Standing Orders (Amendments)

HC Deb 18 July 1991 vol 195 cc576-604

[Relevant documents: Second Report from the Select Committee on Procedure of Session 1989–90, on The Working of the Select Committee System, House of Commons Paper No. 19-I, and the Government's response, Cm. 1532.]

8.3 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John MacGregor)

I beg to move,

That Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) be amended by inserting at the end of line 38 the words— '(e) proceedings on a Motion such as is referred to in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 104 (Nomination of select committees) for the nomination or discharge of members of select committees appointed under Standing Order No. 130 (Select committees related to government departments) which has been opposed at or after the interruption of business on a preceding day: Provided that any questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on such a Motion shall be put at Eleven o'clock or one hour after the commencement of those proceedings, whichever is the later.'

Mr. Speaker

I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House if we also discuss motion No. 3— That— Standing Order No. 122 (Committee of Public Accounts) be amended by adding at the end of the words—

1. '(3) The Committee shall have power to communicate to any committee appointed under Standing Order No. 130 (Select committees related to government departments) such evidence as it may have received from the National Audit Office (having been agreed between that Office and the government department or departments concerned) but which has not been reported to the House'; and

Standing Order No. 130 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended by inserting in line 33, after the word 'committee', the words 'and to the Committee of Public Accounts.'— and motion No. 4—

'9. Home Affairs	Home Office; policy, administration and expenditure of the Lord Chancellor's Departments (including the work of staff provided for the administrative work of courts and tribunals, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments); and administration and expenditure of the Attorney General's Office, the Treasury Solicitor's Department, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office (but excluding individual cases and appointments and advice given within government by Law Officers)';	11	3
by leaving out the words—
'10. Scottish Affairs	Scottish Office	13	5'
and inserting the words—
'10. Scottish Affairs	Scottish Office; and administration and expenditure of the Lord Advocate's Departments, together with policy functions discharged by the Lord Advocate through the Scottish Courts Administration, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments, advice given within government by Scottish Law Officers, and the drafting of bills';	13	5
by leaving out the words—
'14. Treasury and Civil Service	Treasury, Management and Personnel Office, Board of Inland Revenue, Board of Customs and Excise'	11	3
and inserting the words—
'14. Treasury and Civil Service	Treasury, Office of the Minister for the Civil Service (but excluding the drafting of bills by the Parliamentary Counsel Office), Board of Inland Revenue, Board of Customs and Excise';	11	3

in line 12, by inserting at the beginning the words 'The Education, Science and Arts Committee (in respect of matters relating to science and technology principally within the responsibilities of the Department of Education and Science or an associated public body)';

and by leaving out lines 15 to 20.

I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux).

Mr. Macgregor

I welcome the opportunity to lay the amendments before the House. The Select Committee on Procedure carried out a valuable and comprehensive review of the Select Committee system, which was the first parliamentary inquiry into the present system that was established in 1979.

The Government are pleased to note the general response of the Procedure Committee, which is that the system has stood up to scrutiny and is basically sound and that there is no need for major reform. There will, of course, always be a need for minor adjustments to reflect changing circumstances. We welcome and accept most of the recommendations addressed to the Government. I shall not concern myself in this speech with those recommendations addressed to Committees or to the House generally.

The Government have already acted on two recommendations. The new Health and Social Services Select Committees are up and running and we had a debate on 1 May on the parliamentary and health service commissioners.

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for showing his characteristic courtesy in giving way. Has any concern been expressed about the failure of the Government to create or recreate in the House the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?

Mr. MacGregor

I have been asked about that from time to time by hon. Members with a particular interest in the matter. I have already said that I see no prospect of making any progress on the matter in the House during the current Session for the reasons that have been well advanced in earlier debates. It is not intended that that matter should be addressed on the motions before us tonight.

I propose to act on the recommendations that the Government have accepted. I shall deal briefly with each of the motions, which the House will have already seen referred to in detail in the Select Committee report and the Government's response to it. You said, Mr. Speaker, that it would be convenient to take the three motions together, and I shall deal with them as they appear on the Order Paper.

The first motion relates to an amendment to Standing Order No. 14 concerned with the replacement of members. The Committee recommended: Where a motion discharging one member and/or appointing another is opposed, any subsequent proceedings on that motion at a later date should be dealt with within one hour. The Government support that recommendation and the amendment provides for that.

The second motion relates to amendments to Standing Order No. 122 and to Standing Order No. 130. The amendments deal with the role of the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. I should like to deal with those amendments in greater detail. The proposed amendments will enable the PAC to pass to departmental Select Committees unpublished memoranda submitted to it by the Comptroller and Auditor General and the National Audit Office which have been agreed by Departments.

It is appropriate for the PAC to control the passing of such information. The amendments will also allow the departmental Committees to pass papers to the PAC. It is not appropriate to set out every detail of the way in which that will work under the Standing Orders. The Government's response pointed out that it was essentially for the House to decide how it should deal with any NAO report. The Government agree with the Procedure Committee's view that only a few carefully chosen cases should be handled by the departmental Select Committees following agreement with the NAO and the PAC. I am glad to note that the Chairman of the PAC, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), is in his place as he and I have discussed this proposal in some detail.

The Government agree completely that the PAC should not scrutinise policy matters. The PAC, as recognised in Standing Order No. 122, has a unique role in examining Departments on their accounts and value for money. I pay tribute to the work of the PAC in that respect and to its current Chairman.

The departmental Select Committees can look more widely at policy, but, insofar as much of their work relates to administration and expenditure, they would be assisted by NAO reports. They already have the right to take up published material.

The Procedure Committee was careful to state the caveats under which it saw assistance being given to Select Committees by the NAO. I have discussed that matter with my hon. Friend the Chairman of the Procedure Committee and, as I have said on a number of occasions, I am grateful to him and his Committee for the work that they have done.

The Government's response has set out understandings that would prevent NAO reports from being discussed in an uncontrolled way or the NAO being drawn into policy. That is an important point with which I know the Chairman of the PAC is concerned. Our response makes it clear that the NAO would not give substantive oral evidence beyond any necessary explanation of its reports.

The Procedure Committee proposed, and the Government accepted, subject to the procedures mentioned, that there should be liaison between the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, the Chairman of the PAC and the Comptroller and Auditor General to see how NAO resources could help the departmental Committees without prejudicing the main thrust of the work of the NAO for the PAC.

The arrangements should not be interpreted as giving the departmental Select Committees any powers over the NAO. As the Procedure Committee recognised, under the National Audit Act 1983, the Comptroller and Auditor General has complete discretion in carrying out his functions. He is not under any obligation to take account of suggestions from departmental Select Committees when determining his programme of studies as he is with suggestions from the PAC. I hope and believe that, with the good will of all sides, these arrangements can be made to work.

As for Standing Order No. 130 and the third group of amendments, this contains tidying-up arrangements for Departments, covered in the table in Standing Order No. 130(2). There are two aspects to which I wish to draw particular attention. The first is the scrutiny of the Law Officers' Departments. The suggestion that there should be some form of scrutiny of these Departments is not new. It was put forward by the Procedure Committee in 1977–78, but it was not accepted on the ground that it could threaten the independence of the judiciary. The current Procedure Committee proposed that all matters that lay within the responsibilities of the various Law Officers, but excluding consideration of the merits of individual cases, should come under the scrutiny of the Home Affairs or Scottish Affairs Committees, as appropriate. The Government were sympathetic to the thought behind the proposal but were unable to go as far as the Procedure Committee would have liked, for several reasons. I shall refer only to a few of them.

Although the Lord Chancellor's Department provides the staff and the administration for the courts service, the courts themselves are not part of the Department. The wording of the amendment is identical to the extension of the Public Accounts Committee's jurisdiction in the same area under the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990. I hope that that will be acceptable.

