Nick Beale (Overview/Scrutiny Unit)
1.0 Introduction
2.0 How select committees work
3.0 Staffing and support
4.0 Sources of technical expertise
5.0 Programming, evidence and witnesses
6.0 The ministerial perspective
7.0 From the perspective of a witness
8.0 The Civil Service viewpoint
9.0 Reporting
10.0 Publication and dissemination of select committee materials
11.0 Lessons for overview/scrutiny committees in local government
1.1 This seminar was part of the "Westminster Explained" series run by The House Magazine. It was attended by around 30 people from local government (especially those involved in scrutiny); Whitehall departments; the TUC, regulatory agencies; a charity and an insurance company.
1.3 The day featured a series of speakers who had served on or dealt with Parliamentary Select Committees offering their differing perspectives of the process including how to make it effective and how to blunt its impact. Much of this knowledge was eminently applicable to overview and scrutiny in local government.
1.4 The seminar was run under "Chatham House Rules": what was said might be freely reported but not attributed to any individual.
1.5 The seminar was chaired by Dr Nigel Forman (former MP 1976–97, PPS and minister for higher and further education). Speakers were:
1.6 After each presentation, the speaker answered questions from the audience.
2.1 A select committee is composed of backbenchers who — recent contretemps with the Whips notwithstanding — choose their own Chairman, their own topics to investigate and their own terms of reference for each inquiry. There is an understanding between the Whips that committee chairs are shared out in proportion to party strengths in the House.
2.2 Mrs Dunwoody's committee tried to cover each aspect of transport (road, rail, air, sea etc.) every year, entailing what she described as a huge amount of reading and detailed work. It was however a matter for each committee how much it took on.
2.3 Whether the House was sitting or not, a committee member could expect to put in about six hours in public sessions and "at least double that" in preparatory reading.
2.4 Regarding the detailed reading committee members must do, a speaker recalled being told that "if you want to wreck anything, you have to find out how it works." Another important axiom was "always pursue things."
2.5 Committees had "a right to send for" ministers and civil servants but "that doesn't mean they always come."
2.6 Witnesses were normally selected on the basis of the written evidence submitted and it was important to achieve a balance from all sides of an issue: e.g. unions and employers; industry and customers; government and private sector.
2.7 Committees were at their most effective with a capable chairman and a hard-working membership. Continuity of membership was also important but always vulnerable to the knock-on effects of promotions, reshuffles and resignations.
2.8 Committees' aim of not being party-political tended to waver as elections approached. The position was particularly difficult for members who had other roles such as opposition front bench spokesman. Overtly political interventions put ministers on their guard and ultimately the inquiry and the resulting report would be the poorer.
3.1 Support for the Select Committees appears to be limited. Several of the speakers paid tribute to the skill and professionalism of the committee clerks but the system was "quite honestly, totally understaffed. It's very British." Clerks were required to be politically neutral but were in practice "the best politicians in the place." They negotiated with government departments and others over the provision of the information committees required and the attendance of witnesses at hearings.
3.2 While the Clerks were recruited in the same way as civil servants and enjoyed similar conditions of service, they were not part of the Home Civil Service but employed by the House of Commons Commission. This was stressed by a number of the speakers as it ensured the clerks' independence of the Whitehall machinery. Their career path did not depend on their relationships with any government department. It was suggested that overview and scrutiny in local government was in a much weaker position since the government had not provided additional resources and support staff did not have an independent career path. One speaker felt that local government must find some means of redressing the latter point.
3.3 Staffing varied from committee to committee but would usually consist of the Clerk, a second clerk, an assistant and a secretary.
3.4 Most clerks were generalists but nowadays a committee might also have the support of one or more "committee specialists" recruited for specific knowledge via short-term contracts. One speaker mentioned how valuable these people could be and regretted that they could not be retained longer.
3.5 In formal sessions of a committee, "the clerk doesn't exist" and would not normally contribute to the discussion beyond passing the occasional note to the Chairman. In informal sessions, the clerk's input would be much greater, however.
