislative programme. This decision has caused consternation amongst all those bodies involved in heritage and undermines the whole pre-legislative scrutiny process”.26

Other legislative scrutiny by committees

33. Alongside contributing to pre-legislative scrutiny, committees have contributed to the scrutiny of legislation passing through the House. Examples are given in Table 8.

TABLE 8: Examples of bills before Parliament scrutinised by select committees

Committee Bill Scrutiny conducted

Foreign Affairs European Union (Amendment)

Inquiry and report, published as Foreign Policy Aspects of the Lisbon Treaty (HC 120-I)

Children, Schools and Families

Children and Young Persons Bill [Lords]

Inquiry and report, published as Children and Young Persons Bill [Lords] (HC 359). Inquiry informed by ongoing inquiry into Looked-after Children

Justice Counter-Terrorism Report (HC 405) on provisions relating to coroners’ inquests, building on earlier report on draft Coroners Bill

34. The Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) continues to scrutinise all Government bills in order to assess their compliance with the UK’s human rights obligations. In the past session, the JCHR reported on twelve bills, and cleared another

25 IUSS committee, Seventh Report of Session 2007-08,

26 Culture, Media and Sport Committee, First Report of Session 2008-09, Work of the Committee 2007-08, HC 188, para 24

16

eight from scrutiny. The carried-over Political Parties and Elections Bill remains under scrutiny.27 In addition, the Joint Committee’s recommendation that Government amendments to bills be accompanied by explanatory memoranda on human rights issues received an “encouraging” response, and the Committee was able to report on such amendments to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill in time to influence debate.28 The Joint Committee also published a detailed report on the Government’s proposal to extend the maximum period of pre-charge detention for terrorism suspects to 42 days on 14 December 2007, only eight days after the proposal was first published.29

Scrutiny of the Planning Bill

35. In our report last year, we discussed the Planning Bill, then before Parliament, which created a new system of development consent for nationally significant infrastructure projects, including the publication by the Secretary of State of “national policy statements” on proposed planning and development projects. We were particularly interested in the Government’s proposals for Parliamentary scrutiny of draft national policy statements, as the Government intended there to be a significant role for select committees.30 In October 2008, we produced a Special Report, to inform the House’s consideration of the Bill, with which we published correspondence from the committee chairmen most directly affected, and from the Minister for Local Government. We noted that “any scrutiny mechanism will depend on the final form of the Bill on enactment, and on the detailed proposals the Government puts forward in motions for Standing Orders”.31 The Planning Bill has now received the Royal Assent as the Planning Act 2008.32 The Government has not yet brought forward proposals for standing orders, but, on the basis of informal discussions between chairmen and Ministers, we expect them to include a significant coordinating role for the Liaison Committee and an important scrutiny role for the chairmen of the Communities and Local Government, Energy and Climate Change, Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Transport and Welsh Affairs Committees. Our Special Report includes a summary of discussions between the committee chairmen and Ministers, which will be as relevant to consideration of the proposed Standing Orders as it was to the Bill.

36. We look forward to the publication of standing orders providing for Parliamentary scrutiny of draft National Policy Statements made under the Planning Act and expect them to take into account the concerns raised by committee chairmen in their discussions and correspondence. We welcome the constructive dialogue on this issue between Ministers and the committees concerned, and Ministers’ readiness to take on board comments from committee chairmen. We also believe that this is a good example of the way in which the Liaison Committee can ensure that other committees and the

27 Joint Committee on Human Rights, Second Report of Session 2008-09, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, HC 92,

para 31

28 Joint Committee on Human Rights, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 33



31 Liaison Committee, Fourth Special Report of Session of Session 2007-08, Planning Bill: Parliamentary Scrutiny of National Policy Statements, HC 1109, para 2

32 Planning Act 2008, c. 29. The relevant section is s. 9 (Parliamentary requirements).

17

House as a whole are kept aware of discussions between individual chairmen and the Government, and provide an additional formal channel of communication.

Scrutiny of secondary legislation in draft

37. Several committees have a specific role in the scrutiny of draft secondary legislation. The Regulatory Reform Committee produced seven reports on six draft Legislative Reform Orders in the 2007–08 session, as well as a wider report on the Better Regulation Executive and the Impact of the Regulatory Reform Agenda.33 In our last report, we noted the introduction of Draft Legislative Competence Orders in Council, under the provisions of the Government of Wales Act 2006.34 The Welsh Affairs Committee scrutinises each such order and reports its findings to the House. The Committee published reports on four LCOs in the last session.35

38. Four committees of the House – Business and Enterprise, Defence, Foreign Affairs and International Development – come together to form the ‘Committees on Arms Export Controls’ (CAEC). The main role of the CAEC is to review government policy on licensing arms exports and licensing decisions. During 2007–08 they also considered draft secondary legislation arising from the Government’s current review of export controls. In their annual report, the CAEC expressed unhappiness at the deadline of two weeks they were given to comment on the second tranche of such draft secondary legislation.36 Despite their recommendation that at least two months be allowed for consideration of the third tranche, the Government subsequently allowed only a month. On behalf of the CAEC, we expressed our dissatisfaction with this situation to the Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, although the Minister did not accept this criticism.

The Government’s Draft Legislative Programme

39. The Government published its second draft legislative programme (DLP) on 14 May 2008.37 The DLP included eighteen bills, three of which—Constitutional Renewal, Heritage Protection and Marine and Coastal Access—had been published in draft and received pre-legislative scrutiny in the last session.38 In our last report on the work of committees, we noted that the DLP needed to be published early enough for committees to examine it and give their views, and for the Government to take those views into account in finalising its legislative programme.39 The Government indicated in its response that it intended to strike a balance “between the benefit of publishing the programme early enough for

33 Regulatory Reform Committee, Fifth Report of Session of 2007-08, Getting Results: the Better Regulation Executive

and the Impact of the Regulatory Reform Agenda, HC 474-I


35 One of these LCOs (on additional learning needs) was also referred to in our report on The work of committees in 2007.

36 Business and Enterprise, Defence, Foreign Affairs and International Development Committees, First Joint Report of Session 2007-08, Scrutiny of Arms Export Controls (2008): UK Strategic Export Controls Annual Report 2006, Quarterly Reports for 2007, licensing policy and review of export control legislation, HC 254

37 Office of the Leader of the House of Commons, Preparing Britain for the future: the Government’s draft legislative programme 2008-09, Cm 7372, May 2008

38 The provisions of the draft Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill, which sought to ratify the 1955 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, will be incorporated into the Heritage Protection Bill.


18

committees to be able to examine those proposals that fall within their remit and the level of detail and information about the specific proposals contained within the bills”.40 We welcome the fact that the Draft Legislative Programme was published significantly earlier in the 2007–08 session than in the 2006–07 session, as this assists committees in planning their forward work programmes.

Public Bill Committees

40. Public Bill Committees (PBCs), which now have the power to take oral and written evidence, were still a very new feature of Parliamentary life at the time of our last report. We are pleased to note the contribution now being made by PBCs to the House’s scrutiny of legislation. In the 2007–08 session, twelve PBCs held a total of 35 oral evidence sessions and received 164 pieces of written evidence.41 We raised the question last year of whether the introduction of the PBC procedure would have a detrimental impact upon opportunities for pre-legislative scrutiny of draft legislation, noting that the number of draft bills had declined in recent years. We were also concerned that the introduction of PBCs might reduce the opportunities for select committees to examine bills before Parliament.42 We are pleased to note that neither of these concerns seems to have arisen in practice, and that the Government has not regarded the PBC evidence-taking procedure as having reduced the need for pre-legislative scrutiny of draft legislation.

Task 4: To examine specific output from the department

41. The fourth core task calls upon select committees to monitor specific outputs “expressed in documents or other decisions”. Committees receive a steady stream of departmental circulars and guidance of varying importance, some of which go on to form the basis of inquiries or one-off evidence sessions. Committees have reported comparatively few such activities in the last session, although it is clear that many inquiries are informed by such documentation from departments. The most prominent examples of such work are the Treasury Committee’s regular inquiries into the main documents produced by HM Treasury: the Budget and the Pre-Budget Report.43

Task 5: Scrutiny of expenditure plans and outturns

42. Departmental select committees play an important role in examining the expenditure of the government departments they shadow. The Committee of Public Accounts takes a broader view, looking at expenditure across Government, with the help of reports prepared by the National Audit Office and oral evidence from Accounting Officers (Permanent Secretaries of Departments and heads of NDPBs and other bodies). In this section of our report, we consider ways in which committees have fulfilled this core task. We also describe possible changes in the Government’s financial reporting to Parliament and in parliamentary financial scrutiny.

40 Liaison Committee, The work of committees in 2007: Government Response to the Committee’s Third Report of

Session 2007-08, para 3

41 Appendix 2, Work of the Scrutiny Unit in 2007-08


43 Treasury Committee, Work of the Committee, 2007-08, para 34

19

Departmental Annual Reports

43. Departmental Annual Reports (DARs) remain the lynchpin of committees’ scrutiny of expenditure. Standard operating procedure is for committees to receive an analysis of their department’s DAR from the Committee Office Scrutiny Unit, the substance of which is followed up through written questions, which in turn form the basis of a subsequent oral evidence session with Ministers and senior officials. The lines between expenditure, policy and administration are not always clear, and quite often an oral evidence session on an Annual Report will touch upon questions of policy or administration which have financial consequences. Select committees continue to demonstrate the useful impact that effective scrutiny of expenditure can have on their wider work programmes, and that ‘expenditure, policy and administration’ need not fall into discrete silos.

44. In our last report, we encouraged all departmental select committees to hold evidence sessions on their target department’s DAR.44 We welcome the fact that in the 2007–08 session, for the first time all the departmental select committees took oral evidence on their departments’ Departmental Annual Reports.

45. Autumn Performance Reports (APRs) provide updates on departmental performance, including their Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets, Departmental Service Objective (DSO) targets and value for money targets. Unless there is anything particularly anomalous, most committees tend not to hold evidence sessions or produce reports on APRs, preferring instead to conduct such scrutiny through correspondence with departments.45

Estimates

46. Estimates are the vehicle by which departments request ‘supply’ to fund their spending programmes. As with APRs, most committees conduct scrutiny of Estimates by way of correspondence. A notable exception is the Defence Committee, which informs the House by reporting on all of the Ministry of Defence’s Main and Supplementary Estimates before the House is asked to agree them.46 The reason for the Defence Committee’s detailed scrutiny of Estimates lie in the titles of their reports: Costs of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan: Winter Supplementary Estimate 2007–08 and Operational costs in Afghanistan and Iraq: Spring Supplementary Estimate 2007–08. Historically, figures for costs of specific operations have not featured in the Main Estimates. This is something to which the Committee took exception, and it has succeeded in securing an assurance from the MoD that in future, operational costs will be included in some detail in the Main Estimates.47 Another example of an evidence session and report on an Estimate was the Business and Enterprise Committee’s examination, at short notice, of the funding of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA), prompted by an unexpected Supplementary


45 The Work and Pensions Committee was the only committee to hold a hearing on the APR in 2007-08.

46 Defence Committee, Second Report of Session 2008-09, The work of the Committee in 2007-08, HC 106, para 28

47 Ibid.

20

Estimate, which led to a “lessons learned” review by the Department of the NDA’s budgeting and accounting arrangements.48

47. Estimates Memoranda, prepared by departments for select committees, were introduced in 2004 to explain the changes in figures from the previous Estimate and how they related to spending limits and departmental targets. We produced a report in 2006 which sought to ensure that Departments made them more consistently helpful, and in October 2007 the Treasury issued new guidance on Estimates Memoranda, with advice from the Scrutiny Unit.49 Select committees continue to use the services of the Scrutiny Unit in understanding and interpreting Estimates and Estimates Memoranda.

48. During the year a small number of memoranda were judged by the relevant select committees to be inadequate and the departments involved were asked to produce revised versions. For instance, the Business and Enterprise Committee felt the Spring Supplementary Estimate Memorandum on the NDA, referred to above, “did not give an entirely accurate picture of the situation”.50 Nevertheless, the Scrutiny Unit considers that in general the quality of the memoranda has improved as a result of the evolving guidance and committees’ influence on departments. We welcome the general improvement in the quality of the explanatory memoranda about Estimates provided by Government departments to departmental select committees.

Other scrutiny of expenditure

49. Select committees’ scrutiny of expenditure is by no means limited to the financial cycle. In addition to value for money scrutiny of spending by the PAC, committees scrutinise expenditure as part of other inquiries, or conduct additional scrutiny of expenditure, as shown in Table 9 below.

Table 9: Examples of scrutiny of expenditure other than DARs and Estimates

Committee Scrutiny activity undertaken


Took evidence from the Permanent Secretary in November 2007 on the emerging budget settlement for Defra out of the Comprehensive Spending Review, and again in April 2008 once the CSR had been published.1


Published a report on Public Expenditure which, although based primarily on DCSF’s Annual Report, addressed the wider question of public expenditure on education, including schools funding and the Gershon review of efficiency savings.2

Health Published its regular report into Public Expenditure, and also undertook expenditure-related scrutiny in e.g. its inquiry into Foundation Trusts and Monitor (financial surpluses).3

Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills

Published report on Science Budget Allocations, addressing concerns about future funding arrangements.4

48 Business and Enterprise Committee, Third Report of Session 2008-09, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, HC 175,

para 4

49 Liaison Committee, Third Report of 2005–06, Estimates Memoranda, HC 1685

50 Business and Enterprise Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2007-08, Funding the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, HC 394, para 21

21

Work and Pensions Held a one-off evidence session on DWP IT procurement, which followed up on an NAO paper, which covered renegotiation of its contracts with its main suppliers, EDS and BT.5

(1) Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, The work of the Committee in 2007–08, para 20. (2) Children, Schools and Families Committee, Second Report of Session 2008–09, The work of the Committee in 2007–08, HC 47, para 12. (3) Health Committee, Second Report of Session 2008–09, The Work of the Committee in 2007–08, HC 193, para 26. (4) Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, Second Report of Session 2008–09, The work of the Committee in 2007–08, HC 49, para 28. (5) Work and Pensions Committee, First Report of Session 2008–09, Work of the Committee in 2007–08, HC 68, para 9.

‘Recreating financial scrutiny’

50. Financial scrutiny is an increasingly important issue for the Liaison Committee itself. In our last report we noted that a group of our members was working on ways in which the financial information provided by Government could be improved, and how committees might use that information.51 In April 2008 we published a report based on the work of the group, Parliament and Government Finance: Recreating Financial Scrutiny. Its key recommendations included:

• simplification of the Government’s over-complex financial system, to the benefit of Government as much as Parliament;

• improving the quality of the financial information provided to Parliament, including providing more information to select committees about PFI contracts; and

• creating more opportunities for Members to challenge the Government on financial matters and hold it to account. 52

Our report also took account of the Government’s ‘Alignment’ Project, which is intended to bring the Estimates, departmental budgets and Resource Accounts framework closer together, and to recast all the financial reporting documents currently presented to the House, with a view to providing greater consistency between different financial reporting documents and therefore greater simplicity and transparency for users, including Parliament. We noted that this was “potentially a historic development” in parliamentary scrutiny of government finances.53

51. In its reply, the Government agreed that the financial system and associated documentation should provide Parliament with the detailed information it needs, and that the overall shape of the Government’s finances and changes in it should be presented comprehensibly. But it rejected changing PFI contracts to increase the ability to pass information to committees; providing more time to debate the Comprehensive Spending Review; letting the House debate and vote on individual government programmes or items of expenditure; and allowing motions which propose increased expenditure or transfers between budgets. The Government did, however, note that the changes made through the Alignment Project might allow opportunities for Parliament to consider changes in the


52 Liaison Committee, Second Report of Session 2007-08, Parliament and Government Finance: Recreating Financial Scrutiny, HC 426

53 Ibid, para 38

22

opportunities for debate.54 (We consider a related Government proposal, for debates on Departmental objectives and plans, in paragraph 73 below.)

52. Our working group on financial scrutiny has reconvened, to follow up on our recommendations and also to engage with HM Treasury on the Alignment Project. This included preliminary consideration of the Government’s initial Memorandum on the project, sent to us and other committees in November 2008.55 The Chairman replied to the Chief Secretary in December 2008, and a copy of his letter is printed as an Annex to our report.56 Officials from the Committee Office continue to support the working group, and are themselves involved in discussions with Treasury officials, ensuring they are aware of concerns that Parliament and its committees might have, as the project develops. As noted in the Chairman’s letter to the Chief Secretary, we continue to support the broad aims and principles of the Treasury’s Alignment Project. These can only fully achieve the intended improvement in financial reporting and scrutiny if they are part of a process for consideration of Estimates in the House of Commons which allows the House, informed by its committees, to understand the information submitted in a timely way, enabling appropriate consideration on the floor of the House. We look forward to the more detailed memorandum promised by the Government, and to continuing our engagement with Treasury Ministers on this vital issue.

53. In our report on Government and Parliament: recreating financial scrutiny, we also expressed a wish that financial training for Members be put on a more systematic basis. Since then we have held a useful seminar for committee members and staff with Treasury officials. We also note that, in response to our further recommendation that the Scrutiny Unit draw up plans for training Members in financial scrutiny, the Unit has planned training events for Members, their staff and other staff of the House on the Alignment Project and on resource accounts.57 We encourage all Members to attend these events.

Task 6: Scrutinising Public Service Agreements and targets

54. Public Service Agreements (PSAs) are the instruments by which departmental objectives are set and performance is monitored. They are a central part of the work of the PAC, form a key part of departmental committee inquiries into DARs, and can form a useful ‘jumping-off point’ for a policy-based inquiry. In our last report, we noted that, in the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR), the Government had reduced the 110 departmental PSAs in the 2004 Spending Review to 30 cross-cutting PSAs, underpinned by larger number of Departmental Service Objectives (DSOs). We noted the concern expressed by the Treasury Committee that the cross-departmental nature of the new PSAs posed a challenge for accountability.58 In the 2007–08 session, the Transport Committee commented that the Department for Transport “was demonstrating lack of clarity,

54 Liaison Committee, Third Special Report of Session 2007-08, Parliament and Government Finance: Recreating

Financial Scrutiny: Government and National Audit Office Responses to the Committee's Second Report of Session 2007-08, HC 1108

55 Published on the Liaison Committee website: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmliaisn/memo/hmtreasy/m1.htm

56 See Annex 2

57 Appendix 2, Work of the Scrutiny Unit in 2007-08


23

particularly where targets were shared with other Departments, and it was unclear how contributions were going to be evaluated”.59 In this context, we note that guidance from HM Treasury to departments now makes clear that each department which leads on a cross-cutting PSA is required to provide full reporting on performance for such PSAs in their DAR and APR.60 This should make it easier for select committees to track progress against PSA targets.

