HC Deb 03 April 1978 vol 947 cc23-5
30. Mr. Skinner

asked the Lord President of the Council whether he has any further plans to reform the procedures of Select Committees.

38. Mr. William Hamilton

asked the Lord President of the Council if he will make a statement on the future of Select Committees of the Commons and, in particular, on their terms of reference.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot)

Our Select Committee procedures are one of the matters under consideration by the Select Committee on Procedure. I suggest that we await its report.

Mr. Skinner

Does my right hon. Friend still agree that, if Select Committees are to remain—and there seem to be a lot of hon. Members on both sides, excluding me, who want that—they need to be drastically altered? Does he agree that one way to do this is to have separate secretariats for all the parties represented, which would provide a partisan cutting edge that has not been exhibited by the recent reports made by the Select Committees on steel and on race relations, for example? These reports have proved to be very rosy, consensus, coalition-type policies.

Mr. Foot

I am not sure whether all the aspects of the matter that my hon. Friend deplores would be dealt with by the remedy that he has suggested. When we look at the report of the Procedure Committee, we shall look at all these suggestions.

Mr. Hamilton

Does the Leader of the House agree that the operation of Select Committees makes the process of open government more open than it would otherwise be? Any move to restrict the endeavours of Select Committees would be regarded as very reactionary. Does he agree that, in principle, Select Committees should have the right to demand the presence of Ministers of the Crown if they so wish?

Mr. Foot

These are questions that we must consider when the Select Committee on Procedure reports. If I anticipate that report in any way, I shall be accused of prejudicing the Committee's recommendations.

Mr. Reid

Does the Leader of the House agree that there would be advantages to the Scottish Assembly in having a highly developed Committee system there? Although this House may lack the will to reform itself, Edinburgh presents the opportunity of returning genuine powers of scrutiny to Back Benchers.

Mr. Foot

Back Benchers have very considerable powers of scrutiny if they choose to exercise them. It is wrong to suggest that these powers of scrutiny can arise only if Back Benchers are members of Select Committees. Our experience over many years suggests that the opposite conclusion is true.

Mr. Heffer

Will my right hon. Friend agree that Select Committees or any other type of Committee of this House cannot be above the party political battle? It is up to every member of every Select Committee to investigate the position on the basis of what he sees as being in the best interests of the people of this country. On that basis, my right hon. Friend might like to look very carefully at the proposals being put forward to the national executive of the Labour Party by the Machinery of Government Committee. These proposals take such points into consideration.

Mr. Foot

I shall look most carefully at all these proposals, which, I believe, should be considered with a clear and open mind. Like my hon. Friend, I believe that the maintenance of the party system is absolutely essential to the maintenance of democracy.

Mr. Adley

I recognise the views of the Leader of the House on Select Committees vis-à-vis this Chamber. However, will he agree that when a Committee's report is unanimous—such as the one on race relations—and in tune with the views of the vast majority of citizens, albeit not with those of the national executive committee of the Labour Party and the race relations industry, it is incumbent upon the Government, when intending to legislate on these matters, to take very careful note of such a report?

Mr. Foot

I will not comment on that particular report because, obviously, the Government will make their opinions known at a later stage. However, if the hon. Member is suffering under any illusion that the House always accepts the unanimous views of a Select Committee, he should examine the way in which the House voted on the unanimous report of the Select Committee into the corruption allegations. This shows not only that the House of Commons rejected the report but that some of the members of the Committee rejected their own recommendations.