House of Commons - Liaison

Select Committee on Liaison First Report

2 Review of committees' work

5. This section of our Report provides our usual overview of the vast range of work carried out by individual committees in ensuring accountability. We aim to:

illustrate the breadth and depth of committee work;
give examples of innovative or best practice; and
highlight concerns raised by committees.

Core tasks

6. The core tasks now provide the central scrutiny agenda for the accountability of ministers and their departments to Parliament. This is the second full year of their operation, following their issue in June 2002 as guidance to individual committees. Their text was developed by us from the House's Resolution of 14 May 2002 in order to identify the range of work which it is reasonable for the House to expect each committee to cover over time.[2]

7. The choice of inquiries remains for each committee to make, and needs to leave flexibility to respond to urgent political issues. Nevertheless, the benefits of using the core task framework to encourage "a more methodical and less ad-hoc approach to the business of scrutiny" are apparent.[3] The review below demonstrates the substantial range and impact of committee work over the calendar year 2004, with some reference to activities in early 2005.

OBJECTIVE A: TO EXAMINE AND COMMENT ON THE POLICY OF THE DEPARTMENT

Task 1 To examine policy proposals from the UK Government and the European Commission in Green Papers, White Papers, draft Guidance etc, and to inquire further where the Committee considers it appropriate.

Task 2 To identify and examine areas of emerging policy, or where existing policy is deficient, and make proposals.

Task 3 To conduct scrutiny of any published draft bill within the Committee's responsibilities.

Task 4 To examine specific output from the department expressed in documents or other decisions.

OBJECTIVE B: TO EXAMINE THE EXPENDITURE OF THE DEPARTMENT

Task 5 To examine the expenditure plans and out-turn of the department, its agencies and principal NDPBs.

OBJECTIVE C: TO EXAMINE THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEPARTMENT

Task 6 To examine the department's Public Service Agreements, the associated targets and the statistical measurements employed, and report if appropriate.

Task 7 To monitor the work of the department's Executive Agencies, NDPBs, regulators and other associated public bodies.

Task 8 To scrutinise major appointments made by the department.

Task 9 To examine the implementation of legislation and major policy initiatives.

OBJECTIVE D: TO ASSIST THE HOUSE IN DEBATE AND DECISION

Task 10 To produce reports which are suitable for debate in the House, including Westminster Hall, or debating committees.

8. Many committees have helpfully used tables to indicate the relevance of each of their inquiries to the core tasks, thus demonstrating the range covered by each inquiry. For understandable reasons, not all committees' work falls neatly within the framework. This is especially the case for the Northern Ireland Affairs, Scottish Affairs, and Welsh Affairs Committees, and cross-cutting committees such as the Environmental Audit and Science and Technology Committees. Nonetheless, most of these committees have reported on their coverage of core tasks in so far as they are applicable.[4]

9. The discipline of assessing their work against the framework has encouraged committees to ensure that they monitor the widest possible range of departmental activity; it also allows the public and the media to appreciate more easily the comprehensive examination of Government which committees undertake.

TASK 1: SCRUTINY OF POLICY PROPOSALS

10. Committees have continued to respond and contribute to the pressing policy debates of the day. Examples of the high-profile topics tackled by committees include:

climate change;[5]
the military action in Iraq;[6]
the war on terrorism;[7]
family justice;[8]
obesity;[9]
choice and voice in public service reform;[10]
gypsy and traveller sites.[11]

11. Policy proposals affecting the UK originate from a wide range of sources, not all of them domestic. The first core task therefore encompasses scrutiny of policy proposals both from the UK Government and from the European Commission. Committees must necessarily be selective about which of these policy proposals they choose to examine in depth, given the large number of proposals which issue from both Government and the Commission. Nevertheless, committees cover many key proposals, as demonstrated by the examples of UK Government policy documents scrutinised in-depth by committees set out in the table below.

Committee Policy documents Committee approach

Constitutional Affairs DCA consultation papers Constitutional Reform: A Supreme Court for the United Kingdom, Constitutional Reform: A New Way of Appointing Judges and Constitutional Reform: reforming the office of the Lord Chancellor Inquiry and reports[12]

Culture, Media and Sport DCMS's decision documents National Lottery Licensing and Regulation and National Lottery Funding Inquiry and report[13]

Defence MoD's White Paper Delivering Security in a Changing World
MoD's White Paper Delivering Security in a Changing World: Future Capabilities
Inquiry and report[14]

Ongoing inquiry

Education and Skills DfES White Paper Realising Our Potential Ongoing inquiry

Environmental Audit HM Treasury papers Budget 2004: Prudence for a purpose—A Britain of Stability and Strength and Pre-Budget Report 2003: The strength to take the long-term decisions for Britain: Seizing the opportunities of global recovery Inquiry and report[15]

Home Affairs Home Office White Paper Identity Cards: The Next Steps Inquiry and report[16]

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions (ODPM) ODPM White Paper Our Fire and Rescue Service Inquiry and report[17]

Public Administration DCA consultation paper Effective Inquiries Inquiry and report[18]

Trade and Industry DTI consultation document Company Law: Flexibility and Accessibility Inquiry and report[19]

Treasury HM Treasury paper Budget 2004: Prudence for a purpose—A Britain of Stability and Strength
HM Treasury paper 2004 Spending Review: Stability, security and opportunity for all: investing for Britain's long term future
HM Treasury paper Opportunity for all: The strength to take the long-term decisions for Britain—Pre-Budget Report 2004
Inquiry and report[20]

Oral evidence sessions[21]

Inquiry and report[22]

Work and Pensions DWP strategy statement Revitalising Health and Safety Inquiry and report[23]

12. European Commission policy proposals are an important source of UK domestic policy and law. Examples of proposals examined by committees include the Science and Technology Committee's inquiry into the Commission's proposals for new legislation on the regulation of chemicals in its inquiry Within REACH: The EU's new chemicals strategy, and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee's examination of a Commission communication which set out a series of possible reforms to the sugar regime under the Common Agricultural Policy.[24] Commission policy proposals may of course be interlinked with UK Government proposals, as demonstrated by EFRA's inquiry into By-catch of dolphins and porpoises off the UK coast.[25] This examined proposals put forward separately by both the UK Government and the Commission to curb cetacean by-catch, in the form of a consultation paper published by the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and a draft regulation published by the Commission, and compared the differing provisions contained in the two documents. Committees may also be involved with the formulation of policy at the European level: for example, the Home Affairs Committee was represented at preliminary consultations in the European Parliament on the European Council's next five-year justice and home affairs programme.[26]

13. It is, of course, the European Scrutiny Committee which takes primary responsibility for examining the detail of EU documents. In 2004, the Committee scrutinised 1001 documents, of which it deemed 558 to be of legal and/or political importance and recommended 53 for debate, including three on the Floor of the House. In addition to 33 weekly reports, the Committee also reported for the first time on the European Commission's annual work programme for 2004 and began an inquiry into the EU's constitutional treaty, on which it intends to report in March 2005.[27]

14. The Government announced in the 2004 Pre-Budget Report that all government departments will publish annual implementation plans for European legislation.[28] This welcome development may help select committees in future to contribute to more detailed and more timely scrutiny of European proposals, a matter now being considered by the Modernisation Committee.