Also, the exclusion of individual judicial appointments reflects the personal responsibility of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Advocate for these matters, but the Committees will be free to examine the appointments system as a whole. It is important, too, that the independence of the various prosecuting authorities from political influence should be reflected. The Committees will be excluded, therefore, from examining prosecution policy. I believe however, that what we are proposing in the amendments represents a considerable step forward. It means that a significant area of government hitherto unavailable for Committee scrutiny can now be examined. I hope, therefore, that the House will accept the proposal.

Dr. Godman

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Scottish Select Committee. What is the point of amending Standing Order No. 130 to make changes to the Scottish Select Committee if the Government, with their Back Benchers, refuse to set up such a Committee?

Mr. MacGregor

If eventually we are able to make progress on that matter, we shall be able to accept the Procedure Committee's recommendation.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)

Am I to take it, therefore, that the exclusion in line 6— `"(excluding the expenditure, administration and policy of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Northern Ireland),"' is because that will be referred to the Home Affairs Committee? Alternatively, is there to be no scrutiny? If a Northern Ireland Select Committee is to be set up, am Ito take it that that matter could be referred to the Committee or, due to the fact that the courts service is part of the Lord Chancellor's Department, would it still be dealt with in the Home Affairs Committee?

Mr. MacGregor

To answer the hon. Gentleman's second point first, that would not be the case. As for his main point—why the Director of Public Prosecutions is excluded —there are a number of considerations, one of which is that no request was made for Select Committee scrutiny of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland. That is why the terms of reference do not include him. There is no Crown prosecution service as such in Northern Ireland. That is an important point in relation to scrutiny because, unlike his counterpart in England and Wales who heads a staff of some 5,500 in the Crown prosecution service, the responsibilities of the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland in relation to administration and expenditure, which is what we are talking about, are very small. That is the reason for his exclusion.

Another aspect of this group of amendments to Standing Order No. 130 relates to the Science and Technology Sub-Committee. The Procedure Committee recommended either a Joint Committee with the House of Lords, or reconsideration of an earlier request by the Education Committee for two additional members and the power to appoint a Sub-Committee. The Government were prepared to accept the second recommendation. The Standing Order now provides for it.

I hope that I have adequately explained the Standing Orders changes. To a large extent, they implement the Procedure Committee's recommendations. Accordingly, I recommend them to the House.

8.14 pm

Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, East)

The Opposition accept the proposed amendments. We know that a great deal of discussion took place, not least with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. My right hon. Friend was as concerned as we were that the Comptroller and Auditor General should not become involved in political matters as the Comptroller's job is to report to the Public Accounts Committee in an unfettered way about Government expenditure and he ought not to be involved in the political hurly-burly in which Members of Parliament obviously and rightly are involved. We feel, therefore, that the Procedure Committee's recommendations are sensible. They tighten and strengthen the position. We therefore welcome this development.

I understand the anxiety of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) about the Scottish Select Committee, and we are extremely disappointed that it has not been set up. The Leader of the House is aware that we shall continue to press that issue. My hon. Friends north of the border have strong feelings about it. That point has been made again this evening.

The Leader of the House has carefully explained these sensible proposals to the House, and I therefore ask my hon. Friends to accept them.

8.16 pm

Mr. James Molyneaux (Lagan Valley)

The Leader of the House paid tribute at the beginning of his speech to the efficiency of the Chairman of the Procedure Committee and to its members. He suggested how easy it is to establish yet another Select Committee. Those of us who watched the smooth division of the old Health and Social Services Select Committee give the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure full marks for the efficient way in which that operation was carried out, in co-operation with the Leader of the House and his predecessor.

In my reply to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure dated 8 February 1990 I expressed satisfaction with the existing coverage of Northern Ireland by the various Select Committees, such as Agriculture, Health, Social Security, Energy and Trade and Industry —just as happens for Scotland. In the second paragraph of my letter I said: There ought to be a Northern Ireland Select Committee dealing with those matters for which the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is responsible, but for which there is no counterpart in Great Britain, e.g. implementation of the Anglo-Irish Agreement 1985, and the political direction of security. That alone is a very heavy responsibility.

In another letter to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure, dated 22 May 1990, I said: Thank you for your letter of 15 May about the proposal for a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. Such a body would be a great asset to the people of Northern Ireland, extending as it would to their affairs the same scrutiny as is provided for the rest of the United Kingdom. In our view, the establishment of a Northern Ireland Select Committee should not be delayed for the invalid reason that some day a structure of Government may be invented for Northern Ireland. My case was powerfully supported by the Select Committee in its second report, particularly in paragraphs 272 to 278: Accordingly, whilst we do not believe that the uncertainties over the future administration of the Province can be allowed to preclude indefinitely the establishment of proper arrangements for the scrutiny by the House of the Northern Ireland Department, we accept that this would not be a sensible moment to recommend the establishment of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. Nevertheless, we consider that the Government cannot postpone dealing with this matter for very much longer and we will keep the position under review. Then there is the key sentence: We may well wish to return to it once the outcome of the current talks is clear. We have now reached that point. That obstacle was removed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in his statement to the House on 3 July, when he said: I concluded that the talks should therefore be brought to an end. I have also been in touch with the Irish Government to recount my conclusion."—[Official Report, 3 July 1991; Vol. 194, c. 319.] It is therefore not a matter of opinion, or of what this or that newspaper says. We respect the Secretary of State's decision, which was made for reasons best known to him and which he announced to the four party leaders in private.

Regardless of the fact that the talks have been brought to an end by Her Majesty's Government, it must be recognised that, even if the talks had succeeded, there would still have been an unanswerable case for a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs because there would remain a wide range of responsibilities which would never, in any circumstances, be devolved to any Northern Ireland Assembly or Government. The responsibilities that will remain with any Secretary of State for Northern Ireland bite deeply into the financial subvention voted by Parliament. As the House will be aware, and as you wisely remind us, Mr. Speaker, those vast sums are not debatable in the debates on Northern Ireland appropriation. However, Parliament has a duty to scrutinise that expenditure and the policies that govern it. That is a reason why there must be a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. So long as there is not, the Northern Ireland Office is the only major Department of State not required to give an account of its stewardship.

I notice that in some of the submissions to the Select Committee on Procedure there were vague hints that the agreement of all parties in Northern Ireland would be desirable before any such step could be taken. A curious feature of the governance of Northern Ireland is that, although all-party agreement seems to be a pre-requisite for some policies, on the many occasions when the Northern Ireland parties in the House are united in opposition to important policies and proposals, the Northern Ireland Office employs a three-line Whip to crush the opposition of all 16 Northern Ireland Members of Parliament speaking with one voice and voting in the same Lobby. On the issue of a Select Committee to provide effective scrutiny, how can any party or any individual Member of Parliament justify opposing such a reasonable step? Such a step could not possibly disadvantage any Northern Ireland citizen, but could do only good.

The sensitive subject of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has already been touched upon. The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs was first set up in 1979 and the then Leader of the House, now Lord St. John of Fawsley, referred to talks that he had arranged with the political parties in Scotland to discuss improvements in the government of Scotland, unrelated to the Select Committee. On 31 October 1979 he said: I was further pressed in June to agree that the establishment of a Committee on Scottish affairs should not await the outcome of these talks. The motions are intended to meet what I believe to be the wishes of the House in the meantime. They therefore provide for a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs with similar membership and orders of reference to those of the other Committees which the House has already agreed should be established."—[Official Report, 31 October 1979; Vol. 972, c. 1282.] I note that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been consulted by the Select Committee on Procedure. He conceded in principle that Northern Ireland should have a Select Committee, but he was not exactly enthusiastic, and I do not blame him. What head of Department would be joyful at being told that he is to have a Select Committee imposed upon him? Did not all the heads of Department in 1979 fight like tigers against the St. John-Stevas plan? I am not suggesting that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is any different from the other heads of Department. What Department in its right mind would embrace the prospect of being sent for? The Secretary of State for Wales told the House yesterday, uncomplainingly, of his experience early yesterday when, to use his words, he had to endure a three-hour interrogation by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. He seemed to enjoy it.

