The work of the Liaison Committee

The House of Commons’ Liaison Committee has a key role in helping select committees to do their work effectively.  It also offers backbench MPs more facetime with the Prime Minister than any other part of Parliament. 

Links to listen

• Spotify
• Apple
• Amazon

In this episode of Committee Corridor, its Chair, Dame Meg Hillier MP, sits down with Dr Hannah White, the Director of the Institute for Government, to consider who’s involved, what it does and the opportunities and challenges ahead.  

What question would you put to the Prime Minister? In part two of the podcast, Committee Corridor caught up with the UK Youth Parliament at their annual sitting in the House of Commons. 

Ahead of the Prime Minister’s appearance at Liaison on April 8, we wanted their take on the issues which matter most to them and will put one of their questions directly to Sir Keir Starmer. 

Among the topics debated by the Youth Parliament were votes for 16/17 year olds, accompanied by a standardised level of political education throughout school; and free public transport for young people. Dame Meg Hillier speaks to two Committee Chairs who have been looking at these issues.   

In the last Parliament, the Liaison Committee was chaired by Sir Bernard Jenkin MP, Conservative MP for Harwich and North Essex. Its final task was to publish a report on strategic thinking in Government which included powerful evidence about the need to include young people’s voices and interests in decision-making.   

The Transport Committee is investigating the role of buses in connecting rural communities with nearby towns and suburban areas and Chair, Ruth Cadbury (Labour MP for Brentford and Isleworth) sets out the evidence it’s been hearing on the impact of poor bus services on young people.  

Committee Corridor returns in May with a new set of episodes hosted by the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, Toby Perkins MP. 

Transcript

Meg: Hello and welcome to Committee Corridor.

Some say it's the ‘super committee’, others have called it the ‘Justice League of Westminster’. We know it as the Liaison Committee. It has a key role in helping select committees to do their work effectively. In this episode of Committee Corridor, we are looking at how the Liaison Committee works, who's involved, and how we have a direct line to the Prime Minister.

I'm Meg Hillier, the Labour Member of Parliament for Hackney South and Shoreditch. Along with chairing the Treasury Committee, I was elected by my fellow committee chairs to lead the Liaison Committee. It's made up of 31 chairs from select committees in the House of Commons: committees created to examine the work of government departments; the committees concerned with the business of the House of Commons; and the committee relating to the conduct of MPs.

Several times a year, we also question the Prime Minister for 90 minutes at a time on topics of our choosing relating to his government's work.

Later, we'll hear from members of the UK Youth Parliament who told us what they would ask Sir Keir Starmer, if only they had the chance. We might just be able to help them with that.

But first, the Institute for Government is a leading independent think tank, working to make government more effective. It looks at how Parliament can hold ministers to account, including those of us in select committees.

Its director Is Dr Hannah White and she joins me now. Welcome Hannah.

Hannah: Thank you.

Meg: How would you explain the Liaison Committee to our listeners?

Hannah: Well, I guess in a very geeky way, I think of them as the ‘system stewards’. I think when many people think about Liaison Committee, all the chairs of all the select committees getting together, the thing that they focus on most, and I'm sure we'll talk about it today, is the sessions with the Prime Minister.

But for me, one of the most important roles that the Liaison Committee can play, although whether it has consistently over its history is another question, is to think about select committee system as a whole, how it works, how it can work better, and what's important to enable all the members on all the committees to do their jobs in the way they would like to do those jobs.

Meg: Yeah, that's interesting. I mean, since the 24 election, we've had the highest number of female chairs ever, the highest number of first time chairs and more diversity across the board than we've ever seen before. Do you think it would be true to say that the 2024 general election ‘rocked’ the committee corridor or am I being overdramatic?

Hannah: No, I think that's completely fair to say. I think it's been a really dramatic moment. Probably the most dramatic since 2010 when members started to be elected to committees. We've had such a lot of turnover, so much new blood arriving on the committee corridor and I think that has both sort of opportunities and challenges for the committee system.

