Education Select Committee

The Education Select Committee held its first evidence session yesterday. The Secretary of State for Education, Nicky Morgan, faced questions which ranged across the breadth of her responsibilities. The session lasted for over 90 minutes.



These days, Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) gain much of the coverage on TV news. Sadly this can give a misleading impression of the work done in Parliament to hold the Government to account. Each Government department has to live with a cross-party select committee which has the power to hold enquiries and to question Ministers and others at length. The "clever" answer which can disarm the House in PMQ's, can lead a minister into deep trouble - and Government backbenchers can be brutal in dealing with a Minister who is evasive.

Today's session will be followed next Wednesday by a session with the Head of Ofsted, Sir Michael Wilshaw. Already enquiries are being undertaken into

- The work of Ofsted
- The work of Ofqual
- The role of Regional Schools Commissioners

Select Committees play an important role in scrutiny - and the evidence they receive and reports they publish are increasingly important in the work MP's do to get answers that previous generations of Ministers could have avoided answering. A little more light is being shed.

Scrutiny?

The UK Parliament has a regular opportunity to quiz the "head" of the Executive branch of government - the Prime Minister. For half an hour each Wednesday when the House of Commons is sitting, Members have the opportunity to put any question to him. This contrasts with the ordinary question times, at the start of business on Mondays to Thursdays, when questions must relate to the relevant departmental minister's responsibilities.

But how much in-depth scrutiny is actually achieved? Judge for yourself. Could "PMQs" be improved? and if so what changes are necessary?

PMQs

Prime Minister's Question Time is worth watching in person. The atmosphere can be felt in the chamber. There is excitement and some excellent humour displayed. Yet I must admit that I have come to dislike it intensely. In my opinion, the sooner it is abolished, the better! I can't bear to watch it (and I'm a political junkie!!!).

My objection is that it achieves little in terms of holding the government to account. It's an opportunity to score points - hoping that the electorate will be impressed. I fear (and I go canvassing, and hear complaints from voters - and I hear the same from some of my students) that it puts them off.

The low esteem of PMQs is confirmed in a report from the Hansard Society. I recommend reading it.

It is available at  http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Tuned-in-or-Turned-off-Public-attitudes-to-PMQs.pdf

Avoiding unwanted questions

 

Yesterday I wrote about the skill of asking questions. Today I have a couple of comments about avoiding giving the answer called for.

It is part of a politician's skills to be able to deflect questions he doesn't want to answer. You will see it at Question Time in the House of Commons. It can also be seen outside the chamber when the media are seeking to get answers. I know that prospective politicians are given training (as are Press spokespersons for companies and charities) into steering an answer to ensure that the person being questioned gets THEIR point across.

But does it work?

In the short term perhaps. But in the long term such evasiveness does not go down well with voters. Similarly in exams - it will do you no good at all to write about what you want to say, when the examiner is seeking to test a particular area of subject knowledge that you don't want to discuss. Deliberate evasiveness may look clever - but it won't earn marks. Similarly walking into an exam room and telling the examiner what you've learnt, rather than answering the question set - and this can be the result of misreading a question, as much as evasion - won't be rewarded.

PMQs

I commented in yesterday’s post that I despised PMQs (Prime Minister’s Question time in the House of Commons). Don’t get me wrong – it can be tremendous fun. TV doesn’t do justice to the atmosphere – which can be electric. If you ever get the chance to see it in person – do go. But tremendous fun is praise for entertainment. Sadly, it’s the only coverage of Parliament that many people see – and it can be quite off-putting. It is of limited value for scrutiny. I fear that it has helped to lower Parliament in the eyes of the public.


Prime Ministers put a lot of effort into preparing for PMQs. They have extensive briefings – and both “do their homework” (reading the written briefings – preparing to answer what ever is likely to be thrown at them), and practice with colleagues (at what Americans would call murder boards). In any event, the parliamentary experienced on the way up is sufficient to make Prime Minister’s experienced at dealing with difficult questions.

There can be key “soundbites” – and the weekly battle between a Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition is closely analysed – and success at the dispatch box can have important electoral repercussions. However, imho (I’m getting better at the shorthand used in internet communications), more heat than light is generated, and a heavy price is paid for MP’s “fun”.

The Week Ahead

The House of Representatives will not be sitting on Monday - but the lame duck session continues on Tuesday. The "Weekly Leader" from the current Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer - is available here. The Senate looks as if it will continue to be deadlocked by the minority Republicans policy of threatening to filibuster everything until the majority (yes, the Democrats still have a majority) capitulates.