It would be doing an injustice to the present Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his ministerial colleagues if I were to imply that for merely personal reasons they would seek to obstruct what is now the widely held view of the Procedure Committee and the widely-recognised view on both sides of the House that there is a need for such a Select Committee. I think that Ministers at the Northern Ireland Office would share the view expressed by a former distinguished Member of this House, Sir David Renton, who said, in February 1979: Any Minister or future Minister who is worth his salt should welcome the chance to co-operate with a small group of hon. Members who are taking a critical but constructive interest in the work of his Department."—[Official Report, 19 February 1979; Vol. 963, c. 51.] I have sufficient faith in the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his fellow Ministers to rest my case on Sir David's words.

8.28 pm

Sir Peter Emery (Honiton)

I start by doing something that I think that all hon. Members would wish to do and that is to congratulate the Leader of the House on bringing these motions before us as quickly and efficiently as he has done, not just once but on three occasions in this Session. I hope that he will continue that record and we thank and applaud him for it.

I shall discuss four different topics. The first concerns the recommendation of the Procedure Committee and the addition to Standing Order No. 122 which could allow departmental Select Committees to use the manpower of the National Audit Office in any consideration by the NAO that relates to an inquiry being undertaken by a Select Committee. I stress the fact—many hon. Members might not realise this—that the Auditor General is an Officer of the House. He is not an external civil servant. It seems right that the Chairman of a departmental Select Committee, with his staff, in co-operation with the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, should check whether work being done by the Auditor General's Department is relevant to any inquiry being undertaken by that departmental Select Committee. I stress, as did the Leader of the House, that our recommendations were not intended to undermine or reduce the powers of the Public Accounts Committee. It would be a great mistake if anyone suggested that, and I want that to be clearly understood.

Secondly, we accept immediately that it would be wrong of any departmental Select Committee to try to make the Auditor General a political animal, although the judgments made by departmental Select Committees might be such.

Decisions must be taken purely on the basis of factual information that the Auditor General might have of a report on which a departmental Select Committee is working. To ensure that that was the case, we recommended—as does the Standing Order—that the Public Accounts Committee should have a veto. Only with the co-operation of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee—I see no reason why that co-operation would not be given readily—can that come about.

We therefore recommended to the Chairmen of the departmental Select Committees that at the start of any inquiry—and preferably at the beginning of the year—they should be able to consult the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and the Auditor General to see whether their programmes or any ideas that had been raised were relevant to any inquiry that the Auditor General might consider undertaking. There should be no influence on the Auditor General. He makes his own decisions and the Public Accounts Committee knows only too well what he thinks needs to be examined. His independence is in no way to be limited or altered. Therefore, I hope that in the light of our statements the Chairmen of the departmental Select Committees will be able to operate what I believe could be a helpful—not revolutionary—addition to the work of our departmental Select Committees.

I refer to Standing Order No. 130. I know from conversations with the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs that he welcomes the amendments that have been proposed. We understand why one of our suggestions has not been carried out and, although we did not say so, I do not think that it was the intention of the Procedure Committee that appointments should be investigated. It was perhaps an error that we did not make that clear, but certainly it would be nonsensical and it was not our intention.

There are two other issues relating to departmental Select Committees. My Committee is sorry that there is not a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Earlier this week I was invited to give evidence to the Lords Select Committee on Procedure. I was asked whether in the absence of a Scottish departmental Select Committee it would be helpful if their Lordships considered undertaking the work. I replied that it was not for me to make such a judgment but that it might be a way out of an impasse. It is certainly an issue that is being considered in another place, although it was not my suggestion.

Dr. Godman

In the deeply disturbing absence of a Scottish Select Committee, someone such as myself would look with some sympathy on that temporary solution to an appalling problem.

Sir Peter Emery

The suggestion was made to me using the word "temporary", so perhaps that suggestion might be a helpful way out of an impasse.

On Northern Ireland, I understand the views expressed by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux). This is one time when we can do a little debating between speeches. I understand his concern and I do not think that there is any hon. Member who would not do so. The Procedure Committee was not more specific because we believed that it would have been wrong if a recommendation made by us acted in any way against the possibility of a settlement to the discussions which were then taking place.

Mr. Molyneaux

They have ended.

Sir Peter Emery

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley says that they have now come to an end, but there has not been enough time for us to reconsider the issue.

Rev. Martin Smyth

rose——

Sir Peter Emery

I shall give way in a moment.

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley is wrong to say that no Secretary of State would welcome the setting up of a Select Committee to investigate his Department. All the evidence suggested that there was initially some objection, but the Ministers who gave evidence said without exception that such Committees were helpful and useful and that, they would not want to abandon them. I believe that in due course all the activities of Departments responsible to the Crown need to be examined by departmental Select Committees.

Rev. Martin Smyth

I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but does he accept that for 20 years we have missed such scrutiny and that, even before the abrogation of the Northern Ireland Parliament, it would have been beneficial to the House had there been such a Committee? I appreciate that in those days there was no such Committee, but if there is a Northern Ireland Assembly in future there will be a need for scrutiny by the House of the affairs of the Northern Ireland Office to deal with aspects of government and business there. Does he accept that it is wrong that a Northern Ireland Committee is not included on the list of Select Committees? Perhaps one reason why such a Committee is listed for Scotland and yet does not exist is that at least one party in Scotland does not want to be a party to it. However, that is no reason why the Northern Ireland Committee should not be listed as a Select Committee.

Sir Peter Emery

I understand what the hon. Gentleman says and I am sure that his comments will have been noted by the Leader of the House. I must make two points. First, it has not been 20 years—it would have been set up only in 1980, which is only 11 years. Secondly, I repeat what the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley said. He made it clear that aspects of health, agriculture and trade and industry in Northern Ireland are dealt with by the respective Select Committees. I know that, having served on the Select Committee on Trade and Industry. It is not the case that Northern Ireland receives no consideration, but I accept that it does not have its own departmental Select Committee.

I deal now with the Education, Science and Arts Sub-Committee. I welcome the fact that that Committee is to be ordered to consider science and technology in a way that it has not previously done. There have been two reports on science and technology among all the reports emanating from that Committee. I hope that the Leader of the House and the usual channels, in conjunction with the Committee of Selection, will ensure that the two additional members of the Committee are, if not scientists, people with a particular interest in science and technology and that they will specialise in those subjects in their work in the Committee.

I am sorry that the Government have not seen fit to establish a joint science and technology committee in partnership with the House of Lords, which would, I think, have been a better solution. The two new members need to be specialists in science and technology, rather than educationists. Most members of the main Committee will be interested only in education matters.

Finally, let me mention something that does not appear on the Order Paper, which has been described as a matter for the Committee of Selection. I refer to the appointment of departmental Select Committees at the start of a new parliamentary Session. It is absurd that that should be delayed by eight, 10 or 12 weeks. Our Clerks are present, and have nothing to do; all the necessary structure is there. It is not good enough to argue that it is not always certain that Committee members will be able to serve for the whole year. I realise that the Labour party may elect its members to certain positions, and that it may not be known whether those people will be free to serve on a Committee; but we are not children. Members who assume other offices can be replaced.