55. Select committees continue to scrutinise departmental progress toward achieving Public Service Agreements through DAR inquiries and other inquiries, as shown in tables 10 and 11.

TABLE 10: Examples of scrutiny of PSA targets during DAR scrutiny

Committee PSA scrutiny undertaken

Defence Scrutinised the MOD’s PSAs during its DAR inquiry, and noted that its expected achievements against its six PSAs had deteriorated since the previous year. The Committee was left “deeply concerned that, for seven of the last eight years, and for every year since 2002, the Armed Forces have been operating at or above the level of concurrent operations for which they are resourced and structured to deliver”.(1)

International Development

Scrutiny of DFID’s PSAs included assessment of the outcomes of a UN High Level Event on the Millennium Development Goals held in New York in September 2008. Committee noted that the UK had been at the forefront of efforts to maintain momentum towards the Goals, but that the deadline of 2015 seemed ‘worryingly close’, especially in sub-Saharan Africa.(2)

(1) Defence Committee, The work of the Committee in 2007–08, para 34. (2) International Development Committee, First Report of Session 2008–09, Work of the Committee in 2007–08, HC 138, para 48.

TABLE 11: Examples of scrutiny of PSA targets during inquiries

Committee PSA scrutiny undertaken

Business and Enterprise Inquired into Creating a Higher Value-Added Economy, assessing the Government’s progress towards achieving its PSA to “raise the productivity of the UK economy”. The Committee took evidence from a wide range of witnesses, and made several UK visits as well as one to the United States.(1)

Health Inquired into Health inequalities, focusing on a major PSA target which aims: “By 2010 to reduce inequalities in health outcomes by 10 per cent as measured by infant mortality and life expectancy at birth”. As part of this investigation the Committee also looked at a number of other PSA targets, including those relating to infant mortality, obesity and teenage conception rates. (A report is in preparation.)(2)

Work and Pensions The Committee’s report on The best start in life? Alleviating deprivation, improving social mobility and eradicating child poverty examined the prospects for the success of the Government’s commitment in the 2007 Comprehensive Spending Review PSA to “halve the number of children in poverty by 2010–11, on the way to eradicating child poverty by 2020”. The Committee concluded that further investment was needed for the Government to meet the target.(3)

59 Transport Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 27

60 HM Treasury, PES (2008) 9, ‘Publication of Autumn Performance Reports’, 4 August 2008

24

(1) Business and Enterprise Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007–08, para 39. (2) Health Committee, The Work of the Committee in 2007–08, para 29. (3) Work and Pensions Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007–08, para 10.

Task 7: Monitoring the work of agencies and other public bodies

56. The monitoring of the work of agencies and public bodies is carried out in a variety of ways: through scrutiny of Departmental Annual Reports; through inquiries or one-off evidence sessions investigating the work of a specific body; or in the course of policy-focused inquiries. Examples of the work undertaken by committees in this area are set out in Table 12 below.

Table 12: Examples of committee monitoring of agencies and other public bodies

Committee Scrutiny of agency or public body


Report on the work of the Copyright Tribunal [1]


Follow-up inquiry into the work of Ordnance Survey [2]


Examined role of Environment Agency during inquiry into flooding [3]

Environmental Audit Inquiry into the Export Credits Guarantee Department and sustainable development [4]

Health Inquiry into the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence [5]

Home Receives regular updates from UK Border Agency (UKBA) [6]

Transport Took evidence on Network Rail as part of inquiry into railways strategy [7]

Work and Pensions Inquiry into the role of the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive in regulating workplace health and safety [8]

(1) Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, The work of the Committee in 2007–08, para 15. (2) Communities and Local Government Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2007–08, Ordnance Survey, HC 268. (3) Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Fifth Report of Session 2007–08, Flooding, HC 49-I. (4) Environmental Audit Committee, Eleventh Report of Session 2007–08, The Export Credits Guarantee Department and sustainable development, HC 929. (5) Health Committee, First Report of Session 2007–08, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, HC 27-I. (6) Home Affairs Committee, Third Report of Session 2008–09, Work of the Committee in 2007–08, HC 76, para 39. (7) Transport Committee, Work of the Committee in Session 2007–08, para 30. (8) Work and Pensions Committee, Third Report of Session 2007–08, The role of the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive in regulating workplace health and safety, HC 246-I. 57. Most committees undertake regular scrutiny of key agencies and public bodies. The Business and Enterprise Committee, for example, aims to examine the work of at least one agency each year.61 The Culture, Media and Sport Committee adopted an experimental approach in the 2007–08 session. It selected six non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs),

61 Business and Enterprise Committee, Work of the Committee in Session 2007-08, para 42; Culture, Media and Sport

Committee, Work of the Committee 2007-08, para 18

25

asked them to submit further information on their performance against targets and their financial and operating reviews, and placed their responses on the Committee’s web pages. Although this inquiry did not result in a report, the Committee concluded that the exercise sent NDPBs “a reminder that Parliament will use its powers to hold publicly-funded bodies to account for their expenditure and management of resources”.62

Task 8: Scrutiny of major appointments

58. Committees approach this task in two ways: pre-appointment and post-appointment. Traditionally, select committees’ scrutiny of major appointments – of elected and unelected officials – has occurred shortly after the job-holder has taken up position. This provides an opportunity to question the appointee on the main issues and priorities relevant to their new role. Such “induction” hearings can also set a benchmark against which the post-holder’s objectives for their organisation may be assessed over time. Several committees took evidence from newly-appointed ministers following the Cabinet reshuffle in October 2008. These included Business and Enterprise, Defence, Home Affairs and Transport.63 The hearing at which Lord Mandelson, Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, gave evidence to the Business and Enterprise Committee was particularly significant because he is unable to answer questions in the Commons Chamber. The Committee subsequently published a report noting that Lord Mandelson had agreed to give evidence to the Committee at least three or four times a year. (There is a historical precursor to this agreement. In 1980, when Lord Carrington was Foreign Secretary in the Lords, though with an FCO Cabinet Minister in the Commons, the Foreign Affairs Committee noted: “We are pleased that the Secretary of State has agreed to appear before the Committee from time to time to discuss aspects of British foreign policy”.64) The Business and Enterprise Committee concluded that, while select committee accountability was important, there should be “more direct lines of accountability between Lord Mandelson and the House of Commons as a whole”.65

59. Many select committees have also conducted “induction” hearings for newly-appointed officials. Some of these are summarised in Table 13, below.

Table 13: Scrutiny of major appointments at official level

Committee Scrutiny of appointment

Business and Enterprise Lord Whitty, Chairman, and Mr Ed Mayo, Chief Executive, of Consumer Focus, the new body which replaces the National Consumer Council.(1)


Sir Bob Kerslake, Chief Executive-designate of the newly-formed Homes and Communities Agency, on its planned operations and

62 Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, paras 20-21

63 Business and Enterprise Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 43; Defence Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 40; Home Affairs Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 43; Transport Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 31

64 Foreign Affairs Committee, First Report of Session 1979-80, Foreign and Commonwealth Office Organisation, HC 511

65 Business and Enterprise Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 4; Fourteenth Report of Session 2007-08, Departmental Annual Report and Scrutiny of the Department of Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, HC 1116

26

the progress in its establishment. Mr Anthony Mayer, Chair-designate, and Mr Peter Marsh, Chief Executive-designate, of the newly-formed Tenant Services Authority, on its planned operations and progress in its establishment.(2)


Lord Turner of Ecchinswell, Chairman of the Committee on Climate Change, on his views and the future work of the Committee.(3)

Foreign Affairs Rt Hon Jack McConnell MSP on his anticipated appointment as British High Commissioner to Malawi. (In the event Mr McConnell did not take up this post as he was subsequently appointed the Prime Minister’s Special Representative for Conflict Resolution Mechanisms.)(4)


Professor John Beddington, the new Chief Scientific Adviser, on his intentions for his new role. John Armitt, Chairman, and Professor David Delpy, Chief Executive, of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, on concerns over research funding levels, and the role of the EPSRC in supporting innovation through the Technology Strategy Board.(5)

Public Administration Sir Christopher Kelly, Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, on his plans and priorities for the new post. Sir Philip Mawer, Independent Adviser on Ministerial Interests. This gave rise to a short Report setting out the additional steps which the Committee felt were needed “to give credibility to the investigation of alleged breaches of the Ministerial Code”.(7)

Treasury Mr Charles Bean, Deputy Governor of the Bank of England for Monetary Stability.

Lord Turner of Ecchinswell, Chairman of the Financial Services Authority (FSA).(8)

(1) Business and Enterprise Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007–08, para 43. (2) Communities and Local Government Committee, First Report of Session 2008–09, Work of the Committee in 2007–08, para 28-29. (3) Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007–08, para 25. (4) Foreign Affairs Committee, First Report of Session 2008–09, Work of the Committee in 2007–08, HC 113, para 47-48. (5) Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, Second Report of Session 2008–09, Work of the Committee in 2007–08, para 9 and 16. (6) International Development Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007–08, para 49-50. (7) Public Administration Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2007–08, Investigating the Conduct of Ministers, HC 381, para 34, and Fourth Report, Work of the Committee in 2007–08, HC 42, para 22. (8) Treasury Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007–08, paras 47-48.

Pre-appointment hearings

60. In this section, we report on a useful Government initiative which has extended the role of select committees in this area. The July 2007 Green Paper, The Governance of Britain, proposed that relevant select committees should conduct hearings to cover “issues such as the candidate’s suitability for the role, his or her key priorities, and the process used in selection”.66 At the same time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would invite the Treasury Committee to also hold pre-commencement hearings with all appointees to the

66 Ministry of Justice, The Governance of Britain, Cm 7170, July 2007, para 76

27

Monetary Policy Committee (MPC), as well as the Chairman of the Financial Services Authority (FSA).67 In January 2008, the Public Administration Committee (PASC) published its views on the Government’s proposals. PASC’s witnesses included the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, in view of that Committee’s considerable experience of holding hearings on new appointments. In its report, PASC invited us to agree guidelines for pre-appointment hearings, and encouraged us to co-operate with the Government to develop the proposals further.68

61. We enjoyed a constructive dialogue with Government over these proposals, including an informal meeting with the then Minister for the Cabinet Office, Rt Hon Ed Miliband, who put forward a list of public appointments which the Government felt were suitable for this new process. We produced a report welcoming the Government’s positive response to our belief that “select committees can add value to an appointments process”.69 Our report also included guidelines for committees to help ensure that evidence sessions were conducted appropriately – for instance, that candidates should be given sufficient notice of pre-appointment hearings and be properly informed about the purpose, format and duration of the hearings, and that hearings should focus on issues of professional competence and independence.70 The Government, in its response to our report, welcomed our proposed guidelines, and put forward a revised list of appointments which it considered should be covered, taking into account some of our suggestions.71 Two committees have expressed concern that certain posts within their remits will not be subject to this new form of scrutiny. In particular, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee has called for the post of Chairman of the BBC Trust to be subject to a pre-appointment hearing in the future. 72

62. Although we are not in full agreement with the Government over the list of posts available for pre-appointment hearings by committees, we are pleased to have reached agreement on the broad principles, and believe this new system represents a significant improvement in the accountability of public officials. We will keep the operation of the new arrangements under review, but already a workable process seems to have developed successfully, testing, on behalf of Parliament and the public, the approach of a candidate to his or her new duties.

67 Treasury Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 46

68 Public Administration Committee, Third Report of Session 2007-08, Parliament and public appointments: Pre-appointment hearings by select committees, HC 152, para 34

69 Liaison Committee, First Report of Session 2007-08, Pre-appointment hearings by select committees, HC 384, para 16

70 Ibid, para 12-15

71 Op. Cit. Annex A

72 Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 28-29; see also Defence Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 43

28

63. Table 14 lists the pre-appointment hearings held in the 2007–08 session.

Table 14: Pre-appointment hearings in Session 2007–08

Committee Pre-appointment hearing

Health Baroness Young of Old Scone, the preferred candidate for Chair of the newly-formed Care Quality Commission(1)

Justice Elizabeth France, preferred candidate for Chair of the Office for Legal Complaints(2)

Public Administration Lord Jay of Ewelme, the preferred candidate for Chair of the House of Lords Appointments Commission(3)

(1) Health Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007–08, para 35. (2) Justice Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2007–08, Appointment of the Chair of the Office for Legal Complaints, HC 1122. (3) Public Administration Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007–08, para 21.

Task 9: Implementation of legislation and major policy initiatives

64. We have already explored the role that committees play in the examination of policy proposals and legislation. Committees also scrutinise the implementation of new legislation and inquire into the effectiveness of existing legislation, although this work is often subsumed into wider inquiries. There are examples of discrete inquiries in this field. For example, the Work and Pensions Committee held a one-off evidence session examining the implementation of those parts of the Welfare Reform Act 2007 and the Pensions Act 2007 relating to Employment and Support Allowance and Personal Accounts.73 The Business and Enterprise Committee examined the implementation of the Government’s policy on construction. Its report was favourably received by the Government, which accepted its main recommendation: the creation of a new post of Chief Construction Officer, of equivalent standing to the Chief Scientific Adviser.74

65. Committees also examine the implementation of EU legislation. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, for example, conducted an inquiry into the implementation of the Nitrates Directive in England.75

66. The Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) continues to monitor compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998. A number of its inquiries are concerned with the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights in specific areas. The JCHR also inquires into the impact of particular legislative provisions which have raised human rights concerns, as it did for instance in its work on the use of restraint in secure training centres.76

73 Work and Pensions Committee, Work of the Committee in Session 2007–08, paras 16 and 18

74 Business and Enterprise Committee, Ninth Report of Session 2007-08, Construction matters, HC 127. This inquiry also contained an element of pre-legislative scrutiny; see Table 5 above.

75 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Seventh Report of Session 2007-08, Implementation of the Nitrates Directive in England, HC 412

76 Joint Committee on Human Rights, The work of the committee in 2007-08, para 25

29

67. Examination of the implementation of major policy initiatives also forms an important part of committees’ work. Table 15 below gives some examples.

Table 15: Scrutiny of implementation of major policy initiatives

Committee Scrutiny of implementation of major policy initiatives


Conducted a continuous review of the Post Office Closure Programme; contributed to improvements in consultation programme and in future services.[1]

Committees on Arms Export Controls

Ongoing scrutiny of UK’s strategic export controls [2]

Environmental Audit Inquiry into the effectiveness of the Climate Change Levy and Climate Change Agreements in achieving emissions reductions [3]

Health Inquiry into “disastrous” implementation of DoH proposals to reform post-graduate medical training [4]

(1) Business and Enterprise Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007–08, para 4. (2) Defence Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007–08, para 44. (3) Environmental Audit Committee, Second Report of Session 2007–08, Reducing Emissions from UK Business: The role of the Climate Change Levy and Agreements, HC 354. (4) Health Committee, Third Report of Session 2007–08, Modernising Medical Careers, HC 25-I.

Post-legislative scrutiny

68. In our previous report, we noted the publication of the Government’s Command Paper outlining its approach to post-legislative scrutiny. Essentially, this would commit Government departments to publishing memoranda on the operation of Acts between three and five years after Royal Assent. The relevant departmental select committee would then decide, on the basis of the memorandum, whether any further post-legislative scrutiny was needed, and if so whether to conduct a specific post-legislative inquiry into the Act, or to include it as part of another inquiry within its work programme. The Government stated that the “prime responsibility” for considering the memorandum would rest with the relevant departmental committee. In our report, we welcomed this recognition of the role of select committees.77

69. We have since had the opportunity to examine the proposals in more detail. We believe that the Government’s proposals for post-legislative scrutiny have the potential to make a valuable difference to the scrutiny of legislation. But this will depend on both parties being able to play a full part in the process: departments must publish timely memoranda about the Acts concerned, and select committees will need to make a careful assessment of the value of a full follow-up exercise. Not every memorandum is likely to justify a full-scale inquiry by a committee, which would put extra pressure on work programmes, and could be particularly disruptive to committees shadowing departments with a regularly large legislative programme. Only one memorandum has so far been published, by the Northern Ireland Office on the Electoral Registration


30

(Northern Ireland) Act 2005.78 We look forward to more being published, and to seeing how committees undertake scrutiny based on them.

Task 10: Debates in Westminster Hall and the Chamber

70. Debates in the Chamber and in Westminster Hall can helpfully be informed by reports from select committees, and by the oral evidence they take. Such debates also provide an opportunity to engage colleagues from across the House in the work of committees, as well as being a further means by which committees can hold the Government to account on the subjects of their inquiries. There are two specific means by which committee reports can be the subject of debates. Very often, a report is ‘tagged’ as being of relevance to a particular debate – that is, a note is added to the House’s agenda drawing attention to the report. There are also dedicated debates on committee reports. The Liaison Committee chooses six reports each session for debate in Westminster Hall, and three days are allocated per session for debates on committee reports on the floor of the House. Each of these is usually divided between debates on two reports.79

71. During the 2007–08 session there were 25 debates in Westminster Hall, on 27 reports from 16 select committees, as set out in Table 16.