In some ways there's a lot of people who, and we've talked to lots of them at the Institute for Government who, you know, are finding their feet and understanding the role of committees and having to sort of get up to speed because all that institutional memory has been lost of all the people who left at the last election.

On the other hand, it's a massive opportunity because there's lots of new enthusiasm, new ideas, new experience being brought in with all the new members sitting on committees. And I think that's a fantastic thing because, you know, the committee system benefits from, from people who can think about how to change things as well as how to continue doing the good things that it does.

Meg: And one of the things the Modernisation Committee is looking at is the whole issue around elections of chairs and members of select committees. I think some of the new members were felt was a bit of an onslaught when they arrived. Do you have any, any thoughts about whether this should continue or should be changed in any way?

Hannah: So I do sympathize with new members arriving and on the one hand, people like me sitting outside Parliament think it's really important for committees to get set up really quickly so that Parliament is doing its job of scrutinising government. On the other hand, people are being asked to vote for people who they've never met. You know, they may have seen some of them playing their roles in the past. But if you're a new member, being asked to elect people to either a chair role or a membership role, being asked to have an opinion on what committee you want to go on to, um, is quite a challenging thing early on in the parliament.

I mean, I certainly think that elections should be here to stay. I also think, you know, you could look at the [House of] Lords approach, which is to have sort of rolling membership of a third of members rolling off each year so you don't have a sort of big bang approach. You could try and do something where you had some sort of continuity process, but actually I think that can be quite problematic for the Lords in terms of not having consistency of membership. So, so I'd be interested to see what Modernisation Committee comes up with on that.

Meg: I think at the moment the Procedure Committee is starting to look at it, and it may just be that they limit the number of leaflets that are produced. I have to say I've never produced a leaflet to run for chair. But as I was uncontested a few times, maybe that's partly why, but … so we'll see what comes out of that.

But look, in our last episode, we heard from new committee members, hearteningly very bought into the committee process. And they were saying that the committees are the closest thing to a normal job outside Parliament because you sign up to work with colleagues who have different views as you would in the real world. Do you think that the large majority held by the current government makes life in committee rooms easier or harder in that respect?

Hannah: I think that's a really good question. I mean, one of the great merits of our select committee system, which is relatively unusual if you look at parliaments around the world, is that we have these committees who can focus exclusively on scrutiny so they don't have to do legislative scrutiny at the same time as they're doing policy scrutiny and scrutinising in the administration and expenditure of departments, which means that it is much more feasible for our scrutiny committees to act in an, in a way where they leave their politics at the door and, and that they're not being party political. If you're trying to do legislative scrutiny at the same time, you're inevitably being whipped on that.

And places like the Scottish Parliament who have fewer members who have to combine the roles of committees, find that policy scrutiny ends up being more party political because the committee's doing both, both of those roles. So I think, that is one of the great benefits of our system.

But I think it's quite difficult, again, for new members coming in. They've just been fighting an election. They've just been trying to beat their political opponents and now they're being asked to sit on a committee and work with them. And I think when the government has a large majority, that makes it all the harder because maybe for opposition members on committees, they feel a bit more isolated.

But also it's not straightforward for government back benchers because they have to think, you know, well, I want to support my party, but I also want to do a good job in scrutinising government. How critical can I be? How critical should I be? What is, you know, what is doing my job as a back bencher versus, you know, being an ambitious person who wants to be within my party and do well.

One of the things I would observe there is it's sometimes the most effective backbenchers on committees are the ones who move off committees most quickly because their party sees them as actually being potentially quite annoying on a committee because they're actually doing their job rather well and so they get offered a front bench role, in order to move them on - for the government party, that is.

So I think it is trickier when you have a large government majority to manage those dynamics. I guess that is the, one of the challenges for the new set of chairs that we have.

Meg: Yeah, certainly we are always learning every time I've run as chair, that's across several elections now. It's been a very different makeup afterwards. So, as you say, a challenge for chairs.

But look, moving on - going in perhaps into a bit more about the work of committees. How do you think they've changed over time and what are your hopes for them over this parliament with this cohort of chairs?