I have only one criticism of what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. It is not fair to suggest that matters should be left to the Selection Committee, which will be keen to co-operate with the usual channels and others. I appeal to my right hon. Friend and to the two Chief Whips—one of whom I see on the Opposition Front Bench, distinguished as ever—to try to ensure that the Committees are set up as early as possible after the opening of a new Session. Their membership can be changed thereafter if necessary, but let us get on and start the work rather than delaying for week after week.

Let me again congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on presenting the motions so promptly.

8.42 pm

Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne)

I welcome the considered fashion in which the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) presented the Procedure Committee's attitude to the Public Accounts Committee. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) for his contribution.

It is some 130 years since the Public Accounts Committee was set up and the precursor of the National Audit Office—the Exchequer and Audit Department—was established. It was a peculiar decision to invest an individual with almost unfettered power to discover what was going on in Government Departments; only that hallowed period of 130 years has enabled the arrangement to continue. We are dealing with a rare instrument, and one that has been of enormous value. I know of no other legislative body that allows such an operation, although some Commonwealth Parliaments have similar arrangements. This delicate issue is what concerns me most.

The Comptroller and Auditor General brings reports to us, we look at them, and he distils the contents for us. In order not to compromise him, we deliberately exclude matters involving policy. We see him at least twice a week and, if we pressed him unduly, we could find out quite a bit more. We cannot exclude the reports themselves, however. We look at them in terms of value for money, which no other body can do.

We see permanent secretaries and other top civil servants again and again. We are able to assess them and correct their mistakes, and we can compare what they do with what they said that they were going to do. This year, we are producing 45 reports. No one else could summon up the same expertise without going about the process in the same way.

We are all politicians, and we know that a politician's main interest is in influencing policy and ensuring that it meets the needs of the moment, as he sees them. It is, of course, the easiest thing in the world to press someone who has as much access to information as the Comptroller and Auditor General. As the hon. Member for Honiton pointed out, the Comptroller and Auditor General is an Officer of the House, following an initiative on the part of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett). Unfortunately, my hon. Friend is ill, but he would have been delighted to participate in today's debate. He feels strongly that the crucial role of the Comptroller and Auditor General must not be impugned in any way.

The Comptroller and Auditor General has information that a number of Select Committee members would like to use for political purposes. Here we come to the heart of the problem. The National Audit Act 1983 states: The Comptroller and Auditor General shall have a right of access at all reasonable times to all such documents as he may reasonably require". If a Minister or his civil servants know that the information will go to a Select Committee that will take evidence from that Minister, "reasonably require" may start to have a different connotation. That would be of enormous disadvantage to the House, which must endeavour to control expenditure, obtain value for money and ensure that the economy, efficiency and effectiveness whose maintenance is the PAC's chief task remain unfettered.

I do not believe that work can be expanded, even in a small way, without some cost being incurred. The cost of the National Audit Office is tightly controlled by the Public Accounts Commission, whose chairman also feels strongly about the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General, but any expansion will have cost implications. It is not simply a question of transferring information.

Sir Peter Emery

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to mislead the House in regard to the Procedure Committee. It was never envisaged, however, that the Comptroller and Auditor General should appear before any departmental Select Committee; the Committees were intended only to examine the papers. We never intended the Comptroller and Auditor General to be cross-questioned by, for instance, members of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, and I do not think that that should happen.

Mr. Sheldon

I am delighted to hear it. That is enormously important. I was also pleased by what the hon. Gentleman said about the discretion of the Comptroller and Auditor General remaining untouched. On many occasions, a PAC Chairman might think of suggesting that a certain examination should be conducted, or even pressing for such an examination.

Committee members can, of course, make suggestions: the National Audit Act allows that. But it is vital that the Comptroller and Auditor General continues to have that unfettered right. His post was set up largely to deal with fraud and corruption. Many other countries ask how we are able to appoint someone like the Comptroller and Auditor General. I tell them that we have high standards in the civil service, and that everything stops in the face of the need to deal with fraud and corruption. Luckily we do not have much of it. Not much of it comes to us, so it does not take up a great deal of our time. When I hear about the experiences of representatives of many other countries, I can only express my pleasure and satisfaction that we do not share them.

The members of the PAC are unanimous on the need to maintain the role of the Comptroller and Auditor General. The Chairman of the PAC, the hon. Member for Horsham (Sir P. Hordern), and my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South feel strongly about that. The comments of the hon. Member for Honiton pleased me, for he clarified several matters. I hope that we shall be able to deal with the proposed amendments with good sense and in a reasonable way.

8.50 pm

Mr. Terence L. Higgins (Worthing)

First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) on the comprehensive report that his Committee, the Procedure Committee, has produced on the work of the Select Committee system. The report is kind to the system and to those who operate within it. It describes the arrangements as "worth while", a "success", "valuable" and "cost effective". I share the view that the reforms of a decade or so ago have been of immense value to the House in restoring something of the balance between the Executive and the House.

The reforms have certainly increased the level of ministerial accountability. We all know that it is not always easy to pin down a Minister when he is replying to a debate. Perhaps it is even more difficult to pin him down when he is answering parliamentary questions when, despite all your efforts, Mr. Speaker, one inevitably moves from one subject to another rather quickly. That is vastly different from a Minister's experience when appearing for two hours or more before a Select Committee, the proceedings of which are conducted on an all-party basis. On such an occasion the Minister concerned can be held to account much more specifically. The system has undoubtedly been a success.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on responding to some of the recommendations of the Procedure Committee and in putting before the House the amendments that we are considering.

At the end of his remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton talked about the nomination of the Select Committees in a new Parliament. That is a matter of the gravest concern, because at the start of a new Parliament there is no one in a position to speak on behalf of the Select Committees because they have not been appointed. About a year is available between now and the next Parliament, and I hope that during that time we shall consider whether there is a formal way in which we could impose a time limit —perhaps by way of Standing Order—to ensure that Select Committees are set up within a reasonable time, and certainly within a much shorter time than that which passed at the beginning of the present Parliament.

I welcome especially the amendment designed to increase the scope of the Select Committee on Home Affairs in terms of the Law Officers. I see that the Chairman of that Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), is in his place.

I shall concentrate on the matters raised by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). It is always a pleasure to be able to take up his remarks. I have lost count of the occasions when I have been called after him or he after me. On this occasion we are in broad agreement. It is my strong impression, however, that the fears that he expressed, when put in the context of the rigorous provisions that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House have suggested, could be unfounded. As for any inhibition on the information that the Comptroller and Auditor General might feel in obtaining information from Government Departments, if the Government were less forthcoming in providing information to him as a result of any changes that are made, I agree that that would be extremely serious. We must recognise, however, that the control of the information will still be with the Public Accounts Committee, which will decide whether to hand over information to another Committee. In the same way, another Committee would have control if information were passed in the other direction.

It is recommended in the report of the Procedure Committee that the chairmen of the PAC and of the Liaison Committee should enter into discussions about the precise mechanism whereby a co-operative approach might be used, especially in terms of overlap. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne and I, with the Chairmen of whichever departmental Committees might be involved, have for some years been anxious to avoid the problem of overlap. It places a severe burden on a Department if that Department finds itself having to provide information and evidence to a departmental Committee when at the same time it is providing information to the PAC. That, of course, is not desirable.

On the other hand, we need to consider the timing problem. It is recommended that the timetable of the PAC should be interlinked with that of departmental Committees. One of the problems is that the work of the PAC is often planned far in advance, whereas that of departmental Committees—in examining policy—may be carried out on the spur of the moment. For example, my Committee, the Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service, is looking into something that a few weeks ago it had no idea that it would be investigating. If the PAC is already working on a particular subject, that is a problem. I am sure that the difficulty can be avoided in the future, as it has been in the past. I welcome the recommendation set out in the report.

