The Liaison Committee

Tomorrow (20th May) - there will be discussion and then a vote on a motion concerning the Chair of the Liaison Committee -

LIAISON (MEMBERSHIP) Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg
That -
(1) With effect for the current Parliament, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 121 (Nomination of select committees), the Members elected by the House or otherwise chosen to be chairs of each of the select committees listed in paragraph (2) shall be a member of the Liaison Committee;

(2) The committees to which paragraph (1) applies are: ......

(3) Sir Bernard Jenkin shall also be a member, and the chair, of the Liaison Committee.

Amendment (a) 
Ms Harriet Harman 
Yvette Cooper 
Hilary Benn
Meg Hillier
Ian Mearns
Sarah Champion (plus others)...

Line 43, leave out paragraph (3) and insert-

“(3) The chair of the Liaison Committee shall be a current chair of a Select Committee.“.

Amendment (b)
Mr Peter Bone
Nigel Mills

Line 43, leave out paragraph (3) and insert-

“(3) The chair of the Liaison Committee shall not be a current chair of a Select Committee, but a member from the governing party, elected under arrangements made by the Speaker as if Standing Order 122 B applied.”.

It might sound a bit parochial - but there are key issues at stake. I would encourage you to read the Report prepared by the Hansard Society. It is called

"Who chooses the scrutineer? Why MPs should resist the government's attempt to determine the Liaison Committee chair" - and is available via the link below

https://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/publications/briefings/who-chooses-the-scrutineer-why-mps-should-resist-the-governments-attempt-to 

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.

APPGs and Select Committees

Sometimes a media report on Westminster will mention reports "by MPs", or by "committees of MPs". Such phrases don't highlight the nature of the group involved.

 

Select Committees are set up by the House of Commons. (There are also Select Committees in the House of Lords and Joint Committees). The most well known are the Departmental Select Committees, which are covered by Standing Order 152. Further related Standing Orders are 121-152K (2015 Standing Orders as amended by the Addendum of June 2015). One of the most well known, and influential select committees is the Public Accounts Committee - which I attended on Tuesday.

There is a video on committees - accessible here.

APPGs (All Party Parliamentary Groups) are set up by MPs and Peers themselves. They are wholly unofficial. They can range from APPGs promoting serious policy issues, to ones celebrating a particular leisure or cultural interest of its members (such as the Jazz Appreciation APPG). A register of APPGs is regularly published (the latest - March 2015 - is available here)

The range can be seen from the last 20 entries -

Weight Watchers

Wellbeing Economics

West Coast Main Line

West Midlands
Wine and Spirit
Women and Enterprise
Women in Parliament
Women in the Penal System

Women, Peace and Security

Women’s Sport and Fitness
Wood Panel Industry
World Governance
Writers
Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire
Young Disabled People
Youth Affairs
Youth Hostelling
Youth Unemployment
Zoos and Aquariums
Zoroastrian

A guide to the rules governing APPGs can be found here.

Hansard Society

Today the Hansard Society will hold its AGM in the Palace of Westminster. The Society has been a great advocate and educator about the Westminster Parliament and beyond (and as Parliaments have been established in the other nations of the UK, it has been active within them). It's website states -

"The Hansard Society believes that the health of representative democracy rests on the foundation of a strong Parliament and an informed and engaged citizenry. Founded in 1944, we are a charity working in the UK and around the world to promote democracy and strengthen parliaments. An independent, non-partisan political research and education Society our work is devoted to:

1. Exploring the evolution of representative democracy: offering evidence-based ideas for reform of political and parliamentary institutions, processes and culture to help foster democratic renewal.
2. Educating citizens, particularly young people: so that they have the knowledge and confidence to play an active role in our democracy and be future leaders in civic and political life.
3. Connecting citizens with parliamentarians and policy-makers: through innovative on and off-line initiatives to address the democratic deficit.
4. Convening debate on topical political issues: providing a non-partisan forum for the exchange of ideas about our democratic future.

The website is well worth exploring. It has some excellent resources. Each year they produce their "Audit of Political Engagement", which is taken very seriously by Parliamentarians and academics. Those who don't use it deny themselves much useful information about what is going on in the minds of electors. Can anyone wishing to be an MP afford not to read it?

It has also played a key role in encouraging Parliamentary Reform during its history - and Parliament is all the better for it.

After the AGM some of the newly elected select committee chairs will discuss how committees organise their work, their role in the scrutiny process, the challenges the committees will face over the coming year, as well as their aims for this Parliament and what they would consider a successful outcome.