4.1 The Transport Committee had acquired a "panel" of technical experts to advise it but had no provision to pay them. Their contribution was rewarded only by the appearance of their names in reports. Committees had no provision take technical advisers with them on overseas visits.
4.2 Committees had once enjoyed free access to data and advice from government laboratories and research institutes but this had dried up as these organisations were successively privatised or handed over to "Next Step" agencies.
4.3 What committees could pay experts they retained (e.g. £150 per day plus expenses for a professor) was "laughable" when compared to private sector consultancy fees.
4.4 The House of Commons library was a "tremendous research resource" but primarily geared to serve individual MPs rather than committees.
5.1 There was no formal mechanism for the selection of topics and few attempts by pressure groups or lobbyists to influence that selection. However, a select committee member would receive large numbers of such organisations' annual reports etc.
5.2 Evidence gathering "varies widely" according to the topic in hand. For some inquiries only oral evidence was taken since there was judged to be sufficient written material in the public domain.
5.3 Clerks assisted in the selection of topics; the timetabling of inquiries; contacting an appropriate "lead" person in the department concerned; and drawing up lists of potential witnesses. There was "sheer administrative grind" and "a lot of work done behind the scenes" to arrange each session and to identify — and secure the co-operation of —witnesses.
5.4 In general, these witnesses tended to be "the great and the good" plus "the usual suspects" from academia.
5.5 Committees themselves aimed for "an educated layman's view." They undertook frequent visits at home and abroad and found that these would often elicit information that would not have come out in a formal session.
5.6 Almost every public hearing would be preceded by an informal, deliberative session. In aggregate these probably outweighed the time spent meeting in public.
5.7 Committee members would often only receive briefing papers and a list of proposed questions the night before they saw a minister. Thus they may well not have done sufficient research to be able to "trap the minister into giving an answer he doesn't want to give." A further weakness was that the committee might only assemble 15 minutes before the public hearing to allocate questions amongst the members with the result that the first to arrive got the best questions and latecomers the least interesting ones.
5.8 While it was possible to take evidence in private at the committee's discretion there was a general reluctance to do this. Committees published as much as they could, not least because they wished their work to come to the public's attention. Getting the media engaged was "a challenge", nevertheless.
5.9 Committees should not be looking for faults, rather they should examine the expenditure, administration and policy of a department. Cross-cutting inquiries did take place through joint committees but in procedural terms these were "creaking" to operate.
5.10 The review of the impact of policy was a "novel role" for select committees. Also they were now calling in heads of non-departmental bodies such as OFSTED each year
5.11 The Commons Liaison Committee had examined the work of the Select Committees in the light of proposals for the modernisation of the House and reported with recommendations for the future conduct of their work. These were currently being examined.
6.1 Committee hearings presented an opportunity for ministers to put over, at greater length and in more detail than would be possible on the floor of the House, the basis of policy and how it worked.
6.2 Ministers knew the area on which they would be questioned but had no notice of the questions themselves (indeed leaking questions was a disciplinary offence). They were however forearmed with briefings from their officials. These briefings would draw on experience and a "feel" for the committee's lines of inquiry. A knowledge of the pet topics toward which certain committee members would always try to steer a discussion was also valuable. This kind of predictability on the part of questioners could easily blunt the effectiveness of committee inquiries.
6.3 Behind the scenes contacts were important and a minister's officials would look, for example, to develop good relationships with the committee clerks.
6.4 A minister would not care to tie his hands when giving evidence on the record. Therefore, a committee asking questions that looked beyond about 12 months in the future was unlikely to elicit much in the way of hard information.
6.5 Committees could be manipulated to ministerial advantage. The hearings were an excellent forum in which to make announcements and if a journalist were briefed the day before that a department was on the brink of some new initiative, it was almost guaranteed that next day a committee member — press cutting in hand — would ask the minister about it. Thus the committee would find itself talking about what the minister wanted to talk about rather than the matter into which it had intended to enquire.
7.1 Some select committee members had "an inflated sense of their own importance." Government could ignore committees' recommendations but nonetheless sought to influence their memberships and chairmanships. That this occurred was a measure of the committees' power.
