House of Commons Hansard Debates for 7 Nov 1995

Mr. Michael: We certainly take pleasure in this amendment because the Opposition pressed the Government strongly to ensure that the administrative functions of the authority and the appeals panel would come within the jurisdiction of the ombudsman. We strongly believe that that is necessary to ensure the proper administration and operation of the various elements of the Bill.

I should be grateful if the Minister could provide a little clarification on the exclusions contained in the proposed new clause. As he said, the wording is complex but the principle is clear. However, it is possible within complex wording for things easily to slip out of sight.

There are two elements on which I should like clarification. First, subsection (2) appears to exclude certain actions from investigation. How will that operate? Can we be absolutely certain that nothing will be excluded from the scrutiny of the ombudsman which this House would wish him properly to scrutinise? What will be the precise effect of the proposed new clause on the question of exclusion?

Secondly, subsection (3) refers to three places in the Bill where, effectively, the actions of officials are defined as not being taken by the Secretary of State or on his behalf. The Minister will recall that we commented on that when the House debated the Bill. We were concerned that the exclusion of actions of officials from being acts taken by or on behalf of the Secretary of State might mean that they were not properly scrutinised by the ombudsman. It appears that those actions are still omitted from the effects of the proposed new clause. Can the Minister reassure me on that point?

The Minister said that the new clause was a complicated addition to the Bill. We wish to ensure that something that we want scrutinised does not, through an oversight at this stage, drop off the agenda or be considered to be outside the capacity of the ombudsman. I should be grateful for as much clarification of that issue as the Minister can give me.

Mr. Maclean: We hope that there has been no oversight. The drafting is as accurate as parliamentary draftsmen can make it, but it has some clear aims. Through the drafting of the various subsections, we aim to apply the powers of the ombudsman, in full, to certain aspects of the scheme--the normal areas of government that the ombudsman can examine. What is not included is a decision on the merits of an award. Initially, that is a matter for the scheme officials to decide. It is not for the ombudsman to say, "I think Mrs. Smith should have got £20,000, not £15,000." Decisions on the merits are not for the ombudsman. Subsection (3) of the proposed new clause outlines the exceptions.

Similarly, as there is an appeals process built in, it is not for the ombudsman to become the appellate authority for people who are disgruntled with the quality of the decision on its merits. There is an appeal body for that. Nor is it the ombudsman's place to question ministerial policy, whether there should be a tariff scheme at all or whether it would be better done another way. We have therefore tried to apply in law the duties of the ombudsman to administrative action by the civil servants running the scheme.

Column 743

We have attempted faithfully to make the powers that the ombudsman requires in this instance the same as in every other aspect of government. Administrative action would encompass things such as delays, failure to process the paperwork within a reasonable time or failure to process it at all, not implementing the scheme properly or failing to implement it as laid down. Those are administrative actions. We believe that we have got it right.

Mr. Michael: I should like a little more clarification. The Minister said that the merits of the case would perhaps lead a claims officer to decide whether an applicant should receive £20,000 rather than £10,000. He seeks to exclude that decision--the way in which a decision is made on the merits of the case--from investigation by the ombudsman. I understand what he is saying, but does he agree that the ways in which such a decision was reached--whether proper information was sought, whether clarification was sought if necessary, and whether the papers were examined properly--are administrative actions, as distinct from the judgment based on them, and would be a proper matter for the ombudsman? Clarification would be helpful.

Mr. Maclean: What the hon. Gentleman has described is, I suspect and hope, the exact legal position. A judgment on what a person should get is a quasi-judicial decision outwith the purview of the ombudsman. However, if in coming to that conclusion the official did not operate the scheme properly but failed to contact the applicant or check the forms and did not take a medical report as was perhaps required and then made a judgment based on that, it would seem prima facie to be a case of maladministration. That is the type of behaviour that ombudsmen are there to investigate. I hope that that clarifies the position for the hon. Gentleman.

Lords amendment agreed to .

Clause 10

Parliamentary control

Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 6, line 34, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 38, and insert--

("Before making the Scheme, the Secretary of State shall lay a draft of it before Parliament.

(1A) The Secretary of State shall not make the Scheme unless the draft has been approved by a resolution of each House.

(2) Before making any alteration to the Tariff or to any provision of")

Mr. Maclean: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 13.

There is a manuscript amendment to Lords amendment No. 13, to leave out from `(4B)' to end of line 17 and insert

`Where the Secretary of State is required to lay a statement before Parliament under the provisions of subsection (4A) above, he shall not give effect to the altered provision unless the statement has been approved by a resolution of each House.'.

Mr. Maclean: These amendments are inter-related and it may be helpful if I deal with them in two sub-groups.

