Development of the select committee system in the British House of Commons.

• Author: Ahmed, Nizam

Nizam Ahmed is Professor of Public Administration at the University of Chittagong in Bangladesh. In 1997 he was a Commonwealth Fellow at the Centre for Legislative Studies, University of Hull, England.

Editor's Note: In Britain the term Select Committee refers to permanent committees which are known in Canada as Standing Committees. The term Standing Committee in Britain is used for temporary or special committees.

Committees of the British House of Commons predate other important parliamentary techniques such as questions and adjournment debates used mostly to require the government to account for its actions. Select committees conventionally enjoy an "exalted" status and are treated with some deference. The idea of using departmentally-related select committees (DSCs) as a means of keeping the government on its toes is however, of recent origin. The committee reforms described below marked the beginning of a new trend in parliament-executive relations in Britain. This paper examines the working of the departmentally-related select committees in the British House of Commons. Its objective is to see the extent to which they have made the government more accountable and strengthened the Commons vis-a-vis the executive.

Select committees are almost as old as British Parliament itself. Until recently, however, the Parliament did not make much use of departmentally-related select committees (DSCs). They were seen more as characteristics of the Congressional system; an alien device inappropriate to parliamentary government. (1) The initial proposal for setting up DSCs on a government-wide scale was first made by the Study of Parliament Group. In its submission to the Procedure Committee in 1965, the Group argued for the creation of specialised select committees, as the means to strengthening the control of the Parliament over the executive. It was alleged that the executive government had prospered at the expense of Parliament. Specialist committees were thus seen as a way to redress the imbalance between the two organs of the government. The Procedure Committee, however, did not agree to the proposal for specialist committees apparently on the grounds that they would detract attention from the chamber and might elevate some members to new positions of influence. (2)

But the then Leader of the House, R.H. Crossman, was willing to experiment with specialist committees. Two committees, a "subject" specialist committee on Science and Technology and a "departmental" specialist committee on the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, were set up in 1966. The Agriculture Committee had, however, a premature death following its clash with the Foreign Office on issues related to European Community; while the activity of the Science and Technology Committee remained mostly limited. Four new committees, one each on the departments of Education and Science, Scottish Affairs, Overseas Aid, and Race Relations and Immigration, were created subsequently. But they also did not prove to be much effective. Their mandate was too limited and the executive government was mostly hostile to them. They achieved only the most minor influence on policy-making and administration; their chief role was to provoke discussion and provide information.

The beginning of the 1970s witnessed the growth of new backbench activism and assertiveness, reflected mostly in backbenchers willingness to break ranks with party leaders and to vote independently of party dictates when they felt that their advice was ignored. (3) This marked a sharp departure with the past, when backbenchers mostly followed the party leadership and were seen as deferential to leaders. What was thus needed was to find alternative means to give backbenchers a sense of participation in the parliamentary process; to create institutional means to involve them more frequently and more constructively in the policy cycle. One important way to do so was to set up a network of committees. The initial lead in this respect was taken by the Procedure Committee, appointed on June 9, 1976. It was given a wide-ranging mandate to consider the practice and procedure of the House in relation to public business and to make recommendations for the more effective performance of its functions. The Procedure Committee issued its report in 1978.

The report proposed to set up of one select committee to shadow each major government department and to examine all aspects of its expenditure, administration and policy. It specifically proposed to allow the select committees to investigate the actions of the government at "every" stage in the development of policy. Recommendations were also made to entrust the responsibility for the selection of members with a Committee of Selection; not to whips, to provide staff support to committee members and to empower the committees to demand the presence of all persons, papers and records deemed necessary to carry on their inquiries. There was overwhelming back bench support for the proposal for DSCs but the front-benchers were dubious.

Michael Foot, Leader of the House, strongly opposed the idea of setting up of DSCs on the grounds that they would be a powerful potential channel through which the latent back bench power could be exerted. He also opposed the committees on the ground that they would reduce the party struggle to technical matters and coalition politics. (4) As the Leader of the House he successfully blocked for months any debate on the report and its recommendations. Prime Minister Callaghan was also opposed to the reform; so also were most of his cabinet colleagues. But the then Conservative Shadow Leader of the House John Stevas showed strong interest in the recommendations of the Procedure Committee. He in fact succeeded in convincing the Conservative Party leadership to insert a clause in the 1979 election manifesto, pledging to introduce new measures with a view to making the Parliament effective in its job of controlling the executive. Following the Conservative victory in the 1979 elections, John Stevas was appointed the Leader of the House. He played an instrumental role in convincing a reluctant Cabinet including the Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to accept the recommendations of the Procedure Committee to set up the DSCs. The enthusiastic backbenchers found an ally in John Stevas. The Commons approved the report of the Procedure Committee in June 1979.

In March 1980, fourteen DSCs were set up, with each having the responsibility of monitoring the expenditure, administration and policy of one or more government departments. Since then, their numbers have changed following changes in the organisation of departments. But their scope of operation in terms of powers, functions and responsibilities has remained mostly the same. As a natural rule, the scale of activities of the different committees has varied; so also has their overall impact. The response of different government departments...