HL Deb 16 February 2000 vol 609 cc1228-32

3.15 p.m.

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 (HL Paper 27) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

Following is the report referred to:

APPOINTMENT OF A FURTHER AD HOC COMMITTEE 1. The Committee has considered what further ad hoc committee should follow the Select Committee on the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, which reported in July 1999. We have had regard to the desirability of complementing rather than overlapping with the work of House of Commons committees. Two proposals have been made to us.

MONETARY POLICY 2. The Select Committee on the Monetary Policy, Committee of the Bank of England commented as follows in the preface to its Report (HL Paper 96, Session 1998–99): When the Liaison Committee recommended the establishment of this Committee it invited us to consider whether the subject matter warranted the appointment of a permanent sessional scrutiny committee. It has become clear to us during our enquiry that the time allowed for us has been sufficient only to scratch the surface of a vast and developing subject. We are mindful, in reporting to the House, that our Report can only be a mere introduction to a new policy that requires in-depth and continuing scrutiny. We beg, leave of the House to consider the reappointment of the Committee in the new session as a permanent Select Committee. Without a Committee such as ours the Monetary Policy Committee would effectively cease to be accountable to one of the two Houses of Parliament. That proposal was supported in a paper submitted to us by Lord Peston, Chairman of the Committee.

THE IMPACT OF TUITION FEES ON STUDENT RECRUITMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION 3. Lord Rix submitted a paper to us proposing the appointment of a select committee on the impact of fees on student recruitment in higher education. He noted that the number of mature students applying for and entering higher education had fallen in 1999/2000 and suggested that a House of Lords committee could usefully seek evidence as to the nature and extent of the problem and propose means of tackling it.

RECOMMENDATION 4. Lord Rix's proposal relates to a topical subject in relation to which the House has a considerable body or expertise. On the other hand it is a subject which falls squarely within the terms of reference of the House of Commons Education and Employment Committee, and we would not wish to risk duplicating the work of that Committee. 5. We recognise the strength of the case for reappointing the Select Committee on the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, but we are not at this stage persuaded of the case for a permanent sessional committee on that specific subject. A more broadly based Economic Committee might represent a more effective use of resources, and we propose to consider the matter further in due course. 6. In the meantime we recommend that a further ad hoc Select Committee on the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England be appointed for a period of not more than a year, and we do not recommend the appointment of a committee on the impact of tees on student recruitment in higher education.

FUTURE COMMITTEE ACTIVITY 7. We have before us proposals for a range of other select committee activity in the House: —The Government have announced proposals for Joint Committees on Human Rights and on House of Lords Reform. —The Royal Commission on Reform of the House of Lords has made a range of proposals for committee activity, some of them not necessarily dependent on further reform of the composition of the House. —These proposals include one for the appointment of a Constitutional Committee, supported in a submission made to us by Lord Alexander of Weedon. —The Royal Commission specifically referred back to us a proposal made to us a year ago by Lord Lester of Herne Hill for a committee to scrutinise treaties. We have postponed further examination of the proposal because the House of Commons Procedure Committee has just begun a short inquiry into Parliamentary scrutiny of treaties. —There are likely to be further proposals for the pre-legislative scrutiny of draft bills. 8. The implementation of all these proposals would have longterm implications for the resources of the House - members to serve, staff to support them, accommodation for the committees and their staff, and expenditure on the House of Lords Vote. 9. We propose, therefore, to undertake at our next meeting a general review of the House's committee activity, on the basis of a paper to be prepared for us by the Clerk of the Parliaments.

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe

My Lords, a number of projected changes are outlined in the report. Paragraph 8 states that, The implementation of all these proposals would have long-term implications for the resources of the House—members to serve, staff to support them, accommodation for the committees and their staff, and expenditure on the House of Lords Vote". The committees will no doubt serve a useful function, but they are only one of a number of substantial changes currently taking place in your Lordships' House. All those changes will involve increasing expenditure. I wonder whether it is not time that the Chairman of Committees organised his relevant supporters in committees to have a look at the entire expenditure of the House.

I have in the past drawn attention to what I regard as extravagances—among others, the resurfacing of the car park at the front of the building at a cost of £2.5 million when no one can see anything wrong with it. We are in a position where we are committed to expenditure without ever going back to look at it to see whether there are not some compensatory savings in the great changes which are to take place in the way in which the House operates.

I ask the Chairman of Committees to consider the matter extremely seriously. We know what happens to such reports: once this report is approved, as it will be today, in future when a noble Lord challenges any aspect of it he will be told that the House has already approved it. The implications of more expenditure should be faced up to and we should be looking for compensatory savings elsewhere; otherwise, we shall be told, "You say that you have made yourselves more democratic, more legitimate and so forth, but look at the cost of it". There will be people in tabloid papers and so on who would like to make a great meal of that point.

Lord Barnett

My Lords, I welcome paragraph 6 of the report, where the House authorities—if I may put it that way—have accepted and recommended that the Select Committee on the Bank of England should be set up again. Perhaps I may first ask the Chairman of Committees why it has taken until now to do it, when it was quite clear that all sides of your Lordships' House, as long ago as November, had agreed that that should be done?

