The SPG and the new select

committees

Professor Gavin Drewry

Emeritus Professor of Public Administration,

Royal Holloway, University of London

Study of Parliament Group 21st

Birthday, 1985

‘The main area of success has been the development of a comprehensive, lively, and politically significant select committee system in the Commons. As now operating, these departmental committees go well beyond what was originally envisaged, but at least the Group was, early, vigorous and persistent in the fight to get them appointed at all.’

Bernard Crick and Michael Ryle, Foreword to The Study of Parliament Group: The First Twenty-One years, 1964-1985, edited by Dermot Englefield

Committee reform and

origins of the SPG

SPG formed in 1964. Origins in discussions between Ryle and Crick, following publication of Crick’s The Reform of Parliament (1964, 2e 1968)

Crick advocated reform of the ‘ramshackle’ committee system – but was sceptical about the ‘superficial attractiveness’ of departmentally-related committees –preferring a new system ‘to bring together considerations relevant to several departments and to take broad views …’

Committee developments in

the 1960s and early ‘70s

SPG evidence to the Procedure Committee in 1964-65 (oral evidence from Bromhead, Hanson and Wiseman) echoed Crick’s preference for thematic or subject-related committees.

Called for enlargement of the Estimates Committee and extended use of its sub-committees + experimental subject-related ‘specialist committees of advice and scrutiny’.

The Crossman Committees

and thereafter

Reports of the Procedure Committee, 1964-65. Basis of the Crossman experiment with specialist committees in the 1966-70 Parliament.

3 departmentally-related (Education and Science, Overseas Aid, Agriculture)

3 subject-related (Science and Technology, Race Relations and Immigration, Scottish Affairs)

1970-71, conversion of the Estimates Committee into an Expenditure Committee with specialist sub-committees

In 1975 ‘some members’ of the SPG

undertook a stock-taking exercise of

committee reforms in the preceding

decade – published in a PEP booklet

PEP Report

‘Over the past decade there has been a steadily growing disenchantment with the concept of specialist committees …’

‘… Yet there is still much support for the development of Committee work within the Commons. Whenever MPs discuss the need to strengthen the activities of the legislature, the idea of committees is mentioned.’

Suggested that ‘the 1966 distinction between “subject” committees and “departmental” committees has disintegrated.’

The Procedure Committee,

First Report, HC 588, 1977-78

Nevertheless, a subsequent SPG memorandum of evidence to Procedure Committee re-emphasised the distinction between ‘subject’ and ‘departmental’ committees - and noted that (at least in terms of longevity) ‘without question the subject committees have fared better …’

The Report recommended the replacement of most existing committees by 12 new ones to examine all aspects of expenditure, administration and policy within the responsibilities of the appropriate government departments and associated bodies.

The basis of the Stevas reforms, 1979 – to which the SPG responded by setting up a study group to monitor the work of the 14 new committees

Monitoring the Stevas

Committees –

SPG Study Group, set up in 1980

Convened initially by Michael Lee, then by Gavin Drewry

Small Grant from the Nuffield Foundation

13 academics , monitoring each of the committees + 11 (anonymous) officials advising and facilitating the group’s work

Lots of interviews and regular contact with committee clerks

Regular meetings to discuss progress and discuss particular sub-themes, often with outside speakers

OUP 1985,

2nd edition

1989

What’s in the book?

Chapters on each of the 14 new committees +

one on select committees in the House of Lords.

Overview of the history and rationale of the

1979 reforms.

Five concluding chapters offering an overview

and assessment.

Cautiously supportive conclusions – rejecting

rash claims that the new committees had

significantly shifted the balance of power

between Parliament and the Executive but

opining that ‘the impossibility of effecting

constitutional revolution does not mean that the

1979 reforms can be dismissed as mere

cosmetic tinkering’.

Generally favourable reviews, but …

Reviews (1)

‘Who would suspect that this group [the SPG], composed mainly of academic political scientists, could be running one of the most effective job creation schemes in the country? … No sooner had the Study Group bounced a pliant Commons into establishing a system of Select Committees than it was scurrying off to the Nuffield Foundation for research funds to measure the strength, appeal and what-have-you of its offspring.’

