List of recommendations
Introduction
1. We
support the aim of providing more opportunities for scrutiny of
departmental performance. There are a variety of ways in which
this objective could be achieved in practice. (Paragraph 3)
The Governance of Britain
2. We
welcome the Government's commitment to Parliamentary scrutiny
of departmental objectives and annual reports. (Paragraph 12)
Timing
3. We
do not consider it appropriate for debates on departmental objectives
to take place before the relevant select committee has completed
its work on the Departmental Annual Report. (Paragraph 17)
Select Committees and the Chamber
4. We
would expect the Chairman and members of the relevant departmental
select committee to take a central role in debates on departmental
objectives. We expect, however, that debates on the floor of the
House would also open the topic to a broader audience of Members
who are not members of the relevant select committee. (Paragraph
18)
PSAs
5. Debates
on departmental objectives should reflect the areas of performance
that are of particular significance or importance. Debates should
not artificially attempt to scrutinise all objectives equally.
(Paragraph 20)
6. Any new procedure
for debating departmental objectives on the floor of the House
will need to take account of the new cross-departmental PSAs and
allow for the objectives of more than one department to be combined
into one debate. (Paragraph 21)
Departmental Annual Reports and other documents
7. Departmental
annual reports, whilst important, may need to be supplemented
by other, already available material in order to ensure effective
scrutiny of a department's past performance and objectives for
the future. (Paragraph 24)
Departmental debates
8. The
effectiveness of any new system depends to some extent on the
way it is operated. We therefore consider that any new arrangements
for debating departmental objectives and annual reports should
be temporary for the current Parliament and subject to review
thereafter. (Paragraph 26)
9. We do not consider
it desirable to hold an annual debate on each of the 19 government
departments. The departments chosen for debate will vary from
year to year. In this context, additional opportunities to debate
departmental objectives and annual reports could be provided by
rebalancing the present programme of business and identifying
existing opportunities more systematically, without the need for
changes to the standing orders or the invention of a new formal
procedure. (Paragraph 27)
"Tagging"
10. We
recommend that greater use should be made of tagging to identify
opportunities to debate departmental objectives and performance
and material that may be of use to Members in debate. Departmental
Annual Reports and associated select committee publications should
be tagged to suitable debates both in the Chamber and in Westminster
Hall. After a trial period of one session, a review should be
conducted to consider the proportion of departmental annual reports
and corresponding select committee reports/evidence that had been
tagged and identify any significant gaps. (Paragraph 30)
Debates in government time
11. We
recommend that the Government should devote some of its Thursday
afternoons in Westminster Hall to debating departmental objectives
and annual reports. The choice of department should be made by
the Liaison Committee. This should not be at the expense of existing
select committee time. (Paragraph 34)
Using existing Select Committee time
12. If
the Government believes that more opportunities should be provided
for scrutiny of departmental performance on a substantive motion,
this might best be achieved by increasing the number of days available
to select committees in the Chamber. It would be for select committees
(via the Liaison Committee) to choose the subjects for debate
on these occasions. (Paragraph 38)
Conclusion
13. The
Government's proposal for a more systematic and effective scrutiny
of departmental objectives and annual reports in the Chamber is
commendable. We consider that this objective could best be achieved
through a balance of different practical measures. More consistent
tagging of Departmental Annual Reports and associated select committee
publications would go some way towards achieving the aim by clearly
identifying existing opportunities for debate and providing Members
with the material needed for effective scrutiny. Although there
is little scope for timetabling additional debates without displacing
existing business that is of interest to Members, some time could
be found in Westminster Hall. Finally, the Government should consider
whether existing select committee time could be extended. We do
not consider it necessary to debate every government department
each year. Instead, we strongly support Liaison Committee input
into the choice of department for debate. The Liaison Committee
should also be able to suggest where the debate takes place, requesting
a debate on the floor of the House rather than in Westminster
Hall if it considers that the issues are of sufficient importance.
The objective of any new arrangements for debating departmental
objectives in the Chamber should be to enhance and build upon
the existing and effective scrutiny carried out by select committees.
(Paragraph 39)
| 
