AS Politics update: Parliament

A couple of recent examples from today’s paper have cropped up in respect of the relationship between the legislature and the executive.

A major development in the ability of the House of Commons to control the executive is the introduction of departmental select committees in the UK in 1979. These non-partisan bodies can call for ‘persons, papers and records’ and can be seen to have resulted in more open government and act as a useful deterrent on an over mighty executive. Furthermore, the Prime Minister is now called to answer questions twice a year by the Liaison Committee. Peter Riddell has argued that select committees have ‘been a major factor in the opening up of the workings of government over the past twenty years.’ Successes include: o Blowing the whistle on the government’s Arms-to-Africa affair in 1999 by the Foreign Affairs committee o A scathing attack on transport policy in 2002, and in 2005 the House of Commons Select Committee covering the work of the ODPM has criticised the work of the department calling it ‘ineffective’. o In July 2007, the constitutional affairs committee concluded that following a series of controversies the role of the Attorney General was ‘not sustainable’ and should be reformed. o In October 2006, a report from the powerful Public Accounts Committee (which predates the 1979 committees and is traditionally headed by a member of the opposition) claimed that a shortage of high quality head teachers was to blame for at least a million children being taught in ‘second-rate’ schools.

Today the Guardian reports:

“The Treasury Select Committee has written to chancellor George Osborne asking for full details on how much would be raised by the government’s proposed privatisation programme and what the proceeds would be used for.

In the emergency budget, the chancellor listed a number of state assets which could be sold, including the Royal Mail, the Tote, part of the student loan portfolio and the air traffic control service. During an appearance before the select committee this month the chancellor said: “I’m not relying on asset sales for my deficit reduction programme and the proceeds from asset sales will be used for a number of purposes.”

Now MP Andrew Tyrie, chairman of the committee, wants more detail from the chancellor on the government’s thinking. He is keen for a projection of the receipts expected from asset sales and privatisations; an explanation of which asset sales and privatisations have already been incorporated into the government’s plans (with a breakdown by department); and the accounting methodology used.

Chuka Umunna, a Labour MP and member of the committee said: “These are the people’s assets and details of the sale of them should not in future years be produced like rabbits out of a hat at Budget time to fund pre-election tax cuts without a national debate beforehand on whether they should be sold and, if so, a discussion of when, for what amount and how the proceeds should be used.”

Another good example relates to policing tactics at the student protests last week. Also from the same paper:

Metropolitan police commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson faces mounting pressure after footage emerged showing an officer policing Thursday’s student protests not wearing identification.

Following the G20 protests last year, during which Ian Tomlinson died after being pushed to the ground by a police officer not wearing ID, Stephenson said it was “absolutely unacceptable” for officers to cover or remove their shoulder tags bearing identification numbers. However, a video taken by one of the protesters at the London demonstration clearly shows an officer not displaying her ID.

Keith Vaz, chair of the home affairs select committee, said last night that he would be raising the issue with home secretary Theresa May on Tuesday at the select committee.”

You can discover more on the work of select committees via this link.