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I am concerned about the implications referred to in paragraph 8, which I believe are more serious than the points raised by my noble friend. The commit tee seems to have the matter the wrong way round. It is important for your Lordships to decide which Select Committees are required and then to decide the necessary resources. One should bear in mind that the House spends far less than another place on important matters, such as Select Committees. That is the way that it should be done.

When the general review referred to in paragraph 9 is considered on the basis of a report by the Clerk of the Parliaments, I ask the Chairman of Committees to ensure that the Clerk be clearly instructed that his report should be purely factual. I also ask that your Lordships' House decide which Select Committees are required in future on the basis of a report from the committee, and then decide on and find the resources available.

Lord Jenkin of Roding

My Lords, I share the pleasure of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, about paragraph 6 of the report, but only on the basis that half a loaf is, I suppose, better than a full one. I am sorry: a full loaf would be better than a half. This concerns one of the Government's major changes of policy. It is now common ground between all parties that the Monetary Policy Committee is the body that will determine the control of interest rates in the country. This is a long-term institutional change which will need to be kept under regular scrutiny.

It has been said before—indeed, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House acknowledged it when I raised the point on a previous occasion—that there is a great deal of expertise in your Lordships' House on the matters which fall within the purview of the Monetary Policy Committee. I find it astonishing that even now the Liaison Committee cannot see its way to establishing the Select Committee as a permanent part of the machinery of the House. Can the Chairman of Committees say whether this is just pending the consideration of the matters referred to in paragraphs 7 and 8, or are we going to have, as it were, a curious procedure whereby the Select Committee on the Monetary Policy Committee will be reappointed every year as a one-off? I would regard that as a very unsatisfactory way of approaching what is an important function of the House.

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, asked about paragraph 8 and related expenditure. Perhaps I may say, in answer both to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who asked a question on a related point, that the principle on which the Liaison Committee, your Lordships' House and the Clerk of the Parliaments have proceeded in the past is that the first and most important consideration is the requirements of the House. It has been understood that if the House requires something to be done, steps will be taken to see that it can be done. But I have to say—I hope with the approval of your Lordships—that there are certain considerations dependent on that.

First, the provision has to be made for any additional expenditure required to implement those proposals. Secondly, in providing for, for example, staff resources, there has to be time in order for any additional staff required to be appointed. We have always benefited in your Lordships' House from the high quality of our staff. One cannot necessarily recruit overnight additional members of staff of the high quality that we require. It takes a certain amount of time. Those are the two major restraints—the provision of money and the provision of staff—which clearly need to be satisfied before we can proceed. But the underlying principle—the noble Lord who made this point is quite right—is that the House decides what it would like to see implemented.

The second point concerns the amount of time which has elapsed since the last ad hoc committee on monetary policy reported. That point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and touched on the by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. It was thought that it would be right for the Liaison Committee, in considering the proposal to reappoint the Monetary Policy Committee either on an ad hoc basis or on a permanent basis, to be in a position at least to give interim consideration to any relevant proposals which were made by the Royal Commission on the House of Lords. As one member of the Liaison Committee, I can say that that seems to be a prudent course to have taken. The committee itself therefore gave some preliminary consideration to those proposals, as your Lordships will have seen from the report.

So far as concerns the future of any committee on monetary policy or a rather wider one, I simply point out that consideration was given to that matter at the meeting of the Liaison Committee and it appears in the report. Whether or not a recommendation is to be made to your Lordships in due course after the next Liaison Committee meeting—a recommendation, say, for the Monetary Policy Committee to be appointed on a permanent basis, or on a further ad hoc basis, or on a rather wider basis whereby it would be transformed into a wider economic committee—remains to be considered. It will be considered at the next meeting of the Liaison Committee. There was a good deal of sympathy for the idea that the Monetary Policy Committee should be continued, as can be seen from the report. There was, however, quite a strong body of opinion within the committee that the terms of reference of such a committee should be broadened in the way indicated. Some of the points made today are among the very ones which the Liaison Committee will consider when it returns to this matter at its meeting. Its next meeting will not be very long in coming.

I hope that those points have done something to meet the concerns raised by noble Lords who have spoken. I am very grateful indeed to the noble Lords, Lord Barnett and Lord Jenkin of Roding, for their thanks to the Liaison Committee. I shall certainly see to it that their thanks are passed on.

Lord Peston

My Lords, will the noble Lord use his good offices in a particular way? He has been very reassuring in saying that it is his view that the wishes of your Lordships' House should dominate decisions in these matters. However, I am sure he is aware that one of our problems is that we normally deal with the reports of the Liaison Committee and other committees immediately after Questions when all the pressure on us is, first, not to get up and, secondly, not to speak at any length. I feel that pressure on me at this very moment. Will the noble Lord at least use his very strong position of authority to speak to the usual channels and say that at some point we would not mind a debate on precisely what he says; namely, what it is that your Lordships would like to see done about committees and other related matters, including expenditure? If we had a fair amount of time, we could have a very constructive debate. But we never do have any time because everyone wants to get on with the next debate.

The Chairman of Committees

My Lords, I cannot, of course, speak for the usual channels. They will have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has had to say. I must confess, however, that on a number of occasions in the past I have not noticed any marked reticence on the part of certain of your Lordships. Indeed, I have been either the beneficiary or the victim of prolonged debates on some of these reports.

On Question, Motion agreed to.