Don't Try This at Home

The Select Committees may be running down towards the imminent end of this Parliament, but in spite of the fact that they are demob happy (or perhaps because of it) there is still plenty of fun to be had in observing the behaviour of Committee members and witnesses. Take the Public Accounts Committee hearing on problem drug use a couple of weeks ago. Edward Leigh, the Chair, who is retiring, began with the remark "400 [hearings] down; four more to go". We were then treated to the unusual experience of a witness answering back to him. Paul Hayes, Chief Executive of the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, told him "I recognise you want me to be brief but if you bring issues that are not within the Report to the table then what do you expect?" Luckily for him, this raised a laugh, in which Edward Leigh joined heartily.

Later, Austin Mitchell suggested that Paul Hayes was wrong about the trend in drug-related deaths. His response: "No, I am absolutely right." Edward Leigh: "Are you ever wrong?" Mr Hayes: "It has been known." More laughs - at least from Committee Watch.

How did Paul Hayes get away with it? It was not just luck. First, he was extremely well-informed, with all the facts and figures at his fingertips. He never looked at his brief - he just knew it. Secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, he was patently passionate about his job and his subject and he demonstrated authentic concern for drug users, their families and the victims of drug-related crime. Thirdly, he had the ability to hold the attention of the Committee by making the statistics come alive through discussion of the motivations and behaviour of the individual drug user. Austin Mitchell actually referred to the "impressive manner" in which his evidence was delivered.

My advice to any witness tempted to answer back to a Committee is "don't". But if you can replicate Paul Hayes's knowledge, passion, sense of humour and communication skills, you might just get away with it.

Base Camp

The debate on 22 February on the Wright Committee's recommendations was inconclusive (although some fine speeches were made) and only the more minor resolutions were passed without objection. This meant that expectations were not unduly high for the outcome of the votes on some of the more contentious recommendations after the resumed debate on 4 March. But those of us who had given up hope of progress after the long drawn-out agony of the government's handling of the report (see previous posts) were confounded. Finally, the House of Commons more or less got it together. They agreed that from the beginning of the next Parliament the Chairs (no longer "Chairmen") of the departmental Select Committees, the Environmental Audit Committee, the Public Administration Select Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the Procedure Committee will be elected by the whole House. And they endorsed the principle that members of Select Committees should be elected by the parties. They also approved the recommendation in the report for the establishment of a Backbench Business Committee.

So where exactly does this get us? Harriet Harman described it as "the most far-reaching package of reforms ever agreed". Sir George Young was more cautious but he said "I believe that the resolutions represent our best opportunity for decades to start rebalancing the terms of trade away from the Executive and to start strengthening Parliament and making it more effective, more accountable and more relevant to the people outside it". Others, however, took a slightly different line. David Heath, for the Lib Dems, said "An Everest of reform is necessary...if we were climbing Everest, we would simple be at base camp." Michael Meacher described the two main proposals on elected Select Committees and the Backbench Business Committee as "certainly not revolutionary. Actually, they are quite modest". It was Tony Wright, perhaps unsurprisingly, who summed things up:

"We have taken some steps in this Parliament that unfortunately have had the effect of weakening the institution. We all now know that the task is to strengthen it. These measures by themselves will not do that; all they do is provide a set of tools that people in the next Parliament, our successors, can use, if they want to, to make this place a more vital institution. That is our job today; it is their job tomorrow."

All depends, therefore, on the way that the MPs new to Parliament who will make up the bulk of backbenchers after the election respond to the opportunities created for them. Which means in fact that it is up to me and you, the electorate, to make sure that those we elect are the right people and understand our expectations of them. If all goes well, however, the decisions made on 4 March shoudl mean that we can look forward to more effective scrutiny of the Executive in future. Let's continue to scrutinise the scrutineers to ensure that happens.

"Act courageously"

On Monday the House of Commons will at last debate the recommendations of the Wright Committee report on Rebuilding the House. There was a flurry of activity in this area leading up to the half term recess. After weeks of fending off demands for a debate on the report (as previously discussed by Committee Watch - see A Matter of Urgency on 11 January), Harriet Harman announced a full day's debate. But further protests from Opposition spokesmen and backbenchers followed almost immediately as it was realised that the government proposed to table unamendable motions which would require unanimity to get through. Although Harriet Harman has presented this approach as sensible ground-clearing before focusing on the more controversial proposals (saying "I do not do devious. I am trying to assist the House"), many see it as a recipe for inaction, as lone mavericks block proposals which have general support amongst MPs.

Meanwhile the Liaison Committee published its views on the recommendations relating to Select Committees on 27 January. It noted that many of them echoed past recommendations of its own. It also noted that "some will not...command universal and unqualified support, even within the Liaison Committee". The recommendations referred to here included in particular that on the election of Committee Chairs. But the Committee continued: "doubts cannot be used as an excuse for inaction. We should be prepared to take some risks if the prize to be won is sufficient." And in conclusion it urged the House of Commons to "act courageously".