I'm really looking forward to going.

For further information about the Hansard Society visit http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/

 

Is "good government" possible?

Ronald Reagan once stated (actually I think he kept on saying it!) that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." It's a view that many people hold today. I have to say right from the start - it is not a view I share.

Yet we hear so much about cost overruns; corruption; blunders; if not sheer incompetence. It's not limited to a particular government; or even system of government - I subscribe to The Guardian (UK); Le Monde (France); New York Times (UK); and "European Voice" (EU). Very different systems are reported upon - but the stories are so familiar.

Is it a question of complexity? Our modern world is so complicated - that it may be impossible for any institutions to attempt to keep everything working at the same time. Some people argue that only unrestricted market forces can bring about the optimum results. Frankly, that seems to me to be complete rubbish. History is full of examples of the follies and disasters brought about by unregulated markets. If you want scandals, swindles; abuse of power - read any economic history. I remember reading Professor Galbraith's argument that modern economic history demonstrates a recurring cycle - scandal & crashes (from the South Sea Bubble to...applying his thesis - the Banking crisis of recent years), followed by government intervention to save the system and regulations to stop the same thing happening again - followed inevitably by demands for the relaxing of regulations - leading to new scandals and crashes. Public officials are (rightly) held to much higher ethical standards than business requires.

Certainly complexity is one of a (series) of problems - but can it explain the role of abuse of power and scandal?

I think that we have to accept the first part of Lord Acton's dictum that "POWER TENDS TO CORRUPT, absolute power corrupts absolutely." There are various ways that systems can seek to temper the downside of Human Nature.

Constitutional Law has its role to play. A constitution can set limits on power, and rules which invalidate actions which breach the Constitution. Most states have a single document which sets out the main rules. However that single document is not the complete statement of constitutional law. The US Constitution has been interpreted and applied by the Courts, particularly the US Supreme Court. Constitutional conventions can exist. Until Franklin Roosevelt ran for a third term it was a convention that Presidents served no more than two terms. He broke it, and a constitutional amendment was subsequently passed. Legal remedies may work (but may not be safe in the hands of clever lawyers), but sometimes other pressures encourage compliance. "Conventions" in the UK play this role - they are not legally enforceable, but constitutional actors regard themselves bound by the convention. They are effective when they mean that the cost of breaking the convention outweighs any short term advantage. The Queen could refuse to give the Royal Assent to a bill passed by Parliament (was she tempted when the Hunting Bill was passed?) - but the cost would be the loss of the unchallenged role that the Crown plays.

Ethics rules can play a role. While we might complain about our current politicians being a bunch of rogues - they are actually 'cleaner' than most generations in history. Many scandals of the last 40 years involve behaviour that, thanks to ethics rules, are forbidden - previously these practices were regarded as normal political behaviour.

"Accountability" is a requirement that can reduce scandal and show up incompetence. There is an important role for investigative committees - in Congress committees play an important role in questioning decisions; and requiring officials and others to justify their actions. Within constraints the Departmental Select Committees in the House of Commons can do the same. They are aided by professional support bodies - the GAO (Government Accountability Office) in the USA and the NAO (National Audit Office) in the UK.

In England MPs and Councillors can ask questions of officials carrying out policies; and the decision makers who have adopted policies - and demand answers. Sometimes the press can play a role in uncovering sharp practices and incompetence. There are also various organisations seeking to hold decision makers to account - such as the USA's Common Cause.

We don't live in a perfect world - and Human Nature can be deeply flawed - but in democracies - where power belongs to its citizens - we each have a responsibility (to ourselves and to others) to see that power is accountable to us.

Does it matter who we vote for?

I care less and less about which members of the political elite hold key offices. Does it really make any difference as to whether its the Old Etonian Boy's Club (Cameron et al)? privately educated MPs [ALL parties - 54% of Conservative MPs attended fee paying schools, compared with 40% of Liberal Democrat MPs, and 15% of Labour MPs.]? or the extremely wealthy (Essential if you want to be a Senator; Congressman and to an increasing extent an MP or Peer)?

[Well yes, if you believe in a representative democracy]

But my point isn't to decry the "pay to play" principle; or to deny that there are vastly different policies being put forward by the different parties - but to consider the implications of an important point made by Lord Acton in 1887.

