In recent decades, both Houses have become more specialised through the use of investigative select committees. These are highly active and productive bodies. They are a formal part of the parliamentary process. They meet in public to take evidence: their membership is a matter of public record, as is the attendance of the members.
Attendance tends to be very good at Lords’ committees. Yesterday morning, I was at the regular meeting of the Constitution Committee. We took evidence from Tessa Jowell, the Cabinet Office Minister, as part of our inquiry into the Cabinet Office. Eleven of the twelve members were present throughout. In the afternoon, I was at a similarly well-attended meeting of Sub-Committee E of the EU Committee.
In the evening, I chaired a different type of parliamentary body – an all -party group. As has been mentioned in a much earlier post, these are informal groups that draw members from all parties and from both chambers. They exist to discuss or promote particular subjects. The first all-party group was the Parliamentary Science Committee, created in 1933. The number has grown over the decades. By 1988, there were 113 country groups and 103 subject groups. Today, there are no less than 144 country groups and a staggering 437 subject groups. You can see a list of the groups here.
The range of topics covered by the groups is great. They cover allergies, beef and lamb, climate change, dance, Future of Europe, forestry, greyhounds, headache disorders, humanists, intelligent energy, road safety, Royal Navy, Sikhs, space, Tamils, and weight watchers, to take a pretty random sample. Some exist in name only, while others are very active. The Football Group was very influential some years ago on the issue of safety in football grounds. The Breast Cancer Group is extremely good at promoting awareness and research. I serve as Vice-Chair of the Constitution, Parliament and Citizenship Group, and as a C0-Chair of the Parliamentary University Group. The latter enables parliamentarians interested in higher education to meet with University Vice-Chancellors and other university officials. The group met last night for a very frutiful, and timely, discussion on how universities can expand their fund-raising capacity.
The all-party groups can serve a valuable purpose, enabling parliamentarians to meet to discuss salient issues and to engage with others who are in the field. However, they have encountered criticisms. Some, as I have mentioned, are not particularly active. Some – quite a large number – are provided with administrative support by outside organisations. Though this support is declared, some understandably fear that it may bias the groups in favour of those organisations. There is also the problem of numbers. I am very selective in the number I join: apart from the two I have mentioned, I am a member of the Table-Tennis Group and that is about it. Some MPs and peers are more natural ‘joiners’ than I am. The groups may do useful work, but the sheer number means that the energies of many parliamentarians are absorbed in their work. There is an opportunity cost. Attendance at all-party groups takes up time that could be devoted to other activities.
On the whole, the all-party groups do useful work, though we need to keep an eye on their number – or at least be aware of the implications of their growth and activity – and recognise that they some are notably more active than others. They do, though, constitute an important and often little-known layer of parliamentary activity.
Some years ago a particular problem led me to discover the All Party Parliamentary Group on Learning Disability (APPGLD), at the time well attended with names such as David Cameron and Baroness Murphy.
Any idea what happened to them?
ladytizzy: It is among the more active groups. See Baroness Murphy’s response below for the definitive answer.
Lord Norton,
By way of discussing networking and special interests I see a possible opportunity in yours so far. You love and take a real interest in tea, you are a traveled man, you seem to enjoy intergovermental political theory. Having already said I hope you will come to Louisiana some day I also hope that you will take your interest in table tennis, cultivated passion for tea and lack of excessively judgmental attitudes about nightlife and bring some of your fellow Lords to China if you have not.
China really is a land of wonders and though I cannot recommend a visit to every Westerner I would think you would have an enjoyable and productive visit. I think there would be many English language social clubs that would be delighted to have a Lord grace them with a few remarks in his mother tongue as well.
franksummers3ba: I have been to Hong Kong, but that was when it was still a British colony. I suspect I may get to Beijing one day. Louisiana is one of the US states I have not yet visited. I have been to several neighbouring or nearby states – Texas, Oklahoma, and Alabama among them.
A friend of mine works for an all-party group. I’ll have to attend one of your constitution groups, Lord Norton. When’s te next one?
adrian kidney: The next meeting has yet to be announced. We do, though, have meetings of the Parliamentary University Group – there is a meeting each month – already scheduled into the New Year.
Off-topic, but Lord Norton may have a view about Lord Mandelson being quizzed by MPs and what the constitutional implications are of the House of Commons Speaker agreeing to this.
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2009/10/16/does-this-make-it-easier-for-mandy-to-succeed-gord/
Bedd Gelert: I’m thinking of doing a post on this, especially following the appearance before the Public Administration Committee earlier this week of Jonathan Powell, Lord Turnbull, and Professor Anthony King.
Lady Tizzy, the All Party Parliamentary Group on Learning Disability is still very active. Our next meeting is next tuesday afternoon when we hope Phil Hope MP the Minister for care Services will be joining us to talk about the green paper on social care. The meetings are supported by Mencap but many other key organisations in the field attend, as do many individuals who themselves have a learning disability. It’s always a lively group, well chaired by our joint chairs Tom Clarke MP and Lord Rix (Brian Rix), who is still tirelessly campaigning for the rights of people with learning and other developmental problems. He was at it again yesterday in the Apprenticeships, Learning and Skills Bill and I witnessed him win several concessions in the chamber in the afternoon.
I am rather choosy about the groups I belong to, there’s only so many hours in a day, but I am Secretary to the All Part Group on Mental Health, a member of the Dementia Group and am Vice-Chairman of the Economics of Well-being group. This latter one is newish and probably won’t meet more than once or twice a year. All these groups depend on a handful of people to be very active supporters. I have my doubts about the usefulness of many others I’ve attended once or twice.
Heartening to know that the all-party beer group is well-funded. Perhaps “all-party” is a double entendre!
Chris K: The all-party cider group also appears to be very active! For some reason, I regularly receive their literature – no idea why, it’s wasted on me.