Nick Raynsford thinks the revamped select committee chair elections may prove a positive step towards greater accountability

The first month of the new parliament has seen an extraordinary burgeoning of democracy at Westminster. No, this is not the result of the hung parliament and the coalition government. That is, in itself, an interesting phenomenon about which I wrote last month and will undoubtedly do so again. However the new Government has generated little voting at Westminster. Only one new Bill has been introduced to date which passed its second reading without a division.

However, on the same day, Westminster witnessed a most unusual event – the election of members who will chair the select committees.

Participation was exceptionally high. Indeed, throughout the week leading up to the ballot there was an unprecedented level of cross-party lobbying as candidates, whose success would depend on the votes of all MPs, canvassed for nominations and support. On the day of the vote, there was a flurry of activity and excitement on the committee corridor where the ballot was taking place. Supporters of particular candidates were waiting outside ‘committee room 5’ to encourage MPs and record the names of those who had voted. One candidate was even sporting a rosette.

Indeed, almost all the techniques that those of us who contest national or local elections deploy to ‘get out the vote’ were in operation. What was remarkable was the fact that all this was happening without any visible presence of the people who normally preside over votes at Westminster – the Whips.

The election of the select committee chairs was one of the key products of the Wright Committee Reforms in the last year of the Labour Government. These were designed to give more power to parliament as against the executive, and more influence to backbenchers rather than the Whips.

Parliamentary select committees have existed in their current form for more than 30 years and at their best have exercised a powerful influence, holding ministers to account, scrutinising the work of individual government departments and helping to develop new thinking and to promote more effective implementation of policy.

However the membership, and crucially, the chairmanship of the committees was determined by the Whips, and this power could always be used to discourage lines of investigation or scrutiny which might appear potentially threatening to one party’s perceived interests.

Too much independence of thought on the part of a select committee chair could easily lead to subtle (or less than subtle) threats that that individual’s term of office might end sooner than he or she wanted.

So the Wright Committee recommended the election of select committee chairs by secret ballot to help bolster the independence of select committees and tilt the balance of power at Westminster in favour of parliament rather than the executive.

For those of us who strongly supported the Wright Committee agenda, it was therefore a heartening spectacle to see the surge of democratic activity unleashed by the first such election. Because every candidate knew that success depended on securing support from other parties as well as their own, it prompted a most unusual degree of cross-party communication.

Members found themselves being eagerly sought out by people who had previously shown no interest in their existence let alone their voting intentions. Curious alliances formed between the most unlikely bed-fellows, recognising they had a common interest in supporting each other’s cause. It is obviously too soon to comment on the success or otherwise of the process in helping to promote more effective parliamentary scrutiny. I do take great satisfaction from the fact the election is taking place.

This has unquestionably been a victory for back-bench influence and for parliament itself.

The newly elected select committee chairs will be able to take up their posts confident they have secured the backing of a majority of their colleagues across the whole House of Commons, and the very high turnout in the election – with around 600 of the 650 MPs thought to have voted – gives this even greater weight.

This will hopefully give them greater incentive to exercise their scrutiny powers without fear or favour. This must be good for democracy and accountability.

Nick Raynsford is a former local government minister. Clive Betts has been elected chair of the CLG select committee