All of this might look like bad news for those, like Committee Watch, who want to see things move forward. Acting courageously is not necessarily what one would expect from a House of Commons on the brink of an election. One is reminded of Sir Humphrey's description of a risky Ministerial decision as "brave". But then again, many MPs who are planning not to stand again have little to lose. And the Wright Committee has by no means given up. It called Harriet Harman in on 10 February together with her opposite numbers, Sir George Young and David Heath, to explain her approach. At the hearing some Members were clearly impatient with her position. And increasingly, the recommendations on Select Committees are starting to look relatively straightforward compared to the proposal for a House Business Committee with backbench participation, to which the government is opposed.

So there is much to play for in Monday's debate. Let us see whether the House of Commons will indeed "act courageously".

A Step Forward

A date has finally been set for the House of Commons to debate the Wright Committee report on Reform of the House of Commons. 23 February is not as early as some would wish but it should be early enough for the debate to go ahead before the election is announced. What is more, the Government has signalled support for some of the key recommendations, including the election of Chairs and members of Select Committees. As Jo Swinson pointed out in Questions to the Leader of the House on Thursday, it is not for the Government to accept or reject the proposals. Nevertheless their support is significant becasue they will control the wording of the motion on 23 February. They have made it clear, however, that they will not table the Resolution drafted by the Committee and some recommendations may not get through.

Further, Harriet Harman has laid a lot of stress on reaching consensus before 23 February if any resolutions are to be put into effect before the election (which is essential if progress is to be made on a reasonable timescale). So we can expect a few steps forward, perhaps, but not wholescale reform.

Many will be disappointed by this, but in the looking-glass world of Parliament progress is not always made by the most straightforward means. The key thing is for the House of Commons to take at least one step forward. We will see what then ensues.

Sleight of Hand?

More trouble over pre-appointment hearings. In a combative session yesterday with Ed Balls, the Secretary of State for Education, the Children, Schools and Families Committee returned to the issue of pre-appointment hearings (see the earlier post on this blog). This time it was over the lack of an opportunity to hold a pre-appointment hearing at all for the new Chair and Chief Regulator of Ofqual. Or at least, not really new, according to Ed Balls, because Kathleen Tattersall was appointed as Head of the shadow Ofqual back in 2008 before the system of pre-appointment hearings was introduced and has simply been re-appointed now that the relevant legislation has been passed and Ofqual has a legal status. It would not be fair, apparently, on her or on the organisation to call her appointment into question now with a pre-appointment hearing.

Sleight of hand to avoid giving the Committee a chance to question Ms Tattersall? Well, it certainly seemed like it to the Committee, in spite of the conviction with which Ed Balls put his argument across. Barry Sheerman, the Chairman, used that very phrase. The Committee's conclusions on the Children's Commissioner were ignored, and now they have been "cheated" (the Chairman's word again) of a hearing with the Head of Ofqual. Ed Balls asserted that he was very much in favour of pre-appointment hearings, but the Committee were paying more attention I fancy to his deeds rather than his words. Barry Sheerman questioned the point of giving Select Committees the power to conduct pre-appointment hearings if their enquiries were blocked and sidestepped.

It is the same issue which has arisen on the Wright report (see the last post on this blog). The government say they support reform, but their inaction means backbenchers are very far from convinced that they really want to see any shift in the balance of power between Parliament and Executive.

A Matter of Urgency

No news yet on when the Wright Committee's report on House of Commons Reform will receive substantive consideration, in spite of the fact that it has been raised by Opposition Front Bench spokesmen and others from all parties at every Business Questions since it was published. The Government line is that it is consulting on the wording of an appropriate motion, to which the riposte is that the Committee itself provided a draft Resolution in the report, in the hopes of smoothing the path to an early debate. The delay raises suspicions, which Martin Salter summed up in a debate in Westminster Hall on 15 December, when he said "dark forces are gathering and manoeuvrings are taking place".

There are concerns over a number of possible scenarios:
(i) that a substantive debate will be delayed so long that it will be overtaken by the election and will fall to the bottom of the priority list in the new Parliament;
(ii) that there will be an inconclusive debate on a watered-down Resolution, which will effectively consign the report to a place in the long list of failed attempts at reform; and
(iii) that the Government will cherry-pick a few minor changes to take forward, while dodging the report's main thrust which is about shifting the balance of power between the Executive and Parliament. Harriet Harman seemed to signal that this might be the most likely approach when she said on 7 January "we will make progress on this matter - not in one big bang, but we will establish the direction of travel on a consensus within this House. Steps will be taken".

Does it matter if the outcome is a few minor changes only or even none at all? Well, yes. The report's recommendations, in its own words, "are designed to make an immediate and practical contribution to the enterprise of rebuilding trust in the ability of the House of Commons to act as the vigorous guardian of democratic accountability". In November, Committeewatch ("The Start of a Process") described the report as a genuine opportunity to strengthen the House of Commons and rebalance the relationship between Parliament and government. But a start must be made soon if its recommendations are to have any impact on the new House of Commons to be elected shortly and the confidence of the public in it. Mark Fisher said on 15 December: "To leave such a debate to the next Parliament would be a terrible mistake" and David Heath for the Lib Dems described it as "a matter of urgency, of massive import and [one that] cannot be delayed".

The longer the report lies on the table, the more questions will arise. It is indeed a matter of urgency.

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.