Mr. Robert Sheldon

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that it is not the PAC which makes the decision at the outset. In effect, the National Audit Office will say, "We think that there is a subject here which should be investigated as a result of something that we have discovered within a Department." It then takes, typically, two or three months to ascertain whether there is enough in the subject for a report. Having decided that there is—if there is not, it will be dropped—the process can take six to 12 months. That is the problem. By the time the Select Committee starts to think about a subject, either it is not to be proceeded with or preparation has been made for some considerable time. When the position is, "We are interested in this but you are already doing it and we would like to take over", there is the problem that I have already mentioned of value for money.

Mr. Higgins

The right hon. Gentleman describes precisely the situation that we experience from time to time. In the past we have succeeded, one way or another, in reaching a satisfactory outcome. I hope that that will still be possible as a result of future consultations. However, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, that problem is not easy to overcome.

Part of the problem arises because both the PAC and the departmental Committees are involved in financial aspects. The Committees must consider the policy, administration, and expenditure of the Departments that they monitor. The Government are right not to accept the Procedure Committee's recommendation to use estimate days for broader discussion of the reports of individual Committees. Estimate days are a successful innovation, but they need to focus on expenditure. As the Government have turned down that proposition, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will carefully consider making available specific time for debates on the Committees' other reports. From time to time, my right hon. Friend is able to do that, apart from regular events such as our debates on the Budget or on defence. However, there is currently no fixed allocation of time to enable the broader aspects of reports to be debated.

The question of duplication that the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne mentioned can also be overcome. I understand his concern about policy, and I listened with interest when it was said that it is not the intention that departmental Committees will take oral evidence from the Comptroller and Auditor General. If a technical point needs clarifying, that could adequately be done by correspondence. In any event, I have sufficient faith—if that is the right word—in the Comptroller and Auditor General to believe that if he were challenged on a matter of policy, he would say, "That matter is not for me—you must pursue it elsewhere".

The overall impact of the innovation will be that departmental Committees will have better access to information than before. It may be that they will use the basic data in the course of investigating policy, but that is very different from seeking to raise policy matters with the Comptroller and Auditor General. The innovations are sensible and well balanced, and will lead to better scrutiny of Government than we would achieve without them. The dangers are not such that we ought to do other than to adopt the recommendations of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

9 pm

Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow)

I am only too happy to confess to being a keen advocate of Select Committees—I am currently a member of the Select Committee on European Legislation—and thank the Leader of the House for providing this opportunity to debate the subject.

I associate myself with the sensible observations made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme). I want to tell the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) how much I appreciated his sensitive and sympathetic remarks about the need for a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I may say in return that it is essential that such a Committee be established to scrutinise the Executive decision making that takes place in Northern Ireland—not that I am volunteering for membership of such a Committee. However, I sincerely hope that that objective is realised in the near future.

I was intrigued by the recounting by the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) of a fascinating suggestion put to him for establishing a Lords Committee on Scottish affairs. Are we brought to this? We are presented with the prospect of a Lords Committee taking itself off to Scotland to scrutinise the Scottish Office and the Lord Advocate's office, which are both mentioned in the motions.

Where would those venerable inquisitors begin their work? Would they seek to examine the present parlous state of the Scottish fishing industry? I remind right hon. and hon. Members from south of the border—though my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) needs no such reminding—that the management of the fishing industry north of the border is a matter for the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department. So would those venerable gentlemen head off instead for Lanarkshire, to investigate the Scottish steel industry? What would that Committee be named? Would it be called the Scottish Lords Committee? I do not mean to belittle or ridicule the idea, because there are a number of formidable Scottish intellects in another place, as the hon. Member for Honiton well knows, and I have great respect for the House of Lords Select Committee on European Legislation. If a Scottish Lords Committee were to produce reports of the calibre of that Committee, I would accept that temporary arrangement.

Many people in Scotland would be more sympathetic to that kind of Select Committee than to a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs comprising Members of this House. Perhaps the Scottish people are a little jaundiced by the constant squabbling among Scottish Members. Some people living in Scotland would willingly accept such a temporary arrangement, and I have no doubt that those venerable Members would produce perceptive and, I am utterly convinced, consensual reports. The concept is intriguing, and I am sure that it will be given currency in the absence of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.

In motion No. 4, there is specific reference to the Scottish Office and the administration and expenditure of the Lords Advocate's Departments, together with policy functions discharged by the Lord Advocate". We continue to come up against what some would call the steadfast refusal, but which I call the disgraceful refusal, of Conservative Members to serve on such a Committee. That Select Committee could be very important.

We must remember that the Scottish Office and the Scottish Law Officers are responsible for a formidably wide range of policy decisions and functions. I was a member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in the last Parliament and I believe that we are straying grievously by not having a Scottish Select Committee. I believe that that Committee could investigate, inter alia, the failure of the Lord Advocate's office in respect of child care law.

Earlier the Child Support Bill received its Third Reading. That Bill embraces the whole of the United Kingdom. However, there is a growing discrepancy between English child care law and Scots child care law. I believe that, in terms of its principles, theories, policies, procedures and practices, Scots law has an astonishingly elegant architecture. However, where children are concerned, it is beginning to reveal shaky foundations.

I supported the English Criminal Justice Bill, which contains provisions for the protection of children in sexual and child abuse cases where they have to give evidence in courts of law. We do not have that kind of legislation in Scotland. A Scottish Select Committee could cross-examine the Lord Advocate to determine why such exceptionally fine legislation is passed for English children while Scottish law lags behind. Similarly, that Committee could examine the policy decision making of the Lord Advocate's office in terms of the office's failure to produce an Act akin to the Children Act 1989, which again is peculiar to England and Wales.

The failure to establish a Scottish Select Committee has denied us the right to examine the management of the Scottish fisheries by the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department. Many people in Scotland will tell hon. Members that that important indigenous industry is crying out for the analysis to which it would be subjected by a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, staffed as it would or could be by specialist advisers.

I recall that, as long ago as 1979, a Scottish Select Committee went to Aberdeen—I think that it was its very first investigation in that Parliament; I was not here at that time, of course—to examine elements of the fishing industry in relation to the White Fish Authority levy. It was a very important occasion for Aberdeen, the coming to town of the Scottish Select Committee, chaired as it was then by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). Another member of it was a fellow called Mr. Iain Sproat, who I believe hopes to come back to this place.

In the absence of a Scottish Select Committee, even though Scottish Office Ministers may be cross-examined at the Dispatch Box and by the Scottish Grand Committee —there have been seven sittings of that Committee in the past three weeks—the House of Commons is a forum for hon. Members to cross-examine Ministers in a remarkably comprehensive way. I have sat in the Public Gallery when other Select Committees have been conducting their inquisitions. Hon. Members on both sides of the House seem to have superb forensic skills such as we expect of QCs, particularly those who work the criminal circuit in England and Scotland, when cross-examining Ministers, officials or leaders of industrial organisations. We in Scotland are denied access to that essential parliamentary function. That explains why I have so much sympathy with my hon. Friends from Northern Ireland.

Rev. Martin Smyth

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is much better for hon. Members who live in the community and who know the nuances in the community, in probing officials and others, to get to the heart of the matter?

Dr. Godman

The hon. Gentleman makes a telling point. One can imagine the members of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland cross-examining the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or industrial leaders in Northern Ireland in a Committee Room upstairs. Because of their comprehensive knowledge of that beleagured Province, they could readily weed out the dross or the public relations gloss on presentations of evidence. Given the appalling circumstances that Northern Ireland hon. Members and their constituentss face, it reflects very badly on the Government and the House of Commons that they are denied such an important Select Committee.

