Questioning styles

In his statement last week at the completion of four weeks of public hearings by the Iraq Inquiry, Sir John Chilcot said "We have not been trying to ambush witnesses or score points. This is a serious Inquiry. We are not here to provide public sport or entertainment. The whole point of our approach has been to get to the facts. We ask fair questions and we expect full and truthful answers .... witnesses have responded to this approach by being commendably open and candid."

Now, is there a glance in Sir John's comments at the questioning style of Select Committees? It has long been a subject for debate: does the aggressive style sometimes adopted by Committee members help or hinder the search for truth? Does browbeating a witness serve the cause of anything but the questioner's ego? And to what extent is it legitimate for Committees to treat oral hearings with central government witnesses in particular as a species of blood sport? Should the questioning style of some members (one thinks of Charles Wardle when on the Public Accounts Committee questioning witnesses about the passports fiasco of summer 1999, but there are many other examples) have been banned along with hunting with dogs?

On the other hand, the Iraq Inquiry itself has come under some criticism for a "too gentle" style of questioning - it was at least partly in response to these criticisms that Sir John made the remarks in his statement. The media certainly like to see witnesses given a hard time and the public also do not want to see them let off the hook.

There is of course a middle way - a style of questioning which is objective and challenging, polite but probing. It works best when the Committee are acting as a team. A good example was Clive Betts' question during the Communities and Local Government Committee's hearing on 14 December on Preventing Violent Extremism. He asked the academic witnesses in front of the Committee (I paraphrase) how he should have advised some young Muslim men who came to see him concerned about a mosque's role in radicalising young people unhelpfully. The question was not put aggressively, nor was Clive Betts trying to catch anyone out. It was just a very good - and a very difficult - question. In spite of back-up from the Chair and from another member, Clive Betts never did get a satisfactory answer to it.

A style of questioning which is genuinely challenging while being "fair" (to use Sir John Chilcot's word) is much more difficult to achieve than onlookers tend to think. While some Committee members manage it now, perhaps the cause of truth would be better served if those asking the questions on behalf of us all had more training and support to do so effectively.

The Start of a Process

It may be too early to judge the likely impact of today's report from the House of Commons Reform Committee. Dr Tony Wright, Chairman of the Committee, has himself described it as the start of a process which it will be for the next Parliament to carry forward. In some ways it is an opportunistic initiative. Although the report itself refers to the row over MPs' expenses in its first paragraph, it is actually an expression of much longer-standing backbench aspirations. We assume the members of the Committee believe that the expenses scandal has prepared the ground for those aspirations to be pursued.

That's not to say that the Committee's recommendations are by any means merely self-serving. They do genuinely offer ways to strengthen the House of Commons as an institution and to rebalance the relationship between Parliament and government, as well as modestly to increase the influence of the public on Parliament. For example, the proposal for Select Committee chairs and members to be elected - chairs by the whole House and members by party groups - holds out the prospect of more independently-minded Select Committees, which could lead to more interesting Select Committee reports. Whether they will be more influential remains to be seen.

As does a great deal more. Although the government has said it will make time to debate the report and although Sir George Young has said that reform will be a manifesto commitment for the Conservatives, there is plenty of scope for the Committee's recommendations to be watered down or to slip from view altogether between now and the General Election. But the current system of departmental Select Committees was agreed under one government 30 years ago and implemented under another. It would be rather neat if the biggest change in the system since then happened in the same way.

Pre-appointment hearings

Departmental Select Committees first acquired the additional function of holding pre-appointment hearings for certain key posts almost 18 months ago. The development did not attract much attention at the time or subsequently, although some observers had misgivings that it was the thin end of the wedge which could lead to wholesale politicisation of public appointments. But the list of posts subject to pre-appointment hearings was fairly limited; the government reserved the right not to be bound by Committees' views; and for some time all the hearings went off quietly.

The Children, Schools and Families Committee has changed all that with its refusal to endorse the appointment of Maggie Atkinson as Children's Commissioner for England. The decision has been presented as a personal challenge by Barry Sheerman, Chairman of the Committee, to Ed Balls and, by extension, to Gordon Brown. Barry Sheerman himself has helped to create this impression with remarks about Ed Balls being a "bit of a bully". But Ed Balls' working relationship with Ms Atkinson is hardly relevant to her fulfilment of the role. She does not take up post until March, and with a General Election coming up Ed Balls is likely to move on as Secretary of State - one way or another - very soon afterwards.

The row is interesting however as heralding a new direction for Select Committee pre-appointment hearings. The decision not to endorse Ms Atkinson's appointment was taken unanimously by the Committee. Their reason was that she came across to them, not just from her track record but also from her answers at the hearing, as too much of an establishment figure. She expressed a preference for working behind the scenes rather than public campaigning. The Committee wanted a different approach.

They also wanted more powers in this area. Their first conclusion was not about Ms Atkinson but on this point:

"We welcome the opportunity afforded by the pre-appointment hearing process to increase scrutiny by Parliament, on behalf of the public, of key public appointments. However, our role is closely circumscribed, which limits the value of involving select committees in the process, particularly as we have no means of comparing the preferred candidate with other applicants."

