HC Deb 10 May 1971 vol 817 cc154-68

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Scottish Affairs: That Mr. W. H. K. Baker, Mr. John Brewis, Mr. Dick Douglas, Sir John Gilmour, Mr. Hamish Gray, Mr. Robert Hughes, Mr. George Lawson, Mr. Ian MacArthur, Lieutenant-Colonel Colin Mitchell, Mr. James Sillars, Mr. John Smith, Mr. Iain Sproat, Dr. Gavin Strang and Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon be Members of the Committee: That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place and to admit strangers during the examination of witnesses unless they otherwise order; to report from time to time, and to report Minutes of Evidence from time to time: That six be the Quorum: That the Committee have power to appoint persons with expert knowledge for the purpose of particular inquiries, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference: That the Committee have power to appoint two Sub-Committees each consisting of not more than eight Members and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee: That every such Sub-Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; to report to the Committee from time to time; and to admit strangers during the examination of witnesses unless they otherwise order: That the Committee have power to report from time to time the Minutes of Evidence taken before such Sub-Committees and reported by them to the Committee: That Three be the Quorum of every such Sub-Committee.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

9.42 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

As one who has always wanted the scrutiny of this House to be furthered by the success of Select Committees, I confess that I am disappointed at the impact that the Report of the last Select Committee on Scottish Affairs had in Scotland. I say that rather sadly. We should not deceive ourselves. What was hoped for from these Committees has not materialised. I do not believe that any hon. Member in his heart of hearts thinks that Select Committees have mattered very much outside this House.

I am not to serve on the proposed Select Committee. I have no recriminations against those who chose its members, and I make no personal complaint. However, if one wants an effective Select Committee, I think that here is the point at which television should be introduced.

When the subject of television arose on a previous occasion, I was sad that it was not seen fit to carry out some experiments. On the other hand, if the full House were televised, it may be that after a few weeks it would turn into a crashing bore. I can see all sorts of reservations about the House being televised, continuously or selectively. But surely the intimate cross-questioning of a Select Committee lends itself to television.

I take this opportunity to say to the Leader of the House—and I have no personal axe to grind—that I feel the time has come once again to look seriously at the possibility of televising these Select Committees. I can think of many confrontations which would have made fascinating television. For example, if the Public Accounts Committee had been more open when I was a member of it, I can think of all sorts of witnesses from the Departments, where no commercial secrecy was involved, when television treatment of the proceedings would have been of extreme educative value.

Under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson), or my right hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton), or indeed the last Chairman, the one under whom I served, the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), the proceedings on many occasions would have been extremely interesting. This also applies to the Select Committee on Science and Technology, and many of my hon. Friends will be able to instance other Select Committees. The examination of many eminent witnesses would have been educational and, in a deeper sense, would have added to the prestige of the House.

Far too often Select Committees of this House have turned themselves into Royal Commissions. But they are not Royal Commissions. One or two Select Committees—I will not name them—have dragged on for one, two, or even two-and-a half years, and their reports have not even been debated. I do not blame the Leader of the House for this, but I would ask what has been the end-product of all this work. For what reason have busy people been brought from Whitehall and industry to give evidence before those Select Committees? Certainly there should have been some end product.

My hope for this Scottish Select Committee is that two things will happen. First, I hope that the Committee will exclude consideration of a general survey of Scottish economic affairs, since that is not the business of a Select Committe but is a matter for debate in the House of Commons. The second hope is that the work of the Select Committe, if it is to be useful, must be topical. Therefore, there should be a time limit upon its activities and I should like to see a time limit of months, not years. Instruction should be given to the Committee to report back to the House within a certain time. If these things are done—and the evidence would then certainly be more topical—I believe that the Committee's work will be taken more seriously. Then the Leader of the House would no doubt see that its reports were debated by the House.

One of the saddest things to happen as a result of a Select Committee's work is that when its report is debated in the House very few hon. Members attend. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury knows that over the past few years when the House has been discussing reports of the Public Accounts Committee the attendance has been no credit to this House. The reason for this low attendance is that all the material is stale by the time it is in print and, after all the due processes have elapsed, the House is faced with discussing what has happened two years earlier.

