§ LORD MITCHISONMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government why they have lost count of the Departmental Committees about which they were asked on May 8.]
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, the Government do not purport to keep any centralised count of all the Committees appointed by all the Government Departments. It has been explained to my noble friend that the cost of the research involved in providing a precise Answer to his somewhat widely drawn Question could not be justified.
§ LORD MITCHISONMy Lords, if my noble friend, whom I would thank for his Answer, is referring to another Question on the Order Paper, he might put his Answer to that. On the other hand, do I understand him to be saying that he has never lost count because he has never kept count?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, my noble friend hay grasped the situation perfectly.
§ LORD MITCHISONMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Treasury or some other Department will assume the responsibility of keeping a list of Departmental Committees and keeping it up to date.]
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, such a list would serve no useful management function.
§ LORD MITCHISONMy Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend again with particular warmth for the Answer he has given. May I ask whether it has occurred to him that it might impress Parliament to know how many Departmental Committees there are and what they are doing? These Departmental Committees cost money, and involve the expenditure of a certain amount of Civil Service time, all matters that Parliament is entitled to inquire into. In order to answer inquiries, would it not be advisable to keep a short list?
§ LORD BESWICKMy Lords, I quite agree with my noble friend that it would be advisable to keep a short list, were that possible. But if the list chat is envisaged were to include all the Committees set up by all Departments it would not be a short one. The P.E.P. did some research on this, I think in 1951, and at that time it was found on their count that there were no fewer than 850 advisory committees alone. The list covered some 50 pages; there were 9,000 members, and, of course, so far as the Departments were concerned, all the Committees were necessary. I would say to my noble friend that if he could define his Question more closely and limit the scope along the lines suggested to him, for example, to committees of inquiry in a limited number of Departments, we should be happy to try to find the answer for him.
§ LORD MITCHISONMy Lords, may I say that I suggested a rather simplified version, and I asked the official I saw to take my suggestion away. He took it away, and I have heard no more since. What is the use of making suggestions if you never get an answer to them?
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, is the Minister aware that it would be even more useful if the Government kept some count of the number of Ministers?