Frank Field, MP, The Listener, 5 September 1985

Reviews (2)

‘Two uncertainties remain though and they are not unconnected. The authority of the committees to secure information on behalf of the Commons is potentially at odds with the asserted authority of ministers to refuse it in the exercise of their own judgment and executive privilege. Secondly the attempt to involve members of Parliament in the making of executive policy involves a very large claim. It ought perhaps to succeed but it amounts to changing the modern theory of the constitution –and constitutional changes these days are not easily to arrange.’

Geoffrey Marshall, THES, 25 October 1985.

Postscript: evidence to the

Procedure Committee, 1990

Inquiry into The Working of Select Committees.

Written memorandum on behalf of the SPG Study

Group, followed by Oral Evidence from Drewry and

Giddings [and Peter Hennessy] (14 March 1990)

Another SPG member, Professor George Jones, a

fierce critic of committee reforms, separately gave

evidence. A reminder that the SPG has, over the

years, spent a lot of energy discussing committee

reform – but by no means always singing from the

same hymn sheet.

“no new thing under the sun”

The long view of House of Commons Select Committees

MIKE EVERETT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

Select Committee fundamentals

▪Bodies of investigation appointed by the House for reasons of efficiency

▪Comprised of cross-party MPs, usually backbenchers

▪Task or function then ‘committed’ to them by the House for investigation or scrutiny

▪A Select Committee will usually do one of three things:➢Scrutinise policy

➢Examine the expenditure of public funds

➢Inquire into a scandal or failure

Early origins of the Committee system•Committees of triers and examiners of petitions in the late 13th Century

•‘Intercommuning committees’ in the 14th Century – select members of the ‘Commons’ and ‘Lords’ which met to discuss important matters before reporting back to their respective bodies.

•‘Fane Fragment’ of 1461 suggests that in the ‘Lords’ Bills were committed to a select group of peers to examine.

•Select committees used in the Commons to examine certain Bills by the 1520s.

‘we of the commen howse hathe a gud booke [bill] for cales [Calais] & it hathebene red & shortly had it commytted (as the manner ys)’

Sir William Kingston to Viscount Lisle, governor of Calais, in 1536

Select Committees in the 16th

Century

▪The use of select committees was one of the solutions to the ever increasing amount of business the Commons faced

▪Between 1547 and 1558 only about 25% of bills were considered in a committee

▪By 1572 50% of the membership of the Commons were members of committees, including committees examining religious, social and economic, and legal matters.

▪Commons has designated ‘Committee Room’ from circa 1547, although the number of committees meant they had to meet in a variety of places.

Select committees in the 17th

and 18th Centuries•The term ‘select committee’ first appears in the Commons Journals in 1604

•Clerks first begin to attend select committees in the late 17th century.

•Select committees not used to scrutinise public bills from circa 1690

•Finance Committee produced 36 reports between 1797 and 1801

Select Committees in 19th and early 20th Centuries

•During the Victorian era select committees were notable engines of social and political reform

•Corn Laws of 1815 and Metropolitan Police Act of 1829 were the product of committee work

•During first half of 19th century approx. 500 committees set up

•Establishment of the Committee of Public Accounts in 1861 a permanent step into financial scrutiny

•Decline in number of select committees during early twentieth century – Marconi Affair

•Committees continued to be used for private bills but strikingly few committees set up to look into scandal and failure for around 30 years

Early proposals for departmental select committees

Haldane Report of 1918 on Machinery of Government suggested:

“the appointment of a series of Standing Committees, each charged with the consideration of the activities of

the Departments which cover the main divisions of Government”.

Change in Commons select committees 1960-1980

PHILIP AYLETT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

The primacy of finance – Select Committee recommendations and observations 1961From Estimates Committee reports:

Separate enquiries into the War Office and Air Ministry should be held in the near future

Urgent consideration should be given to the expansion of the airspace available for civil flying in the London Terminal Area and to the establishment of the traffic control for military and civil aircraft in one Control Centre

The work of recording threatened earthworks should be the responsibility of the Ancient Monuments Branch of the Ministry of Works, and the four archaeologists employed on it should be transferred to the staff of that Branch

Government observation on a report:

The typography and layout followed in the illustrative selection of Votes represents the best modern practice and is generally the most acceptable to those working continuously with the Estimates.

