DELEGATED LEGISLATION (Hansard, 20 December 1972)

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE)
My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. As I informed your Lordships last month, the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation, which was established last Session, following a recommendation by the Commons Select committee on Procedure, have asked to be reappointed this Session, and the 1083 Motion I am moving now serves to reappoint the Committee, at least so far as your Lordships are concerned. My Lords, the terms of reference and the membership of the Committee are the same as they were last Session.
Moved, That a Select Committee of seven Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the Commons as a Joint Committee to inquire into the procedures and practice by which the control of each House over delegated legislation is exercised, and to report how they might be improved;
That the Lords following be named of the Committee:

L. Brooke of Cumnor,

L. Cawley,

L. Diamond,

L. Diplock,

L. Fletcher.

B. Sharp,

L. Wade;

That such Committee have power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman;
That leave be given to the Joint Committee to hear parties interested by themselves their Counsel, agents and witnesses so far as the Committee think fit;
That the memoranda received by, and the Minutes of Evidence taken before, the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation in the last session of Parliament be referred to the Committee;
That the evidence taken before the Joint Committee be printed but no copies be delivered out except to members of the Committee and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order;
That the Committee have power to appoint persons with specialised knowledge for the purpose of particular inquiries, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's Order of Reference;
That the Joint Committee have leave to report from time to time.—(Earl Jellicoe.)

§ LORD BLYTON
My Lords, I wish to speak not only on this Motion but also on the next one, and to make one speech do for both Motions. If your Lordships look at the Committee on Delegated 1084 Legislation you will find that every one mentioned is a Common Marketeer. That applies to noble Lords on both sides of the House. It is said that," God moves in a mysterious way …". So do the usual channels. There is not an anti-Common Marketeer to put the opposite point of view on the Delegated Legislation Committee. When we come to the next Motion, the Conservative Party can be forgiven, because at least they have put on the Committee one anti-Common Marketeer, namely, the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, but on our side there are only three Common Marketeers. I think our Front Bench ought to be at least as generous as the Tories.

§ LORD POPPLEWELL
My Lords, I must confess some ignorance in regard to the first Motion on the Order Paper, because the noble Earl says that it is in accord with the terms of previous Motions. But I see here, That the evidence taken before the Joint Committee be printed but no copies be delivered out except to members of the Committee and to such other persons as the Committee shall think fit, until further order". May I ask why there is this kind of secret deliverance? This Motion is not dealing with security matters; it is just dealing with delegated legislation for both Houses. Is it not feasible that noble Lords should have the right to consider evidence submitted, as with many other inquiries that take place by Select Committees? There may be a good reason why this evidence should be kept like that of a secret service type of society, just confined to the members of the Committee unless they give special permission to other noble Lords who want to look at it. I hope that the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal will have another look at this matter with a view to making it permissible for any noble Lord who wants to consider evidence that may have been submitted to do so without having to go, as it were, cap in hand.

§ LORD BURNTWOOD
My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he intends to publish immediately a list of the various categories of Instruments which are to be considered.

EARL JELLICOE
My Lords, I am not absolutely certain that I quite understand the purport of the last question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Burntwood. 1085 Perhaps I can come back to that, if need be. I should like to deal with the other two questions put to me in the reverse order.

§ LORD BESWICK
My Lords, before the noble Earl deals with those two questions, I think one of them refers indirectly to me, and it might be fairer if I said something. The usual channels come into this business of making nominations, and in this particular case I came into it very closely. I would assure my noble friend that there was absolutely no question of keeping out anti-Common Marketeers on the second Resolution; it was a question of getting someone who was prepared to do a job of work. I asked a number, and I had some difficulty. I was extremely grateful when those who now appear on the list from our side agreed to serve. I may say that had it been a question of looking after the point of view which my noble friend shares with me, I should have been on the Committee to look after that point of view. But I do not think it arises.

§ LORD BLYTON
My Lords, my noble friend must remember that he is not being fair to those who have fought the Common Market. Everyone put on that Committee is a declared Common Marketeer. I will be quite honest about it: I think it is disgraceful.