Table 16: Committee reports debated in Westminster Hall in the 2007–08 session

Committee Subject Date of debate

Arms Export Controls(1) Strategic export controls 27 March 2008

Business and Enterprise (formerly Trade and Industry)

Restructuring the Post Office network Jobs for the girls: two years on

29 November 2007 16 October 2008

Children, Schools and Families Testing and assessment 9 October 2008


Refuse collection Supply of rented housing

28 February 2008 6 November 2008

Culture, Media and Sport Ticket touting Harmful content on the Internet

24 April 2008 13 November 2008

Defence Medical care for the Armed Forces 17 July 2008

Environmental Audit Are biofuels sustainable? 5 June 2008

Foreign Affairs Middle East Global security: Russia

24 January 2008 3 April 2008

Health The Electronic Patient Record National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence

21 February 2008 8 May 2008

78 Cm 7504

79 Standing Orders No. 10 (13), 54 and 145 (3)

31

Home Affairs Police funding 10 January 2008

Human Rights Treatment of asylum seekers The human rights of older people in healthcare

13 December 2007 13 March 2008


Funding of science and discovery centres

15 May 2008

International Development DfID assistance to Burmese internally displaced people and refugees on the Thai-Burma border Sanitation and water Reconstructing Afghanistan

6 December 2007 1 May 2008 10 July 2008

Public Administration Politics and Administration: Ministers and Civil Servants

30 October 2008

Transport Novice drivers 7 February 2008

Treasury Financial inclusion(2) 15 November 2007

Work and Pensions Child poverty 19 June 2008

(1) The Committees on Arms Export Controls is the concurrent meeting of four select committees: Business and Enterprise; Defence; Foreign Affairs and International Development. (2) Three reports by the Treasury Committee were relevant to this debate.

72. During the 2007–08 session, six reports were also debated on Estimates Days on the floor of the House, as set out in Table 17 below. There are also biannual debates in the Chamber on reports of the Committee of Public Accounts.80

Table 17: Committee reports debated on Estimates Days in Session 2007–08

Committee Subject Date of debate


Benefits simplification (joint debate with Work and Pensions)

5 December 2007


Science budget allocations 7 July 2008

Public Administration Ethics and standards: the regulation of conduct in public life

5 December 2007

Transport The London Underground and the Public-Private Partnership agreements Ticketing and concessionary travel

10 March 2008 7 July 2008

Treasury Northern Rock 10 March 2008

Work and Pensions Benefits simplification (joint debate with Communities and Local Government)

5 December 2007

80 Appendix 1, Letter from the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts to the Chairman of the Liaison

Committee

32

Note: the debate on Benefits simplification on 5 December 2007 was on two related reports from the Communities and Local Government and the Work and Pensions Committees

Debates on departmental objectives and plans

73. In its 2007 Green Paper, The Governance of Britain, the Government proposed that “the House of Commons should be guaranteed an opportunity to debate, on the floor of the House, the annual objectives and plans of the major Government Departments”.81 The Government’s commitment to such scrutiny was welcomed by the Modernisation Committee, which further recommended that “debates on departmental objectives should not take place before the relevant select committee has completed its work on the Departmental Annual Report”.82 In its response, the Government was unable to give a firm undertaking that debates should not take place until after a select committee has completed its work, but undertook “to liaise with relevant committees and the Liaison Committee to try to ensure that any select committee work is taken into account in the timing of any such debate”.83 We believe that the Government’s proposals for more systematic debates on Departments’ objectives and plans could provide a good opportunity for the House to make use of select committee scrutiny of those objectives. We look forward to cooperating with the Government to try and ensure that, wherever possible, debates on departmental objectives and plans take into account relevant inquiries and reports by committees.

3 Working practices 74. The core tasks set out a framework for the objectives of select committees; working practices shape how they discharge these responsibilities. The gathering of formal oral and written evidence, and the publication of reports, provide the backbone of committee work. Outside these activities, however, committees use a range of innovative practices to work with others, collect information and engage with the public and the media. Employing a wider range of approaches to their work not only means committees are better equipped to fulfil their role, it increasingly enables them to adopt a style that is ‘fleet of foot’. For instance, it allows them to respond quickly to events through short, focused inquiries which may set the political agenda and have an immediate impact.84 A flexible approach to their work also allows committees to scrutinise a larger number of policy issues.

75. In this chapter we look first at recent developments in the formal functions of the House’s committees. We then highlight some of the different working practices adopted in the last session.

81 The Governance of Britain, Cm. 7170, para 108

82 Modernisation Committee, Second Report of Session 2007-08, Debating departmental objectives and annual reports, HC 530, paras 3, 17

83 Official Report, 14.07.2008, col 5 WS

84 See for example, Business and Enterprise Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 8; Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 31; and Home Affairs Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 50-51

33

Changes to committees

Remits

76. The machinery of government changes in June 2007 led to the creation of four new departmental select committees at the start of the 2007–08 session. Since then, there has been a period of comparative stability in the remit of committees, with one exception: the new Energy and Climate Change Committee. In October 2008, the Prime Minister announced a new Department of Energy and Climate Change, formed from a merger of the Energy Group of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform and the Climate Change Group of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. As a result of the acceptance by the Government of an amendment moved by the Chairman of the EFRA Committee, the setting up of a corresponding select committee was delayed until January 2009, thus allowing the Business and Enterprise Committee and the EFRA Committee to continue their respective inquiries into areas that will now fall to the newly formed Energy and Climate Change Committee. Elsewhere, a further development has been the transfer of official statistics from the Treasury Committee’s remit to the Public Administration Select Committee.85

77. The 2008–09 session has seen the setting up of select committees on the English regions. We discussed this proposal in our last report on the work of committees, citing concerns that

Establishing a group of select committees on the regions, operating in the same way as the existing departmental select committees, could lead to wasteful duplication of effort, confusion over the roles of the different committees and conflicting demands for resources and access to relevant witnesses.86

As finally recommended by the Modernisation Committee and approved by the House as a temporary standing order, the committees have limited terms of reference, but in our view they may still lead to unfortunate overlaps of work.87 Their existence will also exacerbate the membership problems discussed in the next section of our report.

Membership issues

78. The number of select committees, and in particular the number of Members serving on them, has increased since the creation of the departmental committee system in 1979. The Children, Schools and Families Committee goes so far as to say the area has become something of “a growth industry” in recent years. 88 The membership of many committees has risen over 30 years from nine to 11 and now to 14 – not at our request. We estimate that, with the establishment of regional committees, the total number of places on permanent committees of the House has risen from 260 in 1979–80 to 515 in the 2008–09

85 Public Administration Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 30


87 Modernisation Committee, Third Report of Session 2007-08, Regional Accountability, HC 282; Standing Order No 152F (12 November 2008)

88 Children, Schools and Families Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 29

34

session. (See Annex 3 for more details.) This near-doubling of places to be filled can only increase the demands placed on the steady or declining pool of Members who do not hold a ministerial position (paid or otherwise), or who are not front-bench spokesmen for the main Opposition parties, and who are willing to devote time to select committee work. The extent to which the pressure on Members’ time already affects their attendance at select committee meetings can be seen in the figures for the average attendance at committees published in the House’s Sessional Returns. In the 2007–08 session, for instance, only four of the departmental committees achieved an average attendance rate of more than 70% and four had attendance of below 60%.89

79. The increased number of select committee places has made it more difficult to replace Members when they leave committees. The length of time taken to appoint new Members was an issue raised in our report last year, and it remains a concern.90 For example, the International Development Committee stated that “it would greatly assist select committees in carrying out their duties if membership changes were dealt with more speedily”.91 The Transport Committee also noted the time taken to replace a Member.92

80. We welcome the expanding scrutiny role of select committees and the extent of their remit. However, we note the increased burden this places on Members. There is a danger that increased responsibilities, such as pre- and post-legislative work or pre- and post-appointment hearings, and more and larger committees, may result in the perverse outcome of an overall decrease in the quality of scrutiny. The advent of regional committees, with an extra 72 places to fill, will inevitably make further demands on Members’ time. We have discussed our concerns with the Chief Whips of the two main parties and with the Leader of the House. An end to unilateral action to increase committee sizes is required. In its place, there should be consultation between the Whips and committee chairmen with the aim of adjustment downward in the size of some committees no later than the start of the next Parliament.

81. We have already commented (in paragraphs 29-31 above) on the time taken to appoint joint committees on draft bills. There have also been delays in replacing Members on select committees. While we recognise that there are many factors to be taken into account in appointing select committee members, we reiterate the need to speed up the process by which Members are appointed to select committees. Long delays can mean committees are operating below full strength, detracting from their effectiveness and making it more difficult to keep a quorum.

Working with others

Cooperation between committees

82. Policy responsibility is increasingly shared between Whitehall departments, as evidenced, for instance, by shared PSA targets. This shared responsibility is not reflected in

89 Sessional Returns 2007-08, HC 1


91 International Development Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 7

92 Transport Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 5

35

the formal remits of the departmentally-related select committees, which focus solely on the individual department. Accordingly, it is sometimes necessary for committees to work together in order to scrutinise the Government effectively. Joint working routinely takes place on an informal basis at staff level. However, committees also have the power to meet concurrently with any other committee.93 Table 18 below summarises two examples of such coordination in the 2007–08 session.

Table 18: Cooperation between select committees

Committees Joint scrutiny activity

Business and Enterprise; and Culture, Media and Sport

Joint oral evidence session with Ofcom on the regulator’s Annual Plan 2008–09. This was the third such hearing. Ofcom acknowledges that the sessions are “stimulating and useful”.1

Business and Enterprise; Defence; Foreign Affairs; and International Development

The Committees on Arms Export Controls is a concurrent meeting of the four committees. They have worked together since 1999 to examine the Government's expenditure, administration and policy on strategic exports—that is the licensing of arms exports and other controlled goods. 2

(1) Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007–08, para 18

(2) Business and Enterprise, Defence, Foreign Affairs, and International Development Committees, First Joint Report of Session 2007–08, Scrutiny of Arms Export Control (2008): UK Strategic Export Controls Annual Report 2006, Quarterly Reports for 2007, licensing policy and review of export control legislation, HC 254

83. As noted in paragraph 17 above, the European Scrutiny Committee has a formal power to seek an opinion from a select committee on a European document. It used this on two occasions in the last Session.94 We have already referred to the case of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.95 In another instance the European Scrutiny Committee asked the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee for its opinion on a Commission Communication, which advocated joint programming of national research and development programmes. The IUSS Committee responded in the 2008–09 session.96

Relations with government departments

84. As in previous years, committees have reported on their relations with their respective departments. On a day-to-day basis, their experience has generally been positive. For example, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which deals with most Government departments, noted its appreciation of “the depth and quality of letters and memoranda” it receives from departments when it raises human rights issues with them.97 Some committees have noted their gratitude to ministers for their willingness to give oral evidence. For example, Stephen Timms MP, Financial Secretary, and John Healey MP, Minister for Local Government, appeared before the Treasury Sub-Committee to answer

93 Standing Order No. 137A (1) (b)

94 European Scrutiny Committee, Fourth Report of Session 2008-09, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, HC 156, para 2

95 Culture, Media and Sport Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 14

96 European Scrutiny Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 37


36

questions about the revaluation of the ports rates with under 24 hours notice.98 Another example of cooperation is that the Home Office has maintained its practice of providing updates on the action taken in respect of accepted recommendations made by the Home Affairs Committee.99

85. Committees have generally noted the timeliness and high quality of Government responses to committee reports, which are expected to be produced within two months of publication. However, some committees highlighted concerns where responses had been very late:

• The response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ First Report of Session 2006–07 on the Council of Europe Convention on Terrorism was received over 10 months late. The Committee is still waiting for a Response to its Ninth Report of Session 2006–07 on the Meaning of Public Authority under the Human Rights Act, published in March 2007;100

• The response to the Communities and Local Government Committee’s Report Supplementary Business Rate—the Government’s Response was over eight months late;101

• PASC noted that only one response was received within the two-month deadline, and the response to its report on Politics and Administration: Ministers and Civil Servants, the response was 18 months late, with no explanation given for the delay.102

86. Other committees have noted the occasionally poor quality of Government replies. Although the Defence Committee was generally pleased with the timeliness of responses from the Ministry of Defence, it noted that it would like the MoD to engage more fully with both the content of the Committee’s recommendations and the evidence that supports them.103 The Business and Enterprise Committee also reported an instance where the initial Government response to its report, Europe Moves East, did not properly address the issues raised—the Department did not appear to have read the report in full, having ignored all but the conclusions and recommendations. However, in this instance the Department willingly and speedily provided a revised response which addressed the Committee’s criticisms.104 The Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee felt that the Government’s response to its report on Science Budget Allocations was “not constructive”, and that the Secretary of State’s approach to their concerns about the response was “high-handed”.105


99 Home Affairs Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 59.


101 Communities and Local Government Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 37


103 Defence Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 60

104 Business and Enterprise Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 14

105 IUSS Committee, The work of the Committee in 2007-08, paras 47-48

37

87. While committees have generally maintained good working relationships with their respective departments, there remain some concerns over the timeliness and quality of some Government responses. We accept that, on occasions, the two-month deadline for replies may not be achievable. In these instances, departments should provide regular updates to committees on the reason for delay, and the expected date for a response. It should not fall to the committee to chase the department. Equally, Government replies must always seek to engage fully with the committees’ reports and address the evidence on which they are founded. We reiterate the point we made last year, that departments should “look upon parliamentary scrutiny as an important process rather than a necessary evil”.106

Relations with the devolved administrations

88. The three responsible departmental committees have continued to maintain close links with the devolved administrations. Members of the Welsh Affairs Committee conducted a joint evidence session with the Proposed Domiciliary Care Legislative Competence Order (LCO) Committee of the National Assembly for Wales, at which they took evidence from the Deputy Minister for Social Services and officials.107

89. The Scottish Affairs Committee became the first Westminster select committee to take evidence from a Minister of the Scottish Executive following the change of administration in May 2007, as part of its inquiry into poverty.108 Both the Scottish Executive and the UK Government provided responses to the Committee’s inquiries on poverty and on employment and skills in the defence industry.109 The International Development Committee also highlighted its Chairman’s oral evidence before the European and External Relations Committee of the Scottish Parliament as part of its inquiry into international development.110

90. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee held meetings in Belfast with senior figures in the criminal justice and policing fields for its inquiry on this topic. It also took oral evidence from a range of groups representing the interests of victims and survivors, and held a number of private meetings with individuals directly affected by the Troubles. The Committee launched the resulting report at an event hosted by Queens University Belfast in July 2008. In October 2008, for the first time, the Committee took oral evidence from the First Minister of Northern Ireland, Rt Hon Peter Robinson MP MLA.111

91. Other committees also have links with the devolved governments and assemblies. For instance, in April 2008 the Chairman and Clerk of the PAC attended an inaugural meeting


107 Welsh Affairs Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 77

108 Scottish Affairs Committee, First Report of Session 2008-09, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, HC 55, para 5

109 Scottish Affairs Committee, Fourth Special Report, Employment and Skills for the Defence Industry in Scotland: Responses by the Government and Scottish Executive to the Committee's Sixth Report of Session 2007-08, HC 1098, and Second Special Report, Poverty in Scotland and Child Poverty in Scotland: Responses by the Government and the Scottish Executive to the Committee's Second and Third Reports of Session 2007-08, HC 525


111 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 8

38

of UK-Irish PACs in Cardiff, to discuss areas of common interest and exchange best practice.112

Relations with the European Union

92. To keep abreast of European developments that may affect their work, Committees take evidence from EU Commissioners and other officials at Westminster or at EU institutions in the course of study visits, as well as meeting visitors from the EU at Westminster (see paragraphs 100-102 below). In addition, the European Scrutiny Committee holds regular meetings with the House of Lords European Union Committee and with UK MEPs. The Committee notes that these meetings “provide a valuable forum for exchanging information and views as well as enabling MEPs to provide the Commons and Lords committees with early notice of issues”.113

Information gathering

Seminars, conferences and informal meetings

93. While the taking of formal oral evidence provides the backbone of committees’ work, they also use other ways of informally collecting the views of stakeholders to inform their inquiries. The Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee held a ‘horizon-scanning’ event in Westminster, facilitated by the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts (NESTA). Policy issues within the new Committee’s remit were discussed, including innovation, further education, technical training, universities and competitiveness. The Committee found the event “very informative”, highlighting priorities for its future programme.114 The Committee intends to repeat the exercise in 2009. Elsewhere, the Health Committee has a routine practice whereby the Chairman and members hold regular weekly informal meetings with organisations interested in health policy. These meetings have helped feed into subsequent inquiries.115

94. Some committees make it a practice to begin their inquiries by holding informal seminars. The International Development Committee said: “These “teach-ins” […] provide an opportunity for us to discuss key aspects of the inquiry and raise our knowledge base”.116 This approach is also used by the Defence, Home Affairs, Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills and Children, Schools and Families Committees.117 The Home Affairs Committee reported:

“These seminars have enabled us to work with policymakers, experts in the relevant fields and those who have been directly affected by the issues we set out to examine,

112 See Appendix 1

113 European Scrutiny Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 48

114 Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 38

115 Health Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 39


117 Children, Schools and Families Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 20; Defence Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 51; Homes Affairs Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 53; and Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 43

39

to put our inquiries in context, and inform our thinking as we develop our lines of questioning in oral evidence”.118

95. During its inquiry into looked-after children, the Children, Schools and Families Committee held two discussions in the round, without a table—one with foster carers and another with looked-after children. The Committee reported that it “learned a great deal from these detailed discussions about individuals’ experiences, both positive and negative; and […] gained the impression that participants appreciated the opportunity to air their views and to have their voices heard”.119

96. Some committees noted how they had used informal meetings as part of their follow-up to the recommendations of their reports. The Chairman of the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee did this through a series of visits to stakeholder organisations such as the Medical Research Council, continuing a practice started by the Science and Technology Committee.120 The Joint Committee on Human Rights introduced the practice of holding ‘mini-conferences’—short seminars attended by non-governmental organisations, specialist advisers and, where possible, Ministers, with the aim of following up on the Committee’s reports. The Committee held four such mini-conferences in the 2007–08 session, on subjects such as counter-terrorism and healthcare for asylum seekers and trafficking victims.121

97. The various models of informal meetings by select committees reflect a developing trend to enable a better dialogue with stakeholders and experts outside the formality of the committee room.

Visits and visitors

98. Visits, both within the UK and internationally, form a core part of select committees’ informal information-gathering. Committees undertook 86 visits within the UK in the 2007–08 session, 11 to EU institutions and 49 elsewhere.122 They are a chance to see relevant organisations at work and to meet people who can give insights into subjects into which committees are inquiring. For instance, members of the Business and Enterprise Committee conducted visits to Cambridge, Glasgow, Edinburgh and the West Midlands, where they talked to individual entrepreneurs, academics, representatives of the regional development agencies and business people, as part of its inquiry into creating a higher value–added economy.123 A full list of UK visits undertaken by committees in the 2007–08 session is contained in Annex 4 to this Report.