In the scandalous absence of a Scottish Select Committee, I would readily agree to the temporary arrangement in the other place. More important, I would readily agree to the inclusion of English hon. Members, who may not have local knowledge, sitting on a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I would even accept a token Nationalist on such a Committee, but that is really another matter—[Laughter.] This is a serious point—we should have a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Despite the fact that I am sitting within two yards of the Chairman of the Select Committee on European Legislation, my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), I would readily quit that Committee to take up membership of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. We need such a Committee in Scotland. Our constituents—the people of Scotland—have the right to be given the services of a Select Committee, made up of their own Back-Benchers.

9.14 pm

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson (Newbury)

I apologise for not being in the Chamber when the debate started, but I had not been aware that the motions would be taken together.

I rise to speak in favour of the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) because for many years I have held the view that Northern Ireland should have a Select Committee. I am therefore glad to have the opportunity to debate that subject today. I would hold that view whether or not such things as the talks that have been taking place in Belfast were to have reached a successful conclusion. To suggest, as my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) did, that somehow the talks in Belfast might have made the emphasis on Parliament less important to the Province is perhaps to miss the point. The fact is that Northern Ireland does not enjoy the same parliamentary representation as other regions of the United Kingdom, nor does it have, within its own local government structure, the same democratic institutions that we take for granted. Ever since direct rule was imposed from London, I for one have been trying to see whether it is possible to give Northern Ireland the representation that is taken for granted by our other regions.

We must therefore consider the whole way in which Northern Ireland is governed through direct rule. We must recognise the fact that its legislation is not handled in the same way as the many Bills affecting other parts of the United Kingdom. The best that Northern Ireland can hope for is an Order in Council, with one and a half hours of debate but without any ability for hon. Members representing Northern Ireland to amend that Order in Council. None of us should feel content with that, or believe that we can truly say that we have one of the best parliamentary democracies in the world while we know that that situation exists. What is more, I find it ridiculous that a Northern Ireland Member of Parliament can move an amendment to United Kingdom legislation, but cannot do the same for legislation which affects his own Province —the place where he lives and where those whom he represents have their homes. I trawl that example to show some of the imperfections and inequalities from which the people of Northern Ireland suffer and of which their parliamentary representatives are also the victims.

I sometimes wonder how I would know how to do my job properly if I were a Member of Parliament representing a Northern Ireland constituency. I do not know how I would avoid feeling frustrated or ineffectual. I would think to myself, "I go to Westminster where, every three weeks, we have Question Time with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, so I may have a chance to ask a question then, although when I look at the Order Paper and see Members of Parliament from other parts of the United Kingdom filling it up with their questions, I cannot be so sure of that."

I have already discussed the position of the Northern Ireland Member in relation to legislation affecting the Province. Apart from that, what can he do? He can send letters to Ministers and hope to make his voice heard perhaps outside this place, but he cannot really feel that he is able to probe and scrutinise the Executive as each of us can otherwise do. Surely no one would disagree that one of the primary tasks of any Back-Bench Member of Parliament is to exercise the ability to scrutinise the Executive, to probe what the Government are doing, to seek answers to questions and, generally, to let air into those issues about which people may be asking questions, but where answers are not forthcoming.

The case for some form of committee of scrutiny on Northern Ireland seems to be an absolute case which hardly needs arguing. Indeed, it must have been in the mind of the present Lord St. John of Fawsley when he moved the motion in the House of Commons on 25 June 1979 which so clearly stated in its first paragraph: Select Committees shall be appointed to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the principal government departments set out in paragraph (2) of this Order and associated public bodies, and similar matters within the responsibilities of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Northern Ireland. That was what he asked the House to approve and what the House approved. Yet having approved it, we seem to have chosen to forget it and find every possible argument for not doing anything about implementing the wishes of the House.

Tonight my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has an opportunity to give us some assurance or promise that he will consider the matter with the greatest care and in the light of some of the arguments that I have attempted to deploy. Of course, he may say to me, "Do not forget that Northern Ireland has debates on prevention of terrorism measures and appropriations—we do not have the same thing for English Members." But such debates are a poor substitute for the ability that Northern Irish Members should have to scrutinise the Northern Ireland Office and how it works, as well as various Government institutions within the Province which affect their lives and those of their constituents. I believe that a Select Committee would help to redress the imbalance.

I remind my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that not many years ago we were told that 12 Members of Parliament were all that Northern Ireland would ever have in Westminster and that if it had more all sorts of ructions might follow. We were told that the Irish might block legislation, and so on. Fortunately, as a result of the Speaker's Conference, a decision was made to increase that representation to what it should be, and none of us would argue that having 16 Northern Irish Members of Parliament has done any harm to the House. Indeed, it has given greater balance to the parliamentary representation of the Province than it ever had before. If that can be a success, why not a Select Committee?

I notice that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley suggests in his amendment that the Select Committee should have 16 members, which would take in all the Northern Ireland Members who are sent to this place, bar the one who will never come. I am not sure that I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman on the 16, nor am I absolutely sure that it would be in the best interests of Northern Ireland if the Northern Ireland Select Committee were composed only of Northern Ireland Members. I am not sure that a leavening of some of the Members of Parliament who come from other parts of the United Kingdom but take an interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland might not help to make the Committee effective.

Rev. Martin Smyth

I appreciate the hon. Member giving way and the emphasis that he is making. It is not intended that the 16 should include all the Northern Ireland Members. The figure of 16 is intended to give a balance of the parties in Northern Ireland and the parties in the House. We accept the hon. Gentleman's point. The 16 does not refer to 16 Northern Ireland Members. It is intended to create a balance from Northern Ireland, mixed with a balance of the representation in the House.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson

I am grateful for that assurance. It is most helpful and constructive.

It was probably in your hearing last week, Mr. Speaker, when one of my hon. Friends described the legislative and government structure in Northern Ireland as a constitutional slump. I am sorry that those words were spoken, but unfortunately they have a ring of truth about them. Northern Ireland currently enjoys colonial status -let none of us pretend otherwise. Its local government powers are unbelievably limited and it has no county councils or regional councils. Even the talks which might have led to a devolved administration, and which I hope will resume before long, are at present completely stymied.

Northern Ireland is therefore left with direct rule. I hope that I have shown that, because it is left with direct rule, it deserves the right of scrutiny and questioning of the Executive who seek to govern its affairs.

9.25 pm

Sir John Wheeler (Westminster, North)

I wish at the outset to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) for the way in which he chairs the Select Committee on Procedure, for the attention that he has given to the issue under discussion and for his general wisdom and guidance.

I also personally appreciate the stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), who has the awesome duty of presiding over the Liaison Committee of Chairmen. There is no more rigorous duty than that when Chairmen are concerned to defend the interests and, inevitably, the expenditure of the members of their Committees. Chairmen are especially grateful to my right hon. Friend for his guidance of our affairs.

On the amendment to Standing Order No. 130, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, I take this opportunity to welcome the proposed extension of the Committee's terms of reference to include the policy, administration and expenditure of the Lord Chancellor's Department, and the administration and expenditure of the Attorney-General's Office, the Crown prosecution service, the Treasury Solicitor's Department and the Serious Fraud Office.

Over 11,000 people are employed by the Lord Chancellor's Department alone, and its planned outturn for 1991–92 is £1.14 billion. It is right that the spending of that money and the administration of that Department should be subject to the scrutiny of a Select Committee.

The idea of extending the remit of the Select Committee on Home Affairs has been current for some time. I recommended it in my memorandum to the Select Committee on Procedure and I am delighted that it was one of its recommendations to the House. The Committee has already done some work in that area. For example, last Session we undertook a major inquiry into the Crown prosecution service in which we examined its achievements and the potential for future improvements in performance. The Lord Chancellor's Department has also participated in our inquiries into remands in custody, criminal records, the immigration and nationality department and Home Office expenditure.

