Revision Update: Parliament: Select Committees - Watchdogs Without Teeth?

DEPARTMENTAL SELECT COMMITTEESThe dominance of the executive over the legislature has long been recognised. It is to a great extent the natural consequence of the UK using the Westminster model of government. The largest party forms the government after an election. This means that the government has an inbuilt majority. When this is completed by strict party discipline, the government in effect is in an all-powerful position. It should not lose a vote provided it can keep its majority together. The need for this imbalance to be addressed resulted in the formation of departmental select committees in 1979.

WATCHDOGS WITHOUT TEETH?

Graham Stuart, the chair of the Education Select Committee, stated that proposed changes to GCSE were the government “trying to do too much, too quickly.” Lo and behold, Michael Gove the Education minister then announced that he was prepared to abandon his proposed reforms and the introduction of the English baccalaureate. It might be too much of a stretch to say that the government simply yielded to the stinging criticism of the departmental select committee. There was opposition after all from universities, MPs, teachers’ unions and OFQUAL, the exams regulator. Still, Departmental select committees seem to be playing an increasingly important in undertaking scrutiny of government actions.

The select committees were introduced in 1979 to help redress the imbalance between the power wielded by the executive and the legislature. Given their inbuilt parliamentary majorities and strict party discipline enforced by the whips, governments faced little effective opposition in the House of Commons. Prime Minister’s Questions may be the highlight of the parliamentary week but they are more about petty party point scoring than in depth rigorous scrutiny of the government. Select committees allow for a more thorough examination of government policies and provide a platform to hold ministers accountable for their actions.

Select committees can investigate any issues relating to their policy domain. The Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee have recently been to the fore with their investigations into the phone hacking scandal which saw the high profile attendance of Rupert and James Murdoch. The same committee have also recently concluded their report on the governance of football with concerns being raised about the power exercised by the Premier League. The Transport Select Committee has led the way into the investigation of the West Coast rail line bid fiasco. The opportunity to call outside experts was used with Richard Branson explaining the woeful deficiencies of the bid process which resulted in the contract award to the First Group on the basis of “pie in the sky” financial projections. They also criticised attempts by the government to blame civil servants. Russell Brand appeared before the Home Affairs Select Committee to discuss drug addiction and treatment.

In stark contrast to Public Bill Committees which consider proposed legislation, line by line, clause by clause, select committees have become an increasingly attractive area of work for backbench MPs. They have a high public profile with their reports featuring in the press, TV and radio and serve the purpose of setting the agenda for the future debates and discussions.

Increasingly the select committees have shown a degree of independence that was previously lacking. In the past the long reach of the whips was evident over appointments to the committees and the actions of the MPs on them. Recent reforms have meant that members are now selected by MPs and not the whips. Select Committee chairs receive an additional £15,000 p.a.. Consequently, select committees are now viewed as being an alternative career path for MPs, one which does not necessitate continuous kowtowing to the party line.

It would be premature to conclude that executive dominance has been effectively curtailed. Select committees still lack the power and resources of their US congressional counterparts. There can be little doubt however that they have contributed to a parliamentary revival in recent years.

Questions.

1.) How does a departmental select committee differ from a public bill committee?

2.) What are other methods can be used to scrutinise the government?

3.) Discuss the criticisms that can be levelled against departmental select committees.

PARLIAMENT – SCRUTINY

THE SNOOPER’S CHARTER - A VICTORY FOR PARLIAMENT?

Parliament has been able to secure some successes in terms if scrutiny and as an influence on policy. With regard to the Draft Communications Bill (probably better known as the Snooper’s Charter), the government agreed to dilute its proposals following criticisms from parliament.

Indeed, Kampfner remarked “For those who lamented the lack of rigour of parliamentary scrutiny, the work of the joint committee on the draft communications bill is refreshing…Parliament has done its job. It has held a light to executive power and found it cavalier.”^[1]

THE REAL PRIME MINISTER’S QUESTIONS – THE LIAISON COMMITTEE

One of the highlights of the parliamentary calendar is the meeting of the Liaison Committee with the Prime Minister. The Liaison Committee has all the chairs of the various Departmental Select Committees putting questions to the PM. Unlike the pantomime politics evident at Prime Minister’s Questions where Miliband has a mere six question to the PM which can be easily averted. The Liaison Committee provides for sustained scrutiny of the PM and the government.

The December 2012 session witnessed

1. Cameron having to fudge answers to questions on “secret courts”
2. Clarified government relaxation of housing planning laws
3. Defended plans for an expansion of gas fired power stations and an extension of “fracking” – a controversial process for obtaining shale gas.

The session revealed the breadth of policy issues that the PM has to address as each chair of a select committee has their own area of specialist interest. It also reveals how the chairs try to act as parliamentarians first outing party loyalties behind them. Andrew Tyrie, Conservative chair of the Treasury select committee, was quite critical of Cameron demanding that the government accept the recommendations from the House of Lords with regard to secret courts.

WHO GUARDS THE GUARDS?

Malcolm Rifkind, Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee, (ISC) recently outlined some of the problems of scrutiny. Whilst the ISC is made up of Parliamentarians, it is not a Committee of Parliament. Under the Intelligence Services Act 1994, the Committee is required to report to the Prime Minister rather than directly to Parliament. In practice, however, the ISC operates much like a Joint Committee of Parliament, and carries out a similar scrutiny role.

Rifkind pointed out after the 7/7 bombings the committee lacked investigatory resources as it was unable to access agency files directly; requests for information could be declined; staffing and funding were inadequate.

The new Justice and Security bill will greatly increase the powers of the ISC. Information cannot be denied by agencies.