99. Many select committees also hold on-the-record hearings during visits, which can obtain valuable evidence for their inquiries as well as raising public awareness of their work. For instance, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee did so on two

118 Ibid.

119 Children, Schools and Families Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 21



122 Sessional Returns 2007-08, HC 1. Figures exclude visits by Members and staff in a representative capacity.


40

occasions, visiting Lincoln to hear from local people and organisations about the problems caused by flooding; and North Yorkshire to hear from rural businesses on the potential for the rural economy.124 Public oral evidence was taken during 11 committee visits in the UK in the 2007–08 session, and on one overseas visit.

100. Given that many of the policy areas scrutinised by select committees have a European dimension, it makes sense for them to undertake visits to the European Commission and other European Union institutions, either to gain a general overview of policy areas relevant to their work, or as part of a specific inquiry. For example, the Environmental Audit Committee visited the Commission twice in the 2007–08 session, in connection with inquiries into international agreement on climate change and reducing emissions from shipping and avoiding deforestation.125 The Foreign Affairs Committee and the European Scrutiny Committee make visits to those countries that hold the EU presidency, and the FAC also takes the opportunity of visits to other EU states, for example, those which have recently acceded.126 Members of committees also attend meetings with European institutions in a representative capacity. For instance, the Chairmen of the Defence and the International Development Committees attended conferences of committee chairmen of EU parliaments.127

101. Committees’ visits outside the EU also add value to their inquiries. For instance, the Defence Committee underlines the importance to its work of visits to the Armed Forces on operational deployment, and the International Development Committee visited the World Bank in Washington as part of its inquiry into DfID and the World Bank.128 Several committees recorded their appreciation for the assistance provided in their overseas visits by the staff of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its posts abroad, and the UK National Parliament Office in Brussels.129

102. Committees also hold informal meetings at Westminster with visiting delegations from other parliaments within and beyond the EU, sometimes as part of their inquiries, sometimes as part of wider international engagement. For example, the Defence Committee met MPs from the Parliaments of Afghanistan, Germany, Poland, Georgia, France, the Czech Republic, Pakistan and Bosnia-Herzegovina. It also met government ministers from Colombia and Albania.130 The Foreign Affairs Committee publishes an annual list of its informal meetings (92 in the 2007–08 session), most of which are with overseas visitors to Westminster.131

124 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 41

125 Environmental Audit Committee, First Report of Session 2008-09, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, HC 108, para 12

126 Foreign Affairs Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 17; European Scrutiny Committee. The Work of the Committee in 2008, para 5

127 Defence Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 57; International Development Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 55

128 Defence Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 54; International Development Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 13

129 See for example Joint Committee on Human Rights, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 77

130 Defence Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 53

131 Foreign Affairs Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, Annex 3. For more information about the number of visits undertaken by committees, see Sessional Returns, 2007-08, Section 10, Summary table

41

Online forums

103. Last year we noted that select committee online forums can be “a means of accessing information from people who would be hard to reach through the routes traditionally used by committees”.132 We encouraged more committees to consider this approach, and in the 2007–08 session several of them did so. The Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee undertook two online consultations as part of its inquiry into engineering. The first was intended to gather input from employers and the second from young engineers and prospective engineers.133 The Defence and Home Affairs Committees also continued their established practice of using online forums. The Defence Committee did so for its inquiries into medical care for the Armed Forces, and on recruiting and retaining personnel in the Armed Forces. The Committee commented that the process had “extended the scope of our inquiry by allowing us to hear the views of those who might not otherwise have made representations to a select committee”.134

104. The Home Affairs Committee used an online consultation to give victims and survivors of domestic and ‘honour’-based violence and forced marriage, who wished to remain anonymous, the chance to share their experiences. It received more than 240 contributions during the six-week consultation, and was regarded as a particularly successful exercise in obtaining relevant information about the experiences of women who would not normally have become involved in a Parliamentary inquiry. For instance, the charity Women’s Aid noted: “This consultation gave survivors a rare opportunity to speak directly to the Government and to share their experiences and express their needs”.135 The Justice Committee also held an online forum as part of its inquiry into Justice Reinvestment.136

105. Online forums have proved an important means of information-gathering for many committees. They can give a voice to individuals who might otherwise not engage with the work of Parliament. We once again encourage committees to consider this type of information-gathering.

Video conferencing

106. Some committees have made use of video conferencing to take formal oral evidence from key witnesses who cannot easily attend sessions in Westminster. It is common for the International Development Committee to use this practice. For example, it heard from John Ging, the Director of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency operations in Gaza, allowing the Committee to hear a very graphic description of the grave humanitarian situation in the Palestinian Territories, as part of the Committee’s inquiry into this subject. The Committee noted that video conferencing increased the range of its contacts.137 The Business and Enterprise Committee used video conferencing to hear from the European



134 Defence Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 48-49

135 Home Affairs Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 55; www.womensaid.org.uk

136 Justice Committee, http://forums.parliament.uk/prisoncosts/index.php?index,1


42

Commission as part of its inquiry into energy prices and fuel poverty, while the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee did so for an evidence session on geo-engineering.138 Video-conferencing equipment used by select committees is currently being updated to enhance the picture and sound quality of transmissions.139 Video conferencing provides a means of collecting evidence that is both cost-effective and environmentally desirable, since it removes the need for flights by either committee members or witnesses. We recommend that all committees bear in mind this approach when considering how best to gather information.

Petitions

107. Petitions to the House of Commons are now forwarded to the relevant departmental select committee, and committees are encouraged to place them formally on their agendas.140 In the 2007–08 session, select committees received and considered copies of petitions where these fell within their remit. Generally speaking, committees do not receive large numbers of petitions—for instance, the Transport Committee noted that it received 17 petitions, the Work and Pensions Committee eight and the Defence Committee five. The Business and Enterprise Committee, however, received 93 petitions on Post Office matters.141 In most cases committees do not appear to have taken specific action in response to petitions received, although the Business and Enterprise Committee noted that information received in this way can trigger new inquiries, or provoke new lines of questioning within existing inquiries.142 There is a particular issue for the Communities and Local Government Committee, which receives copies of many petitions which are of primarily local interest, on subjects which are within the competence of local, rather than national, government. The Committee has resolved that it will not consider any petition placed on the Committee’s agenda which appears to concern a matter wholly within the responsibility of local government, and informs the originators of the petition accordingly.143

108. The use of petitions would be developed further into a system of e-petitioning if proposals from the Procedure Committee, issued in April 2008, were to be implemented.144 Such a system would be likely to have a greater usage and a higher public profile than current written petitions. However, the House has yet to consider the report. Any impact on the work of committees would depend on the procedures that were approved for putting the committee’s ideas into practice, and the public response that was created.


139 Official Report, 2 March 2009, col 1211W

140 Procedure Committee, First Report of Session 2006-07, Public Petitions and Early Day Motions, HC 513, para 41

141 Business and Enterprise Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 19; Defence Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 58 and Committee’s Formal Minutes; Transport Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 36; and Work and Pensions Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 33.


143 Communities and Local Government Committee, Formal Minutes, 14 July 2008

144 Procedure Committee, First Report of Session 2007-08, e-Petitions, HC 136

43

Sources of advice and assistance

109. In addition to their own staff, committees can draw on other sources of assistance both within and outside the House service. Internal sources of help include the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST), the Committee Office Scrutiny Unit and the House of Commons Library. The main source of external assistance is the National Audit Office.

The National Audit Office

110. The National Audit Office (NAO) continues to play a vital role in supporting the work of committees, as described in Appendix 3. First and foremost is the work it carries out for the Committee of Public Accounts (PAC). In his letter to the Chairman of the Liaison Committee the Chairman of PAC acknowledged that: “it is no exaggeration to say that the Committee would not be able to function without the support of the National Audit Office”.145

111. In addition to its core work for the PAC, the NAO increasingly supports the work of other select committees. We noted last year the piloting of NAO written briefings for three departmental select committees on the Annual Report and Accounts of their respective departments.146 The NAO increased the number of these briefings in the 2007–08 session. The NAO has also contributed to specific committee inquiries. For example, it provided the Public Administration Committee with a paper that fed into its inquiry into good government.147 NAO briefings and reviews also informed a number of inquiries conducted by the Environmental Audit Committee.148 The EFRA Committee asked the NAO to examine financial figures that were in dispute between Defra and British Waterways, and published the NAO’s response on the Internet.149

112. Written and oral briefings have not been the only means by which the NAO has supported the House’s work. In several cases committees have benefited from a secondment of a member of the Office’s staff. The Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) reported that its NAO attachment had been “a source of significant support and invaluable expertise” throughout its inquiry into public services and the third sector.150 Both the Environmental Audit and Treasury Committees have also benefited from the secondment of NAO staff. The Treasury Committee reported that the provision of an NAO accountant for a six-month period had “provided a clear benefit to the Committee in its analysis and scrutiny of the Chancellor’s departmental accounts”.151 In addition, the NAO’s leadership of the second of the five-yearly reviews of resources for select committees has helped the Committee Office implement beneficial changes.

145 Appendix 1



148 Environmental Audit Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 8; see also International Development Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 45

149 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Work of the committee in 2007-08, para 48



44

113. Following an independent review of the governance of the NAO, the Public Accounts Commission brought forward proposals to enhance the NAO’s governance arrangements.152 These have been accepted by the Government. As part of the changes, a new post of Chairman of the NAO has been created and Sir Andrew Likierman has been nominated as the first Chairman.153 The Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts has recently announced the nomination of Amyas Morse for the post of Comptroller and Auditor General, replacing the current office-holder, Tim Burr.154 We wish to express our gratitude for the valuable work of Tim Burr and the National Audit Office (NAO) in supporting select committees. We look forward to working with his successor and the new Chairman of the NAO in the future.

The Scrutiny Unit

114. The Scrutiny Unit is a central resource for the Committee Office. Its main aim is to maintain and enhance the ability of select committees to perform their scrutiny function through the provision of specialist assistance. In particular:

• it supports select committees and others within the House, mainly but not exclusively in the areas of government expenditure, performance reporting and pre-legislative scrutiny

• it provides staff for joint committees of both Houses on draft bills

• it supports the evidence-taking functions of Public Bill Committees.

All the departmental select committees made use of the Unit’s services at some point during the 2007–08 session and Unit staff also carried out tasks in support of the wider work of the House. Almost half of staff time was spent on tasks related to financial and performance scrutiny, but staff also made a significant contribution to the work of Public Bill Committees and joint committees on draft bills, as well as supporting committees with a range of other tasks.155 Several committees have commented on the assistance they have received from the Unit: for instance, the Work and Pensions Committee referred to the Unit’s “invaluable support” on financial scrutiny and the Transport Committee was “most grateful” for the Unit’s assistance on wider inquiry work 156 Once again, we note that the Scrutiny Unit has played an important role in enhancing the analytical capacity of select committees.

Engaging with the public and the media

115. Promoting public understanding and engagement with the work of committees is an important objective of the House of Commons service. Several of the information-gathering activities we have highlighted above, notably UK visits and online forums,

152 Public Accounts Commission, Fifteenth Report, Session 2007-08, HC 402, Corporate Governance of the National

Audit Office: Response to John Tiner's Review

153 Appendix 1

154 Committee of Public Accounts press notice, 16 January 2009

155 Detailed information about the work of the Scrutiny Unit is contained in Appendix 2

156 Appendix 2, para 3

45

provide a means of reaching out to individuals and groups who might otherwise not take an interest in the work of Parliament. Many committees have also taken further action to encourage public engagement with their work. The Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee launched its inquiry into implementing skills and training policies in Leeds, with an evidence session held at the Town Hall.157 The Communities and Local Government Committee launched its inquiry into the balance of power between local and central government at a seminar hosted by the Local Government Association. The Committee also took the unusual step of placing an advertisement in a local government magazine to encourage written submissions.158 The new Outreach Service, based in the House of Commons Department of Information Services, will be able to help publicise the work of Committees away from Westminster, especially among local organisations, as well as providing information about the wider work of Parliament.

116. The creation of the new Outreach Service within the House’s Department of Information Services looks to offer extra support to committees holding meetings outside Westminster, helping to publicise these visits and connect them with local organisations. We welcome this new resource, which we hope can work successfully with the committee teams and media officers.

Media coverage

117. Many committees noted the favourable media coverage their inquiries and subsequent reports had received.159 Wide media reporting of committees’ work helps to set the political agenda. It also enables committees to reach people outside Parliament so that they in turn influence our work. The Business and Enterprise Committee highlighted one such example, where the Chairman received a flood of responses when he raised the issue of direct debit procedures used by energy companies. As a consequence, the Committee raised this concern with the Chief Executive of Ofgem, who undertook to investigate.160

118. Elsewhere, we are pleased to note that it has become common practice for the chairmen of committees to appear on the Radio Four programme You and Yours. For instance, the Chairman of the EFRA Committee took part in several phone-ins on the subject of its inquiries.161 An especially fruitful appearance by a committee chairman on the You and Yours programme was that of the Chairman of the Treasury Committee, shortly before an evidence session with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the banking crisis. He used the opportunity to encourage members of the public to email the Committee with suggested questions for members to be put to the Chancellor at the hearing. As a result of this, and of wider media coverage, the Committee received more than 5,000 individual questions, the vast majority of which came from people who had not hitherto had any direct contact with Parliament. The Committee reported that this it was “exceptionally

157 Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, The Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 41

158 Communities and Local Government Committee, The Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 34

159 See for example, Communities and Local Government Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 36


161 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 43

46

useful for us to be able to ascertain the areas of our inquiry of most concern to the public”.162

119. We encourage committees to continue exploring innovative ways of using the media and information technology to reach out to people outside Whitehall and Westminster.

4 Activity and resources 120. In this section we give an overview of some of the activity indicators for select committees for which data are collected, such as the number of formal meetings and reports published. In addition, for the first time, in the 2007–08 session, committees have recorded the number of informal meetings they have held, such as seminars and meetings with visitors from overseas. We have already noted the Foreign Affairs Committee’s extensive programme of meetings with senior visitors from overseas and British ambassadors.163 As we noted in our previous report, such additional activities can be of great value and in many cases require considerable investment of resources, not least in terms of staff resources and Members' time, as well as adding value to the committees’ work. Publishing information about informal meetings helps give a more rounded impression of committees’ activities during the session, and we are therefore pleased that the Sessional Return now includes it.

121. In the 2007–08 session, there were 1,204 formal select committee meetings, of which 785 (about two-thirds) were public evidence sessions.164 Those departmental select committees which held most formal meetings were: Children, Schools and Families (64), Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (51) and Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills (50). Details for each session since 1997-98 are set out in Table 19 and Figure 1 below.

162 Treasury Committee, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, para 67-68

163 See para 102 above

164 Sessional Returns, 2007-08, Section 10, summary table. Total figures for all committees include meetings of sub-committees.

47

Table 19: Select committee meetings by session, 1997–98 to 2007–08

All meetingsof which

public 1 All meetingsof which



public 1

Number1997-98 959 617 240 81 279 24 1,478 7221998-99 756 478 230 117 168 14 1,154 6091999-00 803 535 191 65 166 16 1,160 6162000-01 339 197 117 51 81 5 537 2532001-02 801 496 292 118 219 15 1,312 6292002-03 798 567 295 132 152 13 1,245 7122003-04 758 561 358 178 146 20 1,262 7592004-05 359 240 153 82 65 5 577 3272005-06 968 590 368 175 164 17 1,500 7822006-07 700 462 285 158 111 12 1,096 6322007-08 832 602 278 172 96 13 1,204 785

Rate per sitting week3

1997-98R 22.3 14.3 5.6 1.9 6.5 0.6 34.4 16.81998-99 21.6 13.7 6.6 3.3 4.8 0.4 33.0 17.41999-00 20.1 13.4 4.8 1.6 4.2 0.4 29.0 15.42000-01 17.8 10.4 6.2 2.7 4.3 0.3 28.3 13.32001-02R 20.0 12.4 7.3 3.0 5.5 0.4 32.8 15.72002-03 21.0 14.9 7.8 3.5 4.0 0.3 32.8 18.72003-04 20.5 15.2 9.7 4.8 3.9 0.5 34.1 20.52004-05 25.6 17.1 10.9 5.9 4.6 0.4 41.2 23.42005-06R 22.0 13.4 8.4 4.0 3.7 0.4 34.1 17.82006-07 20.0 13.2 8.1 4.5 3.2 0.3 31.3 18.12007-08 20.8 15.1 7.0 4.3 2.4 0.3 30.1 19.6

Departmental select committees

Other scrutiny committees2

Domestic/admin committees4

All committees5

Notes: 1 Meetings at which oral evidence was taken wholly in public.

2 Includes Joint Committees and the Environmental Audit, European Scrutiny, Public Accounts, Public Administration, Regulatory Reform and Statutory Instruments Committees.

3 Weeks where the House of Commons sat for at least two days, excluding emergency recalls. 4 The reduction in the number of meetings of Domestic Committees from 2005–06 is due to changes in the

structure and numbers of those Committees following the 2005 General Election. 5 Adjustment has been made to totals for two joint evidence sessions. Totals include meetings of sub-

committees. R—number of weeks revised to take account of time to nominate Select Committees. Source: Sessional Returns: Session 1997–98 to 2007–08

48

Figure 1: Select committee meetings by type, 1997–98 to 2007–08

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

num

ber o

f mee

tings

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Departmental select committees Other scrutiny committees

Domestic/admin committees Total per sitting week (right hand scale)

122. 387 substantive committee reports were published in the 2007–08 session, just under 10 per sitting week—a similar figure to that in the previous session. The departmental select committees that produced the greatest number of reports in the 2007–08 session were: Treasury (17), Defence (14) and Business and Enterprise (13). The Committee of Public Accounts—the scope of whose inquiries is limited to one particular area of expenditure at a time—published 60 reports and held 63 formal meetings.165 Table 20 below gives details about the number of select committee reports published since 1997–98.