TASK 2: IDENTIFICATION AND EXAMINATION OF AREAS OF EMERGING OR DEFICIENT POLICY

15. Examination of emerging or deficient existing policy is a particular strength of select committees, and a significant proportion of committee time is devoted to such work. Examples of inquiries undertaken in respect of this core task give a flavour of the wide range of policy deficiencies tackled by committees:

the Culture, Media and Sport Committee undertook an inquiry into Arts Development: Dance to examine whether the funding for and profile of dance had kept pace with developments elsewhere in the arts and in sports;[29]
the Defence Committee initiated an inquiry into Duty of Care to consider how the armed forces discharge their duty of care responsibilities to recruits under initial training;[30]
the Education and Skills Committee's inquiry into Education Outside the Classroom investigated the declining opportunities for children to experience the outdoors as part of their education and considered the factors dissuading teachers from organising school trips;[31]
the Foreign Affairs Committee inquiry into South Africa reviewed the strength and vitality of the UK's relationship with South Africa, ten years after the formal end of the apartheid regime, on the basis that the UK and South African governments work closely together on a range of issues and share many global concerns and ambitions;[32]
the Health Committee carried out two inquiries into deficiencies in social medical care (Elder Abuse and The Provision of Allergy Services)[33] which it described as an area "perennially neglected" by the Department of Health (DoH);[34]
the International Development Committee's inquiry into Migration and Development aimed, in part, to raise awareness within Government of the development dimension in ongoing debates about migration;[35]
the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee initiated an inquiry into The Parades Commission and Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, partly out of concern that the Government had yet to respond to Sir George Quigley's 2002 review of the Parades Commission and its underpinning legislation;[36]
the Public Administration Committee's inquiry into Reforming the Honours System examined the honours system and assessed whether it was fit for purpose as a way of recognising and rewarding service to the community;[37]
the Scottish Affairs Committee's inquiry into The Proposed Whisky Strip Stamp investigated the implications for the Scotch whisky industry of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's plans for a strip (or tax) stamp on bottles of whisky and considered whether other means of preventing fraud were available;[38]
the Treasury Committee's inquiry into Restoring confidence in long-term savings was motivated in part by recent events which had shown that confidence in savings and the savings industry was at a low ebb;[39]
the Transport Committee's inquiry into The Future of the Railway was prompted by the Committee's concerns about spiralling costs and the poor performance of the rail network.[40]

16. Measuring the precise impact of a committee inquiry is difficult. It is not always possible to establish a clear chain of causation between scrutiny work by committees and any subsequent changes in Government policy. Nevertheless, some clear examples of such a correlation did emerge during 2004. The Science and Technology Committee's inquiry into The Use of Science in UK International Development Policy identified a fundamental lack of scientific culture at the Department for International Development (DfID). The Secretary of State for International Development subsequently credited the Committee with his decision to appoint a Chief Scientific Adviser at DfID and told the Committee that:

the inquiry you have undertaken has had a profound impact, certainly on me and on the Department … As far as the relationship between select committees and government departments are concerned, I think this is how it should work, because if we do not inquire and listen to each other and reflect and respond, then the system does not work very effectively.[41]

17. The Transport Committee's Report on its inquiry into The Future of the Railway concluded that a fundamental reorganisation of the railway was required. The Committee considers that the Railways Bill subsequently introduced into the House of Commons broadly embodied its Report's recommendations. The regulatory impact assessment accompanying the Bill cited the Committee's work as a powerful argument for the premise that change is necessary.[42]

18. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee's inquiry into the Government's plans for reform of the national lottery concluded that multiple licences were a recipe for disaster and identified a number of other ways for encouraging effective competition for a single operating licence.[43] The Government reconsidered its policy and subsequently published the National Lottery Bill, which provided for a "clear and firm presumption" for a single licence, awarded by competition.[44] Following the Bill's publication, the Secretary of State wrote to the Committee stating that:

The work the Government undertook … was hugely influenced by the work of the Committee, particularly the likely level of competition for the next licence, the effects of offering more than one licence and the experience of international lotteries.[45]

19. Committees have once again demonstrated that examining policy proposals and scrutinising areas of emerging or deficient policy constitutes a particularly robust use of the parliamentary scrutiny system. Committees are continuing to make an important contribution to high profile policy debates; furthermore, they are also ensuring that the spotlight of parliamentary scrutiny is directed at lower profile areas of policy, thus directing Ministers' attention to areas which might otherwise be ignored.

TASK 3: SCRUTINISING DRAFT BILLS

20. The Government's commitment to pre-legislative scrutiny has again in 2004 been reflected in the number of bills published in draft and examined by joint or select committees. Amongst the bills subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny in 2004 were several of major importance, whether in terms of their size and complexity, significance in policy terms, or both.

21. The following draft bills or orders were scrutinised by departmental select committees:

Draft bill or order Committee

draft Animal Welfare Bill EFRA[46]

draft Criminal Defence Service Bill Constitutional Affairs[47]

draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order Northern Ireland Affairs[48]

draft Identity Cards Bill Home Affairs[49]

draft Regional Assemblies Bill ODPM[50]

draft School Transport Bill Education and Skills[51]

draft Transport (Wales) Bill Welsh Affairs[52]

22. In addition, the following draft bills were examined by joint committees of the two Houses:

draft Charities Bill;[53]
draft Disability Discrimination Bill;[54]
draft Gambling Bill[55] and further provisions on Regional Casinos;[56]
draft Mental Health Bill.[57]

23. Although, in general, the number of a select committee's recommendations adopted by the Government should be treated with some caution as an indicator of the committee's effectiveness, in the case of pre-legislative scrutiny it is possible to track a committee's influence with some certainty through changes in the eventual Bill proper. The table below shows that the three Joint Committees, which have so far reported, can claim to have significantly shaped the outcome of the legislation.