Hannah: So, I think over time, committees have grown in confidence. I think, as I said at the start, 2010 was a really big moment because it meant that it wasn't just people were being put onto committees by the whips, but it was really people who had an interest, experience, expertise or genuine wish to develop that expertise in a particular policy area who were wanting to go onto committees and I think that was really pivotal in improving the sort of quality of the work that committees are able to do and the credibility with which they can do that work. That they are people who've chosen to do these jobs and are really bringing expertise to it.

I think one of the other changes I identify over time is in the extent to which committees are prepared to look at the world around government as well as the government departments that they are tasked under Standing Orders, with looking at. And of course that's absolutely crucial to what government is doing, how businesses, how third sector organisations, people around government and issues are happening in society.

My hope is that the committee system can both draw on the sort of history of what works well in the committee system and the expertise and experience of people who've worked within that system in the past, like yourself, Meg. But also that we don't lose the enthusiasm, the innovation, the new ideas that can come into the system from new members who are coming in from the outside.

I think one of the really exciting things about this parliament is that because we have 52% new MPs, actually we have more new MPs than experienced MPs.

Some of those questions, the answer is ‘wait a little longer and you'll understand why we do it that way and there's a good reason for it’. But there were other questions to which the answer is ‘no, there is no good reason’. We decided to do that it that way on one occasion and we just kept doing it that way and actually there's not a good reason for it.

And having a weight of new MPs means that those questions, I think can be asked in a way that those new MPs don't just feel, oh, well I probably should know the answer to this, so I'll keep quiet and I won't say anything because there are lots of other new MPs around them and people willing to ask those questions.

Meg: Well, if I can give you any reassurance, certainly I'm already picking that up. A number of the chairs themselves quite new, certainly new to the committee corridor in many cases, are really engaging with the team, with their committee, and some really good suggestions coming forward.

And I always think it's like conducting an orchestra. I'm in charge up to a point, but actually I'm in the hands of the committee. So, I think we are already seeing that change and it'll be interesting to see how that pans out over the parliament.

But look, I mean, one of the things that we're supposed to look at as well as looking at the day-to-day work of government departments - and as you've highlighted, sometimes bodies within that realm that are not in government - we have a particular mandate on the committee corridor to look at government expenditure. But I think it's fair to say that the UK Parliament lags long way behind other jurisdictions in its ability to examine and influence departmental budgets. How do you think we could do this better?

Hannah: Well, I think that's a really pertinent observation, and I think it's, it is partly to do with incentives. Sometimes I think that that members are more incentivised to look at interesting sort of policy issues than what might seem to be sort of more boring and difficult, financial scrutiny sort of questions and so sometimes, committees have been less inclined to do that sort of work.

On the other hand, there's, there's a lot about how our parliamentary system is set up and the way in which government interacts with parliament on financial matters, which means that the committees can't do this work, even if they want to do.

So, for example, we've talked about in the past, Meg, this question about the Spending Review and the fact that, really scrutiny of government expenditure in the UK is quite difficult to do because there's no legislative process around the Spending Review in the same way that there is around a budget. You don't have to pass a finance bill around a Spending Review and the Estimates Day debates, which it’s possible to have, are really quite limited.

So, I was really pleased when Darren Jones, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, came and gave a speech at the IFG [Institute for Government] and he said that he'd really observed this when he had been the chair of a select committee. He was chair of, I think it was then BEIS [Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee] and he'd been surprised by how little traction it was possible, as a committee, to get on government’s spending decisions.

Meg: Well, I think clearly we need to make sure we are passing that onto government departments who're still rather nervous about revealing their bids to the Treasury, uh, before the Treasury get them. I think that the control of the Treasury is still quite a force to be reckoned with.

But look, in 2002, the Prime Minister of the day, Tony Blair, volunteered himself to Liaison for direct questioning by committee chairs twice a year. The Prime Minister sessions have now become a regular fixture. They're now three times a year though we're actually hoping we might persuade the Prime Minister to come a fourth time given the size of the majority and the need for scrutiny. Do you think they are a regular fixture and that they are here to stay now?