165 Sessional Returns, 2007-08, section 10, summary table

49

Table 20: Substantive committee reports published by session, 1997–98 to 2007–08

Departmental select committees

Other scrutiny committees2

Domestic/admin committees

All committees

Number1997-98 112 177 32 3211998-99 134 118 26 2781999-00 134 123 32 2892000-01 122 57 16 1952001-02 119 201 19 3392002-03 161 173 16 3502003-04 152 199 14 3652004-05 129 103 10 2422005-06 129 211 25 3652006-07 145 186 14 3452007-08 166 194 27 387

Rate per sitting week1

1997-98R 2.6 4.1 0.7 7.51998-99 3.8 3.4 0.7 7.91999-00 3.4 3.1 0.8 7.22000-01 6.4 3.0 0.8 10.32001-02R 3.0 5.0 0.5 8.52002-03 4.2 4.6 0.4 9.22003-04 4.1 5.4 0.4 9.92004-05 9.2 7.4 0.7 17.32005-06R 2.9 4.8 0.6 8.32006-07 4.1 5.3 0.4 9.92007-08 4.2 4.9 0.7 9.7

Notes: 1 Weeks where the House of Commons sat for at least two days, excluding emergency recalls.2

R - number of weeks revised to take account of time taken to nominate Select Committees

Source: Sessional Returns: Sessions 1997-98 to 2007-08

Includes Joint Committees and the Environmental Audit, European Scrutiny, Public Accounts, Public Administration, Regulatory Reform, and Statutory Instruments Committees

Costs of select committees

123. Table 21 below gives details of the costs of select committee work, broken down by broad expenditure category. It should be noted that the figures for staff costs relate to financial years, while other costs relate to sessions, which vary in length, thus making direct comparison difficult. There were 196 full-time equivalent staff in the Committee Office in the 2007–08 session, and staff in other directorates also supported select committees in their work. Not surprisingly, staff costs represented the highest proportion of total select committee costs (a little over two-thirds in the 2007/08 financial year). Although total costs for select committees were higher in the 2007–08 session than in the 2006–07 session, it should be noted that the 2007–08 session was five weeks longer. Figure 2 shows the breakdown of select committee costs, including staff costs, along with session length.

50

Table 21: Approximate select committee costs, 1997–98 to 2007–08 £000s

Staff costs1 Select committee expenses2

Printing and publication costs

Total costs Change in costs

Length of session (weeks)

1997/98 .. 2,069 2,616 .. 431998/99 .. 1,778 2,079 .. 351999/00 3,500 2,099 1,905 7,504 402000/01 4,000 846 980 5,826 -1,678 192001/02 4,300 2,279 1,479 8,058 2,232 402002/03 5,200 2,187 1,410 8,797 739 382003/04 6,300 2,757 1,532 10,589 1,792 372004/05 6,800 1,190 1,298 9,289 -1,300 142005/06 7,300 3,032 1,990 12,322 3,033 442006/07 8,800 2,723 1,840 13,362 1,040 352007/08 10,500 2,452 2,025 14,977 1,615 40

Note:

Source: Sessional Returns: Sessions 1997-98 to 2007-08

2Includes visits, specialist advisers' fees, work commissioned, transcription of evidence, witnesses' expenses and entertainment and other minor expenses.

1Financial year. Figures include variable employer costs, including pension contributions which may increase or decrease year on year.

Figure 2: Session length and select committee costs by type, 1999–00 to 2007–08

-

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

Expe

nses

& co

sts (m

illio

ns)

0

50

100

150

200

250number of days in session

Other*Transcription of evidenceOverseas VisitsPrinting costsStaff costslength of session

* "Other" includes specialis t ad visers and expenses , UK vis its , entertainment and o ther mino r expenses , witnesses ' exp enses , wo rk commiss ioned , specialis t pub licat io ns , interp retat ion

Note: staff costs are by financial year

Resources for select committees

124. The main resource of select committees is, of course, their staff teams, typically of six to eight per committee. In addition, as we have noted in Chapter 3, committees are able to draw on the assistance of specialists in the Scrutiny Unit, which serves all the select committees; the House of Commons Library; the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST); and the National Audit Office.166 We take this opportunity of

166 See Appendices 2 and 3 for a description of the Scrutiny Unit’s and NAO’s work for committees.

51

recognising the dedication, expertise and hard work of all those staff who assist select committees, both within and beyond the House service.

125. All these aspects of select committee support were included in the second of the five-yearly reviews of Committee Office resources, led by an NAO Director, which reported in November 2007 and on which we commented in our last report.167 Since that report, Committee Office management have made further progress in taking forward the review’s recommendations. Of particular note is the decision to make the appointment of committee specialists permanent, replacing the previous short-term contracts. In future, specialist staff will continue to be appointed to a particular committee, but on condition that, like other staff of the House, they may, in due course, expect to be circulated to other positions to meet the needs of the House, and also to do some work for committees other than their “parent” committee (as some already do). This reflects the fact that specialists often have expertise relevant to other committees’ inquiries, and that permanent appointment of staff to a specific committee would be too inflexible. The same applies to existing committee specialists. In addition, contacts have been appointed in the Library, the NAO and the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) to liaise on a regular basis with committee staff, so as to increase knowledge of the expertise available across the House service and the ability to call on it.

5 Conclusion 126. This report records the breadth of select committee work during the 2007–08 session, and the variety of ways in which committees have carried out the task of holding the Government to account. The scale and scope of scrutiny has changed enormously in the nearly 30 years since the new structure of departmental committees was put in place, as has their public profile. Committees no longer limit themselves to single lengthy inquiries. They are more fleet of foot than ever before: they are able to respond promptly to external events, while at the same time discharging their responsibilities to the House and to the electorate more effectively and across a much wider canvas.

127. But this level of achievement can only be sustained if committees have access to sufficient resources and a reasonable degree of autonomy in carrying out their work programmes. One of the most significant pressures on committee resources is the availability of Members, who already face many demands on their time. As we have already noted, these demands are only exacerbated by committees being too large, and too many committees being established. Committees’ autonomy is much prized by chairmen and Members. Although we welcome the fact that the Government is seeking to increase Government’s accountability to Parliament through greater involvement of select committees in such areas as pre- and post-appointment hearings, National Policy Statements on planning and post-legislative scrutiny, a proper balance has to be struck to avoid overloading committees with tasks initiated by Ministers. We hope that the Government, in its response to our report, will make clear that it understands the need for this balance to be maintained.

167 The work of committees in 2007, paras 115-116

52

Conclusions and recommendations

Work of the Liaison Committee

1. We are grateful to the Prime Minister for continuing his predecessor’s practice, established in 2002, of appearing before us at least twice a year. We believe that these sessions, which give Members the chance to question the Prime Minister more extensively than at the weekly Prime Minister’s question time, and in a less partisan atmosphere, represent a valuable addition to the House’s in-depth scrutiny of the Government (Paragraph 8)

Scrutiny of draft bills

2. However, we intend to review the frequency and format of these sessions before the beginning of the next Parliament, in the light of our experience over the last seven years. (Paragraph 8)

3. We welcome the increase in the number of Government bills published in draft, although we agree that the number of bills published is not the only measure of success (Paragraph 21)

4. If the Government is serious about consulting the House, there needs to be a more transparent and better-organised process for deciding upon arrangements for pre-legislative scrutiny than has been the case in the past. We therefore welcome the Leader of the House’s commitment to us to engage in genuine consultation about the programme of pre-legislative scrutiny. We hope to work with her and her fellow ministers during the current session to make the new system work as effectively as possible. We expect Ministers to take full account of our response in taking forward plans for pre-legislative scrutiny of draft bills. (Paragraph 28)

5. We welcome the fact that draft bills were published earlier in the 2007–08 session than has sometimes been the case in the past. It is however regrettable that, having succeeded in this aim, the process of appointing joint committees to examine them was held up in the ‘usual channels’. It should have been possible for committees to meet as soon as the bills were published, or even beforehand. Pre-legislative scrutiny, if it is not to be rushed, takes a good twelve weeks. Anything short of this will either place unreasonable demands on Members, Peers and staff, or compromise the depth of the joint committee’s consideration (Paragraph 31)

Scrutiny of National Policy Statements on planning issues

6. We look forward to the publication of standing orders providing for Parliamentary scrutiny of draft National Policy Statements made under the Planning Act and expect them to take into account the concerns raised by committee chairmen in their discussions and correspondence. We welcome the constructive dialogue on this issue between Ministers and the committees concerned, and Ministers’ readiness to take on board comments from committee chairmen. We also believe that this is a good example of the way in which the Liaison Committee can ensure that other

53

committees and the House as a whole are kept aware of discussions between individual chairmen and the Government, and provide an additional formal channel of communication (Paragraph 36)

The Government’s Draft Legislative Programme

7. We welcome the fact that the Draft Legislative Programme was published significantly earlier in the 2007–08 session than in the 2006–07 session, as this assists committees in planning their forward work programmes. (Paragraph 39)

Scrutiny of Government expenditure

8. We welcome the fact that in the 2007–08 session, for the first time all the departmental select committees took oral evidence on their departments’ Departmental Annual Reports. (Paragraph 44)

9. We welcome the general improvement in the quality of the explanatory memoranda about Estimates provided by Government departments to departmental select committees (Paragraph 48)

10. we continue to support the broad aims and principles of the Treasury’s Alignment Project. These can only fully achieve the intended improvement in financial reporting and scrutiny if they are part of a process for consideration of Estimates in the House of Commons which allows the House, informed by its committees, to understand the information submitted in a timely way, enabling appropriate consideration on the floor of the House. We look forward to the more detailed memorandum promised by the Government, and to continuing our engagement with Treasury Ministers on this vital issue (Paragraph 52)

Pre-appointment hearings

11. Although we are not in full agreement with the Government over the list of posts available for pre-appointment hearings by committees, we are pleased to have reached agreement on the broad principles, and believe this new system represents a significant improvement in the accountability of public officials. We will keep the operation of the new arrangements under review, but already a workable process seems to have developed successfully, testing, on behalf of Parliament and the public, the approach of a candidate to his or her new duties (Paragraph 62)

Post-legislative scrutiny

12. We believe that the Government’s proposals for post-legislative scrutiny have the potential to make a valuable difference to the scrutiny of legislation. But this will depend on both parties being able to play a full part in the process: departments must publish timely memoranda about the Acts concerned, and select committees will need to make a careful assessment of the value of a full follow-up exercise. Not every memorandum is likely to justify a full-scale inquiry by a committee, which would put extra pressure on work programmes, and could be particularly disruptive to

54

committees shadowing departments with a regularly large legislative programme (Paragraph 69)

Debates on departmental objectives and plans

13. We believe that the Government’s proposals for more systematic debates on Departments’ objectives and plans could provide a good opportunity for the House to make use of select committee scrutiny of those objectives. We look forward to cooperating with the Government to try and ensure that, wherever possible, debates on departmental objectives and plans take into account relevant inquiries and reports by committees (Paragraph 73)

Membership issues

14. We welcome the expanding scrutiny role of select committees and the extent of their remit. However, we note the increased burden this places on Members. There is a danger that increased responsibilities, such as pre- and post-legislative work or pre- and post-appointment hearings, and more and larger committees, may result in the perverse outcome of an overall decrease in the quality of scrutiny. The advent of regional committees, with an extra 72 places to fill, will inevitably make further demands on Members’ time. We have discussed our concerns with the Chief Whips of the two main parties and with the Leader of the House. An end to unilateral action to increase committee sizes is required. In its place, there should be consultation between the Whips and committee chairmen with the aim of adjustment downward in the size of some committees no later than the start of the next Parliament. (Paragraph 80)

15. We have already commented (in paragraphs 29-31 above) on the time taken to appoint joint committees on draft bills. There have also been delays in replacing Members on select committees. While we recognise that there are many factors to be taken into account in appointing select committee members, we reiterate the need to speed up the process by which Members are appointed to select committees. Long delays can mean committees are operating below full strength, detracting from their effectiveness and making it more difficult to keep a quorum. (Paragraph 81)

Relations with Government departments

16. While committees have generally maintained good working relationships with their respective departments, there remain some concerns over the timeliness and quality of some Government responses. We accept that, on occasions, the two-month deadline for replies may not be achievable. In these instances, departments should provide regular updates to committees on the reason for delay, and the expected date for a response. It should not fall to the committee to chase the department. Equally, Government replies must always seek to engage fully with the committees’ reports and address the evidence on which they are founded. We reiterate the point we made last year, that departments should “look upon parliamentary scrutiny as an important process rather than a necessary evil”. (Paragraph 87)

55

Information gathering

17. The various models of informal meetings by select committees reflect a developing trend to enable a better dialogue with stakeholders and experts outside the formality of the committee room (Paragraph 97)

18. Online forums have proved an important means of information-gathering for many committees. They can give a voice to individuals who might otherwise not engage with the work of Parliament. We once again encourage committees to consider this type of information-gathering. (Paragraph 105)

19. Video conferencing provides a means of collecting evidence that is both cost-effective and environmentally desirable, since it removes the need for flights by either committee members or witnesses. We recommend that all committees bear in mind this approach when considering how best to gather information. (Paragraph 106)

Sources of advice and assistance

20. We wish to express our gratitude for the valuable work of Tim Burr and the National Audit Office (NAO) in supporting select committees. We look forward to working with his successor and the new Chairman of the NAO in the future. (Paragraph 113)

21. Once again, we note that the Scrutiny Unit has played an important role in enhancing the analytical capacity of select committees (Paragraph 115)

Engaging with the public and the media

22. The creation of the new Outreach Service within the House’s Department of Information Services looks to offer extra support to committees holding meetings outside Westminster, helping to publicise these visits and connect them with local organisations. We welcome this new resource, which we hope can work successfully with the committee teams and media officers (Paragraph 116)

23. We encourage committees to continue exploring innovative ways of using the media and information technology to reach out to people outside Whitehall and Westminster. (Paragraph 119)

Committee staff

24. We take this opportunity of recognising the dedication, expertise and hard work of all those staff who assist select committees, both within and beyond the House service (Paragraph 124)

Conclusion

25. One of the most significant pressures on committee resources is the availability of Members, who already face many demands on their time. As we have already noted, these demands are only exacerbated by committees being too large, and too many committees being established. Committees’ autonomy is much prized by chairmen and Members. Although we welcome the fact that the Government is seeking to

56

increase Government’s accountability to Parliament through greater involvement of select committees in such areas as pre- and post-appointment hearings, National Policy Statements on planning and post-legislative scrutiny, a proper balance has to be struck to avoid overloading committees with tasks initiated by Ministers. We hope that the Government, in its response to our report, will make clear that it understands the need for this balance to be maintained (Paragraph 127)

57

Annex 1: List of Sessional Reports of Select Committees for 2007–08

Committee Report Reference

Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform

Third Report, Work of the Committee in 2007–08, HC 175


First Report, Work of the Committee in 2007–08, HC 102

Culture, Media and Sport Second Report, Work of the Committee 2007–08, HC 188

Children, Schools and Families Second Report, The Work of the Committee in 2007–08, HC 47

Defence Second Report, The work of the committee 2007–08, HC 106

Environmental Audit Second Report, Work of the Committee in 2007–08, HC 108


Second Report, The work of the Committee in 2007–08, HC 95

European Scrutiny Fourth Report, The Work of the Committee in 2008, HC 156

Foreign Affairs First Report, The work of the Committee in 2007–08, HC 113

Health Second Report, Work of the Committee 2007–08, HC 193

Home Affairs Third Report, The work of the Committee in 2007–08, HC 76

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Second Report, The Work of the Committee in 2007–08, HC 92

International Development First Report, Work of the Committee in Session 2007–08, HC 138


Second Report, The work of the Committee in 2007–08, HC 49

Justice Fourth Report, The work of the Committee in 2007–08 HC 321

Northern Ireland Affairs First Report, Work of the Committee in Session 2007–08, HC 74

Public Accounts Letter from the Chairman (Appendix 1)

Public Administration Fourth Report, Work of the Committee in 2007–08, HC 42

Scottish Affairs First Report, Work of the Committee in Session 2007–08, HC 55

Transport First Report, Work of the Committee in 2007–08, HC 211

Treasury Third Report, Work of the Committee, 2007–08, HC 173

Welsh Affairs Fourth Report, The work of the Committee Session 2007–08, HC 252

Work and Pensions First Report, Work of the Committee in 2007–08, HC 68

All HC numbers are of Session 2008–09

58

Annex 2: Letter from the Chairman to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury

Treasury Alignment Project: High Level Memorandum

Your letter of 11 November 2008 attached a copy of an initial Memorandum to this and other parliamentary Committees on the Alignment Project, and sought an indication of the Committees’ endorsement of the broad approach and underlying principles to inform future work.

The Liaison Committee report Parliament and Government Finance: Recreating Financial Scrutiny made clear the Committee’s support for reducing the current complexity of the existing financial system. It commended the Alignment Project to the House, while noting that the Project was at that point at an early stage and that much would depend on the details. The November Memorandum has provided significantly more detail, though the Committee notes that work continues and that a fuller memorandum is in preparation for submission in the New Year.

The Committee has given preliminary consideration to the proposals in the November Memorandum, through its Working Group on Financial Scrutiny. We continue to support the broad aims and principles of the project and recognise its potential importance in enabling better scrutiny of Government finance. In particular, we see value in the basic principle of aligning the Estimates approved by Parliament so far as possible with the internal Government (Treasury) controls over departmental spending. Not only should this enable easier read-across between the figures contained in different documents, but it should also reflect better the role of Parliament in providing authority for expenditure by the Executive.

But at the same time, the proposals can only fully achieve the intended improvement in financial reporting and scrutiny if they are part of a process for consideration of Estimates in the House of Commons which allows the House, informed by its committees, to understand the information submitted in a timely way, enabling appropriate consideration on the floor of the House. This Committee’s approach to the fuller proposals in the further Memorandum will therefore be informed by the principles set out in its earlier Report, including those in paragraphs 48-50 on the information needed by Parliament and paragraph 62 (and other paragraphs in Chapter 5 of the Report) on the consideration of expenditure by the House.

Parliament as whole will need to take a view on the specific proposals during the first half of 2009, when the full details in the detailed memorandum are provided.