 "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Sadly, Acton's words are true. There is a tendency for power to corrupt - perhaps not in its grossest form - but subtly, by desensitising people once they achieve power. Recent history is full of examples - the expenses scandal at Westminster is classic. Decent, hard-working, dedicated people ended up making claims which were outrageous - but their time in power had desensitised them. "Group-think" took over. Benefits became entitlements - and the public purse dipped into in a way they'd have condemned before they entered the Westminster village. We've read in the papers over recent months of how people thrust into power - whether they be performers or DJs; or politicians - abused their positions to claim sexual victims. Senator Fulbright spoke of the "arrogance of power" that can be shown by nations - but it can often be shown by individuals.

One of the defining demands of 'Extreme-Conservatives' is for less regulation. Cast off regulation and everyone would be better off. Their little experiment now has its results - the banking crisis; Enron; the horsemeat scandal...

We can't alter human nature - but we can put in safeguards to lessen the change of power corrupting. The Americans when they drew up their Constitution were keen to insert "checks and balances".

Montesquieu proposed 'separation of powers' as one way to lessen the likelihood of tyranny developing. Even medieval Kings required 'weights and measures' laws to stamp on the 'rip-off merchants.

Requiring greater accountability from those who exercise power is the only way to take on our human failings. Judicial Review in the UK has developed to challenge - not the substance of decisions - but the way they've been taken. A decision made by a public official who has a financial interest in the result of that decision, will be declared invalid. Decisions can be challenged and struck down where there is irrationality; or irrelevant considerations have been taken into account.

At Westminster and in Congress - our representatives can investigate and question how decision makers have acted. The National Audit Office [NAO] and the Government Accountability Office [GAO] can undertake professional, in-depth investigations and report their findings to our representatives. In Britain MPs and Peers can ask oral questions during question times - and grill Ministers in committee.

Freedom of Information laws can also shed sunlight upon decisions made - allowing questions to be asked.

It does matter who we vote for - because our representatives can call decision makers to account. The issue for us as voters is whether our Parliament/Parlement/Congress has the powers; tools and commitment to holding decision makers to account.

Select Committees

The House of Commons has a number of Departmental Select Committees, who generally have no role in the legislative process (those committees are known as ‘Public Bill Committees’, which meet in committee rooms where MPs sit on either side of the room – like a mini House of Commons – with the Government on one side and the Opposition on the other).


Select committees sit around a horseshoe shaped table – and their role and powers are described in Standing Order 152

152.—(1) Select committees shall be appointed to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the principal government departments as set out in paragraph (2) of this order and associated public bodies….

(2)…

(3) Each select committee appointed under this order shall have the power to appoint a sub-committee.

(4) Select committees appointed under this order shall have power—

(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to
adjourn from place to place, and to report from time to time;

(b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee’s order of reference; and

(c) to report from time to time the evidence taken before sub-committees, and the formal minutes of sub-committees;

and the sub-committees appointed under this order shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, to report from time to time their formal minutes, and shall have a quorum of three.

(5) Unless the House otherwise orders, all Members nominated to a committee appointed under this order shall continue to be members of that committee for the remainder of the Parliament.

Further information can be found at http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/committees/select/

Legal Privilege and Parliament

Lawyers; Law Students and followers of Parliament may find the following exchanges interesting.



The transcript is available here.

The letter from Dave Hartnett, Permanent Secretary for Tax referred to - which puts HM Revenue & Custom's view on the disclosure of taxpayer confidential information to a Parliamentary Committee is available here.
Any comments would be welcome.

Pre-appointment Hearings

In the United States a large number of appointments are subject to confirmation hearings. In the UK there is no similar requirement, but in recent years Select committees have experimented with "pre-appointment hearings". The Liaison Committee has today published a report on these hearings which says -

"we recommend a number of changes to the system as it stands.
 The list of posts to which the procedure applies should be refined. We propose, for the purposes of further discussion, a three-part list. Posts in the first tier are those we consider to be of sufficient constitutional significance as to require a process which is effectively a joint appointment by Government and the House of Commons. Posts in the second tier are those which we propose should be subject to an enhanced and improved version of the current process, and which should be subject to an "effective veto" by the House of Commons or its committees. For posts in the third tier we propose that a pre-appointment hearing should be at the discretion of committees.

The procedure for pre-appointment hearings should be refined to provide for:

greater consultation between Ministers and committees at the outset of the recruitment process on the definition of the post and the criteria for selection;

more information to be provided to committees in advance of hearings about the field of candidates from which the preferred candidate has been selected;
 a recognition that it may be appropriate for the Chair of a committee to discuss privately with a Minister any reservations the Committee may have about a candidate before issuing its report and before the Minister proceeds to a decision;
 a resolution of the House of Commons confirming appointments in certain cases.