Table 1

Proportion of Recommendations from Committees on Draft Bills Accepted by HMG

Draft Bill Number of Recommendations Accepted in Full Partly Accepted Rejected

Gambling 139 121[58] 8 10

Disability Discrimination 75 41 11 23

Charities 54 26 13 14

24. Other indications of the impact of committees on the quality of legislation were:

the draft School Transport Bill was returned to Parliament in a modified form which addressed many of the issues raised by the Education and Skills Committee and was accompanied by a funding commitment for pilot local education authorities; the Committee notes that its Report was "widely drawn upon by Members participating in the Second Reading debate and Committee Stage of the Bill"[59]
the EFRA Committee's Report on the draft Animal Welfare Bill was welcomed by the Government as drawing attention to many important and complex issues; the Government has indicated that it intends to amend the Bill and the regulatory impact assessment in response to many of the Committee's concerns and criticisms[60]
the Government welcomed the Home Affairs Committee's Report on the draft Identity Cards Bill and incorporated a number of the Committee's recommendations into the Bill eventually introduced to Parliament, including systematic peer review of technical aspects of biometrics and an enhanced role for the National Identity Scheme Commissioner[61]
the Government accepted the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee's recommendation that the draft Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order should be amended to afford the same protection to people with disabilities as for crimes based on hostility of race, sectarianism and sexual orientation, thus ensuring that "a highly vulnerable group received appropriate legal protection", in the words of the Committee.[62]

25. As in previous years, Joint Committees on draft Bills draw heavily for procedural, administrative and specialist support on the staff of the Scrutiny Unit. The Unit also provided assistance of various sorts to departmentally related committees carrying out pre-legislative scrutiny.

26. The Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) examines many draft bills presented to Parliament in respect of their human rights implications, and usually reports when human rights concerns are raised. The Committee does not produce reports on individual draft bills but produces regular progress reports on the scrutiny of bills and draft bills throughout the session. In 2004, the JCHR reported substantively on three draft bills:

the draft Charities Bill;[63]
the draft School Transport Bill;[64]
the draft Criminal Defence Service Bill.[65]

27. All three of these draft bills were also subject to formal pre-legislative scrutiny by departmental committees or joint committees. The JCHR notes that this 'dual' scrutiny has not caused any major difficulties, because these other committees seem happy that the JCHR should complement their work by looking at these draft bills through a "human rights prism".[66] As the Committee scrutinises every bill presented to Parliament, it has the opportunity to follow up the extent to which its recommendations on draft bills have been taken account of in the form and content of the bill as introduced.

28. A number of departmental committees also scrutinised bills not in draft form:

the Constitutional Affairs Committee (Constitutional Reform Bill [Lords]);[67]
the Public Administration Committee (Inquiries Bill [Lords]).[68] The Committee, having traced the long-term diminution of parliamentary involvement in this process, expressed grave reservations that the Bill excluded Parliament from any direct involvement in the setting up of inquiries of a politically sensitive nature where, in the Committee's view, it should have a role. During the passage of the Bill in the House of Lords, extensive reference was made to the Committee's Report, and an amendment similar to one proposed by the Committee was carried at Third Reading on 28 February;
the Transport Committee (Energy Bill [Lords]).[69]

29. There was therefore a slight increase in the numbers of draft bills scrutinised by both departmental committees and joint committees in 2004, as compared with 2003. Significant numbers of bills are still not being published in draft prior to introduction to either House. If a committee wishes to make a useful contribution to Parliament's scrutiny of a bill that has been introduced, it must generally examine the bill within a very short timeframe, with consequent disruption to the committee's planned programme, and with the added complication that a bill may be amended as it passes through either House. We welcome the recent growth in the number of bills published in draft form and encourage the Government to raise the proportion further.

Innovation in committees' working methods

30. As we noted in our previous Annual Report, early in 2004 the Public Administration Committee broke new ground by publishing its own draft bill on the civil service. The Government subsequently accepted the Committee's recommendation calling for a civil service bill and, in November 2004, published its own draft bill for consultation. The Committee welcomes this development and notes that it is the first time a government has come forward with a firm proposal to put the civil service on a statutory footing to give its core values constitutional protection.[70] In 2004, the Committee also published a draft bill on the Executive's prerogative powers. The Committee comments that its purpose in publishing both draft bills was to show the feasibility of its calls for legislation in each of these areas and expresses the hope that it has demonstrated the more proactive role select committees can play with regard to legislation, complementing their task of pre-legislative scrutiny.[71]

31. The Welsh Affairs Committee has also broken new ground by contributing to the institution of a procedure known as 'reciprocal enlargement', whereby Members of the National Assembly for Wales can be invited to take part in House of Commons select committee proceedings, and vice versa. We discuss this new procedure in greater detail in part 3 of this Report. The procedure was put into practice for the first time in 2004 when the draft Transport (Wales) Bill was scrutinised by the Welsh Affairs Committee and a committee of the National Assembly (the Economic Development and Transport Committee). The Committee considered that joint formal working "demonstrated a significant enhancement to scrutiny of draft legislation that affects Wales", particularly because co-ordination prevented duplication of effort.[72]

32. The Transport Committee looked at the transport implications of two draft bills, the draft Disability Discrimination Bill and the draft School Transport Bill, that fell to other departmental committees for scrutiny. The Committee's aim was not to deal with any detailed drafting points—indeed, the Committee called for evidence before the draft bills were available—but to look at the broad policy involved; the Committee therefore considered the draft bills within the context of wider inquiries into the subjects in question. The Committee completed its reports on the inquiries in time for them to be used by the committees conducting the formal pre-legislative scrutiny of each draft bill, the Joint Committee on the Draft Disability Discrimination Bill and the Education and Skills Committee, respectively.[73]

33. We welcome the innovative approaches taken by committees in seeking to ensure the quality and utility of scrutiny work on draft legislation.

Notification to Committees

34. The likely pattern of draft bills in 2004 had been foreshadowed in a letter from the Leader of the House to our Chairman at the time of the November 2003 Queen's Speech. This process was repeated, in respect of draft bills scheduled to be published in 2005, by means of a similar letter in November 2004. We are grateful to the Leader of the House for establishing the practice of providing us with advance notice of the possible scope and timing of the publication of draft bills. Even allowing for some inevitable uncertainty about precise dates of publication, this information is helpful both to individual select committees and the Scrutiny Unit in planning their programme of work. As we indicate below, however, there remain a number of problems which need to be addressed before the system of pre-legislative scrutiny can be said to be working properly.

