Volume 15: Government and Public Administration
8. Standards and accountability
The proper and effective use of powers and resources
Primary legislation
Review of secondary legislation
Parliamentary statements, Parliamentary Questions (PQs) and debates
Select Committees

Primary legislation

8.9 When a Bill was introduced into Parliament, Ministers had to explain its purpose in a speech in the Second Reading Debate. Generally, the senior Minister introduced a Bill while his or her junior Minister wound up the debate. They might be subject to questions from the Opposition and their own back-bench MPs, and therefore had to be able to explain what problem was being addressed, what solutions were being proposed and how these were embodied in the Bill. They had to demonstrate an understanding of all aspects of the problem and of alternative options for solutions and possible difficulties with the options chosen; and had to be able to explain why they had chosen a certain course.

8.10 Most Bills conferred on Ministers enabling powers to implement further measures administratively or in secondary legislation. Often, this required consultation with bodies representative of those likely to be affected. Again, Ministers, or officials on their behalf, had to explain their proposals, providing enough information to make the consultation meaningful - ie, to enable consultees to comment. They then had to give proper weight to comments received.

Review of secondary legislation

8.11 As described in Chapter 3, all secondary legislation laid before the House of Commons was subject to (a) examination by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, ¹ and (b) the 'negative resolution' or 'affirmative resolution' procedures.

Parliamentary statements, Parliamentary Questions (PQs) and debates

8.12 Ministers had to explain, justify and defend their policies or actions to the House on other occasions. These included:

1. Statements: Ministers might make a statement as part of their plan for communicating a new or revised policy as, for example, Mr John Gummer did when he announced the making of the Regulations that introduced the ban on Specified Bovine Offal (SBO) in human food on 8 November 1989. ² They might want to explain something which had happened or which they proposed to do, as when Mr Stephen Dorrell and Mr Douglas Hogg made statements on 20 March 1996 following the receipt of advice from SEAC on a possible link between BSE and vCJD. ³ Sometimes they might be pressed by back-benchers to make a statement about some recent event, such as an accident or other emergency.
2. Parliamentary Questions (PQs): MPs could put forward questions for answer by the relevant Minister. Most were answered in writing but some were answered orally at one of the regular times set aside for this purpose. The Prime Minister had two such times each week, and periods on these and other days were allocated to other Departments on a rolling programme. Only a small number of oral questions could be dealt with on these occasions.
3. Debates: much of the time of the House of Commons was given over to the various stages in the passage of legislation and to statements and PQs, but some was allocated to more wide-ranging debates. At the beginning of each annual parliamentary session, there was a debate on the legislative programme announced by the Government in the Queen's Speech. Each day, there were Adjournment Debates, discussions limited to 30 minutes on topics proposed by back-bench MPs from any party. There were also so-called 'Supply Day' debates on topics proposed by the front benches of the opposition parties.

8.13 On all these occasions, Ministers would be briefed by officials. A statement was followed by a period of time at the discretion of the Speaker of the House ⁴ (between ten minutes and an hour) for questions to the Minister. In debates, the Minister was expected to respond to the key points made by other speakers. Within limits, the Speaker of the House would give MPs an opportunity to bring up what they believed to be related issues - eg, if a MAFF Minister made a statement about the SBO Regulations, an MP might ask how local authorities were going to implement them and what finances had been provided. The MP whose tabled oral question was being answered had the right to ask the first supplementary question.

8.14 The range of possible topics that might be raised on such occasions, especially in Prime Minister's Questions, was enormous. Hence, the briefing had to be concise, while also being accurate so that the Minister was not caught out under pressure - for example, by quoting figures that could not be supported. Inevitably, such briefing was defensive, and officials advised their Ministers not to stray from the agreed text. As with Q&A briefs (see Chapter 3), this defensive approach could underplay important doubts and caveats, and could inhibit frank discussion.

Select Committees

8.15 Select Committees were a means of enabling Parliament to examine the actions of the executive and call Ministers and officials to account in a more detailed and continuing way than was possible in debate. In 1979, the system was reformed so that separate Select Committees were established to shadow every Department. The MPs appointed to a Select Committee became familiar with the work of the relevant Department. Each Committee had a small secretariat to provide research and administrative support. The aim was to enable the Committees to engage in better-informed consideration of policy matters.

8.16 Each Committee decided which areas of policy it wished to explore and notified the Department accordingly. Usually, the Department and other interested parties prepared written evidence, and the Committee would generally call upon officials, Ministers and others to give oral evidence as well. Ministers giving evidence had to be well prepared to explain their policies and decisions.

8.17 Officials appearing before a Select Committee did so on the basis of a standard protocol, Guidelines for Officials Giving Evidence to Departmental Select Committees. ⁵ This made it clear that they gave evidence on behalf of their Minister, and were therefore subject to Ministers' instructions and remained bound by their duty of confidentiality to Ministers. Thus, they did not give their own views but had to follow the line agreed with their Ministers. However, there was one exception to this principle: Accounting Officers (Departmental Permanent Secretaries or Agency Chief Executives) had a personal responsibility for the use of the public funds voted by Parliament to their Departments or organisations, and had to account for their stewardship directly to Parliament (ie, to the Public Accounts Committee).