7.2 There was nothing wrong with "getting the most out of something [i.e. a select committee appearance] that is trying to get the most out of you."
7.3 There were wrong and right ways to give one's evidence and these "golden rules" were suggested:
7.4 Attempts at damage limitation would only backfire. Trying to hide something only stored up trouble.
7.5 While appearances before select committees were normal activities for the voluntary sector, for industry figures they were a diversion from their main job.
7.6 Consultants did not go out of their way to advertise the fact that a witness had been advised by them and it was possible that a committee would not know. Conversely, the retention of such advisers was understood by all concerned to be common practice and indeed "half the audience" at a hearing would consist of people working for public affairs advisers.
7.7 A committee was often helped when a witness brought along a group of colleagues in support of his/her appearance. The reactions of these colleagues to their principal's statements were often highly informative.
8.1 Select committees and their advisers were "usually formidably well-informed" on the subject in hand but could easily wander from their brief into the questioner's previous dealings with the department. Therefore a minister's briefing should include the select committee's earlier reports.
8.2 The Sunday newspapers were a good guide to the questions a committee would ask on a Monday.
8.3 Information supplied by civil servants tended to be defensive since they were often summoned because something had gone wrong. However, if something had gone wrong the best recourse was to admit it and say what was being done to rectify matters. Apologies were important.
8.4 When appearing before a committee it was best to rely on one's memory since there was little time to refer to papers or to be prompted by a colleague. Committees tended to dislike opening statements ("a dodgy art form") but if these were made, they should be brief and not tendentious.
8.5 Points of good practice:
8.6 Select committees were "nothing like as powerful" as US Congressional committees. They might become more effective if they made it a practice to revisit earlier reports and enquire into progress in the interim. It would also help were Government to make acceptance of their reports the norm.
9.1 Reports had to be based on the evidence received, despite the occasional pressure to the contrary from committee members.
9.2 When evidence taking was over, the clerk produced a draft report in consultation with the chairman. That draft was regarded as the chairman's and would then be submitted to the committee for discussion and agreement.
9.3 The committees operated on a principle of building consensus. The system did not allow for minority reports and any such documents reported in the media were unofficial.
9.4 Most reports were consensual and based on the evidence. The Government undertook to respond to each recommendation, point-by-point, within two months of receiving a report. The Civil Service may have "many ways of saying 'no' at some length" but it seems that Ministers will often appear to reject a report at the outset but then move quietly to take on board what has been recommended.
9.5 Select committees' warnings were said often to have been borne out, e.g. in respect of National Air Traffic Services and rail privatisation.
10.1 Printing and publishing were seen by select committees as "one of our core activities."
10.2 The Stationery Office publishes 15,000 pages each year of material arising from select committee proceedings and processes plus 30,000 pages of evidence and formal reports. They have a "duty ... to ensure both visibility and availability" of the information.
10.3 The clerks to the select committees set the timetable for the publication of reports. The Stationery Office, which maintains Parliament's website under contract, aims to have these reports published "overnight" on the internet. Paper copies would come out within 2–20 days.
10.4 "Uncorrected evidence" was published promptly after it had been given at a hearing. Subsequently however, each witness was given a chance to correct factual points.
10.5 Government and Parliament were making ever-increasing use of web-based publication. As an example, the "Iraq Dossier" had been downloaded by 50,000 people. Had it been produced on paper, sales would probably have been about 3–4,000.
10.6 It had been recognised that the appearance of parliamentary publications, in essence unchanged for decades, was reducing their effectiveness. Work was underway to improve the design and accessibility of select committee reports.
10.7 Since the 2002 summer recess, the webcasting of Parliament had been extended to include select committees.
10.8 Useful links and contacts mentioned included:
11.1 The seminar illustrated some of the ways experienced operators ensure that a committee does not inquire too closely into areas the witness would rather were left unexamined. Knowledge of these examples suggests how committees may guard against being sidetracked into areas of the witness's choosing:
Back to top