Hannah: I think it's a fantastic win for Parliament to be able to scrutinise a Prime Minister at length in the way that they, that the Liaison Committee is able to do. Other ministers appear before departmental select committees. The Prime Minister, of course, has Prime Minister's questions, but that is quite a different occasion. There is not the same opportunity for follow up, it's much more sort of performative thing. You are almost performing for your own back benches more than you are for the Opposition or, or the public, whereas in liaison you can really get into depth and so I really hope it is something that, um, that sticks around.

Of course, you know, there might be changes to it, how long it's for, exactly what the, there already have been changes to, to the way the committee decides to run those sessions. But I think the principle that there should be a parliamentary committee before which the Prime Minister appears and that that should be a committee with a, made up of members with a wide range of, of policy interests, I think hopefully is, is here to stay.

Meg: Well, I guess I would say I hope so too.

But the, one of the things about Liaison Committee which perhaps listeners aren't aware of, is that there are 31 select committees. Theoretically, though we don't choose to do it that way now, you could have all 31 appearing and can ask the Prime Minister anything at all.

And rather than having a single question, we now provide the Prime Minister with themes in advance, to make it a little bit more focused. But even then, it's quite a big ask of any Prime Minister. Do you think it's reasonable that he can come and answer as many questions as we would want to ask him?

Hannah: I think it's entirely reasonable. In part because when Liaison get together and pick their themes, three or four themes, whatever it is for each session, they almost always are picking themes which are very topical, are things which committees have been working on, which are big public policy questions or international, geopolitical questions or, or whatever it is. So there are things that, anyway, the Prime Minister is likely to be well aware of. It's obviously possible for Liaison to pick more obscure topics but that is one of the other reasons I think it's reasonable.

I think one of the best impacts that committees can have is precisely the requirement that there is for a minister, or in this case the Prime Minister, to go away and think, ah, Liaison have said they're going to think about this. I need to really look into this topic and make sure I'm on top of all the nuance and to do that work.

And it is entirely appropriate that the minister that or the Prime Minister should have those opportunities to dive into depth on topics because, what we hear from ministers who appear before select committees, is that, that often prompts them to think about policies in a different way.

All these things are a really positive way of engaging with ministers and getting them, having… enabling the scrutiny process to make them think about what they're doing in their roles and to be able to answer questions on that.

I mean, I would say that very few prime ministers appear to have been troubled by the process of appearing before the committee. We do know that they put a lot of effort into the process of preparing for the committee, that's why, you know, it doesn't happen every week.

And in the same way that Prime Ministers will prepare for Prime Minister's questions, I think in some ways, that's a harder task because you are required to very quickly be able to answer a question across a whole sweep of things, and you might well not know what the topics are. But for Liaison, it's good because it means you go into that depth.

Meg: I think it's fair to say that there's a bit of dramatic tension or excitement around the occasion. Certainly journalists will get quite exercised about what might happen, but then sometimes that risks an anti-climax or a wasted opportunity if people don't get what they think they want out of it. Do you think it's about gotcha moments or do you think it's about a different type of conversation?

Hannah: I am afraid I'm a bit boring on this front. I mean, I think gotchas are a bit overrated often for committees. They can be appropriate for committees to work in quite a forensic, legal way and to try to pin people down on a difficult issue and get them to say something on the record that they, that they're unwilling to say.

But often I think it's much more productive for a witness to be reasonably aware of what a committee's interested in, and to have to think through, well, what am I going to, to say to these people? And to not have to be tricked into it in some way.

So, I think for me, it's much more about the quality of the conversation and it's about getting information on the record in that forum. There is no other forum that people can have that nature of conversation with a Prime Minister and really get them to say what they're prepared to say on different topics. I think it's probably not surprising that journalists sometimes go away a bit disappointed that there haven't been the sort of fireworks they were hoping for because I don't think that's what we all necessarily should be hoping for, out of the process.

Meg: No, it's interesting because I've sat on quite a lot. And you, as well, have had a ringside seat across several prime ministers. We, as chairs, are back bench members of parliament with direct access to the Prime Minister. There's media hoping for dramatic tension, the public in the gallery with a sense of occasion. It's quite hard to get in there and physically in person. There's a queue to do that. Which of the prime ministers that you've seen do this, do you think have handled it the best?

