Talking of attracting media attention brings me on to a related issue: the impact of select committees. There has been a significant growth in the number of committees in the Lords in recent years. They produce substantial and well-researched reports. However, one query that variously arises (as it does with committees in the Commons) is: what impact do they have?
Measured in terms of coverage in the mainstream media, the answer may appear to be very little. Some reports do attract attention (and when they do the committees are invariably described as ‘influential’ or ‘authoritative’) but this is the exception and not the rule. Should we be too worried by this limited coverage? Not really. The significance of committee reports lies not in the effect they have on the general public but rather the impact they have on attentive publics: that is, specific bodies in particular sectors of public policy and the government.
Committees draw heavily on outside bodies to give evidence, but such bodies then act as the most significant consumers of the committees’ reports. Committees are able, in effect, to engage in a dialogue with organisations affected by public policy. Such bodies may influence committee thinking, but the committees’ reports may influence how those bodies then approach the issue.
The reports can also influence thinking by government or, in the case of the European Union Committee, the institutions of the EU. They may not necessarily lead to changed decisions but they can help shape debate. Previous research suggests that this is most likely to be the case where the topic is a new one and there is scope for agenda setting.
In short, committee work may not achieve a high public profile but it may influence the behaviour of policy makers and interest groups. Being able to quantify such influence is another matter.
An anecdote: I once went to the press launch of a Commons committee report, hoping perhaps to get some additional insight into the subject. As it turned out, my colleague and I were the only attendees, other than the committee members. It was rather useful for us as the MPs concerned seemed happy just to chat to us for 30 minutes about the report (knowing full well that we were not journalists), but it perhaps wasn’t very useful for them!
Thanks for this blog – I am sitting my Higher Modern Studdies tomorrow, and this is a useful example. Would it be presumptious to think that you’re referring to all the committees, I.e. Standing, Select, Joint etc?
Robbie: The comments relate to Select Committees. (Joint Committees, such as the Joint Committee on Human Rights, are Select Committees so fall in the category). Different observations apply to other types of committee, such as Standing Committees or what used to be termed Standing Committees. Standing Committees in the Commons have been replaced by Public Bill Committees. Standing Committees could not take evidence, whereas Public Bill Committees can. This is a major improvement, but the Committees still labour under some of the limitations faced by Standing Committees: they can only consider the Bills placed before them, they are constrained by the decision of the House on Second Reading, and the membership changes for consideration of each Bill.
In the Lords, we do not have Standing Committees. For its committee stage, a Bill is either referred to a Committee of the Whole House (and thus taken in the chamber) or to Grand Committee (where the Bill is considered away from the chamber but any member is entitled to participate). The House is making increasing use of Grand Committees in order to expedite business.
Stuart: I am not surprised by your experience. If committees do hold press conferences to launch reports, it is not unusual to have a small or non-existent attendance of journalists. One has to make a judgement as to whether it is worth holding one. During the time I chaired the Constitution Committee in the Lords, we published 33 reports, three of them on major issues, but held only one press conference. As it was on devolution, it did attract a good attendance. For the rest, we knew we would be just talking to ourselves.
Some committee proceedings are recorded on multimedia and published on the BBC’s Parliament TV channel. However, after this there is no guarantee that the recording will be available online for research purposes. Why is this?
One recent Commons Finance Stability committee meeting saw the interviewee give a multimedia presentation on a laptop? How does Hansard cope with this?
As a former Principal Research Officer with various committees of the Australian Senate (upper house), I read this post with great interest. Lord Norton’s comments resonate strongly with our experiences at this end, where the committee review and reporting process is very similar.
I note in particular his remark that the greatest influence of a report on government thinking is likely to be where the topic is new and there is scope for agenda setting; and would agree that this is the case. I may also add that the findings of committee reports can be particularly influential prior to, and immediately after, elections (especially those where the government changes). Committee inquiries allow members to gather detailed information on issues which may not be ‘flying’ with an incumbent government; and then when the political enviroment changes a rich source of relevant and timely information is available to inform new policies. This has been evident in the development and presentation of a number of new policy initiatives introduced since the election last November of a new Australian Government.
Committee hearings can also provide members with another avenue to gather ideas and information on issues of interest to local electorates; and by using this information to inform constituent interactions the committee process becomes influential at another level of the political agenda.