The broadening of the Committee's remit to include fields so closely related to the work of the Home Office will permit a thorough examination of the criminal justice system. I look forward to that prospect and am confident that we will be able to make some contribution to the fair and efficient administration of the law.

It may be helpful if I remind the House, since the establishment of the departmental Select Committees, of the number of inquiries to which the Lord Chancellor's Department has given evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs. The five occasions were remands and custody in Session 1983–84; Home Office expenditure, 1988–89; criminal records, 1989–90; Crown prosecution service, 1989–90; and administrative delays in the immigration and nationality department, 1989–90.

The former Lord Chancellor, Lord Hailsham, gave evidence before the Committee on one occasion, and the present Lord Chancellor has expressed his wholehearted support for the proposals and work of the Select Committee and his desire to co-operate with it.

The amendment of the Standing Order is an important development in the work of the Select Committees. It is an appropriate amendment which I am sure the House will welcome.

Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann)

I entirely agree that some of the functions of the Lord Chancellor's Office should come under scrutiny. However, those functions extend not merely to England and Wales but to Northern Ireland. His functions in respect of Northern Ireland, which are equivalent to those that come under the scrutiny of the Home Affairs Committee, are being left out. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is anomalous that the functions of the Lord Chancellor's Department with respect to England, Wales and Scotland should come under scrutiny, while those with respect to Northern Ireland do not?

Sir John Wheeler

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point and what he says is correct. However, the House is, inevitably, still evolving the role and scope of the Select Committees and has been doing so for many years. Tonight's debate and proposals are a manifest example of that extension of the Select Committees' duties, which we welcome. The Home Affairs Committee also has responsibilities that intrude into the Province of Northern Ireland. In a recent Committee inquiry, we visited Northern Ireland to contribute to the better administration of the Province and the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole. Therefore, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point and we may soon see the Select Committees' role extending to meet his objectives.

9.30 pm

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

I apologise profusely to the House for failing to attend for the first three quarters of an hour, but I was otherwise busily engaged.

I, too, pay tribute to the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), who has chaired the Procedure Committee so ably and always made a point of consulting widely in the Committee before putting any matters to it. I have been a member of that Committee for seven years, although I have been unable to attend it very often because it overlaps with the Public Accounts Committee.

At the back of the Procedure Committee's report for 1989–90 one sees that I moved a string of 10 amendments on the Committee's recommendations on the relationships between the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee and between the National Audit Office and other Select Committees. The amendments show that I wished fiercely to defend the interests of the Public Accounts Committee. I took that position having made several visits to the United States of America, where I was able closely to scrutinise the affairs of the General Accounting Office. I was left with the feeling that, because of a lack of a single strictly accountable committee within Congress, the GAO's efforts were almost disorganised and its role was often to serve only as a researcher to those congressmen and senators who could put pressure on it to carry out value-for-money projects and other work in areas in which they had a particular interest or which affected their congressional districts. The American experience has always worried me and I do not want it to arise in the United Kingdom.

Despite the fact that I vigorously moved those amendments, I understand the great concern that exists in other Select Committees about their limited access to information within our system. One of the amendments that I moved relates to that issue. It said: Amendment proposed to leave out paragraph 267, and insert the words: 'We believe that Select Committees are entitled to greater co-operation with government departments in terms of access to information. The thrust of evidence given to PAC'"— it was actually to the Procedure Committee— '"by a number of witnesses suggests that the NAO is perceived as a means for securing a greater amount of information of higher quality and value to Committees. It is our view that, recognising this requirement, Parliament should consider the introduction of Freedom of Information legislation. It is our view that, in conditions of greater freedom in the provision of information held by government, arguments as to access through the NAO would be unlikely to arise in the way they have during the course of this enquiry.'. I moved that amendment because I believe that there is a problem in terms of access to information held in Government Departments. If I were a member of the Select Committee on Defence, I would understand what was being sought, but instead of using the National Audit Office as a vehicle to secure access to the information, alternative arrangements should be made to ensure that access.

The Departments involved should become more flexible in terms of what information they are prepared to provide direct to Select Committees or we shall have to legislate in the House by way of freedom of information legislation, giving organisations and individuals a right of access similar to that which exists in the United States. I have heard about a number of cases where information about the United Kingdom, which was being denied by Government Departments and Ministers in this country, has been made available in the library of Congress. On one occasion, I rang up a congressional colleague of mine in America to secure information about the United Kingdom defence policy and was given that information, even though I had been unable to get it in the United Kingdom, using all the procedures available to me as a Member of Parliament. Those procedures include written answers, oral answers and briefings from the House of Commons Library, which is often able to penetrate subjects when Members cannot.

I wish to stress that we should not use the National Audit Office, but ensure that we have legislation on the statute book to deal with the event of Departments being unwilling to be more flexible. That is the way forward. If there were greater provision of information to Members of Parliament and the wider public, arguments such as we have heard would not have arisen. The Select Committee on Defence and, if I remember rightly, the Select Committee on Transport expressed some fears. Such concerns would not arise in the future if we had the relevant legislation to deal with the problem.

Although it is not in order for us to propose legislation during a debate such as this evening's, I hope that even this Government—even at this late stage—will make promising noises about freedom of information. The next Labour Government are clearly committed to that principle.

9.37 pm

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook (Orpington)

I apologise to the House for not being present when the motions were moved. Like other hon. Members, I had not realised that all three were to be taken together. That in itself illustrates a point that I wish to make about Northern Ireland.

In the context of the Select Committee system, if there is one part of the United Kingdom that needs parliamentary control, parliamentary discussion, parliamentary debate and investigation into what is going on, it is Northern Ireland. However, our Select Committee system, with its defects—I do not think that it has many virtues and its weaknesses have, perhaps, not been sufficiently emphasised in the debate—is designed to increase the control over the Executive by Parliament, particularly by this place.

The fact that we existed with a sort of ad hoc Select Committee system before 1979 was unsatisfactory for all of us. We constantly wanted to appoint Select Committees to do this, that and the other until the key was found by Lord St. John of Fawsley, who proposed that there should be a rationalisation of the system, with a Select Committee to oversee the work of every Government Department. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was mentioned as being responsible for one such Department. Clearly it was originally envisaged that Northern Ireland would not be exempt from the Select Committee system, but what has happened?

In Northern Ireland there are probably more Ministers —a record number of representatives of the Crown and of the Front Bench—per head of the population than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland has a large civil service corresponding to the size of the population, but it has no proper system of local government. One should have thought that there was a vast vacuum of power. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) suggested, that vacuum has been filled by a colonial system. Because of that vacuum the parliamentary representatives of Northern Ireland and all of us who are interested in Northern Ireland have a right to be represented in a specialist committee that takes a day-to-day interest in the Province.

Where is the parliamentary input into the constitutional arrangements for the supervision of Northern Ireland through the system of Select Committees? Where is the control over the Executive in Northern Ireland? The hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland make a valiant effort, but they have to work on the basis of one and a half hours only being supplied at the end of business on orders that cannot be amended. They must also rely on other ad hoc Committees on specific subjects.

That state of affairs would be totally inadequate for a normal part of the United Kingdom with normal circumstances and conditions, but we are talking about a war-torn part of the United Kingdom. Therefore, it is the one part that, above all, needs as much democracy and open discussion of its affairs as possible.

We badly need a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs. It could be provided with Members from all parts of the House. It would not suffer the fate of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs because there are certainly plenty of Conservative Members who would like to participate in a Select Committee on Northern Ireland. They would like to develop a specialist knowledge and expertise of the Province so as to deal not only with a fascinating, charming and important part of the United Kingdom, but with an extremely difficult constitutional and political problem. I have been interested in the subject for nearly 20 years and I have grown to learn that it is a fascinating study.

