The Government welcomes this Report from the Liaison Committee on the 30th anniversary of the establishment of the departmental select committee system. The system was founded on the principle that scrutiny of government was a fundamental activity of the House that ought to be carried out in a thorough and systematic way. Departmental select committees are still the central means whereby the House carries out that function. The role of committees has continued to develop and is now a central part of Parliament's vital scrutiny role. In recent years, the introduction of core tasks, including new tasks such as pre-legislative scrutiny and pre-appointment hearings, has led to more effective and systematic scrutiny.

Some of the Committee's conclusions and recommendations are matters for the House. Responses to those specific recommendations which are matters for the Government are set out below.

Work of the Liaison Committee

1. (Recommendations 1 & 2) We are grateful to the Prime Minister for continuing his predecessor's practice, established in 2002, of appearing before us at least twice a year. We believe that these sessions, which give Members the chance to question the Prime Minister more extensively than at the weekly Prime Minister's question time, and in a less partisan atmosphere, represent a valuable addition to the House's in-depth scrutiny of the Government. However, we intend to review the frequency and format of these sessions before the beginning of the next Parliament, in the light of our experience over the last seven years. (Paragraph 8)

The Prime Minister's appearances before the Liaison Committee provide an effective opportunity for in-depth scrutiny of a wide range of Government activity. The Prime Minister is also accountable to the House in other ways and it is important to strike the right balance between different forms of accountability. The Liaison Committee sessions have already developed at the Committee's request over the past year and the Government will be happy to consider any further proposals, but does not consider that there is a strong case for increasing the frequency of the sessions.

Scrutiny of draft bills

2. (Recommendation 3) We welcome the increase in the number of Government bills published in draft, although we agree that the number of bills published is not the only measure of success (Paragraph 21)

The Government agrees with the Committee's conclusion. The Government is committed to pre-legislative scrutiny as a way of improving the quality of legislation by strengthening the legislative process. However, as the Committee rightly notes, the number of draft bills published in any given Session is not the only measure of the success of pre-legislative scrutiny. Other considerations include the suitability of particular measures for scrutiny in draft and whether time and resources are available for effective scrutiny. The Committee, in its final conclusion, also recognises that committees should not become overloaded with tasks initiated by Ministers.

3. (Recommendation 4) If the Government is serious about consulting the House, there needs to be a more transparent and better-organised process for deciding upon arrangements for pre-legislative scrutiny than has been the case in the past. We therefore welcome the Leader of the House's commitment to us to engage in genuine consultation about the programme of pre-legislative scrutiny. We hope to work with her and her fellow ministers during the current session to make the new system work as effectively as possible. We expect Ministers to take full account of our response in taking forward plans for pre-legislative scrutiny of draft bills. (Paragraph 28)

The Leader of the House wrote to the Committee on the day of the Queen's Speech announcing the Government's proposed draft bills for the Session and the Committee expressed an interest in all the proposed draft Bills. There have been two subsequent update letters.

The Government will of course take full account of the Liaison Committee's views, and those of individual select committees, in deciding on the best route for pre-legislative scrutiny of each Bill. However, decisions about whether a given bill should be scrutinised by a joint committee or by a select committee of the House of Commons must also take account of expressions of interest in the bill from the House of Lords. The decision to establish a joint committee is ultimately one for the two Houses.

4. (Recommendation 5) We welcome the fact that draft bills were published earlier in the 2007-08 session than has sometimes been the case in the past. It is however regrettable that, having succeeded in this aim, the process of appointing joint committees to examine them was held up in the 'usual channels'. It should have been possible for committees to meet as soon as the bills were published, or even beforehand. Pre-legislative scrutiny, if it is not to be rushed, takes a good twelve weeks. Anything short of this will either place unreasonable demands on Members, Peers and staff, or compromise the depth of the joint committee's consideration (Paragraph 31)

The Government agrees that it is important to avoid any unnecessary delay in establishing joint committees to consider draft bills. The Government accepts that it would have been better had the intervals the Committee identifies between publication of draft bills and nomination of joint committees been shorter. Establishing joint committees is ultimately a matter for the two Houses and relies on the outcome of discussions within the usual channels

Scrutiny of National Policy Statements on planning issues

5. (Recommendation 6) We look forward to the publication of standing orders providing for Parliamentary scrutiny of draft National Policy Statements made under the Planning Act and expect them to take into account the concerns raised by committee chairmen in their discussions and correspondence. We welcome the constructive dialogue on this issue between Ministers and the committees concerned, and Ministers' readiness to take on board comments from committee chairmen. We also believe that this is a good example of the way in which the Liaison Committee can ensure that other committees and the House as a whole are kept aware of discussions between individual chairmen and the Government, and provide an additional formal channel of communication (Paragraph 36)

The Government welcomes the contribution made by the Committee and by individual chairmen to the development of new Standing Orders to govern the consideration of proposals for National Policy Statements under the Planning Act 2008. The Government intends to put proposals to the House very soon.