In the meantime, there are clearly some areas where we believe careful consideration of specific issues1 will be required. These include:

1 On the Estimates themselves, we note that in addition to the decisions of principle to be taken as to the control

totals to be included, there may be scope for continuing work on improved layout and presentational issues to help with use of the documents

59

• Non-Departmental Public Bodies, where Parliament will need clarity as to the respective responsibilities of Accounting Officers and the respective expenditure items to which those responsibilities relate; and to be satisfied that there is no reduction in the independent position of those bodies;

• Income, where Parliament will need to be satisfied that the proposed changes

provide sufficient safeguards governing the use of departments’ income to support their expenditure;

• The parliamentary timetable, publications and the voting of Estimates, where Parliament will need to be assured that the plans are workable, do not lead to any genuine loss of information, and enable better scrutiny. While there are clearly benefits in bringing the Departmental Annual Report together with the Accounts, and possibly the Main Estimates, too, the proposals raise serious questions about the timing of the various documents at the beginning of the financial year: the House may expect a clear separate published budget document, published early in the financial year (or, even better, before the beginning of the year);

• Voting of DEL and AME limits, as recommended by the Treasury Committee in June 2007 (The Comprehensive Spending Review: prospects and processes), where Parliament will need to be able to:

o understand and control what types of expenditure are covered by those limits; and

o agree reductions, as well as increases, to the totals (since these limits can currently be reduced within the year, unlike Estimates).

• Consequences for the Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Acts and timetable,

which may involve changes to Standing Orders No 54 and 55 (which could link in to any changes to procedures for consideration of Estimates more generally)

In all of this, we must seek a system which will not only simplify government finances but one which also enables the development of improved financial scrutiny by Parliament, as recommended in the recent Liaison Committee report. It would be helpful if the fuller Memorandum could give a clear indication of how the total number of control totals for Parliament will alter under the proposals.2

We look forward to the more detailed Parliamentary memorandum which is expected early next year, following the external consultation process currently under way.

ALAN WILLIAMS 15 December 2008

2 There will be, under the new system, 5 control totals per Estimate (Resource and Capital DEL and AME + cash),

compared to 3 such totals (net resource and appropriations in aid + cash) for a larger number of RfRs under the present system.

60

Annex 3: Places on select committees, 1979–80 to 2008–09

Committees in 1979-80 Number

of Members Committees in 2008-09 Numberof Members

Departmental Committees Departmental CommitteesAgriculture 9 Business and Enterprise 11Defence 11 Children, Schools and Families 14Education, Science and Arts 9 Communities and Local Government 11Employment 9 Culture, Media and Sport 11Energy 11 Defence 14Environment 11 Energy and Climate Change 14Foreign Affairs 11 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 14Home Affairs 11 Foreign Affairs 14Industry and Trade 11 Health 11Scottish Affairs 13 Home Affairs 14Social Services 9 Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills 14Transport 11 International Development 11Treasury and Civil Service 11 Justice 14Welsh Affairs 11 Northern Ireland Affairs 13

Scottish Affairs 11Transport 11Treasury 14Welsh Affairs 11Work and Pensions 11

Departmental Committees total 148 238

Other Scrutiny Committees Other Scrutiny CommitteesConsolidation (joint) 12 Consolidation (joint) 12European Legislation 16 Environmental Audit 16Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration 8 European Scrutiny 16Public Accounts 14 Human Rights (joint) 6Statutory Instruments (joint) 7 Members Estimate 6

Public Accounts 16Public Administration 11Regional Committees* 72Regulatory Reform 14Speaker's Conference 18Statutory Instruments 6Tax Law Rewrite (joint) 7

Other Scrutiny Committees total 57 200

Other Committees Other CommitteesHouse of Commons (Services) 19 Administration 16Members' Interests 13 Finance and Services 11Privileges 17 Members' Allowances 8Sound Broadcasting (joint) 6 Modernisation 15

Procedure 17Standards and Privileges 10

Other Committtees total 55 77

Statutory Committees Statutory CommitteesEcclesiastical 15 Intelligence & Security** 8

Ecclesiastical 15Public Accounts Commission 9Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission 9

Statutory Committees total 15 41

Total 275 556

Committees not included: Selection (9) and Standing Orders (8) *Eight committees of nine Members each**Total is nine but includes one PeerCommittees not included: Committees on Arm Exports Control (16), Selection (9), Liaison (32) and Standing Orders (11)

61

Annex 4: UK visits by select committees, session 2007–08

The table below shows the number of visits made in the UK by select committees in the 2007–08 session. Visits by a sub-committee are included in the entry for the relevant select committee. The table does not include visits made in a representative capacity by committee members or staff. In total, 21 select committees made visits within the UK. The most UK visits were made by the Home Affairs Committees (10). The least UK visits were made by the Health, Transport and Treasury Committees (one each). The total number of visits made by select committees in the UK in the 2007–08 session was 86.

Source: Sessional Return 2007–08, HC 1 Date Destination Purpose


9.1.08 Olympic site, East London Inquiry into the UK Construction industry

29.4.08 Judge Business School, Cambridge Inquiry into Creating a Higher Value-Added Economy

12-13.5.08 West Midlands Inquiry into Creating a Higher Value-Added Economy

5.6.08 British Library Inquiry into Creating a Higher Value Added Economy

12-13.6.08 Scotland Inquiry into Creating a Higher Value Added Economy

17.7.08 Farnborough Farnborough Air Show

30.10.08 One NorthEast, Newcastle Inquiry into the role of RDAs


19.5.08 NCH Phoenix Project, Merton Inquiry into Looked-after Children

3.7.08 The Michael Tippett School, Lambeth Inquiry into Sustainable Schools and Building Schools for the Future

21.7.08 Hampshire County Council Inquiry into Looked-after Children

Committees on Arms Export Controls

24.4.08 Port of Southampton: HM Revenue and Customs and the Customs Prosecution Office

Arms Export Controls


29.1.08 Peterborough Inquiry into Community Cohesion and Migration

62

3-4.3.08 Burnley Inquiry into Community Cohesion and Migration

1.4.08 London Borough of Barking and Dagenham

Inquiry into Community Cohesion and Migration


29.11.07 Olympic Park, London Inquiry into London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games

12-13.3.08 Torquay Inquiry into Tourism

25.3.08 Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, Pimlico

Inquiry into harmful content on the Internet and in video games

22-24.8.08 Edinburgh: International Television Festival

Several broadcasting-related inquiries

Defence

29.4.08 Armed Forces Careers Information Office, Holborn, London

Inquiry into Recruiting and retaining Armed Forces personnel

14-15.5.08 AgustaWestland, Yeovil, Somerset Familiarisation visit

19.5.08 HMS Raleigh, Torpoint, Cornwall Inquiry into Recruiting and retaining Armed Forces personnel

19.5.08 Army Training Regiment Bassingbourn, Cambridgeshire

Inquiry into Recruiting and retaining Armed Forces personnel

14.7.08 Farnborough Air Show Familiarisation visit

1-2.10.08 Defence Equipment & Support, Abbey Wood and Porton Down, Salisbury

Familiarisation visit

15-16.10.08 Defence Academy, Shrivenham Seminar on working practices

Environmental Audit

14.5.08 Centre for Alternative Technology, Wales

Tour of Centre for Alternative Technology

21.5.08 Barking Riverside Inquiries into Greener Homes for the Future and Halting Biodiversity Loss


27.11.07 Veterinary Laboratories Agency, Weybridge

Inquiry into badgers and cattle TB

29-30.1.08 Lincoln Inquiry into flooding

2-3.7.08 North Yorkshire Inquiry into the potential of England's rural economy

8.10.08 Beddington Farmlands waste management site, Croydon

Inquiry into the Waste Strategy for England 2007

Foreign Affairs

63

24.6.08 FCO, Hanslope Park, Milton Keynes Inquiry into FCO Annual Report 2007–08

8.7.08 BBC Arabic Service, London Inquiry into FCO Annual Report 2007–08

Health

18.6.08 Glasgow Inquiry into Health Inequalities

Home Affairs

22.11.07 Thames House - MI5 briefing Inquiry into ‘The Government's Counter-Terrorism Proposals’

28.1.08 Croydon Inquiry into Domestic Violence

4.2.08 Wolverhampton Inquiry into Domestic Violence

25.2.08 Newark Inquiry into Policing in the 21st Century

3.3.08 Colchester Inquiry into Domestic Violence

24.4.08 Reading Inquiry into Policing in the 21st Century

15-16.6.08 Monmouth Inquiry into Policing in the 21st Century

23.6.08 North Kensington Inquiry into Managing Migration: Points-based System

7.7.08 Stockport and Manchester Inquiry into Policing in the 21st Century

17.11.08 Stockwell Knife Crime Seminar

Joint Committee on Human Rights

10.3.08 Edinburgh Inquiry into UK Bill of Rights

26-27.10.08 Belfast Inquiry into Policing and Protest


31.1.08 Rutherford Appleton Laboratory Inquiry into Science Budget Allocations

18.2.08 Daresbury Laboratory Inquiry into Science Budget Allocations

15.7.08 Sizewell B, Leiston, Suffolk Inquiry into Nuclear Engineering

28.2.08 Pirbright Inquiry into Biosecurity in UK Research Laboratories

20.3.08 Porton Down Inquiry into Biosecurity in UK Research Laboratories

14.5.08 Leeds Inquiry into After Leitch: Implementing Skills and Training Policies

International Development

15.1.08 Overseas Development Institute General Briefing

29.1.08 DFID Offices, London General Briefing

64

Justice

25-26.2.08 Edinburgh Inquiry into Devolution: A Decade On

12-13.3.08 Newcastle Inquiries into Devolution: A Decade On and Justice Reinvestment

8-9.5.08 National Assembly for Wales, Cardiff and HMP & YOI Parc, Bridgend

Inquiries into Devolution: A Decade On and Justice Reinvestment

Northern Ireland Affairs

14.11.07 Belmarsh Prison Inquiry into Northern Ireland Prison Service

15-17.1.08 Belfast Inquiry into Political Developments in Northern Ireland

17-19.3.08 Belfast Inquiry into Policing and Criminal Justice in Northern Ireland: The Cost of Policing the Past

12-14.5.08 Belfast Inquiry into Policing and Criminal Justice in Northern Ireland: The Cost of Policing the Past

6.7.08 Belfast Inquiry into Policing and Criminal Justice in Northern Ireland: The Cost of Policing the Past

27-28.10.08 Belfast, Omagh, Newry and Crossmaglen Inquiry into Political Developments in Northern Ireland

Public Accounts

12.12.07 Leeds Inquiry into Improving corporate functions using shared services

29.1.08 Aldershot Inquiry into Leaving the Services

26.2.08 Homerton Hospital Neonatal Services

18.3.08 Olympic Park, Stratford, London In connection with the Committee's inquiries

4.11.08 London Fire Brigade HQ, SE1 Fact-finding

Scottish Affairs

26.11.07 Edinburgh Inquiry into Poverty in Scotland

17.12.07 Glasgow Inquiry into Poverty in Scotland

4.2.08 Edinburgh Inquiry into Child Poverty in Scotland

31.3-1.4.08 Glasgow Inquiry into Employment and Skills for the Defence Industry in Scotland

23.6.08 Glasgow Inquiry into Employment and Skills for the Defence Industry in Scotland

65

14.7.08 Grangemouth The Petrochemicals Business in Grangemouth

20.10.08 Lanarkshire Inquiry into Credit Unions in Scotland

Transport

13.5.08 London Heathrow Airport, Terminal 5 Inquiry into The opening of Heathrow Terminal 5

Treasury

15.5.08 Bank of England Inquiry into Financial Stability and Transparency

Welsh Affairs

3-4.12.07 Ceredigion Inquiry into Globalisation and its impact on Wales

17.1.08 Cardiff Draft Legislative Orders in Council

30-31.3.08 Liverpool Inquiry into The provision of cross-border public services for Wales

Work and Pensions

29.11.07 Cardiff Inquiry into The best start in life? Alleviating deprivation, improving social mobility, and eradicating child poverty

18.2.08 Health and Safety Laboratory, Buxton Inquiry into the role of the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive in regulating workplace health and safety

26.2.08 Olympic Site, Stratford Inquiry into the role of the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive in regulating workplace health and safety

5.6.08 The Carers' Resource, Harrogate Inquiry into Valuing and Supporting Carers

12.11.08 Jobcentre Plus, Kennington Park, London

Inquiry into the DWP's commissioning strategy and the employment programme market

17.11.08 Remploy, Euston Road, London Inquiry into the DWP' commissioning strategy and the employment programme market

66

Formal Minutes

Thursday 5 March 2009

Members present:

Mr Alan Williams, in the Chair

Sir Alan Beith Michael Connarty Sir Patrick Cormack Mr Andrew Dismore Mrs Louise Ellman Dr Hywel Francis Mr Michael Jack Mr Edward Leigh

John McFall Andrew Miller Mr Barry Sheerman Mr Don Touhig Mr John Whittingdale Mr Phil Willis Sir George Young

Draft Report (The work of committees in 2007-08), proposed by the Chairman, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the Chairman’s draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 127 read and agreed to.

Annexes 1 to 4 and Summary agreed to.

Several Papers were appended to the Report as Appendices 1 to 3.

Resolved, That the Report be the First Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chairman make the Report to the House.

[Adjourned till Thursday 26 March at 9.30 am

67

Appendix 1: Letter from the Chairman of the Committee of Public Accounts

WORK OF THE COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS IN 2007–08

Because of the nature of its work, the Committee of Public Accounts does not agree an Annual Report on the lines of those agreed by Departmental Select Committees, highlighting their work on the Core Tasks. Members of the Committee—together with other Members of the House—have instead been able to consider the work of the Committee in biannual debates in the Chamber, the last of which took place on 23 October this year. You will remember that I nonetheless wrote to you in January to outline some main themes of the work of the Committee of Public Accounts in 2007, so as to make a more formal contribution to the Liaison Committee’s Annual Report for last year. I am repeating this innovation for the Liaison Committee’s Sessional Report for 2007–08, and I attach my Committee’s Sessional return for 2007–08.

In the current economic climate, the constraints on Departments are tighter than ever. The efficient delivery of public services—and hence the work of the Committee—remains at the heart of political debate. Taxpayers facing difficult times have no more to give; citizens in need will rely on public services to help them through; and a government reliant on borrowing can afford no costly public expenditure failures. The duty of all public servants is clear, vital and personal: it is to stretch every pound and to squander none.

The Committee's reports offer prescriptions from which public servants can learn. Four themes with a wider resonance arise from the Committee’s work in the last Session. The needs of vulnerable consumers should be central to public services. Sound financial management is essential. So is reducing internal costs. And, perhaps most pertinent of all, understanding risk is critical if projects are to end up on the right side of the dividing line between successful delivery and disaster.

Vulnerable consumers

Recent reports have shown both light and shadow in how vulnerable consumers are treated by their public services. There is a clear need for the government to design services around the needs of citizens, not the convenience of those who deliver them.

One report examined the compensation schemes for former miners suffering from work-related lung disease and hand injuries.1 The early stages of the implementation of the two schemes were seriously mismanaged. Many of those claiming were elderly and ill and in no position to wait—as some did—ten years or more for compensation. Some claimants died while waiting. I welcome the fact that money has now come through to many, but the schemes’ failings offer a clear example of the consequences in human suffering of poor planning. The taxpayer has also taken a big hit. The cost of just administering the schemes is expected to total nearly £2.3 billion, not least because the Department's negotiation of solicitors’ fees was weak.

1 Committee of Public Accounts, Twelfth Report of Session 2007-08, Coal Health Compensation Schemes, HC 305

68

Our work also illuminates neglected or unfashionable areas. In the past we have raised the profile of hospital acquired infection and stroke care. This year, our report on dementia tackled one of the last great taboo subjects.2 Affecting over half a million people in England and costing some £14 billion a year, the number of cases is predicted to soar by more than 30 per cent over the next 15 years. Yet dementia remains relatively neglected by health and social care services. If the NHS is to discharge its duty of care for the vulnerable and those without a voice, awareness is key. Too often both public and professionals believe that little can be done to help sufferers. Many GPs lack the knowledge to make a formal diagnosis of dementia. Often a diagnosis is not early enough nor is the specialist care available. As a result, carers—usually family members—bear a heavy burden and play a vital role, in the process saving the taxpayer millions of pounds by caring for relatives with dementia at home. They need and deserve better support. Dementia must be given the same priority accorded to cancer and coronary heart disease and, like those conditions, be given a single leader within the Department of Health with the power to drive through the improvements in diagnosis, treatment and care.

Among the most vulnerable of all are babies born prematurely or with an illness or condition which requires specialist care. When the Committee looked at neonatal services, we found that while important steps had been taken, there were still significant geographical variations in mortality rates, as well as wide variations and mismatches in costs and charges.3 There are also serious shortages of qualified nurses and not enough specialised transport.

Financial management

Departments need to display strong financial management if they are to cope with changing economic conditions and deliver cost-effective public services. They need the requisite finance skills and commercial acumen, they need the right information, and they need leaders who emphasise that money matters.4

I welcome the increasing priority being given to professional finance skills. All but two major government departments now have a professionally qualified finance director. These appointments have brought new focus to financial management within departments.

But individuals cannot do it alone. Many Permanent Secretaries are the Accounting Officers who sit before us, yet there is not a financial qualification to be had between them, nor are they automatically held to account within the civil service for their management of resources. It cannot therefore be a surprise that there is so much more to be done to embed a culture in their departments that money matters.

There remains a worrying lack of financial skills and awareness amongst non-finance staff. Budgetary control is hampered by an inaccurate forecasting, and the quality of financial

2 Committee of Public Accounts, Sixth Report of Session 2007-08, Department of Health: Improving Services and

Support for People with Dementia, HC 228

3 Committee of Public Accounts, Twenty-sixth Report of Session 2007-08, Caring for Vulnerable Babies: The reorganisation of neonatal services in England, HC 390

4 Committee of Public Accounts, Forty-third Report of Session 2007-08, Managing financial resources to deliver better public services, HC 519

69

information needs significant improvement. If Departments cannot understand the cost of a service, the public can have little confidence that the service itself offers value for money.

To support better financial management, the National Audit Office has embarked on a series of reports looking in turn at the financial management of each department.

At DEFRA, for the past two years they have budgeted to spend more than their Treasury funding limits.5 As the risk of overspending became clear, they had to make cuts. But here too there are things to welcome: DEFRA has now established more rigorous financial systems and this year's accounts were delivered much earlier.

