HL Deb 22 April 1999 vol 599 cc1234-8
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham)

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the first report from the Select Committee be agreed to (HL Paper 49).—(The Chairman of Committees.)

Following is the report referred to:

FUTURE COMMITTEE ACTIVITY

  1. 1. The Committee has given further consideration to the future committee work of the House. Our Second Report, Session 1997–98, noted proposals including:
    1. (1) a new committee on Overseas Trade to review developments since the last committee on that subject reported in 1985;
    2. (2) the retention of a sixth sub-committee of the European Communities Committee, added experimentally in 1996;
    3. (3) a committee with functions relating to human rights;
    4. (4) the introduction of pre-legislative scrutiny.
  2. 2. In addition, the following further proposals have now been put to us:
  3. 3. We understand that the Clerk of the Parliaments plans to strengthen the staff resources available to serve committees, but that recruitment of additional clerks will not be possible before the autumn. Moreover, the availability of Lords to serve on committees and of accommodation to house additional staff are factors which limit the possible expansion of committee activity.
  4. 4. We propose to meet again before the summer recess to consider further what new committee activity to recommend.

OBSCENITY BILL

5. At this stage we recommend that the Obscenity Bill [HL] should not be referred to a select committee. In view of the competing pressures we consider it inappropriate that resources should be devoted to a committee on a bill with no realistic chance of becoming law.

SCRUTINY OF TREATIES

6. A strong case was put to us for the appointment of a committee to scrutinise treaties. But we have noted that the Royal Commission on Reform of the House of Lords has, in its consultation paper issued earlier this month, explicitly posed the question whether the second chamber should play a greater role in the scrutiny of draft treaties. We have therefore concluded that it would not be timely to appoint such a committee in advance of the recommendations of the Royal Commission.

PRE-LEGISLATIVE SCRUTINY

7. A joint committee on the draft Financial Services and Markets Bill was appointed at the beginning of March, with terms of reference requiring it to report by the end of April. We understand that the Government is likely to propose further pre-legislative scrutiny of this kind, for example in relation to the draft Local Government (Organisation and Standards) Bill published with the White Paper Local Leadership, Local Choice (Cm 4298).

8. In principle we welcome the involvement of this House in pre-legislative scrutiny. But in view of the pressure for other committee activity we hope that it will be possible to co-ordinate the appointment of similar committees in future and to give reasonable notice in each case. Because of the variety of subject matter of draft bills, we endorse the appointment of an ad hoc committee for each draft bill.

9. We were informed by the Chairman of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee that that committee had accepted an invitation from the joint committee on the draft Financial Services and Markets Bill to submit a memorandum on the delegated powers in the bill. We welcome this development, and we hope that the example may be followed in future. When a draft bill is made available for pre-legislative scrutiny, it can only be beneficial for the delegated powers to be subject to scrutiny at an early stage.

GOVERNMENT REPLIES TO REPORTS FROM THE DELEGATED POWERS AND DEREGULATION COMMITTEE

10. We have considered the recommendation made in paragraph 50 of the Special Report from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, Session 1997–98. That recommendation related to the examination of bills by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. After welcoming the practice of some Government Departments of responding in writing to the Committee's recommendations, the Committee went on: "We invite the Liaison Committee to consider whether all Departments should, in future, respond succinctly in writing to those recommendations from this Committee for which they are responsible. We consider that it could assist the House's deliberations if such letters were routinely made available to front-bench spokesmen on the Bill in question, and placed in the Library of the House".

11. We endorse this recommendation, including the proposal that copies of responses should be provided to front-bench spokesmen and placed in the Library of the House. Whereas responses to reports from other committees are expected to be produced within two months (or six months in the case of the Science and Technology Committee), it would not be appropriate to lay down a time limit for such responses. They need to be made in good time for amendments to be tabled to the bill in question. In some cases that will require Departments to act within a few days, and we recognise that occasionally the timetable for the passage of a bill may make the provision of a written response impracticable.