35. The main problems to which committees engaged in pre-legislative scrutiny have drawn attention are: the late publication of draft bills; delays in establishing the Committee itself; unreasonable deadlines for reporting; and the unavailability or lateness of key supporting documentation. To some extent these difficulties are all interrelated, since they reflect the over-ambitious timetable set by the Government for the completion of the pre-legislative scrutiny stage of a bill within the overall legislative programme. We set out some issues below:

Late Publication of Draft Bills

Commenting on the fact that only 50 clauses (out of over 300) of the draft Gambling Bill had been published before they were established, the Joint Committee said "… our work has been hampered by the lack of key clauses until late in our lifetime, and there are some areas in which we have not been able to conduct any scrutiny whatsoever".[74] The Constitutional Affairs Committee experienced similar problems with the draft Criminal Defence Service Bill.
The Home Affairs Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee undertook to conduct pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Corporate Manslaughter Bill as a joint exercise, but publication of the draft Bill has been "repeatedly delayed".[75]
The Welsh Affairs Committee expressed concern about the timetable for scrutiny of draft bills affecting Wales. The Government has developed the practice of publishing one draft bill for Wales in each session of Parliament; the Committee has undertaken to scrutinise each of those draft bills as and when they are published. The Committee's report on a draft bill needs to be published in time for a debate on the draft bill in the Welsh Grand Committee, which usually takes place in the last week before the summer recess. The Committee comments that "all three draft bills for Wales have been published late in the parliamentary year which [has] presented us with a very tight deadline".[76] The Committee has recommended that the Government move forward its timetable for the publication of Wales-only draft bills to allow the Committee, and its counterparts in the National Assembly, a suitable period of time within which to undertake pre-legislative scrutiny.[77]

Delays in Establishing Committees

Referring to problems experienced by other committees conducting pre-legislative scrutiny, the Joint Committee on the draft Charities Bill commented: "The difficulty can be mitigated by appointing a Joint Committee as early as possible - even if publication of the draft bill is slipping. This enables the Committee, as we did over two weeks, to undertake preliminary briefing."[78]

Unreasonable Deadlines for Reporting

Despite the strong criticisms expressed by previous committees about what were widely seen as unreasonably demanding deadlines for reporting imposed by the Government, compression of time has continued to be a serious problem for pre-legislative scrutiny committees. The difficulties are compounded when an end date is set which falls on the other side of a recess, particularly the summer recess. With this in mind, the Joint Committee on the draft Charities Bill recommended "that neither House should agree to deadlines [for reporting] in motions to appoint Joint Committees where the time for consideration of the draft Bill is less than 12 sitting weeks from the date of publication of the draft Bill."[79] Similar sentiments were expressed by the EFRA Committee in relation to their consideration of the draft Animal Welfare Bill.

Unavailability or Late Arrival of Key Supporting Documentation

Despite the fact that the draft Mental Health Bill runs to over 300 clauses and 14 schedules, many of its key provisions remain to be filled out in codes of practice. These were not published in draft in time for the Joint Committee to consider them before it was due to report to Parliament, leaving key areas unscrutinised.

Whether a draft bill is a suitable candidate for pre-legislative scrutiny

The EFRA Committee also identified a problem with the extent to which the policy behind the draft Animal Welfare Bill had been subjected to appropriate consultation prior to the draft Bill's publication. Prior to the publication of the draft Bill in July 2004, Defra had last consulted on the policy of developing a draft Animal Welfare Bill in January 2002. Although the Committee welcomed the opportunity to consider the draft Bill, it concluded that the draft Bill had not been an appropriate candidate for pre-legislative scrutiny by Parliament in the absence of the Government having first conducted its own consultation process and that it "could and should have been published for pre-legislative scrutiny purposes in a more developed state".[80] The Committee considered that the Government should choose to rely on Parliament's pre-legislative scrutiny process, rather than conducting a separate consultation process in accordance with Cabinet Office guidelines, only where the policy behind a draft bill has recently been consulted on, or where the draft bill is minor or uncontroversial.

36. The fact that all the committees concerned succeeded in publishing comprehensive reports within their deadline should not be taken by the Government as a sign that the practical difficulties were not as serious as claimed. Rather it reflects the commitment and efforts of the members and staff of the committees. This must not be allowed to become the norm for pre-legislative scrutiny. We therefore call upon the Leader of the House to take steps to ensure that committees' reasonable criticisms of the process are addressed. The Government must also ensure that appropriate consultation has taken place on the policy behind a draft bill, prior to its publication. The full benefit of the pre-legislative scrutiny process can be realised only if draft legislation is published in a sufficiently developed state.

37. Committees are eager to examine draft bills thoroughly and thoughtfully, in order to make it more likely that well-considered legislation is presented to Parliament, and to enable Parliament to carry out better-informed scrutiny of the Government's legislation. The Government must ensure that it sends clear signals to committees in order to enable them to organise their programmes appropriately.

38. The importance of dealing with these issues was emphasised in a letter from our Chairman to the Leader of the House dated 6 December 2004, sent in response to Mr Hain's letter of 23 November 2004 setting out the proposed list of draft bills for the 2004-05 Session. Our Chairman also made clear in his letter that there should be "a presumption in favour of draft bills going to departmental select committees for pre-legislative scrutiny, where they are ready and willing to undertake this."

Submitting memoranda in place of draft bills

39. In 2004, two government departments provided their respective departmental committees with memoranda setting out the key principles underpinning proposed—but unpublished—legislation and giving details of the main policy proposals. The Transport Committee agreed to receive a memorandum from the Department for Transport (DfT) on the Government's plans for a Road Safety Bill, and the Defence Committee agreed to receive a memorandum from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) on the Government's plans for a Tri-Services Armed Forces Bill.