Column 744

Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 11 and 13 change significantly the extent of Parliament's control over the scheme. The Bill, on introduction, required the Secretary of State to lay a copy of the tariff and any subsequent alterations to it before Parliament. It also required the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament statements of other `key provisions' made by the scheme, namely those bearing on quantum. Under the amendments, however, the Secretary of State will now be required to lay a draft of the scheme in its entirety before Parliament. The scheme will not be able to start until that draft has been approved by both Houses under the affirmative resolution procedure. Thus specific parliamentary approval will be required for every aspect of the new arrangements before we can kick off. Once the new scheme has started, any changes to it, however minor, will also be subject to parliamentary control. Changes to the tariff itself and to the key features of the scheme will require approval by the affirmative resolution procedure, while changes to the more minor, more routine features will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. We think that that strikes the right balance, requiring Parliament positively to approve changes to the more important aspects of the scheme, while leaving Parliament the choice as to whether changes to more minor matters should go through with or without a debate and with or without a vote.

The amendments make it quite clear where ultimate control over the scheme rests. The Executive will of course still be able to propose changes, but it cannot give them effect without recourse to Parliament.

Amendment Nos. 10 and 12 will have the effect of requiring more features of the scheme to be subject to parliamentary approval by the affirmative resolution procedure should change be considered necessary or desirable once the scheme has started. Those features relate to the appeals provision of the scheme.

Amendment No. 10 makes it clear that, before any changes can be made to a provision of the scheme which gives a right of appeal, or which specifies the circumstances in which an appeal is to be dealt with by an oral hearing, parliamentary approval by the affirmative resolution procedure will be necessary. Amendment No. 12 is minor and consequential. Effectively, therefore, any provision of the scheme which touches on eligibility for an appeal or the circumstances in which an oral hearing can be granted is caught.

More minor provisions relating in the main to more technical or administrative matters can still fall to be changed only by the negative resolution procedure. That will mean of course that if Parliament does not like even minor changes, it will still be able to pray against them and make its dissent known in that way. Perhaps it would be sensible at this stage to say a word or two about the Opposition amendment. As I hope that I have explained and will be clear from the Lords amendments to clause 10, the degree of parliamentary control has changed significantly. Before the whole scheme can come into force, Parliament must approve it by affirmative resolution. We are then suggesting that the key features of the scheme, if we wish to change them in future, can by changed only by affirmative resolution. Everything else, all the hundreds of minor and technical things, could still be changed only by negative resolution procedure.

Column 745

The Opposition amendment seeks to make every change in future subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I happen to think that that is just a bit over the top. It would not be a good use of Parliament's time to have to approve any change, however uncontentious, technical or minor, by the affirmative procedure. I understand the thinking behind what the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth is trying to do. I hope that he will be satisfied, however, that, since we have put in the affirmative resolution procedure before the thing can start, and we are keeping its use for the scheme's key points, the negative procedure will be satisfactory to deal with the other parts of the scheme if we wish to change them in future.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the Minister for seeking to reassure us that he intends to use the negative resolution route only for uncontentious issues. The problem is that the Government have not defined what those uncontentious issues are and have not limited in their definition the areas of activity which could be covered under the negative resolution procedure.

The Minister has rightly identified and, indeed, expanded on something that we support: those elements which have to go through the affirmative resolution procedure. In particular, we welcome the fact that the amendments bring the most important aspects of the appeals procedure within the key features of the scheme, and therefore require such changes in the appeals procedures to be undertaken through the affirmative resolution procedure rather than the negative resolution procedure.

The Minister needs to explain, however, how the scheme will operate and how he intends to use the powers. The clause, as it originally stood, referring not to the scheme but to the tariff only, was entirely framed in terms of affirmative resolution. The negative resolution elements were introduced in another place.

The Minister referred to the issues that could be covered by the negative resolution procedure as "everything else". I think that he will accept that that is rather a portmanteau way of describing the matter. That is why we have tabled an amendment which seeks to bring the whole scheme under the affirmative resolution procedure, which of course is what we sought when the Bill first came before the House and before it went to another place.

I shall give two examples of issues that would be contentious. Perhaps the Minister will tell us that they would not be dealt with other than through the affirmative resolution process. First, there is the appointment of the scheme manager and, secondly, there is the possible and highly contentious avenue for the Government to pursue of contractorisation of the operation of the criminal injuries compensation scheme. We would like the Minister to reassure us that there is no way in which such issues will be pursued without them coming before the House and another place, which will ensure that the full support of Parliament is given to such a contentious decision. 4.15 pm

In that context, we have tabled our amendment. The matters that will have to be dealt with through the affirmative resolution procedure are specified to some

Column 746

extent. The issues that are not specified would come under the negative resolution procedure. I have just referred to two matters that are not defined as coming under the affirmative resolution procedure and about which there is, therefore, doubt and concern. We are concerned that in those two matters, the Government may pursue the dogmatic approach adopted elsewhere. That would surely be wrong in relation to such an important aspect of public administration as compensation for victims of the most serious crimes.