EARL JELLICOE
My Lords, I think we are tending to get a little out of order. I hesitate to intervene in a dispute between two such well-known" proMarketeers" as the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. Perhaps I may now answer the questions that have been put to me. Luckily, the slight outbreak of gentle internecine warfare between the two noble Lords opposite has allowed me time to refresh my memory, and I think I can answer the point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Burntwood. It is my understanding that the Joint Select Committee, the reappointment of which we are now, I hope, about to approve and which has done such distinguished work under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, will be empowered to look at any subordinate legislation which they consider appropriate. There is no restriction placed on their modus operandi.
1086 In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, what is proposed is perfectly normal form so far as Select Committees go. No dangerous Star Chamber innovation is being proposed here. At this very late date, I should be a little chary about suggesting that we should change it, because this is a Joint Select Committee. I think that all that is proposed is that it will be open to the Committee and the weight of the House to decide whether or not evidence should be delivered out. This is perhaps a point that we should consider later. But in order not in any way to delay the setting up of a Joint Select Committee, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, will let this go, at least for the time being.

§ LORD POPPLEWELL
My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will seriously consider in the future what he has now said. I do not wish to delay it at this stage. It is rather an important point. It may have gone on for a long time; nevertheless, I think the House is entitled to know.

§ LORD LEATHERLAND
My Lords, I should like to give the noble Earl the Leader of the House an opportunity to set the record right in the interests of history. In his last remarks he referred to my noble friends Lord Beswick and Lord Blyton as" pro-Common Marketeers". That hardly seems to accord with my recollection.

§ LORD BURNTWOOD
My Lords, as a pro-Common Marketeer, warts and all, may I ask the noble Earl—

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS
Order!

§ LORD BURNTWOOD
My Lords, if I may have the leave of the House, may I ask the noble Earl this question? In his reply he stated that the Committee would take on anything that came their way in the way of delegated Instruments. Is this not rather an untidy way of going about things? After all, in this country—they are not parallel cases, I know—we have a complete scheduled list of the sort of Instruments which any Committee are supposed to examine. Are we not to have an equivalent list submitted to us from the authorities in Europe?

EARL JELLICOE
My Lords, I think we are getting into rather deep water here. The Committee have already been 1087 at work for one Session. I believe that their Report, which doubtless noble Lords have read, was a very thorough one, and I do not think the Committee found themselves constricted or found their task made too hard by their terms of reference.
Perhaps I may now turn to the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, which covers both this Motion and the one to which I hope we shall shortly be turning on the mode of selection. Here of course I stand corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland. I am glad to see that he is so literal minded. I thought that my little witticism would have passed unnoticed, even by his eagle eye. Nevertheless, I would suggest just two points to the noble Lord. Lord Blyton. First, I do not think that the usual channels had any bias here. If it is the feeling that they do have bias, then very shortly we shall be introducing. if your Lordships agree to the recommendation which will be corning from our Procedure Committee, to an enlargement, as it were, of the usual channels—a Selection Committee whose writ should run over these matters, to reinforce the impartiality of the usual channels. Secondly, I would draw Lord Blyton's attention, since we are so literal minded this afternoon, to the fact that my noble friend Lord Lauderdale, if the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper is passed, is one of those to whom I think the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, was referring. He is suggested as a member of this Select Committee and, to my recollection—and I speak again subject to correction by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland—he is not one of the most ardent supporters of the Common Market.

§ LORD SLATER
My Lords, the Leader of the House has some knowledge of Select Committees in another place, but as this happens to be a Joint Select Committee I should like to ask whether it will come within the terms of reference of this particular Committee for them to call upon Ministers to appear and be questioned on matters arising in the course of their deliberations, as happens in other Select Committees—for example, the Select Committee on the Nationalised Industries.

EARL JELLICOE
My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Slater, 1088 is, Yes. At least two Ministers have already appeared before the Joint Select Committee: one of them was the last President of the Council, and the Leader of the House of Lords has also been called before them. The answer, unequivocally, is Yes.