The Government's Draft Legislative Programme

6. (Recommendation 7) We welcome the fact that the Draft Legislative Programme was published significantly earlier in the 2007-08 session than in the 2006-07 session, as this assists committees in planning their forward work programmes (Paragraph 39)

Feedback from previous consultations on the draft legislative programme suggests that a more thematic approach to policy proposals would be more accessible than a list of bills. This year's draft Programme will therefore be published in a different format to previous years'. Though the Government aims to publish the Programme as early as possible, it will not be able to publish during the sensitive period immediately before the European Parliament and local government elections on 4 June.

Scrutiny of Government expenditure

7. (Recommendation 9) We welcome the general improvement in the quality of the explanatory memoranda about Estimates provided by Government departments to departmental select committees (Paragraph 48)

The Government welcomes the Committee's assessment that the quality of explanatory memoranda has improved. We will continue to work closely with the Scrutiny Unit and with individual committees to ensure that the memoranda meet committees' needs.

8. (Recommendation 10) We continue to support the broad aims and principles of the Treasury's Alignment Project. These can only fully achieve the intended improvement in financial reporting and scrutiny if they are part of a process for consideration of Estimates in the House of Commons which allows the House, informed by its committees, to understand the information submitted in a timely way, enabling appropriate consideration on the floor of the House. We look forward to the more detailed memorandum promised by the Government, and to continuing our engagement with Treasury Ministers on this vital issue (Paragraph 52)

The Government welcomes the Committee's continued interest in, and support for, the Alignment Project, which represents a major opportunity to secure the significant prize of simplifying and modernising the public expenditure system and improving accountability to Parliament through greater transparency and better scrutiny of government spending.

The Government will continue to engage fully with Parliament and other key stakeholders in taking the project forward.

The Government's detailed proposals for better alignment were set out in the second Parliamentary Memorandum (Cm 7567), which was laid before the House on 5 March 2009. As noted in Cm 7567, the Government would be grateful for the Committee's agreement to its proposals by July 2009, so that a phased implementation of the proposed new framework can begin from April 2010.

Pre-appointment hearings

9. (Recommendation 11) Although we are not in full agreement with the Government over the list of posts available for pre-appointment hearings by committees, we are pleased to have reached agreement on the broad principles, and believe this new system represents a significant improvement in the accountability of public officials. We will keep the operation of the new arrangements under review, but already a workable process seems to have developed successfully, testing, on behalf of Parliament and the public, the approach of a candidate to his or her new duties (Paragraph 62)

The Government believes that pre-appointment hearings represent a significant enhancement to the scrutiny role of select committees and is grateful to the Committee for the work it has done to develop the new system. The Government will also continue to keep the process under review.

Post-legislative scrutiny

10. (Recommendation 12) We believe that the Government's proposals for post-legislative scrutiny have the potential to make a valuable difference to the scrutiny of legislation. But this will depend on both parties being able to play a full part in the process: departments must publish timely memoranda about the Acts concerned, and select committees will need to make a careful assessment of the value of a full follow-up exercise. Not every memorandum is likely to justify a full-scale inquiry by a committee, which would put extra pressure on work programmes, and could be particularly disruptive to committees shadowing departments with a regularly large legislative programme (Paragraph 69)

The Government agrees that not every post-legislative scrutiny memorandum will justify a full-scale select committee inquiry. Committees should consider, in particular, whether there is the scope for them to make recommendations which, if implemented, might improve the operation of the Act in question in future years.

Timing of the publication of the departmental memoranda will depend on the Act in question. The operation of an Act can only be properly assessed once it has been in effect for long enough for a suitable body of evidence about its operation to be available.

We expect to publish further post-legislative memoranda during 2008-09 and will continue to keep the emerging operation of the system under review.

Debates on departmental objectives and plans

11. (Recommendation 13) We believe that the Government's proposals for more systematic debates on Departments' objectives and plans could provide a good opportunity for the House to make use of select committee scrutiny of those objectives. We look forward to cooperating with the Government to try and ensure that, wherever possible, debates on departmental objectives and plans take into account relevant inquiries and reports by committees (Paragraph 73)

The Government is committed to liaising with relevant committees and the Liaison Committee to try to ensure that any select committee work is taken into account in the timing of any debate on departmental objectives and plans.