We understand that it is likely that the Minister or the Home Secretary will bring the scheme and the tariff, in their final form, before the House very soon after the Queen's Speech, when Parliament reassembles. In that case, it is extremely important that we should have some assurances from the Minister about the way in which the remaining issues will be dealt with. It is, of course, the case that under the affirmative resolution procedure, although the House is able to have a say before anything is implemented, it cannot amend legislation. The House can only accept or reject it.

In general, there have been improvements in the scheme. I commend the Minister on one point. He has made the scheme and amended schemes available so that proper debate has been able to take place and discussion has been possible with those who have specialist knowledge. That is welcome and is an improvement on the way in which other legislation has been dealt with. I commend the Minister on being much more open than has been the case on other occasions in terms of allowing proper debate. That may lead him into all sorts of difficulties with the Government, but the Opposition welcome his openness, as do those outside the House who have taken a detailed interest in the matter. It is only right that the Minister's openness in that regard should be acknowledged and praised in the House. There are still issues that have to be dealt with and I hope that the Minister can reassure us that there will continue to be improvements to them and consideration of them. Three obvious elements on which I hope he will give us reassurance are how pregnancy following rape is to be dealt with, how age and sex criteria are to be dealt with and whether multiple injuries will be dealt with in the way that the Minister has been urged to adopt. During the passage of the Bill, a number of other issues were referred to as matters that would be dealt with under the provisions of the scheme. There is still the question of the qualifications of those who deal with appeals and their ability, as a team, to advise the Government and to be proactive in terms of changes that are needed in the scheme.

The Minister knows that reassurances were given in debates in another place about the way in which care costs would be dealt with and he has received representations on how care costs can be linked to earning capacity. Again, there are fears that the Government's intentions will not be met. It is possible for a person to be providing care without there being any effect on that person's earning capacity. Although that person may have lost considerable time in which he or she could have been, in theory, earning, that is not the same as having one's earnings capacity affected. The earning capacity remains the same, but the amount of time available for earning has changed, which is a different matter. Linking that issue to earning capacity does not take account of the fact that many carers would not have earning capacity as such. The

Column 747

carers might have been parents or spouses not in work and not intending to be in work when called upon to undertake care responsibilities. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that these issues will be dealt with in a constructive way and that they will be covered properly when the measure to approve the scheme and the tariff comes before the House early in the next Session. The treatment of psychiatric injury remains a matter of concern. The definition contained in the latest draft of the scheme still leaves aspects to be covered, and I know that the Minister has received representations on the issue of railway suicides. There is concern that the way in which that matter is dealt with may result in railway staff being excluded from bringing a psychiatric injury claim, even though they are specifically included in paragraph 9(d) of the scheme.

The issues dealt with in relation to psychiatric injury include such aspects as loss of earnings. We have stated that damage could be done to those who are not able to claim during the 28 weeks after an injury, and particularly those who are unable to claim sick pay. Others might be disadvantaged due to the level of sick pay being considerably lower than what they would have obtained in employment. These issues must be dealt with by the provisions of the amendment through the affirmative resolution procedure.

It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate that he is still willing to respond to the serious points which have been made in another place and outside Parliament. The scheme and the tariff that the Minister will bring forward for consideration by this House in the near future must deal fully with all of the issues which have been brought to his attention. The amendment which the Opposition have tabled seeks to make the whole of the scheme subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The devil is in the detail in criminal injury compensation and the detail is in the scheme and the tariff.

The House must not allow its authority over important elements of detail in the scheme to be diminished. We are concerned that the amendment tabled by the Minister tabled this afternoon contains some indeterminate elements. I have given two examples of issues which could be dealt with by negative resolution, and which could be implemented in advance of the opinion of both Houses of Parliament being obtained.

Mr. Maclean: First, may I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for his kindness and courtesy? I am the perfect epitome of the remark, "I am from the Government--I am here to help you", and I am well known for my compassionate and caring approach. It would be fair--and perhaps more honest--to thank my staff, and particularly my private office staff, who have constantly reminded me when another letter to a shadow spokesman is due and that it might be helpful to lay out the main features of the Bill. Without that reminder, the hon. Gentleman would not have been able to thank me for being so helpful.