The point was taken up on the floor of the House and in television interviews too.

A decisive step has been taken by the Children, Schools and Families Committee and there is no going back now. Expect tougher pre-appointment hearings in future, more Committees declining to endorse appointments and more complaints from Committees if their views are ignored by Ministers.

Regional Select Committees - a seven day wonder?

They were introduced in a climate of scepticism and political disagreement. They have been buffeted by the fallout from the row over MPs’ expenses and they are struggling to remain quorate. Nevertheless Regional Select Committees are showing signs of fulfilling a genuinely useful purpose and making a distinctive contribution to our democracy. So what’s the longer term outlook for them?

Achievements so far

The Regional Select Committees were set up in March 2009 – uniquely for Parliamentary Select Committees with Labour membership only (see The Political Debate below). While some got off to a slow start, several got energetically stuck in to their job of holding regional organisations to account. Half the Regional Select Committees managed to publish their first reports before the summer break and one more in the middle of September (the South East Committee’s report was published to coincide with the first South East Regional Grand Committee debate). And there is no lack of ambition in the themes they have tackled – all generally focused on the state of the economy and the role of the Regional Development Agencies in responding to it.

As well as fulfilling a traditional scrutiny function, they seem determined both to champion their own regions and bring Parliament to the people through holding hearings in the regions as far as possible. Paddy Tipping MP, Chairman of the East Midlands Committee, is a good example. The press notice he issued following his election as Chairman quoted him saying “The Committee intends to ensure that EMDA and other agencies working in the East Midlands are held to account. What’s more we want to promote the region and the regional agenda”. And at the Committee’s first hearing he said “we will try…to have a kind of local style, rather than a Westminster style”.

Background on Regional Select Committees

The Government first proposed the establishment of Regional Select Committees in July 2007 in the Green Paper, The Governance of Britain. The House of Commons Modernisation Committee supported the proposal in its report on Regional Accountability, recommending “that the most effective way to strengthen regional accountability to Parliament is to establish a system of regional grand and select committees”. The House of Commons endorsed the Committee’s recommendation on 12 November 2008, agreeing to create eight regional select committees covering the eight administrative regions of England. The remit of these committees is to “examine regional strategies and the work of regional bodies” in their region. On 25 June 2009 the House of Commons agreed to establish a ninth Committee for London.

Although the Committees are made up only of Labour MPs, they have not pulled their punches in their recommendations. Several have pressed for Regional Development Agency budgets to be protected or increased and there are strong challenges to the Regional Ministers in particular. For example, the South West Committee recommends “that the Regional Minister considers how he can more clearly demonstrate that his influence, either alone or in co-ordination with the Regional Economic Council, has brought about changes for the benefit of the South West”.

Strengths

Some of the strengths which the Committees have already demonstrated are:

- their closeness to people and issues. Because the members’ constituencies are all in the region they have an intimate knowledge of what is going on and in many cases already know the witnesses. Comparisons might be drawn in this respect with Committees of the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly;

- their informality. Hearings have been held in universities, museums, village halls as well as the more predictable Council chambers. First names are frequently used;

- working together. There has been commonality of theme and, in many cases, recommendations which reinforce each other;

- their size. Because of the issues over nominating members, these Committees are exceptionally small, with five members each, and this means they can be relatively speedy and focused.

And Weaknesses

But they have also demonstrated weaknesses, of which the first is:

- their size! With a Committee of five and a quorum of three, they are particularly vulnerable to absences and distractions. The East of England Committee has been completely disabled by the departure of Ian Gibson and the preoccupation of Margaret Moran, the Chair, because of the expenses row. They are also more likely to fall prey to individual members with bees in their bonnets;

- their lack of political balance. Several Committees have regretted this in their reports and it is undoubtedly a threat to their longer term existence.

The political debate on Regional Select Committees

Labour advocated Regional Select Committees to plug the accountability gap between local government scrutiny arrangements and Departmental and other Select Committees at national level. The Conservatives oppose many aspects of the government’s regional policy and many would solve the problem by abolishing the regional bodies which the Committees have been set up to scrutinise. The Liberal Democrats are mainly angry that Committee membership is supposed to reflect the political make-up of the House of Commons, rather than the region – particularly important for them in the South West, where there is a high concentration of Lib Dem MPs.

Future prospects

So what are the prospects for the future of Regional Committees? On paper they look bleak. The Conservatives have said they would abolish them if and when they come into power.

But Ben Bradshaw, the former Regional Minister for the South West, said when he appeared before the Committee on 30 March at their first hearing “that will be very much in your hands, as to whether you do a good job, and are seen to be doing a good job at doing the work that the House has asked you to do on their behalf”. And the Committees themselves seem to have a considerable degree of self belief. Several future inquiries have already been announced, with a broader range of themes this time.

And the desire for accountability at a level between that of local Councils and the UK as a whole is not confined to the Labour party. Some Conservatives – including for example John Redwood - would like to see a Parliament for England, to balance those for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. We may find that the Regional Select Committees, if they do not survive in their current form, will have to be reinvented as something else.