If Select Committees are to be as effective as I want them to be, then let them be topical. I hope that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs will choose subjects which are topical. I hope also that it will report within a short period of time to enable Parliament to pass an opinion on any findings so that this may have some effect in the outside world. Far too often Select Committees get precisely nowhere.

9.48 p.m.

Mr. George Lawson (Motherwell)

I disagree with a great deal of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) since I feel that he takes a wrong view about the work of Select Committees. He spoke about the impact of this work upon the House. One must remember the last massive document which was produced at the conclusion of a Select Committee's work which contained both the evidence and the findings of the Committee.

These are all-party Committees, but it should be said that the document could have been much sharper if it had been produced, for example, by members on only this side of the House. We should have had marked views to express on various things, but the difficulty is that it would not have been an agreed report. As far as we can, we have to reach agreed reports. A Select Committee is not primarily designed to have an impact on the House. One of its basically important functions is that it can investigate and carry its scrutiny into Departments of State, for example, for which there is responsibility, much further than would be possible on the Floor of the House.

The Public Accounts Committee or the Estimates Committee, for example, were not brought into existence to have an impact on the House in the sense of reaching the headlines. The purpose was to enable the Member of Parliament the better and more effectively to carry out the function of scrutiny. Perhaps we might see this as one of the most important rôles of the House, as distinct from the Government. I should like to see the power of scrutiny extended and improved in many ways. But the first purpose of this Committee and like Committes is to enable the individual member to delve much more deeply and closely into the manner in which all Government Departments function.

On the first functioning of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, we took in almost the whole range of Scottish governmental activity. That was far too big at the time, but we were well aware of the very large bite we had taken, and that we had bitten off a bit more than we could chew. Nevertheless, I suggest that if anyone wants to look closely into the manner in which the administration of Scotland functions, the different aspects of it and the Government Departments which have a bearing on Scotland, he can derive great profit from the evidence given in our report.

On the question of the impact, I had not intended to speak in this way but my hon. Friend has provoked me.

Mr. Dalyell

To be fair, I talked about the impact outside the House of Commons, and not inside the House.

Mr. Lawson

Inside or outside the House—and it is not my impression that the primary function of a Select Committee is to have an impact outside the House. As I have seen the function of the Select Committee, it is one to enable Members of Parliament the better to carry out their job. If they find, for example, that something is materially wrong, they can have an impact. When they discover something that ought to be put right, they can headline it and have an impact. But let us suppose that they do not find anything very wrong and that Departments are working wonderfully smoothly: that has no news value or impact outside the House, but it could be a very useful service and a means of helping Departments to function smoothly. It might be a means of keeping Departments on their toes.

When I was a member of the Select Committee, we thought that we might have an impact if we met in Scotland, and there was a great deal of talk about sitting in Scotland. We went to Edinburgh A great deal of publicity was given to that first visit. A member of the Press turned up, but not many of the public. We had quite a number of meetings in Scotland. We went as far as Inverness. But our experience was that public interest dwindled and dwindled. I remember one occasion in Glasgow on which two journalists turned up, obtained the evidence which one organisation was to submit, and cleared off without even listening to the evidence submitted and the questioning which flowed from it. They got the story and that was all.

On many occasions, when the Committee sat in Scotland, a great deal of valuable cross-examination was conducted, but it was often sufficient for the Press to have some headline only. Very little effort was made to inquire into what was being done. I do not blame the Press. Its job is to get a story. The more striking the impact, the easier the job.

The great difficulties under which such Select Committees labour should be recognised. This is not to say that we should not seek to overcome the difficulties. If a Select Committee is effectively to cross-examine witnesses, at least one of its members must do a great deal of preliminary thinking about the central issues. The close questioning of experienced witnesses is a highly-skilled job. Even some of our more senior judges are not all that good at bringing out the best that can be got from witnesses.

I compliment the Leader of the House on continuing the practice of enabling the Committee to bring in some skilled person or persons apart from the Clerks of the House, who do an invaluable job. The previous Select Committee was able to call in an economist, who did useful work. This Select Committee is to be given the same power.

Let us not bite off as much as we sought to bite off last time. We must spend a great deal of time thinking about how we can derive the greatest benefit from our work. It is up to the members of the Committee. If the Committee fails, it will be the fault of its members. We shall have a sufficiency of power. If we are prepared to make a continuous effort, the power is there for us to make the Committee an invaluable instrument of keeping a close eye on how the different Departments function in Scotland.