40. Both committees commented that it had been difficult to carry out thorough scrutiny of the memoranda because of the lack of detail contained therein. The Defence Committee described the memorandum submitted by the MoD as providing "little more than an outline of many aspects of the proposed legislation" and, on this basis, concluded that this process should not be considered to be equivalent to the detailed pre-legislative scrutiny merited by significant legislation.[81] The Transport Committee welcomed the initiative shown by the DfT in sharing its legislative plans at an early stage but emphasised that the Government must provide such documents to committees in good time if committees are to be in a position to conduct a thorough scrutiny.[82]

41. We note that, twice in 2004, the Government appears to have sought to have a departmental committee scrutinise a memorandum containing proposals for a bill, rather than publishing a draft bill for scrutiny. However, given the support the Government has expressed for the pre-legislative scrutiny process, we would be extremely concerned if this process came to be regarded as a substitute for, or an alternative to, pre-legislative scrutiny of a draft bill. We consider that such a process is more appropriate for use in the case of minor or uncontroversial legislation, and we urge the Government to ensure that its use is considered only in such cases.

Joint Liaison Committee

42. The Select Committee on the Constitution of the House of Lords has recommended the creation of a Joint Liaison Committee with the principal function of co-ordinating the approach of the two Houses to matters of common interest, such as the use of joint committees for pre-legislative scrutiny, and of enabling the resolution of disagreements between them on select committee-related issues.[83]

43. Whist we understand the case for such a proposal, we are cautious about the practical implications. In particular, we are doubtful whether the creation of what would inevitably be a rather unwieldy body would be justified by any benefits it might produce.

TASK 4: EXAMINATION OF DEPARTMENTAL DECISIONS, CIRCULARS, GUIDANCE ETC

44. The task of examining specific output from the department expressed in documents or other decisions complements task 1, which is to examine policy proposals. In our previous Annual Report, we noted that the most striking example of work carried out under this task is the detailed work of the Quadripartite Committee on licensing decisions relating to arms exports.[84] In 2004, the Home Affairs Committee initiated new work under this task when it began to undertake formal scrutiny of draft sentencing guidelines issued by the Sentencing Guidelines Council (SGC), the first two sets of which were published in September 2004.[85] The Committee's work contributes to the formulation of guidelines within the new sentencing framework established by the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The framework aims to put the sentencing of offenders in England and Wales on a more systematic and coherent basis. In order to prepare for this new role, the Committee took oral evidence from the Chairman of the SGC—the Lord Chief Justice—in July 2004, and also recruited an adviser on sentencing to the Committee secretariat.[86]

TASK 5: SCRUTINY OF EXPENDITURE PLANS AND OUTTURNS

45. Select committees continued in 2004 to take forward and build on their work in previous years in scrutinising departmental expenditure plans. The principal focus has been on Estimates and departmental annual reports, but committees have also examined resource accounts and the 2004 Spending Review settlements. Once again, the assistance and advice provided by the financial experts in the Scrutiny Unit has proved invaluable in carrying out such tasks.

47. Since 1991, the Health Committee has sent a detailed questionnaire to the DoH, known as the public expenditure questionnaire. This provides the Committee and the public with an analysis of the Department's expenditure over the previous financial year and forms the basis of the Committee's annual scrutiny of DoH expenditure. Although the Committee refines the questionnaire each year, it also ensures that some of the information sought remains unchanged from year to year, to enable comparative data to be collected. The Committee comments that many research institutions make use of the material collected through the questionnaire.[101]

48. In addition to such routine scrutiny, committees have also raised a number of serious issues about expenditure, including:

the reasons why the DCA continues to be the subject of special measures from the Treasury, as a result of historically poor financial management (Constitutional Affairs Committee);[102]
the calculation of costs of the UK's military operation in Iraq including the MoD's practice of identifying only net additional costs and the impact of resource accounting and budgeting (RAB) on the costing of the operation, as this was the first time that a major operation had been costed under RAB principles (Defence Committee);[103]
the failure of the Government's UK e-University project, which was set up by way of a public-private partnership and terminated with a loss of £50 million, having never achieved its targets for student numbers or for private investment (Education and Skills Committee);[104]
concerns that the Government is drawing a simple association between increased funding and lasting gains in improvement in, for example, GCSE results (Education and Skills Committee);[105]
concerns that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) is selling appreciating assets and, all too often, investing the proceeds in heavily depreciating assets and, in particular, that the sales of the New York and Dublin residences had been badly mishandled resulting in losses in seven figures (Foreign Affairs Committee);[106]
the possible loss to public funds of £5 million as a result of abuse of the Terrorism Act 2000 compensation schemes administered by the Compensation Agency, an executive agency of the Northern Ireland Office set up in 1992 to administer compensation schemes for the victims of terrorism and other violent crimes (Northern Ireland Affairs Committee);[107]
the continuing high level of negative (or 'qualified') audit opinions on the resource accounts of Northern Ireland departments (Northern Ireland Affairs Committee);[108]
the Department for Work and Pension's (DWP) expenditure of £4.25 billion on IT projects since 2001 and concerns that this spending had not led to an improvement in the quality of service while reducing unnecessary public expenditure through inefficiencies, fraud and errors (Work and Pensions Committee).[109]

49. Committees have continued to build on their role of examining expenditure, through analysis and review of departmental annual reports, Supplementary Estimates, departmental resource accounts and 2004 spending review settlements. In comparison with 2003, an increased number of oral evidence sessions on departmental annual reports were held and an increased number of committees examined the Supplementary Estimates.[110]

Estimates Timetable

50. As we reported last year, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agreed to a change in the relevant Standing Order[111] so that the minimum interval between the laying of the Estimates and their being voted on by the House was doubled from 7 to 14 days. It is too early to say whether this change will be enough on its own to meet committees' concerns about the compressed timetable for their consideration of the Estimates. (For example, it is not yet clear how the revised Standing Order would operate if the 14 day period straddled a periodic adjournment or a prorogation.) But the extension did allow us to consider the proposals from committees for the 2004-05 Winter Supplementary Estimates day to a timescale which would have been extremely difficult under the previous arrangements.

51. We also expressed concern in last year's Report about the Government's failure to fulfil its undertaking to allow committees an early sight of the Estimates in draft form. This was the subject of correspondence between our Chairman and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Since then, despite some small improvement, the situation remains unsatisfactory. We therefore repeat our recommendation that the Treasury should take steps to ensure that committees receive draft Estimates at the earliest practicable date.

Provision of an Estimates Memorandum

52. The Scrutiny Unit has highlighted to us some difficulties which have arisen in respect of the new requirement for departments to produce an Estimates Memorandum in support of each estimate presented to Parliament for approval (including Revised or Supplementary Estimates).[112] This requirement has been imposed by HM Treasury. The new Memoranda are intended to assist select committees' scrutiny of public expenditure by providing an explanation of the impact and consequences of changes sought in each estimate. Memoranda must be provided to committees no later than the date on which the estimate is laid, and should follow a standardised format. The Memoranda were first produced in respect of the Winter 2004-05 Supplementaries.

