Parliamentary Report UNITED KINGDOM New committees for U.K. regions
On 12 November, the United Kingdom House of Commons spent the day debating a raft of changes to standing orders which, amongst other things, established a new system of regional scrutiny: in total, 16 new House committees were established, marking the biggest change in the Commons com- mittee system since 1979. The proposals agreed by the House evolved from rec- ommendations made in Is there a future for Regional Gov- ernment?, a 2007 report from the Communities and Local Government Select Commit- tee, which were endorsed by the government’s 2007 Green Paper, The Governance of Britain. The Modernization of the House of Commons Committee carried out an inquiry to examine these ideas and in July 2008 pub- lished its report, Regional Accountability, the recommen- dations of which formed the basis for the changes pro- posed to the House. The motions for debate
proposed select committees and grand committees for each of the English regions, except London. The expecta- tion was that “regional select committees should meet sig- nificantly less frequently than departmental select commit- tees” and that the two com- mittees in each region would mean that “the combination of select committees provid- ing opportunities for inquiries and reports into regional policy and adminis- tration together with oppor- tunities for debate involving all honourable Members from the relevant regions will pro- vide a major step forward in the scrutiny of regional policy”.
Leader of the House, Rt
Hon. Harriet Harman, said that “in our current economic climate, it is even more impor-
tant that we ensure that tax- payers’ money is being used in the most effective and efficient way possible in every region. The key principle is that [regional select committees] should look at the develop- ment and implementation of policies where there is a regional aspect to decision making or delivery – that is, where funding or priorities are set regionally or where bodies are organized on a regional basis.”
She attempted to reassure Members on a range of issues, but faced criticism of the principle of her propos- als. Rt Hon. Theresa May, Shadow Leader of the House, pointed out that the Modern- ization Committee itself had not been convinced, voting by a majority of just one for the report. She also quoted from a passage in the report on regional select committees which stated that there were “practical challenges in their creation, including: the risk of disrupting existing depart- mental select committee business; the potential to dis- tract public bodies and agen- cies working in the regions from their core activities and central lines of accountabili- ty; the possibility of duplicat- ing scrutiny work already being undertaken in the regions; the additional burden on Members’ time and work- load; increased demands on House resources”. Rt Hon. Sir George
Young (Conservative) spoke against the proposals, compar- ing the Leader of the House’s role as both Chairman of the Modernization Committee, who had the casting vote in favour of the report, and the Minister responsible for pre- senting the report to the House as “straight out of Gilbert and Sullivan. Frankly, it is an abuse of select commit-
364 The Parliamentarian 2008/Issue Four
tee procedure”. He pointed out that some of the existing select committees have low turn-outs because of the pres- sure on Members’ time. He queried how those appointed to regional select committees would be able to fulfil this commitment. The House agreed to region- al select and grand committees, but with two significant back- bench amendments passed – both of which represented gov- ernment defeats on key issues. The first involved the proposal that Chairmen of the regional select committees should be paid the same as departmental select committee
Chairmen.As the government envisaged that select committees will meet around six times a year, Mr Andrew Mackinlay (Labour), who tabled both successful amendments, said: “There is an injunction…that the commit- tees should not meet very
often.That is absurd. If I were serving on such a committee, I would not be constrained by that request, or, rather, hope – but would want to stretch the envelope to the maximum to ensure that the committee was at least of some value….If…the envelope will not be stretched, why should we pay the Chairmen of those committees the same as we pay the Chairmen of depart- ment select committees? The idea is simply bonkers.” His amendment was passed
by two votes. The second amendment
removed the potentially ground-breaking provision for elected regional councillors to sit alongside Members on the select committees, which was a proposal that had emerged from the Modernization Com- mittee inquiry. Mr Mackinlay said: “Have we no pride? I fought hard to get elected to this place. It was five general
elections before I got elected. I am proud to be a Member of Parliament and my duties as a Member of Parliament are indivisible. Councillors’ jobs are very important, but we should not blur the issues by bringing the two together.” His amendment passed without dividing the House.
A series of amendments
were tabled by the Liberal Democrats to address the issue of party representation on all committees. The new standing order
mirrors that of existing select and grand committees, and membership will mirror the make-up of the House itself – effectively giving a committee of nine a representation of five government Members, three official opposition places and one for other opposition par- ties, of which the Liberal Democrats will take most if not all seats. The Liberal Democrats were unhappy with this proposal, as it will leave them with only one seat in regions where the party is proportionally much stronger than that, in particular the South-West region, in which they are the second party and the government is third. Mr Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat Shadow Leader, said: “My party would argue that those representa- tives should reflect the votes in…regions, but in three regions the government came second or third in share of the vote at the last general elec- tion. Even if we do not win that argument, the govern- ment should at least propose select committees that reflect the balance of political repre- sentation in each region, which differ hugely from each other. It is now proposed that the government should have a majority on the regional com- mittees for every one of the eight regions of England.”
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92