Lord Jenkin of Roding

My Lords, perhaps I may just say how pleased I am that something is not in this report. I know that it was recommended to the Liaison Committee that, in order to make room for new committees, some of the existing work of the current committees should be cut back. In particular, I make reference to the work of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. As I understand it, there was a suggestion that it should have only one, and not two, inquiries a year.

I should very much like to support the decision of the Liaison Committee that the latter Select Committee should continue to undertake two inquiries a year. I say that because, long before I became a member of it, outside the House it was regarded as one of our most respected committees. At a time when we are discussing the reform of the House, it really would be very sad if the work of that committee were to be cut back. So: three cheers for the Liaison Committee!

Lord Dean of Harptree

My Lords, I welcome the proposal from the Liaison Committee for pre-legislative scrutiny of draft Bills. I have been suggesting for some time that it would be advisable to have a new Select Committee to look at all draft Bills. I see that the Liaison Committee is proposing ad hoc committees for each draft Bill in view of the variety of subject matters. I fully accept that that is a more satisfactory way of proceeding than my original proposal. However, I hope that there will be some continuity in the membership of these ad hoc committees and, in particular, of the chairmen. After all, it is a new procedure which is being developed. These ad hoc committees will have to work out ground rules for the best method of proceeding. I believe that some continuity of membership would be desirable. I hope that the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees will feel that that is a proposal which merits consideration.

However, as far as concerns the principle, I believe that this proposal will greatly improve the efficiency of parliamentary scrutiny of Bills. The Bills will be considered in draft before they are set in concrete. It is that much easier at that stage to meet criticisms, and thereby eliminate weaknesses, than would be the case later on. Further, I believe that your Lordships' House is very well fitted to fulfil that role. There is knowledge and experience in this House of virtually every subject under the sun. Indeed, your Lordships' House will have more time to do this job than the departmental Select Committees in another place. They have been allocated the job there but they are already heavily loaded with their existing work. Therefore, it would be an extremely valuable new function for your Lordships' House. I also hope that, when taking evidence, the committees will not only take evidence from Ministers and the departments concerned, but that they will also involve outside interests who are knowledgeable of the subjects concerned.

As I said, I greatly welcome the proposal. I give great credit to the Government for introducing draft Bills. I believe it is generally accepted throughout the House that this is a good move. There is no doubt in my mind that this early scrutiny of Bills, before they are set in concrete, will eventually save time on the Floor of the House when the proper Bill is introduced, especially as regards the Committee and remaining stages. It will produce better Bills and, above all, it will lead to better parliamentary scrutiny of legislation.

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for his kind words about the work of the committee. I am sure that members of that committee will also be most grateful for what he said. Perhaps I should remind your Lordships that the Liaison Committee is sympathetic to the general point which the noble Lord makes. I certainly endorse all that he said about the reputation and excellent work of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology.

However, the Select Committee on Committee Work of the House chaired by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, on which I had the privilege to serve with other noble Lords, reported in 1992. It recommended that there might well be occasions, because of the demands from your Lordships' House for committee work, when the Select Committee on Science and Technology should undertake only one inquiry a year. I would not want it to be thought—I am sure that the Liaison Committee is of this view—that that possibility has been ruled out. We must measure our work by the resources available. Nevertheless, as I have already indicated, the committee is very sympathetic to what the noble Lord has said about the splendid work done by that Select Committee.

I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Harptree. for his kind words about the recommendations made today by the Liaison Committee. It was characteristically kind of him to let me know before the House sat today that he was proposing to raise this point. As regards the noble Lord's point about continuity of membership, that is a matter for the Committee of Selection when the moment arises and then for your Lordships' House. However, I shall certainly ensure that the point he has made about continuity is borne in mind.

The Liaison Committee was most grateful to the noble Lord for the suggestion that he made back in the autumn of last year and which he renewed in time for us to consider it at the recent: meeting of the committee. As the noble Lord has seen from the recommendations made this afternoon by the committee, it was very sympathetic to the points that he has made.

On Question, Motion agreed to.