53. An analysis carried out by the Scrutiny Unit suggests that the quality of the first Estimates Memoranda has been patchy, with a "marked variability between departments in their quality and usefulness".[113] In two cases the documents arrived over a week late, whilst two committees found the Memoranda so unsatisfactory that they returned them and requested revised, more helpful versions. We hope that the Treasury will learn the lessons of these first Estimates Memoranda and, by issuing clear guidance to departments along the detailed lines we suggested in our last Report, ensure that the overall standard of the documents is improved to take account of committees' legitimate scrutiny requirements.

54. The Scrutiny Unit will continue, on behalf of committees, to discuss with the Treasury ways of enhancing the quality of the range of financial information presented to Parliament, in order to help committees to carry out their work more effectively.

TASK 6: SCRUTINISING PUBLIC SERVICE AGREEMENTS AND TARGETS

55. Committees tend to address the task of examining Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets in one or both of the following ways:

as part of their annual examination of departments' annual reports; or

as part of their general policy-based inquiry work, where PSA targets are relevant to specific inquiries.

PSA targets as part of examination of departmental annual reports

56. Many committees use their annual examination of departments' annual reports to focus particularly on a department's performance as measured against its PSA targets. Examples of issues raised by committees about targets in this context include:

The EFRA Committee highlighted the fact that Defra is not on track to achieve its PSA target of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20% by 2010 and recommended that the forthcoming review of the climate change programme should ensure that not only Defra but other departments—including the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), the DfT and HM Treasury—firmly re-commit themselves to reducing all emissions of greenhouse gases;[114]
The International Development Committee considered that DfID's departmental report contained inadequate information about how DfID was addressing its underperformance in relation to certain key PSA targets. The Committee cited two cases of underperformance in the 16 key countries in Africa—maternal mortality and under-five mortality rates—and commented that the lack of information in the report on the steps which DfID could take to increase the likelihood of meeting targets made it difficult for the Committee to assess whether an improvement was likely to be made;[115]
The Regulatory Reform Committee drew attention once again to the slow progress being made towards meeting the Cabinet Office's PSA target of having 60 regulatory reform orders (RROs) made by April 2006 and noted that, despite persistently missing successive PSA targets for the number of RROs made, "the Cabinet Office was confidently claiming, even in March 2004, that it was 'on course' to reach its [April 2006] target of 60".[116] The Committee recommended that the Cabinet Office should inform the Committee if there is a substantial risk that it will miss its PSA target.[117]

57. Committees not charged with scrutinising a government department may still examine performance indicators. The Science and Technology Committee notes that, although the Office of Science and Technology (OST) has no PSA targets, as it is not a department in its own right, there are other indicators against which the performance of the UK's science and engineering base can be measured. The Committee has also met with the director-general of the research councils to discuss OST's undertaking to develop a new performance management system that will be used to inform the resource allocations to the seven research councils.[118]

PSA targets relevant to inquiry work

58. Several committees have set out in their annual reports how particular inquiries undertaken in 2004, although not explicitly focused on PSA targets, nevertheless addressed key targets. For example, the Health Committee explained that:

its inquiry into GP Out-of-Hours Services examined DoH target 3, which relates to access to a primary care professional;
its inquiries into Elder Abuse and Palliative Care examined DoH target 8, which aims to improve the quality of life and independence of older people;
its inquiry into Obesity examined DoH target 6, which seeks a substantial reduction from the major killer diseases by 2010;
its inquiries into Palliative Care, Elder Abuse, The Provision of Allergy Services and Obesity all examined DoH target 11, which seeks to reduce health inequalities by 10% by 2010.[119]

59. The EFRA Committee again described the relationship between its inquiries and Defra's PSA targets in tabular form:[120]

EFRA inquiry Relevant PSA target

Cetacean by-catch Target 1 (SR 2004)

Sites of Special Scientific Interest Target 3 (SR 2004)

Climate change, flooding and water security Targets 1 and 2 (SR 2004)

Bovine TB Target 9 (SR2004)

Implementation of CAP reform in the UK Target 5 (SR 2004 )

Draft Animal Welfare Bill Target 9 (SR 2004)

Waste policy and the Landfill Directive Target 3 (SR 2002); target 6 (SR 2004)

Climate change: looking forward Targets 1 and 2 (SR 2004)

60. In the course of their policy-based inquiry work, committees made a number of criticisms concerning the operation of PSAs:

The EFRA Committee's Report on Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) described Defra's PSA target of ensuring that 95% of England's SSSIs are in favourable condition by 2010 as "very challenging" and expressed concern that the target would not be met unless a number of far-reaching changes to Defra's broader environmental policieswere made, in good time;[121]
In its inquiry into Rehabilitation of Prisoners, the Home Affairs Committee expressed regret at the Home Office's decision to reclassify the PSA target of reducing re-offending as a 'standard', committing the Department simply to maintaining existing levels of performance, and drew attention to the existence of an 'internal target' which does quantify a desired reduction in re-offending levels. The Committee felt it was inherently confusing that the Home Office was simultaneously committed to "no deterioration in re-offending rates" and to a quantified reduction in those rates;[122]
The Home Affairs Committee also criticised the Government's targets on processing asylum applications, in its Report on Asylum Applications, and called for the targets to be made more challenging, with a reduction in the current relatively high proportion of successful appeals formally included as part of the target;[123]
The ODPM Committee's Report on Decent Homes focused explicitly on the PSA target set for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions to bring all social housing into decent condition by 2010 and to increase the proportion of private housing in decent condition occupied by vulnerable groups. The Committee was disturbed by the "large unacknowledged and unexplained discrepancies" it found in the Department's data on progress towards meeting the target, effectively made it impossible to assess whether the Department was on course to deliver "one of its key PSA targets". The Committee called for a "higher and broader" 'decent homes plus' PSA target to be set now, for achievement at a later date;[124]
The Transport Committee comments that it has long been sceptical about the PSA target for increasing the number of passenger kilometres travelled on the railway, on the basis that the target was too heavily biased towards long-distance services and that substantial increases in number of shorter journeys would therefore not be adequately recognised. The Committee notes that the target has now been abandoned.[125]