SPG on specialist committees 1965Specialist Committees are needed to scrutinise the actions of government in their own fields, to collect, discuss, and report evidence relevant to proceedings in Parliament, whether legislative or other. The main weakness in Parliament’s present methods of scrutinising administration, and indeed of debating policy matters, is the limited ability to obtain the background facts and understanding essential for any detailed criticism of administration or any informed discussion of policy. Specialist committees … could go a long way to remedy this.

SPG Evidence to Procedure Committee, 1964-65

Procedure Committee Report 1965Your Committee have come to the conclusion that more information should be made available to Members of the way government departments carry out their responsibilities, so that, when taking part in major debates on controversial issues, they may be armed with the necessary background of knowledge. This requires that the House should possess a more efficient system of scrutiny of administration.

Recommendations included:

(i) That a new Select Committee be set up, as a development of the present Estimates Committee, “ to examine how the departments of state carry out their responsibilities and to consider their Estimates of Expenditure and Reports.”

(ii) That the new Committee should function through Sub-Committees specialising in the various spheres of governmental activity

The PM meets the Leader of the Opposition to discuss specialist committees

14 June 1966 – Wilson: select committees should ‘deal with policies and not just financial questions and it would therefore be necessary for Ministers, probably junior Ministers to guide the committees’ activities but not to veto them’.

Terms of Reference might be that the Committees should consider subjects referred to them by Ministers, but ‘Mr Heath doubted whether this would be acceptable to Members’.

Note for the Record, TNA PREM

Conclusions and Recommendations on policy, late 60s onwardsFrom an Estimates Committee report:

Subject to the basic moral purpose of the aid programme, aid should be increasingly concentrated on those countries which offer the greatest potential markets (1967-68)

From Expenditure Committee reports:

We think that the use of public expenditure to correct short-term deficiency of demand is an essential element of policy (1971-72)

National policy should be directed towards promoting public transport and discouraging the use of cars for the journey to work in city areas (1972-73)

We endorse the strategy of concentrating resources on NATO and, where possible, withdrawing from other areas (1974-75)

SPG on past and future 1976▪A major response to Executive expansion [since the 1960s]has been the increase in the range and number of select committees set up by the House.

▪[there have been] encouraging signs that Select Committees can achieve some considerable success in areas which have given rise to some embarrassment for Ministers and Government Departments.

▪It is unlikely unless there is a fundamental re-organisation of the whole method of operation of the House that there can be any further major total expansion of Select Committees. Change must therefore take place in the context of reallocation of effort rather than growth.

SPG Submission to Procedure Committee, November 1976

1978 Procedure Committee report –evolutionary change

5.14 Despite the considerable growth of the select committee system since 1964 and the changes which have taken place in their powers, the facilities available to them and their methods of work, the development of the system has been piecemeal and has resulted in a decidedly patchy coverage of the activities of government departments and agencies, and of the major areas of public policy and administration.

1.6. We believe that a new balance must be struck, not by changes of a fundamental or revolutionary character in the formal powers of the institutions concerned, but by changes in practice of an evolutionary kind, following naturally from present practices.

(32) The select committee structure should in future be based primarily on the subject areas within the responsibility of individual government departments, or groups of departments

What did happen in the 1980s▪Rising number of select committee inquiries: eg 41 in Session 1977-78, 96 in Session 1985-86

▪Numbers of members on select committees rose to just over 300 by mid-1980s but slipped back a little in later years

▪Average number of investigatory committee meetings ‘per sitting day’ in Session 1985-86 was 3.2, against 2.7 meetings per sitting day in 1977-78.

▪More ministerial evidence: eg Foreign Office Ministers appeared 12 times before the Defence and External Affairs Sub-Committee between 1974 and 1979, while there were 27 such appearances before the Foreign Affairs Committee in the next Parliament up to 1983.

What did not happen in the 1980s

▪ No select committee powers to summon Ministers and to set aside 8 Mondays in each session for Chamber debates on select committees

▪Evidence-taking Public Bill Committees did not become ‘normal’. Cabinet firmly opposed.

▪No salaries for Chairmen.

▪Committee of Selection still whip – dominated