Why do we not have a Select Committee for Northern Ireland? I was disappointed at the report of the Select Committee on Procedure. Although I pay tribute to the Chairman of that Committee, I was disappointed in its report because it seems that it has gone for the excuse of expediency. The report stated: The possible establishment of a Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, whilst attractive in principle, could cause difficulties for the initiative launched by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, which is designed to achieve inter-party agreement on the possible future arrangements for government of the Province. As a responsible Committee of the House, we are bound to take seriously this advice about a matter of such extreme sensitivity. That is an argument of expediency. It is suggested that because this is such a difficult, sensitive subject, which causes a great deal of political controversy, a Select Committee should not be appointed to inquire into it. Does the suggestion that it is because of a current initiative —how many initiatives have there been in Northern Ireland since its constitution was abrogated 20 or so years ago, with scarcely a year passing without some sort of political initiative?—mean that the Select Committee will never come back to it and say that it backs the idea of a Northern Ireland Select Committee? Such a Committee is needed, whatever stage may have been reached with regard to any political initiative.

The political initiative to which the Committee refers has come to an end. No doubt there will be another. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and his Committee will not say, when the new initiative starts, "We still cannot recommend a Select Committee because," as they say in paragraph 277 of the report, it is a matter of such extreme sensitivity.

Sir Peter Emery

rose——

Mr. Stanbrook

I am glad that I have provoked my hon. Friend into wanting to intervene.

Sir Peter Emery

I am sorry that my hon. Friend was not here when I made my speech. Had he been here, he would have realised that most of what he has said is irrelevant and unnecessary.

Mr. Stanbrook

I am speaking to the Select Committee's report which will no doubt be read by all those hon. Members who happen not to have shared the experience of the few of us who are in the House. I have already explained why I was unable to be here earlier in the proceedings.

It is a very big mistake not to have a Northern Ireland Select Committee. If it is not a question of the inter-party talks—many people never really believed that the inter-party talks would be successful, under present conditions—is it because of fear of disturbing the political equilibrium as regards the Irish Republic and other outside interests? Is it thought that those interests are so great that we do not want, for diplomatic reasons, to interfere with or upset them? That, too, would be a very great mistake. It would be on a par with the biggest mistake of all, made by the Conservative Government who came to power in 1979, in concluding the Anglo-Irish Agreement that conceded sovereignty.

We talk so much nowadays about not giving away sovereignty to the European Community, but we positively conceded sovereignty over Northern Ireland to the Irish Republic by the Anglo-Irish Agreement. That, possibly, is at the root of the hesitation over dealing with the Province as an integral part of the United Kingdom —as it should be and as it is constitutionally. It should be dealt with by the House within the Select Committee system.

9.47 pm

Mr. MacGregor

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) for their kind remarks. I have always been a supporter of the Select Committee system. I was its advocate before 1979 and I have supported it ever since. I am glad, therefore, to be able to comment on it this evening.

Most hon. Members referred to issues relating to the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office. I fully understand the points made by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). I understand his concerns and hope that I have taken them all into account. I say that as a former member, some years ago now, of the Public Accounts Committee. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), to whose work as Chairman of the Liaison Committee I also pay tribute, that the fears which have been expressed about this modest step are unfounded.

My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton made the point clearly that nothing here will weaken or undermine the position of the Public Accounts Committee, and I am glad to repeat it. I stressed that also in my opening speech. There is nothing here to turn the Comptroller and Auditor General into a political animal. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne has strong feelings about that, and I agree entirely with him that the task of the Public Accounts Committee should remain unfettered.

My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton made a particular point about the cost implications for the National Audit Office. He and I have discussed this matter. It is a matter for the Public Accounts Committee, whose Chairman is in the Chamber, and I believe that the Public Accounts Committee will watch that aspect carefully because in my view it is not what the Procedure Committee intended when it made its recommendation. I see no reason why that should occur because we are talking about work that the National Audit Office has already done, so I hope that any attempt to use this recommendation to increase staff and expenditure will be resisted.

I have heard nothing in the debate to suggest that there is any disagreement between us. I hope that the House will agree with the concluding comments of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne that with good sense we can deal with this in a reasonable way. I agree with that, and I hope that we can move forward on that basis.

The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and my hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) and for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) talked about the amendment proposing a Select Committee for Northern Ireland Affairs. I well understand the concerns that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley has expressed and I know that he is keen that such a Select Committee should be established. As has been mentioned, the Procedure Committee agreed in principle that there should be such a Committee, but that now would not be a sensible moment to recommend its establishment.

Mr. Molyneaux

The Committee's recommendation was talking not about how but about the time of the report. I accept the Committee's thinking that that was not an appropriate moment to establish a Select Committee, but we are now talking about now and not then.

Mr. MacGregor

I was coming to that. The Committee said in its report that then was not a sensible time to establish a Select Committee.

In making its recommendation, the Procedure Committee took account of the discussions that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had been conducting over the future arrangements for the government of Northern Ireland and the views expressed by the hon. Members for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) and for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) in letters to the Committee which were published. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley referred to the recent talks. He knows that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that he will be exploring the possibility of securing a basis for fresh talks at some time after the holiday period if the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland say that that is what they want.

The Government's view remains the same as that of the Procedure Committee—that now is not the time to set up such a Select Committee. However, I assure the right hon.

Member for Lagan Valley that the matter can be reviewed again at appropriate times, and that I shall be prepared to do that.

I note what my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton said about the extra two members of the Select Committee on Education and Science being scientists. I am not sure that we can guarantee that that will occur, but my hon. Friend's point has been noted.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) referred to potential duplication and overlap between the work done for the Public Accounts Committee and for individual Select Committees. I am grateful for his understanding of the pressures on Departments. Although it was recognised in the debate that there are sometimes difficulties, I am sure that the sensitive way in which this has been handled in the past will continue to ensure that, so far as possible. extra burdens on Departments and duplication and overlap can be avoided. The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) will know that, since we first debated the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs when I became Leader of the House, the Scottish Grand Committee has met on a number of occasions. I believe that it met this morning to discuss housing in Scotland. That development has occurred in the past few months and has enabled further consideration of Scottish matters, but I see no prospect of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs being set up in this Parliament.

My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) described the motion as a further step in evolving the role and scope of the Select Committees, and I believe that that is the right way to describe it.

Sir Peter Emery

May I remind my right hon. Friend about the reappointment of Select Committees at the start of a new Parliament? That aspect must not be swept under the carpet.

Mr. MacGregor

I have noted what my hon. Friend said, as did the Opposition Chief Whip, but that is not a matter on which we can put forward a Standing Order this evening.

'3. Education, Science and Arts	Department of Education and Science	11	3'
and inserting the words—
'3. Education, Science and Arts	Department of Education and Science; Office of Arts and Libraries	13	3';
by leaving out the words—
'9. Home Affairs	Home Office	11	3'
and inserting the words—
'9. Home Affairs	Home Office; policy, administration and expenditure of the Lord Chancellor's Departments (including the work of staff provided for the administrative work of courts and tribunals, but excluding consideration of individual cases and appointments); and administration and expenditure of the Attorney General's Office, the Treasury Solicitor's Department, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office (but excluding individual cases and appointments and advice given within government by Law Officers)';	11	3
by leaving out the words—

In the spirit of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North, I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) be amended by inserting at the end of line 38 the words— `(e) proceedings on a Motion such as is referred to in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 104 (Nomination of select committees) for the nomination or discharge of members of select committees appointed under Standing Order No. 130 (Select committees related to government departments) which has been opposed at or after the interruption of business on a preceding day; Provided that any questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on such a Motion shall be put at Eleven o'clock or one hour after the commencement of those proceedings, whichever is the later.'