It has taken the Leader of the House a long time to set up this Select Committee, but I again thank him for doing so.

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Norman Buchan (Renfrew, West)

I should like to congratulate the Leader of the House, but I am not sure that I can. I am pleased that he is setting up the Select Committee, but I want to raise one or two points. I know nothing about the usual channels, but I believe that there is a certain meanness about the selection of the 14 names. Six of them are excellent, and I have no quarrel about them. However, I think that the whole House would want the membership of a Committee such as this to be broadly based. It is true that the Committee's function will be to scrutinise, but it should do so from different points of view. I believe in democracy. I believe that our case is right and that the wider the discussion the more chance there is that our case will win.

I therefore regret the fact that there is to be no representative of the Liberal Party on this Committee. I also regret that no Liberal Member is present for this debate tonight.

Mr. Lawson

They do not want to be represented.

Mr. Buchan

Whether they do or not, we should try to persuade the Liberals that they have something to offer. That is why I regret that no member of the Liberal Party is present for this debate. Given the chance, the Liberals might well have agreed to one of their members serving on the Committee. The Scottish Nationalist certainly wanted to serve on the Committee. As there is so much to be done, I should have preferred all parties to be represented on the Committee.

That is my only reason for being hesitant about congratulating the Leader of the House, because I always like congratulating him. Secondly, we may be over-critical of what was achieved by the last Select Committee—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered, That the Motion relating to Scottish Affairs may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Speed.]

Question again proposed.

Mr. Buchan

The last Select Committee achieved a good deal. For the first time, we began, at least in the early stages, to see a scrutinising Committee of the House beginning to be reflected in the Press outside. There is always a difficult relationship between the Press and Parliament. If the Press prints what we have said, we blame it. Sometimes when it does not print what we say, we blame it, too. In other words, very often the fault in this is ours.

It is true that the last Select Committee went on for a long time, but it covered a good deal of ground. I do not think that what was important quite got through in the Scottish Press handled north of the Border in the same way as it did in the Scottish Press handled from this House, but it was beginning to break through. Things went wrong. One Member told the Press that she was coming up in a tangerine dress. Sure enough, that was all that was reported that day.

I wish to back up the valuable suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) concerning television cameras. We have a peculiar situation. The Crowther Committee was televised, I thought, effectively. I saw excepts of one or two of the sessions. Nobody suggests that we should have a large Committee session shown on television, but there is no reason why a short, edited version should not be shown, as the Crowther Committee was shown effectively on the northern news bulletin. I believe that the Select Committee's visits to Scotland accompanied by that kind of extract on the news bulletin would build up the concept of Parliament being something more than meetings in the Chamber here. It would be a useful opportunity for experimentation.

It seems to me valuable that instead of giving the Select Committee such a wide remit as the last one had, we should narrow its remit. It could be more effective in scrutinising and, at the same time, meeting what I regard as the greatest lack in parliamentary life—that is, the contact between what goes on here and outside. We could have a revolution on the Floor of the House of Commons and it would not touch the perimeter of the Palace of Westminster. We must make contact, and this is one of the ways that we can do it. We need scrutiny, therefore, over the short period, not a searchlight, more a laser beam—in other words, close, detailed scrutiny which, I am sure, would get the right kind of response.

I hope that the Leader of the House will reconsider the composition of the Committee. I hope that there will be wide consultation on the remit which is given to the Committee and I hope, thirdly, that he will consider the possibility of television cameras on the Select Committee. It seems to me that we spend too much time talking about the holiness of the Floor of the House. I accept its sanctity, but we could sometimes add to it by the perimeter work of the House of Commons. The Committees can add to the value of our debates here. More importantly, they could have a life of their own in doing their important job of, first, scrutinising and, secondly, taking Parliament outside the Palace of Westminster so that people can feel, "Yes, it does belong to us."

10.4 p.m.

Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock)

I am glad that I managed to get back from Ayr in time to participate in this debate. I am sorry that the Under-Secretary had to question my absence. I was at the funeral of one of his more distinguished constituents, a very dear friend of mine and one of the finest public-minded people that Ayr has ever known.