Our system of public financial management relies on transparency and clear oversight. Unfortunately, the Ministry of Defence tried to persuade us that the forecast costs of major defence equipment projects were under control by moving some one billion pounds to other defence budgets.6 Anyone with a passing familiarity with recent events understands that masking true costs is both wrong and dangerous. I hope this approach was unconnected to the fact that—despite initiative after initiative—lasting improvements in the delivery of vital equipment to our service men and women have yet to be achieved. Such 'creative reporting' is the enemy of sound financial management, and I do not expect to see it repeated.

The Committee was also critical of aspects of the Ministry of Defence's privatisation of QinetiQ.7 We recognised that the privatisation successfully protected the viability of this strategically important business. But although the MoD ran the 2006 flotation well, the NAO estimated that an extra ninety million pounds could have been raised from the initial 2003 privatisation. Despite the Department's protestations, it is clear that the sale went ahead at the worst possible time and that the MoD weakened competition by eliminating bidders at too early a stage.

We were strong too in our condemnation of the conflicts of interest affecting Qinetiq's senior management which the MoD failed to manage during the sale process. Public servants should not be negotiating their own incentive schemes with a preferred bidder. The result of the privatisation was a clear disparity in rewards which the Committee found scarcely credible: while the taxpayer received nine pounds for every pound invested, QinetiQ's senior management received a quite extraordinary 200 pounds.

Reducing internal costs

Every additional pound that can be devoted to the front line and does not have to come from increased taxes or raised borrowing should be considered precious. A year ago the Government accompanied ambitious new efficiency targets with plans to sell 30 billion pounds of surplus assets by 2010–11.

5 Committee of Public Accounts, Fortieth Report of Session 2007-08, Department of Environment, Food and Rural

Affairs, HC 447

6 Committee of Public Accounts, Thirty-third Report of Session 2007-08, Ministry of Defence: Major Projects report 2007, HC 433

7 Committee of Public Accounts, Twenty-fourth Report of Session 2007-08, The privatisation of QinetiQ, HC 151

70

The Committee has had to express scepticism over claimed efficiency gains in the past, so I welcome the news that the NAO will audit these savings on a department-by-department basis. However, setting savings targets is easier than delivering results. Accounting officers should be cutting waste, reducing complexity and seeking economies in some obvious areas.

Property should be an immediate target. This is elementary stuff. Government is almost 40% worse than the private sector benchmark for using office space, with a potential saving of over 320 million pounds a year.8 I am pleased that the Office of Government Commerce aims to seek savings of a billion a year but they will need to perform better against the two key milestones already missed.

Another unrealised area for savings is using shared services. The Committee had strong doubts about the information on which the Cabinet Office’s target of £1.4 billion savings is based.9 Indeed Members heard that the Cabinet Office had actually lost the calculations and underlying data involved in its estimate!10

One often wonders if there is enough focus on making economies. In our report on prescription drugs we found that the NHS could save more than £200 million a year, without affecting patient care, by GPs prescribing lower cost but equally effective medicines.11 And a further £100 million a year could be saved by reducing the amount of unused and wasted drugs. To give the NHS due credit, these are paths it has already begun to tread, but there is still a long walk ahead. Certainly, there is scope for the NHS to take a more rigorous approach in other areas. Pay increases for GPs of up to 56% have been accompanied by a 2.5% decrease in productivity plus £1.7 billion extra costs.12 Those who work in the NHS deserve to be paid a decent wage, but these one-sided deals have produced little in return for an enormous amount of investment by the taxpayer.

It is not just in the NHS that money could be saved. Our examination of sustainable employment showed that some £520 million a year could be saved if the Department could only break the debilitating cycle of insecurity faced by too many unskilled jobseekers, bouncing back and forth between short-term jobs and welfare.13

Reducing complexity in processes is another requirement for an efficient public sector. Nowhere is the financial impact of complexity felt more strongly than in the Department of Work and Pensions; nowhere, that is, except in Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs.

8 Committee of Public Accounts, Twenty-second Report of Session 2007-08, Improving the efficiency of central

government’s use of office property, HC 229

9 Committee of Public Accounts, Eighteenth Report of Session 2007-08, Improving corporate functions using shared services, HC 190

10 Improving corporate functions using shared services, Qq 76-78

11 Committee of Public Accounts, Second Report of Session 2007-08, Department of Health: Prescribing costs in primary care, HC 173

12 Committee of Public Accounts, Second Report of Session 2007-08, Department of Health: NHS Pay Modernisation: New contracts for General Practice services in England, HC 463

13 Committee of Public Accounts, Thirteenth Report of Session 2007-08, Sustainable employment: supporting people to stay in work and advance, HC 131

71

Benefit fraud and error continues to be a major drain on taxpayers with 2.7 billion pounds lost last year.14 I recognise the progress made in reducing reported benefit fraud but for customer and official error to have nearly doubled in the last five years to almost 2 billion suggests that our benefits system is not merely complex, but risks becoming unmanageable.

Meanwhile, our latest look at tax credits showed the highest rates of error and fraud in central government.15 The annual level may have reduced somewhat but £4.3 billion remained to be recovered from claimants, of which £1.8 billion was in doubt. This level of error led the Comptroller & Auditor General to qualify his opinion on the HMRC Trust Statement for the sixth year running. Despite some improvements the scheme is still not efficiently run.

Everyone—claimant or taxpayer alike—has been let down. Let us hope that the pressure on families to pay back money they have already spent does not make the coming economic winter coldest for those who can least afford it.

Risk management

Sound financial management and reducing unnecessary administration are bedrocks to build on. But it is a failure to appreciate and manage risk that causes many project costs to soar, and delivery to fail.

The public sector must never be afraid to innovate or take well-managed risks. Constant innovation is as essential to public sector success as it is to the private sector. But the consequences of inappropriate innovation and misunderstood risk have never been so powerfully obvious. There remain too many examples of inadequate risk management within public sector projects for comfort. And if government borrowing is at its highest for 60 years, a sober look is surely needed at the risks of each new PFI deal racking up debt for schools and hospitals. These vital public services must remain both financially stable and operationally flexible: knowledge and good health are too precious to put at risk.

We saw inadequacies in risk management in the Foreign Office’s approach to our liability for the 14 Overseas Territories;16 in our update report on the Single Payment Scheme which is still causing problems for farmers;17 and in the BBC.18 Perhaps it would help the Corporation if the NAO were given full access to their books?

Failures to anticipate and manage risk were encapsulated in our report on the Bicester asylum accommodation project.19 Here almost £30 million was spent without delivering any benefit to the taxpayer or in any way furthering asylum policy. This was a controversial

14 Committee of Public Accounts, Thirty-first Report of Session 2007-08, Progress in Tackling Benefit Fraud, HC 3223

15 Committee of Public Accounts, Eighth Report of Session 2007-08, Tax Credits and PAYE, HC 300

16 Committee of Public Accounts, Seventeenth Report of Session 2007-08, Foreign and Commonwealth Office: Managing Risk in the Overseas Territories, HC 176

17 Committee of Public Accounts, Twenty-ninth Report of Session 2007-08, A progress update in resolving the difficulties in administering the Single Payment Scheme in England, HC 285

18 Committee of Public Accounts, First Special Report of Session 2007-08, The BBC’s management of risk, HC 518

19 Committee of Public Accounts, Twenty-fifth Report of Session 2007-08, The cancellation of Bicester Accommodation Centre, HC 316

72

project yet the Home Office did not recognise the serious risk of planning delay. Nor did it give explicit recognition to its own changes to the asylum system.

Let us hope that those in charge of a considerably larger project—the 2012 Olympics— proceed with a greater appreciation of the risks, and a higher level of competence. Our sportsmen and women in Beijing met the targets to finish fourth in the Olympic medal table and second in the Paralympic medal table four years early.20

But applying lessons to the Olympics from the management of risk in other public sector projects does not give one a whole-hearted sense of comfort. There should be realistic assumptions about likely costs and realisable benefits. Yet clearly the estimate of the 2012 budget at the time of the bid, at just over £4 billion, was unrealistic in ignoring major factors such as contingency provision, tax obligations, and policing and wider security requirements.

The budget has now mushroomed to £9.3 billion, while over-optimistic estimates of private sector funding have been scaled down from £738 million to 165 million today.21 With a revised budget, one could say that this is water under the bridge and the Committee welcomes the fact that the programme is broadly on track. But arrangements to manage the whole programme are not yet in place. We must guard against pressure to change venues and infrastructure and be quite clear about the costs and consequences of any such changes.

Another lesson is that unquantifiable benefits should be made clear. Yet the government's target for two million more people to participate in a sport or physical activity by 2012 is based on no conclusive proof that winning Olympic and Paralympics medals influences levels of participation in the community. So we must not get too dazzled by the gold medals in Beijing: instead we need to see a plan for using sporting success at the Games to improve levels of participation.

There must be a contingency plan for protecting the funds of the sports most likely to win medals in 2012. And the total final cost depends on proceeds arising from the disposal of assets such as the Olympic Village after the Games. In today’s climate that looks increasingly uncertain. Given these uncertainties, potential demands on the £1 billion of contingency funds which have not yet been earmarked will need careful monitoring.

Of course, no risk to any project can be effectively managed without accurate evidence. Departments are responsible for ensuring that Members of Parliament are not misled, even inadvertently, by the evidence they provide. We were therefore very concerned that the Department for Transport gave the Committee unreliable information on the rate of evasion of Vehicle Excise Duty.22 We produced our report, drawing on their figures saying the rate of evasion of duty by motorcyclists was 38%.23 Yet shortly afterwards new statistics

20 Committee of Public Accounts, Forty-second Report of Session 2007-08, Preparing for sporting success at the London

2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games and beyond, HC 477

21 Committee of Public Accounts, Fiftieth Report of Session 2007-08, Preparations for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, HC 890

22 Committee of Public Accounts, Second Special Report of Session 2007-08, Evasion of Vehicle Excise Duty, HC 557

23 Committee of Public Accounts, Fifth Report of Session 2007-08, Evasion of Vehicle Excise Duty, HC 227

73

for evasion appeared based on new methodology and putting the figure at 9.8%. We expect Departments to be accurate and, when they are not sure their figures are reliable, they should say so.

The National Audit Office

The Committee operates from the sound base provided by Tim Burr and the staff of the National Audit Office, who have our grateful thanks. Indeed it is no exaggeration to say that the Committee would be unable to function with the support of the national Audit Office. I am also grateful to the government for welcoming the Public Accounts Commission's proposals to enhance the NAO's governance. I look forward to the inclusion of the necessary legislative changes within the Constitutional Renewal Bill, which I hope will be tabled in the near future. In the meantime, the choice of Sir Andrew Likierman for the post of Chairman of the NAO, which will be created by the new legislation, was announced on 12 December and I am pleased that the wheels are now in motion to find a permanent successor to Mr Burr: we intend to announce a name in January next year.

Outreach

The Committee’s work continues to inspire considerable interest abroad. During the session our meetings were observed by visitors from parliaments and audit institutions in Australia, Bahrain, China, Georgia, Guyana, Nigeria, Russia, Turks and Caicos and Uganda, as well as by groups on study programmes organised by RIPA International and others. In addition Members and staff of the Committee have met other visitors, including officials and parliamentarians from, for example, France, Pakistan and Trinidad. I visited Lithuania to talk about the work of the PAC and to discuss common interests in the oversight of the EU’s finances.

We have also hosted visits from local government bodies in England, to help them develop their oversight role. In April the Committee Clerk and I travelled to Cardiff for an inaugural meeting of UK-Irish PACs, at which we exchanged best practice. A second meeting is planned in Edinburgh next spring.

Mr Edward Leigh MP 18 December 2008

74

Appendix 2: The work of the Scrutiny Unit in 2007–08

Overview

1. The main aim of the Committee Office Scrutiny Unit is to maintain and improve the ability of the House, through its select committees, to perform its scrutiny function. In particular:

• it supports select committees and others within the House, mainly but not exclusively in the areas of government expenditure, performance reporting and pre-legislative scrutiny

• it provides staff for joint committees of both Houses on draft bills

• it supports the evidence-taking functions of Public Bill Committees.

In fulfilling its role, it seeks to develop expertise and best practice and improve the quality of its work by developing relationships with relevant organisations outside the House.

2. In 2007–08 the Unit maintained its usual high level of activity. All the departmental select committees made use of the Unit’s services at some point during the session and Unit staff also carried out tasks in support of the wider work of the House. Much of the work undertaken by the Unit concerned the scrutiny of expenditure and performance – a core activity is the regular analysis of the Government’s financial reporting to Parliament. The Unit has also played an important role in assisting committees – especially joint committees – in their examination of draft Bills. However, once again Unit staff undertook a considerable volume of other tasks in support of committees. This was partly owing to the fact that work on draft bills was heavily concentrated into a few months of the session, allowing us to direct resources to other tasks at less busy times.

3. Several committees have commented on the value they place on assistance from the Unit. For instance, the Public Administration Committee notes:

We have continued to benefit from significant support from the Scrutiny Unit of the House of Commons in our analyses of expenditure and administration issues and would like once again to express our gratitude for their expertise and assistance1

The Work and Pensions Committee also referred to the Unit’s “invaluable support” in its financial scrutiny work, and the Transport Committee noted that it was “most grateful” for the Unit’s assistance in supporting its inquiry work, as well as financial scrutiny.2

1 Public Administration Committee, Fourth Report, Session 2008-09, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, HC 42, para

17

2 Work and Pensions Committee, First Report of Session 2007-08, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, HC 68, para 23; Transport Committee, First Report of Session 2008-09, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, HC 211, paras 6-8. See also Health Committee, Second Report of Session 2008-09, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, HC 193, para 10

75

Division of staff time

4. Scrutiny Unit staff record the number of tasks they undertake for each committee, the time spent on each task and the broad category into which they fall—expenditure-related tasks, scrutiny of draft bills or “other”. (“Other” includes work in support of Public Bill Committees.) It should be noted that this division of staff time provides only a rough estimate. For instance, each day is treated as equal, even though this may not accurately reflect patterns of work, as, at times of peak activity, staff work long hours and this additional time is not captured in the statistics. In the same vein, it should be noted that a “task” can be a short piece of analysis taking only a few hours or assistance to a joint committee on a draft Bill lasting several weeks or months.

5. In broad terms, almost half of Scrutiny Unit staff time was spent on expenditure-related tasks, 25% on draft bills, and 28% on “other” activities, as shown in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1 - division of Scrutiny Unit staff time (%)2007-08 session

25%

47%

28%

Draft BillsExpenditureOther

6. The variation in the Unit’s workload over the course of the session is shown in Figure 2 below.

76

Figure 2 - division of Scrutiny Unit staff time throughout the 2007-08 session

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Nov-07 Dec-07 Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08

Per

cent

age

of s

taff

time

Draft Bills Expenditure Other

7. Work on draft bills peaks in July, reflecting the fact that draft legislation is now habitually published in the spring, with a burst of pre-legislative scrutiny by joint committees supported by the Unit taking place in the run-up to the Summer Recess. On the other hand, the intensity of work on financial scrutiny tends to be more constant over the year.

8. The way in which the Unit’s resources are deployed has changed since it was established in November 2002. Figure 3 below shows, for instance, how expenditure and “other” tasks have increased in importance since the 2003–04 session (the first for which details are available).

77

Figure 3 - division of Scrutiny Unit staff time by session

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

% o

f sta

ff tim

e

OtherExpenditureDraft Bills

9. The change in types of work mainly reflect the variation in the numbers of draft bills published by the Government each session (see Annex for numbers of draft bills published since session 1997–98) and the increase in the range and volume of tasks undertaken by Unit staff, such as supporting Public Bill Committees.

10. Scrutiny Unit staff undertook tasks for each of the departmental select committees, although there was some variation in the extent to which committees used the Unit’s services. The Justice Committee made most use of the Unit’s staff. This is to be expected, given the role of the Unit’s home affairs/public policy analyst in supporting this committee and the Home Affairs Committee. The other two highest users were the Treasury Committee and the Transport Committee.

Staffing of the Unit

11. The Unit’s staff complement in session 2007–08 comprised: two legal specialists, a statistician on secondment from the House of Commons Library, two financial analysts on secondment from the National Audit Office and two from Government departments, an economist and a Home Affairs/Public Policy Specialist. In addition, there was a core team of the Head of Unit and two Deputy Heads (Finance and Legislation), an assistant clerk (attached to the Unit, but not part of the formal complement), a senior committee assistant, a team manager, two committee assistants, a part-time committee support assistant and an office support assistant. (The Assistant Clerk post was not continued beyond October 2008, as the postholder was deployed elsewhere in the Committee Office in response to business needs.) The Unit has also continued to host a series of ESRC student interns on three-month placements.

12. As noted in last year’s report on the work of the Unit, two of the additional staff were appointed in 2007 in response to specific business requirements: the part-time office clerk post, dealing mainly with evidence-taking by Public Bill Committees, and the public policy

78

analyst post, working for the Home Affairs Committee and the Justice Committee. The new administrative post has been essential in handling the extra workload arising from Public Bill Committees. During periods when PBCs have been less active, she has proved a useful additional resource for the Unit’s support of joint and select committees. Although in the event there was less legislation than expected in the home affairs and justice fields, the public policy analyst post appointment has helped the Justice and Home Affairs Committees manage a heavy workload, exacerbated by some staff shortages. We expect more legislative scrutiny in this area in the 2008–09 session, in which the public policy analyst will be involved.

Financial scrutiny work for select committees

13. The Unit continues to support Select Committees in their core tasks of examining departmental expenditure (core task 5) and examining performance against key targets in the Public Service Agreements (core task 6). The finance team provided briefing for committees on the Main and Supplementary Estimates (including analysis of departments’ estimates memoranda), resource accounts, Autumn Performance Reports and Departmental Annual Reports (DARs) of all the major Government departments. This year, for the first time, all the departmental select committees held evidence sessions on their departments’ DARs, and the Unit provided briefing for, and otherwise supported, many of those hearings. We also provided briefing for the Work and Pensions Committee’s hearings on the DWP Autumn Performance Report and Three Year Plan, in March and April 2008.