Operation of PSA targets

61. Committees also raised important concerns about the effective functioning of PSA targets. The International Development Committee raises questions about the suitability of some of DfID's targets, on the basis that many of the Department's PSA targets are affected by a wide range of factors not within the Department's remit and, therefore, control. The Committee considers that this problem is compounded by a lack of reliable data on which to measure progress against some targets, which could invalidate some targets.[126]

62. The Health Committee observes that, although it has been able to examine some of the Department of Health's PSA targets, the large number of targets has made it impossible for the Committee to examine all the targets systematically. While the number of PSA targets being monitored by the DoH has been reduced from 55 to 39, it is still a large number, and the situation is unlikely to be improved in the foreseeable future since additional targets are expected to be added in 2005.[127] The Committee states that it has been concerned, throughout this Parliament, about the proliferation of the Department's targets. The reasons for the Committee's concern are two-fold: first, the Committee considers that the NHS concentrates on those problems for which a target exists; the corollary is that if there is no target relating to a problem it tends to be ignored. Secondly, the Committee considers that targets may have perverse consequences. For example, requiring GPs to see their patients within 48 hours has led some GPs to refuse to allow patients to make appointments more than 48 hours in advance, thus making it much more difficult for those who want routine consultations to plan their lives.[128]

63. Committees have raised important and constructive concerns about both the substance and functioning of PSA targets. Committees have also demonstrated their flexibility in considering PSA targets in the context both of examining departmental annual reports and of wider policy-based inquiry work. Given each committee's extensive experience in overseeing the activities of a particular government department, we expect the Government to give careful consideration to concerns raised about such targets.

TASK 7: MONITORING THE WORK OF AGENCIES AND OTHERS

64. Committees take a number of different approaches to monitoring the work of agencies, NDPBs and other associated public bodies. As we discussed in our previous Annual Report, some committees have a rolling programme of one-off evidence sessions with such bodies, with the aim of scrutinising all bodies over a period of time.[129] These committees continued their rolling programmes in 2004. For example, the Science and Technology Committee completed its programme of holding separate scrutiny sessions with each of the seven research councils in the course of the Parliament.[130] The Committee considers that the performance of the research councils it examined in 2004 had improved, relative to the performance of those it examined in 2003. The Committee believes this improvement is due, at least in part, to its rolling programme of scrutiny, which has provided the research councils with a strong incentive to ensure that they are working efficiently and to a high standard.[131]

65. In addition, some committees' inquiries focused on the work of a particular body. For example:

the Culture, Media and Sport Committee's inquiry into The BBC Charter Renewal;[132]
the Health Committee's ongoing inquiry into The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry, which examines the effectiveness of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the regulator of the pharmaceutical industry;[133]
the Northern Ireland Committee's inquiries into The Compensation Agency, The functions of the Office of the Police Ombudsman and The Functions of the Northern Ireland Policing Board;[134]
the ODPM Committee's inquiries into The Role and Effectiveness of the Housing Corporation, The Role and Effectiveness of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment and The Role and Effectiveness of the Standards Board for England.[135]

66. Other committees touched on the work of agencies and other associated public bodies in the course of broader inquiries. For example:

the Defence Committee's Defence Procurement Report focused on problems and failings within the Defence Procurement Agency;[136]
the EFRA Committee looked at the activities of many of Defra's associated bodies in the general course of its inquiries, including Ofwat,[137] the Environment Agency,[138] the Countryside Agency, English Nature and the Forestry Commission,[139] and the Milk Development Council;[140] it also touched on the work of bodies associated with other government departments, including the Food Standards Agency,[141] the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission;[142]
the Foreign Affairs Committee carried out scrutiny of the British Council and the BBC World Service as part of its annual inquiry into the FCO's departmental report;[143]
the Home Affairs Committee took evidence from a wide range of bodies associated within the Home Office including individual police forces, the Prison Service, the Probation Service, the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Sentencing Guidelines Council;[144]
the Treasury Committee took oral evidence from the Financial Services Authority (FSA) on two occasions in the course of inquiries into Restoring Confidence in Long-term Savings and The EU and Financial Services and took both opportunities to seek an update from the FSA on progress on negotiations which had been the subject of an earlier inquiry by the Committee.[145]

67. One of the Public Administration Committee's key responsibilities is to examine any reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner (the Ombudsman) which are laid before the House. In practice, the Committee both reviews the work of the Ombudsman's office and takes forward concerns expressed by the Ombudsman. During 2004, as well as taking formal evidence from the Ombudsman on the expenditure and administration of her office, the Committee held an informal seminar with the Ombudsman and her senior staff to discuss possible improvements to the office's services. The Committee also took up concerns expressed by the Ombudsman about the new NHS complaints system by taking oral evidence on the issue. Finally, acting jointly with the Ombudsman, the Committee surveyed Members on the work of her office, in particular on the question of whether the MP 'filter' for directing complaints to the Ombudsman should be retained.[146]

68. The large number of agencies, NDPBs and other public bodies associated with government departments means that it is impracticable for a committee to scrutinise all such bodies on an annual basis. Nevertheless, by making use of rolling programmes of scrutiny and by taking evidence from bodies relevant to particular inquiries, committees are achieving good coverage of the activities of agencies and other associated public bodies. Where practicable, we encourage committees to adopt a planned programme of scrutiny of the work of agencies, NDPBs and other associated public bodies falling within their remit.

TASK 8: SCRUTINY OF MAJOR APPOINTMENTS

69. As we noted in our previous Annual Report, committees do not routinely carry out prior scrutiny of appointments in the sense of taking part in the selection procedure. Committees may, however, hold formal evidence sessions with incumbents of major posts soon after their appointments: in 2004, for example, the Home Affairs Committee took oral evidence from the newly appointed Chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission.[147] Committees may also hold informal meetings with individuals appointed to key roles: again in 2004, the Health Committee met with the chairman and chief executive designate of the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection (CHAI) about two weeks before the body was formally constituted.[148] Committees may also take an interest in such matters without holding sessions with the new appointees, formally or otherwise. The Transport Committee comments that, although it took a keen interest in Government appointments within its remit, it did not feel it necessary to be implicated in them by holding introductory sessions.[149]

70. During 2004, the Constitutional Affairs Committee had cause to consider the appropriate limits of committees' ability to scrutinise major appointments made by a department, in the course of taking evidence on Judicial appointments and a Supreme Court (court of final appeal).[150] Some witnesses suggested that the Committee should hold 'confirmation hearings' with new appointees to the new supreme court, as a means of ensuring that Parliament had confidence in the Judiciary. The Committee was not persuaded that such hearings would improve the process of appointing senior judges. The Committee considered that there would be potential benefits to public understanding of the role of the new supreme court if a practice were to be adopted of inviting judges, including recently appointed ones, to appear before an appropriate committee from time to time.[151]