Hannah: Well, as I say, I think, I can't see that any of them have been troubled by it in terms of sort of feeling put on the spot and not knowing answers. I think the fact that Tony Blair agreed to this in the first place, is because he was so comfortable with it as a forum. So a Prime Minister appearing well before Liaison, to me, means positively engaging with the committee, appreciating the role that the committee is playing, the fact that they're trying to bring to prominence the work that their committees are doing, raising issues that the public will want to see discussed. I think it's important for prime ministers to take the committee seriously.

Meg:  The start of a new parliament offers an opportunity to be bold. If we pull back to the wider committee corridor, what one suggestion would you make to make select committees more effective?

Hannah: The thing which I have seen some committees do, which I think is really important, is to take some time to evaluate themselves. So not to just have a continuous stream of activity, but occasionally to pause and to think what were we trying to achieve with that piece of work we did, with that inquiry we ran and did we achieve it? And if we didn't, why didn't we and should we be doing things differently?

Having worked on committees myself when I was a parliamentary clerk, it's so easy to get on that treadmill of activity and as soon as you finish one inquiry, what are we doing next? There's so much important work to be done and really, even though these committees can hope to exist for sort of for a four/five year parliament, so little time that you sort of feel you have to get onto the next thing.

They might not want to take formal evidence on that question, but actually asking other people's opinions of how they could operate better, I think is something that can make a real difference. And the other thing I would say quickly is, make sure as a committee system, the committee system is listening as well as speaking.

Meg: Well, Hannah, thank you so much for that. And I have to say I'm already heartened by how many of my committee colleagues on the committee corridor are really doing that engagement in a different way already to previous committees. So we are seeing some of that come through. And thank you so much today, Hannah, for sharing your thoughts and joining us.

Thank you for having me.

Meg: Prime Minister's Questions take place every Wednesday at noon in the House of Commons chamber. It's a set peice moment in the parliamentary week that gets noticed around the world.

The Leader of the Opposition is allocated six questions. The leader of the third biggest party in the commons gets two, but back bench MPs must enter a ballot to ask a question and don't have the right to respond to the Prime Minister's answer.

As we've been hearing, the Liaison Committee does it differently. The chairs of select committees have 90 minutes of concentrated face time with the leader of the government. It's the only occasion when the Prime Minister is challenged directly by MPs who could be from his own party or others.

So, what question would you put to the Prime Minister?

The UK's Youth Parliament recently took their place on the green benches for their annual sitting. More than 300 young people aged 11 to 18 from across the UK, British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies debated topics of concern to them from raising the national minimum wage for workers under 22 to period dignity and free access to good quality period products in public spaces.

We jumped in to ask them what question they would put to Sir Keir Starmer.

Morgan: My name’s Morgan and I’ m here representing the young people from south of Scotland.

We've heard a lot from this Prime Minister and previous prime ministers about how they want to bring young people into the discussion, but we just seem to be hearing about it. Like, events like today happen, but that's only able to showcase a limited number of voices. 

So, my question to the Prime Minister would be whenabouts are we going to showcase all young people's voices? Because I feel like that's so important. This is the future, we are the change makers, so our voices need to be listened to and not just myself and my other MYPs, but the voice of every young person across the UK.

Lisa: Hi. I'm Lisa, and I'm one of the MYPs for Cardiff. 

I probably would ask him why our standard of political education at the moment isn't very good. And I'd ask that because I'm going through education at the moment. I didn't learn what an MP did until I started taking A-level Politics, and that's really quite scary because I live in Wales, where you can vote at 16. So I could vote before I knew what MPs and what MSs do. And I think that's really concerning, especially when we're seeing, such instability in the world that people aren't equipped to understand what's happening and why.

I think period dignity which we’re also discussing is really important because, menstruation isn't something you control - it's something about half the population goes through. And so there's not really an excuse not to have good accessible products, available to everyone, especially young people who are often more vulnerable to period poverty.