I express my thanks to the Leader of the House. We pressed him and we questioned him. He used a wide variety of replies in giving us the same answer every time. I do not know exactly what his difficulties were. It might well be that certain other Committees were rather prolonged and his people were suffering from overwork. At any rate, here it is. It is rather late in the Session, and I do not think that we can expect very much to be done by it during this Session.

Much has been said about the width of the remit. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) suggested that the remit was too wide—unless I have misinterpreted what he said. In my opinion the remit must be as wide as possible to allow full freedom to the Committee to decide into what matters it wishes to inquire.

Mr. Buchan

I am sorry, but my right hon. Friend has misunderstood what I said. I was saying that the last remit given was too wide in its scope, and that if it had been fragmented, with one or two remits given in succession, subjects might have been covered much more effectively.

Mr. Ross

It was deliberately chosen for Scottish affairs. We did not want to narrow it to the Scottish Office, because much that is done in Scotland is done for the good of Scotland by other Departments, including the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of the Environment, and the rest. We depend entirely upon the Committee to decide where it wants the searchlight of inquiry to fall.

It was understandable on the last occasion—taking into account the situation which then existed in Scotland—that there should be no evidence of narrowing the remit. Indeed, the decision of the Committee was to go into the wide question of industry in Scotland and the ways in which it could be helped. Unlike some people, I believe that an excellent opportunity was thereby provided for people to bring out the extent to which Scotland was being looked after by various Departments of Government, and it gave every member of the Committee an opportunity to probe even further and make other suggestions concerning Scottish affairs.

I have always regarded Select Committees as an extension of the House at Question Time. It is wrong to compare Select Committees of this House with Select Committees in other countries. In the United States they are set up for the purpose of creating a bridge between the executive and the legislature. In this country we do not need that, because we have the executive and the legislature in one place. The Ministers come here. The Prime Minister must answer every Tuesday and Thursday, as must the Secretary of State for Scotland, in his turn. The Select Committee is an extension of the process of probing—of taking up some matter and going through with it to the end.

I agree that it can be most effective if it is fairly narrow in its inquiry. My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) wanted the Committee to inquire into the steel industry in Scotland. There is no doubt that that could be done much more effectively with a proper remit. We can think of many useful subjects on which the Committee might light. But the effectiveness of its work depends upon the Committee itself. To some extent Select Committees are on trial, and there success will depend upon the use made of them. I am speaking not from a party political point of view but in terms of the position of the Government and their efficiency, and the efficiency of Ministers and civil servants.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) spoke about television. If he told the television authorities that they could come here I doubt whether they would, unless they were satisfied that there was a story, or something rather dramatic. It would do many people good to be able to appreciate the quality of our civil servants. There is no doubt that when the Royal Commission was televised one of the outstanding features was the quality of the answers and the agile minds of the civil servants in Scotland. We are very well served by our civil servants. But that is on the fringe of the matter, and beside the point.

The power of the Committee to search into every corner of the Administration— the Scottish Office, Trade and Industry, the Treasury—as it affects Scotland, means that a power is given to the backbench Member which he had never had before. Whether they use it wisely, and the extent to which they use it at all, will determine its success and indeed the attitude of mind of the Leader of the House as to whether he wants to continue with it. But I think he is wise in continuing this for another year, and I hope he will give it the power to carry on whatever investigations it requires in this short part of the Session and into the next Session. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he has done.

10.11 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw)

My hon. Friends and I fully appreciate the reason why the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) was not here before. We fully understand the circumstances which he mentioned.

The right hon. Gentleman has questioned the fact that we are setting up this Committee rather late in the Session. I agree with him. I respond at once to what he has said; I certainly hope that any inquiries which this Committee may have started will be continued in the next Session, and I should like to make arrangements to that end. I accept that that is very important.

I also agree with the right hon. Gentleman in what he has said about the value of these Committees as an extension of this House and their impact on the efficiency of government, and indeed their value in questioning what goes on inside the various Government Departments concerned. I know of no reason why these investigations should not add to the efficiency of government, as he says, and I very much hope that they do so.

I should like to turn to the points made by the hon. Members for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) about the impact of the last Committee on Scottish Affairs. I had an opportunity of talking to the Chairman, Mr. Tom Steele, who was our colleague in this House, as I wished to hear from him at first hand how he felt this Committee had worked. I value very much what he told me. I heard from him, and indeed from others—I say this perfectly fairly, I hope—how much the hon. Member for Motherwell had contributed to the impact of the last Committee. I therefore welcome very much what he said about its work.