71. In our previous Annual Report, we noted the EFRA Committee's recommendation to the Government that Defra put in place procedures to inform the Committee in advance of all major appointments pending and/or made.[152] Defra has since formally responded to the Committee's recommendation, undertaking to give the Committee advance notice, wherever possible, of the announcement of major appointments and to provide a regular update listing other major appointments that have been made over the preceding months and for which no press release was issued.[153] The Committee has welcomed this development.[154] We note that the Work and Pensions Committee has expressed its disappointment that it is not specifically informed by the DWP in advance of any appointments to posts in the Department or in non-departmental public bodies, and has consequently recommended that DWP put appropriate notification procedures in place.[155]

TASK 9: IMPLEMENTATION OF LEGISLATION

72. A significant proportion of committee inquiry work considers the implementation of legislation or of major policy initiatives. In 2004, committees have considered the implementation of European law, as well as domestic law. Examples of the ways in which committees approached this core task in 2004 included:

the Constitutional Affairs Committee's Report into The Freedom of Information Act 2000: Progress towards implementation, which was published about a month before the Act became fully operational and found that government departments' readiness to implement the Act appeared to be "patchy";[156]
the Education and Skills Committee's examination of the impact of the Higher Education Act 2004 which allowed universities to charge differential tuition fees on home and foreign students;[157]
the EFRA Committee's inquiries into the End of Life Vehicles Directive and Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive and Implementation of CAP reform in the UK, which examined the implementation of EU legislation in the UK, and its ongoing inquiry into Waste Policy and the Landfill Directive, which is examining how effectively the Government and the Environment Agency are implementing the Landfill Directive in the UK;[158]
the Home Affairs Committee's evidence session on the use by the police of powers granted under anti-terrorism legislation, a matter which the Committee intends to examine further in the context of its ongoing inquiry into Terrorism and Community Relations, and its inquiry into Anti-Social Behaviour, which has looked at how provisions of the Criminal Justice and Police Act 1998, in particular, anti-social behaviour orders and fixed penalty notices, are being put into effect;[159]
the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee's inquiry into Electoral Registration in Northern Ireland, which was launched following the introduction of the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 and concluded that, although the Act appeared to be having some success at combating electoral fraud, it had the unintended consequence of contributing to the steep and progressive decline in the numbers of voters appearing on the register over recent years;[160]
the Trade and Industry Committee's ongoing inquiry into UK Employment Regulation, which is considering the contribution that labour market flexibility makes to the UK economy and whether the current degree of flexibility is appropriate or desirable given, on the one hand, the concerns expressed by employers' organisations about the burden of regulations introduced in recent years and, on the other, the unions' view that the flexibility in the labour market results in UK employees working longer hours and having less security of employment;[161]
the Work and Pensions Committee's ongoing inquiry into The Introduction of Pension Credit, which is examining the introduction of pension credit under the State Pension Credit Act 2002, which came into force in October 2003, and the ability of the Pension Service to deliver pension credit successfully.[162]

73. There is evidence that the Government is factoring committee work into its own legislative review processes. The Science and Technology Committee understands that the DoH will await the Committee's forthcoming Report on its inquiry into Human Reproductive Technologies and the Law before revising the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. The Committee's inquiry revisits the 1990 Act and considers it particularly in the light of the development of new technologies for research and treatment and recent changes in ethical and social attitudes.[163]

74. As we discussed in our previous Annual Report, committees are well-suited to undertaking post-legislative scrutiny, in part because they can be more candid than government-led or government-sponsored reviews, and more responsive to the views of stakeholders.[164] The Leader of the House has recognised this, describing departmental select committees as "the obvious vehicles for such post-legislative scrutiny", although he has acknowledged that committees may require extra resources if they are to carry out post-legislative scrutiny on a systematic basis.[165]

TASK 10: DEBATES IN WESTMINSTER HALL AND THE CHAMBER

75. Apart from the frequent reference to committee reports in debates of all kinds, it is Westminster Hall, as a parallel Chamber, which has continued to serve as the main forum in which committee reports are formally debated. Standing Order No. 10 (13) stipulates that the Speaker shall appoint not more than six Thursdays on which the business in Westminster Hall should be debates on select committee reports. The Government makes further Thursdays available, with a target of two thirds of debates to be available to us as recommended by the Modernisation Committee.[166]

76. In the 2003-04 Session, 25 days out of 33 were allotted to select committee reports (including one day allocated but not used), compared with 23 out of 35 in the 2002-03 Session. In the current Session, the total is 6 out of 10 days [up to and including 3 March]. Subjects debated in the 2003-04 Session were:

Committee Report or issues

Broadcasting The Rules of Coverage

Constitutional Affairs Judicial appointments and a Supreme Court (court of final appeal)

Culture, Media and Sport Privacy and Media Intrusion

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Caught in the net: by-catch of dolphins and porpoises off the UK coast

Foreign Affairs Foreign Policy Aspects of the War against Terrorism

Foreign Affairs Foreign Policy Aspects of the War against Terrorism

Health Sexual Health

Health Elder Abuse

Home Affairs Asylum Applications

International Development Development Assistance and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Northern Ireland Affairs The Illegal Drugs Trade and Drug Culture in Northern Ireland

ODPM Postal Voting

ODPM Social Cohesion

Public Administration Ministerial Accountability and Parliamentary Questions

Public Administration On Target? Government By Measurement

Science and Technology Light Pollution and Astronomy

Science and Technology The Scientific Response to Terrorism

Science and Technology Too little too late? Government Investment in Nanotechnology

Science and Technology Within REACH: The EU's new chemicals strategy

Transport Overcrowding on Public Transport

Transport Ports

Treasury Transparency of Credit Card Charges

Work and Pensions European Social Fund

Work and Pensions Child Poverty in the UK

77. In addition, the following Reports were debated on the Floor of the House during Estimates days: People, Pensions and Post Offices: The impact of 'Direct Payment' on post offices and their customers (Trade and Industry Committee) (11 December 2003);[167] Childcare for Working Parents (Work and Pensions Committee) (11 December 2003);[168] Biofuels (Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee) (11 March 2004);[169] Aviation (Transport Committee) (11 March 2004).[170]