Jack: Hello, I am Jack Hughes and I am the member of Youth Parliament for North Down.

From a Northern Irish perspective, considering the current Prime Minister's law background, I would actually like to ask him whether he would some day consider reform of the Good Friday Agreement to end the constant stop start government in Northern Ireland.

I would hope to see that he understands that the people of Northern Ireland can no longer suffer under the stop start government and the continuous deadlock of the Assembly, and that there needs to be some change to ensure that it is not as easy to just collapse the Assembly from one party. 

Caitlin: Hi - my name is Caitlin Richards, and I'm the MYP for County Durham.

My question for the Prime Minister would be to what extent does the Prime Minister believe that votes at 16 must be accompanied by political education?

I would hope to see a standardised level of political education within schools across the UK because it is something that's so important for young people to understand their political system and how they can impact it.

Meg: I'm going to take that last question and put it directly to the Prime Minister when we see him on April 8^th.  

Find out how he answers by watching the session live on ParliamentLive.tv or following our select committee on Instagram @ukcommonscommittees.

My thanks to Morgan, Lisa, Jack  and Caitlin, who represented the issues raised by the Youth Parliament.

We wanted to know what select committees are doing to address them too.

I'm joined now by Sir Bernard Jenkin, the Conservative MP for Harwich and North Essex.

Welcome, Sir Bernard.

Bernard: well, very pleased to join you, Meg.

Meg: Bernard, Morgan came to the Youth Parliament to represent the South of Scotland. She wants to know when young people's voices will be showcased, not just those in the Youth Parliament, but every young person across the UK.

You, of course, chaired the Liaison Committee in the last Parliament and published an important report just before the election in which this specific point was raised.

Bernard: Yes, we, we stumbled into this really. We were really looking at the quality of strategic thinking in government and how government needs to be much more forward facing and looking at the long-term future and understanding day-to-day decisions today are made in a much bigger context.

And of course, what we got in our call for evidence was, particularly from the School of International Futures, which is a university based organisation that engages with the young people, is how disillusioned many young people are who are politically active and politically aware, but alienated by the present political system because they don't feel their future is being taken into account at all.

We've seen a bit of this through the Resolution Foundation and discussion about intergenerational fairness, but if we don't want young people to feel that mainstream politics is not for them, we've really got to show to be a bit more responsive.

Meg: And you heard strong evidence on the impact of not including young people. You've touched on that – do you want to expand on that a bit more?

Bernard: People are being driven to extremism on the streets, and taking refuge in quite strong protest movements like Just Stop Oil, instead of engaging in the mainstream political process. Well, we need to make sure that these people feel their voices are being heard and so our main recommendation was a new parliamentary committee for the future, which will have a specific remit of thinking about how present policies are impacting on future generations and how policies should be designed in order to address the concerns of future generations.

You know, the world I grew up in, I don't think we felt this because, you know, if you went to university, you got your fees paid for. It was easy to get on the property ladder. we were going to have pensions. All these things are not available to the next generation in the way they were available to us. Our generation has prospered mightily from the baby boomer generation. But the future for future generations is very much more challenging. And then you add in things like climate change, which younger people are much more engaged with. The system has got to be reflecting these views as it much as it reflects older people and we're in a bit of a cycle at the moment where older people are more likely to vote, so the political parties tend to listen more to older people.

Meg: That's really interesting, Bernard, thank you very much indeed for joining me.

Bernard: Thank you.

Meg: I'm joined now by Ruth Cadbury, the Labor MP for Brentford and Isleworth.

Ruth, in their recent session here in Westminster, members of the Youth Parliament called for free public transport for all young people. Jack, who represents North Down in Northern Ireland, was concerned about young people's access to public transport, particularly for school and apprenticeship opportunities.

Jack: Financial struggles shouldn't be a barrier to the essential public transport that people need to access their school work and apprenticeship opportunities in general to advance their careers.

I hope that even if it takes time, which things do - that over time, they see that young people are in dire need of support when it comes to public transport, and even moving towards a more subsidised model where it's cheaper for young people.