In the House of Commons an Opposition Day on Monday will consist of a debate on local government finance. Tuesday will see the 2nd Reading of the European Union Bill , so expect to see the temperature rise! On Wednesday, after PMQs (Prime Minister's Question Time) there will be the 1st Estimates Day, which will involve debates on (i) Police Funding 2011/12 (ii) Department for International Development’s Assistance to Zimbabwe. The big day at Westminster will be Thursday - where two contoversial motions will be discussed and voted on

1 To approve resolution on increasing the higher amount which is to be applied under the higher Education Act 2004
2 motion relating to the draft Higher Education Basic Amount (England) Regulations

These would increase tuition fees. A day of protest is planned - and tempers are likely to flare, both within and outside the House of Commons.

The Lords plans to hold two further days of the committee stage of the controversial Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill . On Tuesday 2nd Reading of the Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill is due. This was declared to be a money bill, which severely reduces the role the House of Lords can play. So some of their Lordships will be an angry mood.

Labour gets two debates in the Lords on Thursday (each party is allocated a particular Thursday for debates)

1 The role of sport in the health and wellbeing of children and young people - Lord Pendry
2 The impact of cuts in grants to local authorities on the provision of social care and other public services - Baroness Thornton

Liaison Committee

Today the Prime Minister appears before the Liaison Committee. This committee brings together the Chairs of the Departmental Select Committees of the House of Commons. When this system was set up in 1979 the Prime Minister was strongly opposed to having the Head of Government submit to questioning by Commons committees. Prime Minister's Question Time was seen as the appropriate forum for holding the Premier to account. The objection was maintained until Tony Blair was persuaded to attend. It has now become an important feature of parliamentary life.

The most important aspect of these sessions is the opportunity to question the Prime Minister at length. The value of PMQs can be doubted. It is a very partisan event with opposing sides of the chamber - and particularly the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition - trying to score political points. Questions - and answers - are short, and the severe time constraints rarely permit a Premier to be challenged in depth. All Prime Ministers have acquired the skills to deal with questions they would rather not face.

Sessions before the Liaison Committee were intended to address that lack of proper scrutiny. There were teething troubles - as every Chair sought to put in a question - and some were less than succinct. Lessons have been learned, but this is a new Parliament, with new Chairs.

The committee website can be accessed here.

The evidence will begin at 2.00 pm on Thursday 18 November, and is expected to last for up to two and a half hours. it will be webcast live on Parliament TV.

It is expected that the questioning will cover the following subjects:


At 2pm: - The Spending Review: the PM’s involvement

The Comprehensive Spending Review process
The Defence settlement
Higher Education and science funding
Transport spending
Housing Benefit and Local Government funding
Police funding
Early intervention

At approximately 3.10pm: “Greenest government ever”

The green agenda
Progress to a low-carbon economy
Defra funding for flood defence
The Forestry Commission

At approximately 3.40pm: Strategic Defence and Security Review

UK National Strategy
UK foreign policy and the National Security Strategy
Counter-Terrorism policy and the role of National Security Council
Development and climate change

At approximately 4pm: Afghanistan and Pakistan

DFID’s programme in Afghanistan
Cross-Government working
UK’s general strategy for the region
Policy on withdrawal

Are the Media to blame?

In yesterday's post I mentioned the work of John Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse. In discussing 'what is wrong with the American political system' they comment -

"If open debate is seen as bickering and haggling; if bargaining and compromise are seen as selling out on principle; if all support staff and division of labor are needless baggage; if carefully working through problems is sloth; and if all interests somehow become evil special interests, it is easy to see why the public is upset with the workings of the political system."

This raises the question of how much the media moulds our perception of politics. My post yesterday suggested that we all naturally hold contradictory positions on democracy. Yet do the Daily Mail and Daily Express and the shock-jocks incessantly provoke our negative feelings? Would a more responsible media mean that our politicians are better understood and appreciated? Would Parliament's reputation be enhanced if more coverage was given to the calm, methodical and bipartisan work of Select Committees - and Prime Minister's Question Time given less prominence?

Do you agree with Glenn Parker's comment that "the public often lacks the basic understanding of the legislative process that would lead to an appreciation of the significance of legislative actions"?

Are the media to blame? - Your comments are appreciated.