Members of Select Committees, which hold the executive to account, should be elected by all MPs and not appointed by party whips and should scrutinise all departmental proposals for legislation.

Parliament should scrutinise Government actions and proposals, cause amendments as appropriate, and, in extremis, change the composition of the Government.  John Stuart Mill said:  

'Instead of the function of governing, for which it is radically unfit, the proper office of a representative assembly is to watch and control the Government to throw the light of publicity on it; to compel a full exposition and justification of all of them which anyone considers questionable; to censor them if found condemnable, and, if the men who compose the Government abuse their trust, or fulfil it in a manner which conflicts with the deliberate sense of the nation, to expel them from office, and either expressly or virtually appoint their successors.'

When the Crown was separate from Parliament and appointed its own ministers then every line of their proposals was scrutinised and debated by Parliament.  Now that the executive and legislative functions have for all practicality merged, there is nothing like the same scrutiny as there was in those days.  The evidence shows that the Commons' guillotined debates and enfeebled committees do not cause the executive to change its stance on any major issues.

Parliamentary time is often used not to hold the Government to account but rather with its own MPs making political points for the Government.  Such supposed questions as 'May I congratulate my Right Honourable friend on …' are clearly sycophantic rather than designed for scrutiny.  Indeed these questions are often planted by the whips with backbench MPs who wish to impress the party hierarchy. The weakness of Parliamentary scrutiny of Government is often cited by the UK media as a justification for the vigour with which they question and challenge the Government.  For instance, the last time the House of Commons annulled a Statutory Instrument was 30 years ago in 1979 when it rejected the Paraffin (Maximum Retail Prices) (Revocation) Order 1979 (SI 1979/797) since which time over 80,000 Statutory Instruments have been passed.  In 2006, 11,422 pages of Statutory Instruments became law (plus 4,609 pages of Acts).

Legislation can be proposed by the executive in over twenty different areas of Government responsibility represented by the various Whitehall departments.  No individual MP can be expert on all of the areas and able to scrutinise each of them.  A system of Select Committees therefore exists to monitor each of the departments of state.   During 2008/09, there were 1,123 Select Committee meetings (broadly the same as in 2007/08) and 229 reports were published by the Departmental Select Committees.

Unfortunately the structural intent of the Select Committees (other than the Select Committee on Public Accounts which does retain independence) has been perverted by the party political system.  The Members of the Committees and particularly the Chairs are now appointed by the whips of the respective parties.  This means that the primary scrutiny system in the House of Commons has largely been neutralised as normally on every Committee the Government has a majority of MPs who are most unlikely to support any report which is critical of the Government.  

The Select Committees clearly need to be given more influence and independence.  The Power Inquiry report published in February 2006 recognised the urgent need to strengthen scrutiny:  'Select Committees should be given independence and enhanced powers including the power to …… subpoena witnesses to appear and testify before them.  This should include proper resourcing so that committees can fulfil their remit effectively.'  

The Better Government Initiative recommended: 'Better opportunities should be developed for Select Committee reports to be presented in the Commons, including provision for committees to propose substantive motions to the House.  Select committees should have more effective powers to call for government papers, for example business cases and risk assessments.'  

The Select Committees should also review proposed Government legislation prior to its coming before the full House of Commons for its first reading in order to improve the drafting and to identify the potential areas of contention (as is the practice in the Scottish Parliament).  A further proper role for the Select Committees is to review all legislation after a period of, say, five years in order to see if the original justification for the legislation remains valid and whether there are any adjustments required.

The Jury Team Latest

• State School Head Teachers concur with Jury Team’s policy
  A number of Head Teachers and Governors from state schools have signed a letter ... [more]
• Gordon Brown … you might just hang yourself, let alone Parliament
  Perhaps the best result the Tories could have is this: Conservatives – ... [more]
• Hung Parliament …. “What happened next?”
  Get ready! It seems like a Hung Parliament is a’coming. So, swot up ahead ... [more]

Follow The Jury Team