´óÏó´«Ã½

There's gathering angst around the modest proposals for strengthening the Commons from the special committee chaired by Labour's Dr Tony Wright. It was palpable at Commons on Thursday, when the Leader of the House, Harriet Harman repeatedly ducked invitations to guarantee a debate and a vote before January was out.

To be sure, the package which emerged from the Wright Committee is complicated and will need to be digested over a decent interval. But the clock is ticking on this Parliament, and sensitive noses detect a conspiracy to thwart the good doctor's efforts. According to the rumour mill, both chief whips are opposed.

One committee member claims to have heard fellow members trotting out in committee exactly the same objections in the very same words he'd heard earlier from his whips. It is claimed that only intervention from Downing Street allowed even the tepid assurances Harriet Harman gave this week. Old hands like the Conservative MP Chris Chope sense evasion, and they're now pessimistic about the prospects for the reforms. We shall see.

I've already posted about the key proposal for a business committee; almost as important are the proposals to increase the independence and effectiveness of the select committees.

Usual channels

These are the specialist scrutineers of government. At the moment their chairmen and their members are appointed in a carve-up between the parties via the so-called "usual channels". The government (assuming it has a Commons majority, as it normally does) will have a majority, and the opposition parties will have a set share of the membership of each committee.

Nominations are formalised through the Committee of Selection, which usually rubber-stamps a series of lists produced by the various whips' offices.

Thus the government has majority control of the committees appointed to scrutinise it.

At the moment the quality of committee chairmen and membership is a rather hit and miss affair - and with a change in chairmanship, a committee with a reputation for effectiveness and hard-hitting reports can become anodyne and innocuous and disappear from the political radar. The starting premise of this section of the report is that the quality of the chairman is critical.

The Wright Committee proposes that in future committee chairmen are elected for a whole parliamentary term by the whole House, by secret ballot. That could mean that the parties no longer get an automatic proportional share of chairmanships, but, having toyed with possible mechanisms to divvy them up, Wright & Co could not find a sensible way to guarantee a share of the spoils to everyone, and appear to have concluded that it would be a price worth paying, not to bother.

As for the ordinary members of committees, their party make-up would still reflect the balance of the whole House. But they would be elected from each party group, again in a secret ballot. The idea being that this would make it harder for the party machines to block MPs with expertise, but also with inconvenient opinions or a rebellious disposition, from serving on the committee of their choice.

The result, it is hoped, would be more effective committees with less dead wood, and greater authority. It is also suggested the committees might be smaller, perhaps with nine members rather than 14, to increase competition for places. And although it's outside their remit, they suggest something similar might be attempted with Public Bill Committees, the ad hoc committees set up to give detailed consideration to bills. At the moment they are one of the most ritualistic and generally ineffective parts of the Commons set-up - but that is an issue for another day.

I'm still pondering the other main section of the Wright Committee report, on public engagement, and I'll blog on that next week.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• |
• |
• - What's this?