The hon. Member for West Lothian has questioned the value of the impact of this Committee and he went on to say that the fact that the matter was not debated in this House might in some way have detracted from its value. When we had the debate on the Green Paper on Select Committees there were those who said that there were some reports which needed debate in this House to implement their value; there were others that did not. I think this is a fair view. I was interested to find, when I discussed the work of this Committee with certain people in academic circles outside the House, that they placed considerable value on the work of this Committee, and I was very impressed by this point of view. I accept, of course, that the more we are able to debate these reports in the House the better. Nevertheless I was very impressed to find that this Committee had had an impact, and I am not altogether sure that a debate in this House would necessarily have added to the impact that it had.

Mr. Lawson

It was debated.

Mr. Whitelaw

It was indeed debated; but in any case it certainly had a considerable impact outside the House.

The hon. Member for West Lothian raised the question of television. This is a subject of which anyone in my position is wise to take a very careful view. The proposition was made in the last Parliament. I was one of those who favoured televising the proceedings of the House. I have in no sense retracted from the view which I then took, but I think that this is something for the House as a whole to decide, and a question to be carefully considered before we come to a final decision. If I were to stress my own view, it is that I think that there is considerable advantage in considering whether the televising of the proceedings of Select Committees would be valuable. Personally, I think that it might well be, but I think that this also is a matter for the House as a whole to decide.

The hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan) questioned the composition of the Select Committee and sought to speak for those who are not present tonight. It is not for me to say what their views are on the matter. In the last Parliament, the composition of the Committee was: nine members from the Government side, five members from the Conservative Opposition, one Liberal, and one Scottish Nationalist.

It is an inevitable feature of the setting up of these Select Committees that all Governments, by precedent, preserve the Government majority. Therefore, if places are to be found for other Members in opposition besides the main party, it is for the main party to surrender places for that purpose. This was done in the last Parliament. I fully recognise the position now, and I should not for a moment suggest that the party opposite should surrender its places to the other Members who might take part in this Committee. The situation is rather different now from what it was. In the last Parliament, I was the Opposition Chief Whip, and I decided to surrender places. I am not asking that anyone should do so now. I am merely pointing out what the facts were then and what the facts are today.

I have done my best to give notice to he hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Donald Stewart), who raised the problem with me last Thursday, that this debate would take place tonight, and, although he is not here, I hope that he will appreciate that, at least, he has given every opportunity to be here to express the view which he put to me last Thursday.

I think that this is the best way of setting up the Committee. I realise that there are always difficulties in these matters. The hon. Member for Western Isles made representations to me. In answer to the hon. Member for Renfrew, West, I can only say that the three hon. Members from the Liberal Party in Scotland have not made similar represenations. I feel, therefore, that the composition of the Committee is, on the whole, reasonable.

I am grateful for what hon. Members have said about the work of the Committee. I agree with the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock about the width of the remit, and I think that this is wise. I hope that the Committee will have considerable success and will be valuable to the House. I am grateful for what has been said, and, if it is felt that I have been somewhat late in setting up the Committee, I can only reply in the well known phrase, "Better late than never". I am grateful to the House for its support.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Scottish Affairs: That Mr. W. H. K. Baker, Mr. John Brewis, Mr. Dick Douglas, Sir John Gilmour, Mr. Hamish Gray, Mr. Robert Hughes, Mr. George Lawson, Mr. Ian MacArthur, Lieutenant-Colonel Colin Mitchell, Mr. James Sillars, Mr. John Smith, Mr. Iain Sproat, Dr. Gavin Strang and Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon be Members of the Committee: That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place and to admit strangers during the examination of witnesses unless they otherwise order; to report from time to time, and to report Minutes of Evidence from time to time: That six be the Quorum: That the Committee have power to appoint persons with expert knowledge for the purpose of particular inquiries, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference: That the Committee have power to appoint two Sub-Committees each consisting of not more than eight Members and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters referred to the Committee: That every such Sub-Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; to report to the Committee from time to time; and to admit strangers during the examination of witnesses unless they otherwise order: That the Committee have power to report from time to time the Minutes of Evidence taken before such Sub-Committees and reported by them to the Committee: That Three be the Quorum of every such Sub-Committee.