Select Committees start their work

Last week the membership of the House of Commons Select Committees was finally agreed to. There were a number of private meetings of these committees, as members decided what inquiries they wished to pursue. Some of these inquiries begin in earnest this week.

Today the Health Committee is taking evidence from Andrew Lansley, the Secretary of State for Health. The inquiry is entitled "The responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Health". Meanwhile the Business, Innovation & Skills Committee meets Vince Cable (Secretary of State, LibDem) and Minister of State (David Willetts, Cons) for the committee's inquiry into "The work of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills". The Secretary of State for Wales, Cheryl Gillan, is meeting the Welsh Affairs Committee.

On Wednesday the Scottish Affairs Committee has an "introductory session with the Scotland Office" with the Secretary of State & Parliamentary Under Secretary (Ministers) and the Director of the Scotland Office (Civil Servant). The Lord Chancellor, who heads the Ministry of Justice, will meet the Justice Committee for their inquiry into "the work of the Ministry of Justice".

This type of inquiry into the work of a Department is a useful way of kicking off scrutiny by a committee early in the Parliament. More specific inquiries are also running - such as the Treasury Committee's inquiry into the Office of budget responsibility or the Defence Committee's session with the Secretary of State tomorrow on  "Current operations in Afghanistan, the Strategic Defence & Security review, and defence acquisition reform".

Select Committee Membership

This year membership of the Commons select committees is being determined, not by appointment by the whips, but by secret ballots within each party. The results from the Conservative and Labour Parties are available here.

The results of the elections for Chairs of committees are available here.

These elections are the result of reforms adopted after the "Rebuilding the House" proposed a number of changes to rebalance power towards MPs from government. A summary of reforms is available in a House of Commons Library Standard Note available here. The results of the Liberal Democrat votes are expected early next week.

Confirmation Hearings

The US Senate has a long history of "confirmation hearings" - rooted in its constitutional role to give its "advice and consent" to the President in respect of appointments to the judicial and executive branch. The process is described in a CRS Report available here.

It has long been a hope of reformers in the House of Commons that Select Committees will play a greater role in scrutinising major appointments. As with many things in the British Parliament, there has been a slow evolution of their role. The Coalition Agreement appears to suggest that things are about to change.

A House of Commons Library paper issued this week, outlines some of the background and issues. It is available here.

Britain is not about to adopt a system like that of the US Senate - we won't be rushing into the types of logjams in appointments that can occur when there are partisan divisions over particular nominations - and individual MPs won't be able to put "holds" on nominations - but there could be a significant improvement in the ability of Parliament to scrutinise.

Select Committee Chairs

New procedures are now in place for the election of Chairs of the Commons select committees. In order to give more powers to members themselves - it has been made harder for whips (both on the Government and Opposition sides) to choose the members and chairs. Back in 2001 a clumsy attempt by the Government to replace two Chairs seen as awkward backfired badly.

The party of a particular committee's Chair has been determined by agreement - to ensure that chairs are fairly allocated around the House

Business, Innovation and Skills - Labour
Children, Schools and Families [Education] - Conservative
Communities and Local Government - Labour
Culture, Media and Sport - Conservative
Defence - Conservative
Energy and Climate Change - Conservative
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - Conservative
Foreign Affairs - Conservative
Health - Conservative
Home Affairs - Labour
International Development - Liberal Democrat
Justice - Liberal Democrat
Northern Ireland - Conservative
Science and Technology - Labour
Scottish Affairs - Labour
Transport - Labour
Treasury - Conservative
Welsh Affairs - Conservative
Work and Pensions - Labour
Environmental Audit - Labour
Procedure - Conservative
Public Administration - Conservative
Public Accounts - Labour

To be valid, nominations for Chairs must contain a signed statement made by the candidate declaring willingness to stand, and must be accompanied by the signatures of fifteen Members elected to the House as members of the same party as the candidate, or ten per cent of the Members of that party, whichever is the lower.

The ballot will take place on Wednesday 9 June between 10 am and 5 pm. Nominations will close at 5 pm on Tuesday 8 June.

Committees at Westminster

I'm back to Westminster today. I'm pretty sure that I won't get an opportunity to sit in one of the many committees taking evidence today, as I have the backlog of the last couple of weeks to deal with - but I do hope to spend more time at these hearings. As recent posts should make clear - I regard the oversight work by committees as one of the most important tasks carried out by a legislature.