So far, in addition to the established annual debates on the work of certain departments, there have been debates on the annual reports of the following departments:

·  Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (tagged to an Estimates Day debate, 9 March 2009)

·  Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Westminster Hall, 22 January 2009)

·  Foreign and Commonwealth Office (tagged to a Government debate, 13 October 2008)

·  Department of Health (tagged to an Estimates Day debate, 16 December 2008)

Membership issues

12. (Recommendation 14) We welcome the expanding scrutiny role of select committees and the extent of their remit. However, we note the increased burden this places on Members. There is a danger that increased responsibilities, such as pre- and post-legislative work or pre- and post-appointment hearings, and more and larger committees, may result in the perverse outcome of an overall decrease in the quality of scrutiny. The advent of regional committees, with an extra 72 places to fill, will inevitably make further demands on Members' time. We have discussed our concerns with the Chief Whips of the two main parties and with the Leader of the House. An end to unilateral action to increase committee sizes is required. In its place, there should be consultation between the Whips and committee chairmen with the aim of adjustment downward in the size of some committees no later than the start of the next Parliament (Paragraph 80)

13. (Recommendation 15) We have already commented on the time taken to appoint joint committees on draft bills. There have also been delays in replacing Members on select committees. While we recognise that there are many factors to be taken into account in appointing select committee members, we reiterate the need to speed up the process by which Members are appointed to select committees. Long delays can mean committees are operating below full strength, detracting from their effectiveness and making it more difficult to keep a quorum (Paragraph 81)

The Government welcomes the growth and development of systematic scrutiny by select committees. It is a central part of the work of the House and it is right that there should be plentiful opportunities for Members to participate in that work. The Committee notes the significant growth in the number of select and other committee places, from 275 in 1979-80, to 556 in 2008-09. This is due largely to the growth in the number of departmental select committees and to the growth in the number of other, cross-cutting scrutiny committees. The House has also established regional select committees for all regions, excluding London, to scrutinise the work of the regional agencies and regional ministers.

In the Government's view, committees must be large enough to reflect the composition of the House, including the provision of adequate representation for smaller parties, and to reflect the range of views within the parties. They must also contain enough Members to avoid persistent problems in achieving and maintaining a quorum.

However, the Government acknowledges the Committee's concerns about the membership and attendance of some committees. It is ultimately for the Committee of Selection to propose a new member where a vacancy arises on a select committee. Members of select committees are appointed for the duration of a Parliament, unless the House otherwise orders, and it would be invidious to alter their composition now. The Government will consider whether to bring forward proposals for reducing the number of places on certain committees at the beginning of the next Parliament.

Relations with Government departments

14. (Recommendation 16) While committees have generally maintained good working relationships with their respective departments, there remain some concerns over the timeliness and quality of some Government responses. We accept that, on occasions, the two-month deadline for replies may not be achievable. In these instances, departments should provide regular updates to committees on the reason for delay, and the expected date for a response. It should not fall to the committee to chase the department. Equally, Government replies must always seek to engage fully with the committees' reports and address the evidence on which they are founded. We reiterate the point we made last year, that departments should "look upon parliamentary scrutiny as an important process rather than a necessary evil" (Paragraph 87)

The Government accepts the Committee's recommendation. There are occasions on which it is not possible to provide a response within the two-month deadline, particularly where the Government is giving serious consideration to accepting a recommendation which could be complex to implement and needs to consider a number of consequential issues. But departments should always advise committees when responses are going to be delayed and, where possible, of the reasons for any delay.

Information gathering

15. (Recommendation 17) The various models of informal meetings by select committees reflect a developing trend to enable a better dialogue with stakeholders and experts outside the formality of the committee room (Paragraph 97)

16. (Recommendation 18) Online forums have proved an important means of information-gathering for many committees. They can give a voice to individuals who might otherwise not engage with the work of Parliament. We once again encourage committees to consider this type of information-gathering. (Paragraph 105)

17. (Recommendation 19) Video conferencing provides a means of collecting evidence that is both cost-effective and environmentally desirable, since it removes the need for flights by either committee members or witnesses. We recommend that all committees bear in mind this approach when considering how best to gather information. (Paragraph 106)

The Government notes the innovative approaches to information gathering adopted by various select committees.

Conclusion

18. (Recommendation 25) One of the most significant pressures on committee resources is the availability of Members, who already face many demands on their time. As we have already noted, these demands are only exacerbated by committees being too large, and too many committees being established. Committees' autonomy is much prized by chairmen and Members. Although we welcome the fact that the Government is seeking to increase Government's accountability to Parliament through greater involvement of select committees in such areas as pre- and post-appointment hearings, National Policy Statements on planning and post-legislative scrutiny, a proper balance has to be struck to avoid overloading committees with tasks initiated by Ministers. We hope that the Government, in its response to our report, will make clear that it understands the need for this balance to be maintained (Paragraph 127)

The Government recognises the need to ensure that select committees have adequate time and resources to devote to activities of their own choosing. Committees can only scrutinise government effectively when they are free to examine whatever areas of government activity they choose. However, the Government has increasingly sought to engage actively with select committees by inviting them to consider specific proposals such as draft bills and public appointments. The Government understands the need to strike and maintain a balance between these two types of activity. The Government cannot compel a select committee to undertake a particular inquiry, nor should it have the means to do so. The independence of individual committees, under the oversight of the Liaison Committee, is the best guarantor that the right balance will be preserved.