14. We contributed to the drafting of committee reports on DARs and Estimates. For instance, the Unit assisted with the drafting of the Transport Committee’s report on the Department of Transport DAR, and with briefing for the subsequent Estimates Day debate, and with the Defence Committee’s reports on the MoD Estimates. As noted in last year’s report, the Unit published an over-arching review of the 2007 DARs in March 2008, available at : http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/Departmental%20Reports%20Review%202007.pdf. We will produce a similar review of the DARs published in 2008.

15. The finance team continues to be particularly active in its support of the Treasury Committee, although to a slightly lesser extent than the year before because the Committee was able temporarily to increase its own staffing levels. The Scrutiny Unit’s assistance included contributing to briefing on the 2007 Pre-Budget Report, 2008 Budget, the Comprehensive Spending Review, its inquiries on Estates Management and the move to International Accounting Standards and PFI accounting. We also assisted with the drafting of reports on the administration and expenditure of the Chancellor’s departments. The Committee has welcomed the Unit’s ‘valuable input’.3

16. Other examples of financial scrutiny work undertaken for committees in 2007–08 include support for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in its examination of Defra’s budget – an instance of the Unit’s core function of analysing departmental annual reports widening to include work on the Department’s wider

3 Treasury Committee, Third Report of Session 2008-09, Work of the Committee, 2007-08, HC 173, para 11

79

financial management. The Committee has noted the value of the Unit’s assistance.4 We gave presentations, with Library colleagues, to the Scottish Affairs and Justice Committees on the budgetary controls on the devolved administrations. We also advised some committees which had been consulted by their departments about changes to Estimates structures, and we provided all committees with a high-level analysis of the Comprehensive Spending Review financial settlement for their respective departments, at the start of the session.

17. The Unit’s statistician, on loan from the House of Commons Library, assists committees with statistical analysis and the presentation of statistical information, as well as contributing to the general scrutiny work of the Unit. The statistician also takes the lead on analysing the impact assessments which accompany draft bills. Examples of the statistician’s work in 2007–08 include analysis of recruitment and retention in the armed forces for the Defence Committee, assistance on analysis and presentation of information on foundation trust performance for the Health Committee and advice to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on the interpretation of statistics on pig meat imports.

Legislative scrutiny

Draft bills

18. Draft Bills are considered by ad hoc Joint Committees of both Houses or departmental Select Committees (in pursuit of Core Task 3). In 2007–08, the Government published nine bills in draft, seven of which received pre-legislative scrutiny. The Unit provided legal specialists, administrative staff and its three Clerks to support the two joint committees appointed to examine the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill and the draft Marine Bill. As in previous years, the two joint committees were given a very tight timetable to complete pre-legislative scrutiny, and thus an intensive workload for members and staff, but they were nevertheless able to publish their reports on schedule.5

Public Bill Committees

19. In the 2007–08 session Public Bill Committees (PBCs) continued to take written and oral evidence on bills. 12 PBCs took oral evidence during the session, holding a total of 35 evidence sessions, and receiving 164 written submissions.6 This represented a significant task for the Unit’s administrative staff, who manage the receipt, checking and circulation of submissions to Committee members, and make the practical arrangements for oral evidence sessions. In addition, the Deputy Head (Legislation) commissioned and edited

4 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Second Report of Session 2008-09, The work of the Committee in

2007-08, HC 95, para 47. See also e.g. Home Affairs Committee, Third Report, Session 2008-09, Work of the Committee in 2007-08, HC 76, para 47

5 Aspects of both the draft Marine Bill and the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill were also subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by other committees – in the case of the draft Marine Bill, by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill by the Public Administration Committee and the Justice Committee

6 Figures exclude PBCs on bills introduced in session 2006-07 and carried over to session 2007-08

80

briefing for those evidence sessions from specialist staff of select committees, and she also contributed to the briefing.

Legislative Reform Orders and Legislative Competence Orders

20. Legal specialists in the Unit have continued to work with the staff of the Regulatory Reform Committee in its scrutiny of Legislative Reform Orders (LROs) made under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2005. In 2007–08 one of the Unit’s legal specialists prepared briefing for the Committee’s inquiry into the draft Legislative Reform (Insolvency) (Individual Voluntary Arrangements) Order 2008, which was withdrawn by the Government shortly after being laid.

21. Under the Government of Wales Act 2006 the National Assembly for Wales can bring forward proposals which would extend the Assembly’s law-making powers by way of Legislative Competence Orders in Council (LCOs). The Orders do not themselves change the general law for Wales – they pave the way for subsequent changes in the law applying to Wales within the devolved areas of legislative competence.7 The Unit has continued to assist the Welsh Affairs Committee in its scrutiny of LCOs. In 2007–08, the Unit’s legal specialists and statistician have assisted the Welsh Affairs Committee in its scrutiny of LCOs on Additional Learning Needs, Domiciliary Care, Vulnerable Children, Affordable Housing and the Red Meat industry.

Other work for committees

22. The Scrutiny Unit continued in 2007 to support committees in areas outside its core specialisms of financial and legislative scrutiny. This provision of “surge” capacity has been of particular help to committees faced with unexpected demands in workload or gaps in their staff complement. Work was mainly done on a project basis with staff remaining based in the Unit. For instance, the Assistant Clerk managed inquiries for the Transport Committee into BAA and into the opening of Terminal 5 at Heathrow, and one of the legal specialists managed the Public Administration Committee’s inquiry into Equitable Life. Unit staff have also continued to assist committees with online forums in connection with committee inquiries. Our support mainly consisted of advice to committee staff on establishing and running forums, and help with moderating forums. Unit staff have also made more substantial contributions, notably to the Justice Committee’s forum on domestic violence, in which the Unit’s public policy analyst played a leading role. The Unit has also supported the House of Commons Web Centre in developing advice and guidance to committee staff in this area.

Work for the Liaison Committee

23. Unit staff have continued to provide support for the Liaison Committee’s work. In particular, the Unit’s finance team made a significant input to the working group on financial scrutiny, including contributing to the Committee’s report on Parliament and

7 Second Report from the Welsh Affairs Committee, Session 2007-08, Proposed Legislative Competence Orders in

Council: Additional Learning Needs, HC 44, para 1

81

Government Finance: Recreating Financial Scrutiny.8 The Unit is assisting the working group in taking the issues forward, following the Government’s response to the report.

24. The Unit is also supporting the Liaison Committee and its working group with work on the Government’s ‘Alignment’ project. This involves bringing the data in the Estimates, departmental budgets and Resource Accounts closer together, to reduce inconsistencies between them in the way they present government expenditure. As part of the Project, the number of financial reporting documents, falling at different points in the year, may be reduced.

25. The Head of the Unit once again led a small team from across the Committee Office supporting Liaison Committee staff in the production of the Committee’s annual report on the work of select committees.

Wider work

26. As in previous years the Unit has carried out work for customers other than the departmental select committees. For instance, the Unit supported the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission in its examination of the Commission’s 2008–09 draft Estimate and corporate plan. In its annual report, the Committee notes that it “is grateful to the Scrutiny Unit for the quality of its analysis and advice and looks forward to receiving continuing support from it”.9

27. Other examples include continued support for the Parliamentary Observer on the Financial Reporting Advisory Board (FRAB), providing advice to the UK Delegation when it examined the draft budget of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and assistance by Unit’s statistician to a departmental working group on transcription services. The Head of the Unit and the Unit statistician have also helped establish and run a small informal network of parliamentary officials which acts as a point of contact for officials of the recently-established UK Statistics Authority.

Training and sharing best practice

28. The Unit continued the work started in 2006 to help train Government and House staff on pre-legislative scrutiny of draft bills, and evidence-taking by Public Bill Committees. This included briefings and presentations to staff of Government departments, and bilateral meetings. Members of the finance team have also briefed select committee members on aspects of financial reporting, e.g. the Estimates process. In March 2008 the Unit held a seminar for committee staff on the presentation of quantitative information in committee reports. We are grateful to one of our ESRC interns, from the department of statistics at the LSE, for his presentation at the seminar. Unit staff have also taken part in training events for committee staff on running online forums. We also produced, and published on our website, an analysis of the quality of Departmental Annual Reports and a paper on PFI accounting.

8 Second Report from the Liaison Committee, Session 2007-08, HC 426

9 Speaker’s Committee, Second Report 2008: The work of the Committee in 2008, HC 109, para 20

82

29. International interest in the legislative and financial scrutiny work of the Unit is reflected in regular visits by staff and members of overseas legislatures. In 2007–08 Unit staff briefed visitors from Australia, Bahrain, Botswana, Czech Republic, China, Finland, Guyana, Jersey, Lebanon, Mexico, Nigeria, Oman and Vietnam.

30. In May 2008 the Unit submitted written evidence to the review by the Scottish Parliament’s Finance Committee of the Budget Process consultation. The Unit's paper discussed the extent to which the House of Commons and select committees engage in scrutinising expenditure plans, and highlighted a number of current developments which might change the way such scrutiny is undertaken in Westminster. The submission is available on the Unit’s website.10

The future

31. In my previous report, I noted the proposal from the Review of Select Committee Resources in 2007 that the Committee Office work towards the establishment of a central Research Unit, bringing together a broad spectrum of skills and policy experience, and commented on the possible implications for the future of the Scrutiny Unit. This proposal has not been adopted, so it is likely that the Unit will continue to operate broadly on its present lines. We will continue to work to understand our customers’ needs and tailor our assistance accordingly, including through informal surveys of committee clerks and monitoring of feedback received.

32. We will also continue to provide training to Committee Office colleagues– e.g. on using economics in inquiries, presentation of statistical data in committee reports, the Treasury’s ‘Alignment project’ and understanding Resource Accounts. The Liaison Committee, in its 2008 report on financial scrutiny, called on the Unit to produce a “financial scrutiny training plan” for Members for 2008–09.11 In response to this recommendation, we are planning training events for Members and their staff, in conjunction with the House of Commons Library, on the ‘Alignment ‘Project and on understanding Resource Accounts. We will arrange further events in the light of the response we receive.

33. As ever, it is difficult to make definite predictions about the balance of the Unit’s future work, as this will depend on factors such as the number and timing of draft bills published by the Government, and how many joint committees are appointed to scrutinise them, the number of public bill committees that take evidence and the demands of committees for assistance (“surge capacity”) at especially busy times. The creation of eight regional select committees, a new committee on energy and climate change and the Speaker’s Conference may add to the overall level of demand from within the Committee Office.

Matthew Hamlyn Head, Scrutiny Unit January 2009

10 http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/scrutinyunit/reports_pubs.cfm

11 Liaison Committee, Parliament and Government Finance: Recreating Financial Scrutiny, Second Report, Session 2007-08, HC 426, para 87

83

Annex: Draft Bills published since Session 1997–1998

Session Number of draft bills published

1997–98 3

1998–99 6

1999–2000 6

2000–01 2

2001–02 7

2002–03 91

2003–04 12

2004–05 5

2005–06 42

2006–07 4

2007–08 93

1 Excludes draft clauses of Gambling Bill since the main part of this draft was published in 2003–04 and is included in that figure 2 Includes draft Terrorism Bill 3 Does not include draft clauses of the Banking Bill published as part of Cm 7459.

84

Appendix 3: National Audit Office Support for House of Commons Select Committees in 2008

Introduction

1. The National Audit Office works on behalf of Parliament and the taxpayer to hold government to account for the use of public money and to help public services improve performance. We provide independent analysis and assurance to Parliament. Our financial audit work helps government enhance effective financial management and transparent reporting. Our value for money audit seeks to make recommendations leading directly to improvements and efficiencies in public services. We look to place our skills at the service of Parliament as a whole, supporting the Committee of Public Accounts, other select committees and individual members in their scrutiny of public expenditure and service delivery.

2. One of our key roles is to support parliamentary scrutiny by assisting the Committee of Public Accounts when it meets to take evidence from departments on our reports on the results of our financial audit and value for money work. We provide informal support to the Committee for the 50 or so meetings a year it holds on these reports and the Comptroller and Auditor General and National Audit Office staff attend each hearing.

3. In addition to supporting the Committee of Public Accounts, with the support of the Public Accounts Commission, the National Audit Office has increased the resources available to support other select committees in both Houses. We provide support within our areas of expertise, such as analysis of financial statements, financial management and reporting, value for money, performance evaluation, regulation, and policy implementation. This paper sets out the support provided to Commons select committees by the National Audit Office in 2008.

Supporting Select Committees

4. Our support to other select committees in their scrutiny of public services and expenditure takes a number of forms, ranging from the provision of formal evidence for the committee, including evidence-gathering and research in response to a Committee’s request, to informal oral and written briefings, and the secondment of staff with particular expertise in the area covered by a Committee. In 2008 we increased the amount of support we provide to Commons select committees and supplied 14 committees (listed in the table below), three more than in 2007.

5. Committees have used the support we have provided in a number of ways. For example, a memorandum we produced for the Work and Pensions Committee on the Department for Work and Pensions Information and Technology Programmes formed the basis of a one-off evidence session with officials. Additional questions for the Regulatory Reform Committee in a survey we were conducting provided the Committee with information on business perceptions of regulation. Briefings for the Environmental Audit Committee on options for scrutiny in the fields of transport and the environment and renewable energy

85

were used by the committee in its planning for future inquiries. In addition to the positive feedback we have received on the work we have produced, a number of committees have acknowledged the value of our support in their latest sessional reports.

Table: The National Audit Office has supported the following Commons select committees in 2008 Business and Enterprise Committee

Children, Schools and Families Committee

Communities and Local Government Committee

Defence Committee

Environmental Audit Committee

Health Committee

Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee

International Development Committee

Justice Committee

Public Administration Select Committee

Regulatory Reform Committee

Transport Committee

Treasury Committee

Work and Pensions Committee

Performance briefings for select committees

6. We noted last year that, as part of our work aimed at strengthening financial scrutiny, we had produced performance briefings for the Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Communities and Local Government Committee, and the Defence Committee on the performance of their respective departments in 2006–07. Designed to assist the committees in navigating and interpreting the substantial amounts of information available on the departmental performance, the briefings were based on material in Departmental Annual Reports and, where appropriate, on issues that had arisen from the National Audit Office’s value for money reports and wider work, for example on regulation, the efficiency programme and performance system validation.

7. Building on this initiative, in 2008 we provided further performance briefings for the three committees on the performance of their respective departments in 2007–08 and produced four additional briefings for the Justice Committee, the Public Administration Select Committee (on the performance of the Cabinet Office), the Transport Committee and the Treasury Committee.

86

The Environmental Audit Committee

8. The National Audit Office has a long-established relationship with the Environmental Audit Committee and provides regular formal and informal support of various kinds. During 2008 we produced four published papers in response to requests for support from the Committee:

• UK greenhouse gas emissions: measurement and reporting – a review of the process of measuring greenhouse gas emissions and maintaining a UK inventory of them; and the way in which greenhouse gas emissions are reported by government departments, particularly in relation to emissions targets which have been set.

• Transport and the environment: Options for scrutiny – a briefing paper that: summarises some of the most significant trends in transport and travel; provides information on what is known about the impact of transport on the environment in the UK; and describes the main public bodies responsible for transport, together with some of their most important programmes and policy instruments.

• Export Credits Guarantee Department and sustainability – a briefing on the operations of the Export Credits Guarantee Department and the extent to which it has been able to incorporate sustainable development within its objectives.

• Renewable energy: Options for scrutiny – a review that: sets out what is meant by renewable energy, the targets and objectives applicable to the UK, the sources of renewable energy, and the technologies and types of energy consumption they support; explores progress to date, and the various barriers to further expansion of renewable energy in the UK; and sets out the policy landscape, describing the main public bodies responsible for policy, and the most important programmes and policy instruments.

Other support for select committees

9. The National Audit Office has provided formal written evidence to a number of select committees. For example, during the year we produced a paper aimed at helping the Public Administration Select Committee with its inquiry into Good Government. The paper identified characteristics of good government, drawing on the work of the National Audit Office with an emphasis on value for money and good financial management. We also presented the committee with an additional commentary on international models of good government, prepared for us by PricewaterhouseCoopers, which focused on two countries with different constitutional arrangements from ours: France and the United States.

10. In response to a request from the International Development Committee, we provided a review of the UK’s response to the 2005 South Asia earthquake. Similarly, we provided a memorandum for the Work and Pensions Committee on the Department for Work and Pensions Information and Technology Programmes, using information drawn from Departmental documents, interviews with lead officials, and interviews with the Department’s main contractors.

11. We have also assisted a number of select committees by providing oral and written briefings on subjects to help identify areas for committee scrutiny. For example, during the year we briefed: the Business and Enterprise Committee on energy prices; the Justice

87

Committee on the cost effectiveness of prisons and potential alternative policies to custody; and the Regulatory Reform Committee on the regulatory reform agenda.

12. Support to select committees in 2008 also included secondments of National Audit Office staff to the Defence, Environmental Audit, and Treasury Committees. The Office has also continued to support the Committee Office Scrutiny Unit by seconding two staff at a time to the Unit.

National Audit Office February 2009

88

List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament

Session 2008–09

First Report The work of committees in 2007–08 HC 291

Session 2007–08

First Report Pre-appointment hearings by select committees HC 384

Second Report Parliament and Government Finance: Recreating Financial Scrutiny

HC 426

Third Report The work of committees in 2007 HC 427

First Special Report

Pre-appointment hearings by select committees: Government Response to the Committee’s First Report of Session 2007–08

HC 594

Second Special Report

The work of committees in 2007: Government Response to the Committee’s Third Report of Session 2007–08

HC 595

Third Special Report

Parliament and Government Finance: Recreating Financial Scrutiny: Government and National Audit Office Responses to the Committee’s Second Report of Session 2007–08

HC 1108

Fourth Special Report

Planning Bill: Parliamentary Scrutiny of National Policy Statements

HC 1109

Fifth Special Report

Modernisation of language in standing orders relating to select committees

HC 1110

Session 2006–07

First Report Annual Report for 2005–06 HC 406

First Special Report

Annual Report for 2005–06: Government Response to the Committee’s First Report of Session 2006–07

HC 920

Session 2005–06

First Report Government reply to the Annual Report for 2004 HC 855

Second Report A New Publication Order for Select Committee Evidence

HC 1271

Third Report Estimates Memoranda HC 1685

the work of committees in 2007–08...hc 291 published on 11 march 2009 by authority of the house of...

Documents