Select Committee on Procedure

Select Committee on Procedure
Name	Select Committee on Procedure
Formation	19th century (varied by legislature)
Type	Parliamentary select committee
Jurisdiction	Legislative chamber procedure and standing orders
Headquarters	Parliament
Members	variable
Chair	varies

Select Committee on Procedure

The Select Committee on Procedure is a parliamentary body charged with examining standing orders and procedural rules in legislatures such as the House of Commons (United Kingdom), House of Representatives (Australia), House of Commons of Canada, New Zealand House of Representatives and similar chambers in jurisdictions including the United States House of Representatives, Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru, Northern Ireland Assembly, Dáil Éireann and Knesset. Its remit frequently intersects with matters overseen by entities like the Privy Council Office, the Cabinet Office (United Kingdom), the Clerk of the House of Commons (United Kingdom), the Parliamentary Commissioner or the Speaker of the House. Committees of this type have influenced procedural reform in contexts ranging from the Reform Act 1832 debates to modern digital transparency initiatives associated with the Open Government Partnership.

History

Select committees on procedure trace antecedents to parliamentary reform movements such as the Glorious Revolution, the English Civil War, the Long Parliament and the evolution of the Westminster system. Early iterations appear in the context of procedural crises addressed by commissions including the Committee for Privileges and Elections and special committees convened during episodes like the Irish Home Rule debates and the aftermath of the Parliament Act 1911. In the 20th century, notable procedural overhauls occurred alongside events such as the World War I coalition debates, the General Strike of 1926, the Suez Crisis and the institutional reforms following the Falklands War. Contemporary procedure committees have been influenced by comparative work from bodies like the Inter-Parliamentary Union, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and constitutional reviews following judgments of courts such as the House of Lords (Judicial Committee) and the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom.

Mandate and Powers

Mandates typically reference instruments including specific standing orders, Orders of the House, statutes like the Parliament Act 1949, and constitutional texts such as the Constitution of Australia or the Constitution Act, 1867. Powers often include the ability to take evidence from officials such as the Serjeant at Arms, the Clerk of the Parliaments, the Sergeant-at-Arms (Canada), or ministers from the Ministry of Justice (United Kingdom), and to request documents from agencies like the National Audit Office, the Office for National Statistics, the Electoral Commission (United Kingdom), and administrative offices including the House of Commons Commission and the Senate (France). Some committees recommend suspension or amendment of rules linked to crises like prorogations seen in controversies such as the 2019 prorogation of Parliament and constitutional moments analogous to the King–Byng Affair.

Membership and Selection

Membership models reflect parliamentary systems exemplified by lists of select committee members in the House of Commons of Canada, the Australian Senate, the House of Representatives (New Zealand), and the United States Senate. Chairs have included prominent figures from parties represented in chambers like the Conservative Party (UK), the Labour Party (UK), the Liberal Party of Australia, the New Democratic Party (Canada), the Scottish National Party, and the Christian Democratic Union (Germany) in comparable committees. Selection processes invoke procedures developed by bodies such as the House Committee (UK), the Elections and Appointment Committee (Israel), the Committee of Selection (House of Commons, UK), and party mechanisms akin to those used by the Democratic Caucus (US House of Representatives) and the Republican Conference (US).

Procedures and Practices

Working methods typically mirror practices seen in inquiries by the Public Accounts Committee (UK), the Procedure Committee (House of Commons, UK), the Standing Orders Committee (House of Commons, Canada), and the Standing Orders Committee (Australia). Common procedures include taking oral and written evidence from witnesses representing institutions like the Crown Prosecution Service, the Attorney General's Office (UK), the Electoral Commission (Australia), and international organizations such as the Commonwealth Secretariat and the European Parliament. Reports are produced following practices used by the Joint Committee on Human Rights (UK), the Select Committee on Intelligence (US), and the Constitutional Affairs Committee (UK), with publication norms influenced by the Official Secrets Act, freedom instruments like the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and publication platforms including the Parliamentary Archives.

Notable Inquiries and Reports

Select procedure committees have produced influential outputs on subjects ranging from the reform recommendations after events like the Cash-for-Honours scandal, investigations linked to the Expenses scandal (2009), to procedural recommendations following the Black Rod controversies and reforms to questions akin to the Prime Minister's Questions format. Reports have addressed broadcasting arrangements exemplified by reforms influenced by the British Broadcasting Corporation and procedural implications considered after rulings from courts like the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court of Canada. International comparative reports reference practices in the Bundestag, the National Diet (Japan), the Knesset, the Congress of the United States, and the Oireachtas.

Impact and Criticism

Impact is visible in standing order amendments, changes to scrutiny modeled on the Public Administration Select Committee (UK), and transparency enhancements inspired by the Open Data Institute and the Transparency International recommendations. Criticism has arisen from stakeholders including opposition parties such as Plaid Cymru or Sinn Féin, constitutional scholars linked to institutions like Cambridge University and Harvard Law School, advocacy groups like Liberty (UK civil liberties organisation), and media outlets including The Guardian, The Times, The Wall Street Journal and Le Monde. Debates have involved constitutional doctrines exemplified by cases such as R (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and policy responses from entities including the Council of Europe.

Category:Parliamentary committees