This snapshot taken on 01/07/2007, shows web content selected for preservation by The National Archives. External links, forms and search boxes may not work in archived websites.
|
53. The central principle to be followed is that it is the duty of officials to be as helpful as possible to Select Committees. Officials should be as forthcoming as they can in providing information, whether in writing or in oral evidence, to a Select Committee. Any withholding of information should be decided in accordance with the law and care should be taken to ensure that no information is withheld which would not be exempted if a parallel request were made under the FOI Act.
54. Officials appearing before Select Committees are responsible for ensuring that the evidence they give is accurate. They will therefore need to be fully briefed on the main facts of the matters on which they expect to be examined. This can be a major exercise as a Committee's questions can range widely and can be expected to be testing. Should it nevertheless be discovered subsequently that the evidence unwittingly contained factual errors, these should be made known to the Committee, usually via the Clerk, at the earliest opportunity. Where appropriate, a correcting footnote will appear in the published transcript of the evidence.
55. Officials should as far as possible confine their evidence to questions of fact and explanation relating to government policies and actions. They should be ready to explain what those policies are; the justification and objectives of those policies as the Government sees them; the extent to which those objectives have been met; and also to explain how administrative factors may have affected both the choice of policy measures and the manner of their implementation. Any comment by officials on government policies and actions should always be consistent with the principle of civil service political impartiality. Officials should as far as possible avoid being drawn into discussion of the merits of alternative policies where this is politically contentious. If official witnesses are pressed by the Committee to go beyond these limits, they should suggest that the questioning should be referred to Ministers.
56. A Select Committee may invite specialist (as opposed to administrative) officials to comment on the professional or technical issues underlying government policies or decisions. This can require careful handling where Committees wish to take evidence from, for example, government economists or statisticians on issues which bear on controversial policy questions and which are also matters of controversy within the respective profession. Such specialists may find themselves in some difficulty if their own judgement on the professional issues has, or appears to have, implications that are critical of Government policies. It is not generally open to such witnesses to describe or comment upon the advice which they have given to Departments, or would give if asked. They should not therefore go beyond explaining the reasoning which, in the Government's judgement, supports its policy. The status of such evidence should, if necessary, be made clear to the Committee. If pressed for a professional judgement on the question the witness should, if necessary, refer to the political nature of the issue and, as above, suggest that the line of questioning be referred to Ministers.
57. In those areas where the National Audit Office (NAO) and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (the Parliamentary Ombudsman) have direct access to departmental papers, this does not itself confer a similar right of access on the Committees which they serve. In considering any request from the Committee of Public Accounts (PAC) for such access, the Treasury should be consulted. Where the Public Administration Select Committee is taking evidence on Ombudsman issues, it may be necessary to quote from departmental papers in connection with particular Parliamentary or Health Service Commissioner cases. It is not however the practice of the Committee to require evidence which would amount to the 'retrial' of individual cases.
58. A departmentally-related Select Committee may, on occasion and with the agreement of the PAC, take up a NAO report and invite departmental evidence on it. The Government has confirmed that it has no objection to such an arrangement provided that it is not taken as implying any alteration in the Comptroller and Auditor General's remit or programme of work in support of the PAC, or in the procedures for consulting Departments on draft NAO reports. The conventions relating to departmentally-related Select Committee business, for example governing the choice of witnesses to represent Ministers and the form of the response to the Committee's report, should continue to apply in such cases. A full statement of these provisos is set out in the Government's response (Cm 1532) to recommendation (xlvi) of the Procedure Committee's 1990 Report on the Working of the Select Committee System.
59. Because officials appear on behalf of their Ministers, written evidence and briefing material should be cleared with them as necessary. It may only be necessary for Ministers to be consulted if there is any doubt among officials on the detail of the policy to be explained to the Committee, or on what information should be disclosed. However, as Ministers are ultimately accountable for deciding what information is to be given and for defending those decisions as necessary, their views should be sought if a question arises of withholding information which a Committee has asked for.
60. The subjects of inquiry by Select Committees may on occasion go beyond the responsibilities of the Department which they are responsible for monitoring. It is important in these cases that the Department with the predominant role should take the lead to ensure that the evidence given is co-ordinated and consistent. This will usually, but not invariably, be the Department which the Committee in question has a remit to "shadow". If the subject under inquiry is one under which no Department can be said to have a predominant role, it may be necessary for a central co-ordinating office, such as the Cabinet Office, to act as lead Department and, for example, to submit the Government's written evidence; that will, however, be the exception rather than the rule.
61. In such cases it is clearly desirable for all the Departments concerned, in accordance with normal working practice, to be kept in touch on the preparation of evidence and on the subsequent response to the Committee's Report. Very often there will be co-ordinating machinery in place for the subject already but Liaison Officers also have an important role here and should always be informed of requests for evidence involving other Departments.
62. Government Departments should, wherever possible, co-operate fully with inquiries on joined-up policies. For some Departments, the potential involvement is considerable; and, where a Committee's request for oral or written evidence poses a particular burden of work on a Department, this should be discussed with the Committee.
63. If Departments are asked by Committees to undertake research work or surveys on their behalf, the department will try to meet the request. However, there may be circumstances where providing such information would involve significant cost and/or effort. In these cases, Departments should explore informally with the Clerk to the Committee whether the Committee's request could be met in a different way. If the request would require substantial research it may be appropriate to suggest to the Committee that it consider commissioning independent research.
64. The information provided by officials to a Committee as part of a research project or survey is subject to the same principles as apply to direct evidence. In particular, there is a standing rule that officials should not take part in research projects or surveys designed to establish their personal views on Government policies or on matters which are politically contentious. [Civil Service Management Code, paragraph 4.2.8]
65. Wherever possible, Committees should be given advance notice of impending Ministerial statements on matters which are relevant to their current inquiries. A convenient method if the Minister is making the statement in Parliament is by way of notification to the Clerk at the same time as the Whips inform the Opposition, which is normally at noon on the day of the statement. This notification to the Clerk should be of the fact that the statement is to be made but should not include the text of the statement itself. If the statement is to be made other than in the House, similar arrangements should apply, and should continue to be observed during the Parliamentary Recess or after dissolution of Parliament (see paragraph 39).
66. As a courtesy, it is also helpful to Committees to have their attention drawn to Ministerial announcements which relate to their remit, even if not the subject of a current inquiry. In order to be as helpful as possible, Departments should provide Departmental Select Committees with copies of written Ministerial Statements, White Papers and consultation documents in which the Committee might be expected to have an interest.
Departmental Evidence and Response to Select Committees Contents page >