Ruth: It's such an important issue, the whole problem for anybody, particularly in the countryside and the edge of our big cities. If you don't have access to a car, if you can't drive, then you are stuck and you're dependent on lifts for other people from other people or a really ropey and declining bus service.

Now in some areas such as in Scotland, bus travel is free for under 21 year olds. Young people in London get free bus and tube travel, so it really makes a difference as to where you live. And if there is no public transport available, you can't get to school easily, to college, you can't look for jobs, you can't go out and have a good time. So, it's hugely debilitating, particularly for young people.

Meg: Public transport isn't universally free for young people. Jack suggested it could move towards a more subsidised model where it could at least be cheaper. Were there any solutions suggested by the witnesses to your committee?

Ruth: Well, we’ve not finished our sessions yet but that is an incredibly good idea. But as with everything, with the budget that the new government has inherited, that funding has got to be found from somewhere. And, where there is a large population and the risk of severe congestion or the reality of severe congestion, some of the metropolitan authorities do look to subsidise bus travel. And there's also enough people traveling that many buses are self-funding. So we have got to look at that.

There is another form of public transport. Again, it has to be paid for, which we heard about in our second session, which is Demand Responsive Transport. So, where there are a group of people going into college on a particular day, or wanting to go out, maybe living in different places, demand responsive transport – DRT, may be the option. But again, those are organised in different ways. It's quite in its infancy, that form of transport, particularly in rural areas.

Meg: That's really interesting, Ruth. Do you think that would impact on plans to encourage a move from cars to buses to support net zero goals and improve air quality?

Ruth: We know that young people, more than any other generation, are really switched on to the importance of delivering on our net zero goals. They also, as they're walking around, particularly past traffic jams, they're particularly exposed to poor air quality.

So that's yet another argument for encouraging and supporting bus travel and active travel such as cycling, as opposed to assuming that the car is the only way to travel. And of course, a car is not an option if you can't afford to buy your own car, you don't have a driving licence or you've got nowhere to keep it.

And the other problem is, you know, take a town, let's say Lincoln, that is surrounded by large rural areas and a poor bus service. Unless decent bus services are built, are delivered, or other forms of public transport, all that happens in towns like that is that they just become completely and utterly gridlocked. And even people in cars can't get where they need to because there's nowhere to park, there's nowhere to go once you arrive in the town. And, too often, those towns are gridlocked and people on buses can't get to their destination either because they're stuck in a traffic jam too.

Meg: It sounds like your committee has had some really good evidence. The young person acknowledges this might not be achievable and subsidies could be a place to start. Do you think free transport is a realistic aim? In London, young people under the age of 16 do get bus travel for free. Do you think this is something that could be rolled out to other areas of the country?

Ruth: Well, as I say, it's already a real prospect for young people in some parts of the UK. It does have to be paid for. It does require realistic, honest, political choices. It needs a discussion. With powers being devolved to local authority areas, particularly those with elected mayors - those are the discussions that need to happen in different parts of the country. And, I think as, as more areas get free travel for young people, then that will hopefully set a good example for all those other areas as well.

Meg: My thanks to all my guests today. Committee Corridor will be back in May when I'm passing the hosting baton to the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, Toby Perkins, the Labour Member of Parliament for Chesterfield.

The Environmental Audit Committee considers how government departments contribute to environmental protection and sustainable development and checks their performance against targets set by the UK government and the wider world. You can hear more about its work in one of our past pods when we celebrated the Environmental Audit Committee's 25 years of scrutiny.

This podcast is our opportunity to share the work that takes place in committee rooms through the lens of today's issues and concerns.

Please like and subscribe so that you never miss out. If you've got feedback or an idea for an episode, let us know by dropping us a comment.

I really enjoyed my turn in the hot seat.

I'm Meg Hillier and this has been Committee Corridor. Thank you for listening.

Further information

• Report: Promoting national strategy: How select committee scrutiny can improve strategic thinking in Whitehall
• Inquiry: Buses connecting communities
• About Parliament: Select committees
• Visiting Parliament: Watch committees

Image: House of Commons