The calendar of committee meetings are available via the following links

House of Commons

House of Lords

The current list of House of Commons select committee inquiries is available here. The House of Lords inquiries are listed at the document linked to above.

House of Commons Reform

The Report of the House of Commons Reform Committee - "Rebuilding the House" - has been published. Set up earlier this year to address growing concerns about the effectiveness of the House of Commons, it was chaired by Tony Wright - the highly respected Chair of the Public Administration Committee (which has done so much to highlight constitutional issues & press for more powerful oversight of the Executive).

The main recommendations include
- Election of Select Committee Chairs by the House in a secret ballot
- Election of members of Select Committees by each party in secret ballots, the allocation of seats to each party representing the proportion of seats held in the Commons by the parties.
- smaller Select Committees to improve effectiveness
- rapid selection of select committee membership after a General Election
- establishment of a House Business Committee - with a Backbench Business Committee to organise the use of non-ministerial business time
- revival of work towards establishing an e-petitions system
- establishment of a system for "agenda initiative" by the public
- establishment of a monthly slot for debate of backbench motions

"opening up the process of legislation and giving the public a real opportunity to influence the content of draft laws should be a priority in the New Parliament"

Peter Riddell (Times Assistant Editor & Chair of the Hansard Society) commented on the report in the Times.

The full report is available here.

Select Committes

The Hansard Society has made the recordings of the sessions of its conference on Select Committees available at http://ow.ly/gfGP

Departmental Select Committees

While the twentieth century saw a general decline in the power of Parliament against the Executive, the creation of the departmental select committees has enabled an important fight back. While they still don’t get the attention from the media and the public they deserve – they do play an important role in scrutiny by MPs.
Today is the 30th anniversary of their creation – hence the conference I attended on Tuesday. The far reaching proposals for a system of select committees were made by the Procedure Committee in 1978. Bill Proctor, a Former Clerk of the Committee, gave an interesting paper on the development of the report and its subsequent publication and reception. I hope that the Hansard Society will be able to publish this paper on its website.

Priscilla Barnes wrote a chapter on the “History and Rationale of the 1979 Reforms” in “The New Select Committees” which was edited by Gavin Drewey. Both were at the conference.

The Procedure Committee Report was published in the summer of 1978. It fell to the incoming Government in 1979 to implement the proposals. The hero was Norman St-John Stevas, Leader of the House of Commons. He “rushed the whole system through cabinet committees before it dawned on the Prime Minister [Mrs Thatcher] what was going on” (Christopher Price). As a result of his actions an important structure was set up which is something the Werstminster Parliament can be proud of.

Protecting MPs outside Westminster

Yesterday I attended an afternoon conference at Westminster, “Departmental Select Committees – 30 Years of Scrutiny”. It was an interesting and topical conference jointly organised by the Hansard Society; Study of Parliament Group; and the House of Commons. It was such a feast that I will be sharing observations and information from it for some time on this blog.

My favourite anecdote came from Christopher Price, a former Chairman of the Education Select Committee. It concerns a sub-committee of the predecessor Education Committee in the late 1970s.

The subcommittee, which Mr Price chaired, was enquiring into the ‘student revolt’ of the time. They intended to make a visit to the Guildford College of Art. Many attempts were made by Surrey County Council – who ran the College – to stop the visit. They even argued that it would be “unconstitutional” for a Parliamentary Committee to conduct a visit covering a local government institution. {Law students may wish to discuss that claim}. It failed.

The Commons authorities became involved. They feared that an incident might occur during the visit, and said that there was no precedent to enable them to allocate funds for proceedings outside parliament. Fortunately the Clerk of the subcommittee was able to find an ancient precedent. The House of Commons had hired bodyguards to protect MPs when they were on their way to St Paul’s Cathedral to give thanks for the restoration to sanity of George III.

House of Commons Standing Orders now provide that committes shall have the power "to adjourn from place to place"

In Committee

Committees in Westminster do not enjoy the same powers as those in Congress. While resources have been significantly increased, they pale by comparison to those enjoyed in Washington. However, in the UK, they are the bright spot of recent parliamentary reform. They continue to grow in significance - as members become more adept at scrutiny.

You can find details of the current inquiries at -

House of Commons: http://www.parliament.uk/what_s_on/hoc_news4.cfm

House of Lords: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/LordsWeeklyBulletin.pdf

These are updated weekly, so you may wish to bookmark the addresses.

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.