HL Deb 19 December 1995 vol 567 cc1514-6
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Tordoff)

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Chairman of Committees, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper. Without wishing to destroy the neutrality of my position, perhaps I may express a certain pleasure in being, I think, the first member of the Liberal or the Liberal Democrat party for 50 years to move a Motion at the Dispatch Box.

Moved, That the Second Report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 15).—(The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees.)

Following is the report referred to:.

SCOTTISH SELECT COMMITTEES The Committee has considered a proposal by the Leader of the House that Select Committees meeting in Scotland ("Scottish Select Committees") should be empowered to take evidence on certain Government Bills relating to Scotland. Thereafter the Bills would be considered at Westminster either by a Committee of the whole House in the ordinary way or in the Moses room by a Committee with unlimited membership, where no Divisions may take place. This further experiment in considering Bills in Committee off the floor of the House would be an alternative to the Special Public Bill Committee procedure (the "Jellicoe procedure") where the Committee has power both to take evidence and to consider the Bill clause by clause. The Special Public Bill Committee procedure would remain an option for appropriate Government Bills relating to Scotland and for other Bills. We recommend that one or more experiments should be conducted in the Scottish Select Committee procedure and make the following detailed recommendations:

  1. i)The Committee of Selection will nominate Members for each Scottish Select Committee whenever a Bill is to be considered by this procedure.
  2. ii)A Scottish Select Committee should not have power to amend a Bill.
  3. iii)The Committee should have 28 days (excluding recesses) from the date of its appointment to complete the taking of evidence.
  4. iv)In accordance with Standing Order 63, any Lord who is not a Member of the Committee may attend and speak at the Committee's evidence sessions in Scotland. It is desirable that any such Lord should give notice of his wish to attend to the clerk of the Committee.
  5. v)The written and oral evidence received by the Committee should be printed and available to the House for the Committee (on re-commitment) stage.
We understand that in the first instance it is proposed that the Scottish Select Committee procedure will be used for consideration of the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill (HL). The Committee will in due course review this further experiment in the consideration of legislation off the floor of the House.

Lord Monkswell

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees on the admirably brief way in which he introduced this report of the Procedure Committee.

The whole House will appreciate that one of the strengths of this House is the ability, because we take virtually all our business on the Floor of the House, of every Member, not only on the Front Benches but also on the Back-Benches all around the House, to take part in whatever business is before the House.

The House will be aware also of the recent practice of the Scottish Grand Committee of another place to meet in Scotland. The practice, which has evolved over recent months, is that that Scottish Grand Committee meets on a Monday morning which enables the members of that committee to return to Parliament and take part in parliamentary business.

Can the noble Lord the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees say whether consideration has been given to the meeting time of the proposed Scottish Select Committee and whether the Procedure Committee has come to a view that such a committee meeting in Scotland should meet at a time when this House is not sitting? That would imply that the Scottish Select Committee would meet on a Monday morning, on a Friday or when your Lordships' House is in Recess. I should point out that that would enable not only members of that Select Committee to be present in your Lordships' House for the normal deliberation of business; it would also enable noble Lords who are not members of that committee to attend its meetings and benefit at first hand from the evidence presented to it.

Lord Richard

My Lords, perhaps I may say a few words about the report and what it is that we on these Benches have agreed to. I should tell my noble friend Lord Monkswell that, as I understand it, it is not the intention to create a permanent Select Committee on Scottish Bills which would tend to sit either in London or in Scotland. Indeed, any Select Committee within the terms of the report will be tied to a specific Bill.

As I understand it, the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill—which, I am bound to say, seems to me to be an appropriate one with which to try such an experiment—will be introduced and a committee on the Bill will be established. If that committee considers it necessary (and I gather that it does), it will then go to Inverness for a day to take evidence on the deer and from anyone else who may be able to assist. Thereafter, all proceedings on the Bill will be brought back to this House. At that stage, it will then be for the House to decide whether the Committee stage of the Bill will proceed in what has become known, in shorthand form, as "a Moses Room type procedure"; in other words, the special Public Bill Committee procedure or the Jellicoe procedure which, as I understand it, means pretty well the same thing. Alternatively, the Committee stage may be held on the Floor of the House. The only part of the consideration of the Bill which will be taken in situ will be the deer bit.

Perhaps I should also make it clear to the House that we on this side of the House regard the matter as an experiment. We have not given our agreement to this becoming the normal procedure for all Bills which may relate to Scottish affairs. On the contrary, we shall want to look at each Bill as it comes forward and then decide whether it is appropriate for the committee on that Bill to take evidence in Scotland. Indeed, I have no doubt that if there were a Welsh Bill, evidence could be taken in Cardiff, Machynlleth or wherever else seemed particularly appropriate. Moreover, if there were a London Bill, no doubt we could reopen County Hall for the purpose of taking evidence.

Therefore, as I understand it, what we are being asked to agree to in a sense is that, where it seems geographically sensible in relation to a Bill—and Scotland seems the obvious place to start because of the red deer amendment Bill—the relevant committee should go away, take evidence and then return to this place, whereupon the House will decide what to do with it.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord has just said. It is indeed an experiment. The Procedure Committee considered the matter on that basis and agreed to it. As regards future Bills, obviously we shall have to look at each one of them and judge each on its merit. I believe that it is a worthwhile experiment which I very much hope proves to be a success.

The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions made by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition and my noble friend. I only dissent in one respect with what the noble Lord said; namely, on the question of referring the Bill to a Jellicoe Committee as the next stage. Indeed, if the Bill were to go into the Moses Room, it would be as a Committee of the Whole House off the Floor of the House, which is not quite the same thing.

The only other point that I should like to make is that I do not believe that I am in a position to say whether the committee would meet in Inverness or in any other place north of the Border. The location has not yet been determined. Certainly, it is not a matter for the Procedure Committee to decide.

I turn now to the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell. Yes, the intention is that the committee should be open to other Members of this House. It is hoped that, if the experiment is to be successful and repeated, not all 450 or 800 Members of your Lordships' House will travel up to Scotland and claim their rail fares both there and back; otherwise, the experiment will prove to be somewhat expensive.

As regards the days on which the committee will meet, that is a matter for the committee itself and for the usual channels to decide. However, I suspect that the committee will want to meet on consecutive days—that is, on more than one day—if it is to get value for money. Therefore, it would be most difficult to have a meeting on a Monday morning or on a Friday. Moreover, I believe that the idea of the sittings of such a committee moving into the Recess is unlikely to find favour, at least at this stage. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's question.

On Question, Motion agreed to.