I should point out that what is to be done by affirmative resolution is clearly laid down by statute. We will operate the system in future in accordance with the law as set out in the Bill. Clause 10 states that the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament the tariff which he proposes and any alteration that he proposes to make to that tariff.

Column 748

Clause 10(4) states that the tariff must be approved by a resolution of the House. Clause 10(2) states that measures to be laid before Parliament include any provision to deal with any additional amount,

"the circumstances in which compensation may be payable with respect to a criminal injury of a kind for which no provision is made by the Tariff . . . the calculation of compensation in respect of multiple injuries . . . compensation payable in respect of children conceived as a result of rape . . . the circumstances in which an award may be withheld or compensation reduced.. any limit on compensation imposed by a provision made by virtue of section 2(7)(a)."

All of those things are specified in the Bill, which we hope will shortly be an Act, and can be altered only be affirmative resolution. In addition, of course, we have the amendments that we are considering today. It is true to say that we are setting some key and important issues on one side. We have responded to concerns expressed in the House, in Committee and in the other place by making all the matters that most worried parliamentary colleagues subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

We think that we have got the draft scheme about right now. We found it helpful to publish the draft. Following comments from colleagues, the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, the Law Society, experts in the other place and others, the draft has been altered. We are almost at the final stage, but we are still listening and willing to hear any representations that we have not yet heard on how we see the tariff scheme operating in practice.

Following all the consultation and the tweaking that we have done, we think that we have got the tariff scheme about right and as good as it possibly can be. However, it is not set in stone. Medical knowledge improves and changes all the time. Legal knowledge changes. If in future years we become convinced that a change has to be made to a category, type or sub-division of injury or that multiple injuries could be dealt with better--although I am not convinced of that at present--it would be open to us to alter the tariff by affirmative resolution or, if it is a minor matter, by the negative procedure. I hope that I have been able to satisfy the hon. Gentleman on those points.

Mr. Michael: The Minister spoke rapidly. A phrase which answered my two questions may have flashed by me, but I do not recall him dealing with the appointment of a scheme manager or the possibility of contractorisation, which I hope is unlikely, but must be a possibility with this Government. Could those matters be dealt with other than by affirmative resolution? Will he reassure us on those two points?

Mr. Maclean: I can only repeat the assurances that I gave in Committee that we had no proposals to do either of those things. I cannot forecast what will happen in the future, but I suspect that the workload of the organisation and the need to get the scheme bedded down mean that the matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers are not a prospect in the immediate future.

We will be bound by the Act. The appointment of a scheme manager and contractorisation are not covered by clause 10. I do not believe that primary legislation would be necessary to make those changes. Changes to the administration of the scheme would be made by the negative resolution procedure. Neither the affirmative nor negative procedure might be necessary if the relevant sections of the Act have given the Secretary of State the

Column 749

authority to make such changes. The matters to which the hon. Gentleman refers are not covered by clause 10, which requires the affirmative resolution procedure.

Mr. Michael: With the leave of the House. The Minister has confirmed what we believe to be wrong with the state in which we have ended up, even though there is a requirement for affirmative resolution on some matters. As I understand the Minister's reply, the Government would be able to deal with matters such as the appointment of a scheme manager or even contractorisation, which would take criminal injury compensation decisions outside the scope of public servants, without having to return to the House under an affirmative resolution. Indeed, the Minister seemed to go further and suggested that the Government might not need the approval of the House at all. As the Minister gave the strongest assurances earlier in the passage of the Bill through the House that the Government had no intention of going down that road and as it is the clear intention of both Houses that affirmative resolution should be the avenue for the most important aspects of the Bill, it would be entirely wrong for the Government to take criminal injury compensation decisions outside the scope of public servants or appoint a scheme manager without coming back and putting specific resolutions to the House.

We should be quite clear. The Government have no right to congratulate themselves on the Bill. The Home Secretary acted illegally in trying to introduce the new scheme without any parliamentary scrutiny. That was the Bill's gestation period--the Home Secretary's attempt to avoid the scrutiny of the House. The Government were dragged kicking and screaming into accepting that the scheme should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny by affirmative resolution. When we last debated these issues only the tariff was to be subject to the approval of the House.

4.30 pm

I welcome the fact that we have won from the Government the concession that the scheme itself is to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and the scrutiny of the House. That still leaves the victims of violent crime without compensation for loss of income for 28 weeks after the injury. The Minister should recall that, with statutory sick pay at about £52.50 per week, it is

Column 750

hardly an adequate recompense for those who are unable to work because of a serious criminal injury. Many people are not entitled to statutory sick pay, including the self-employed, those on a low income and those on short-term contracts. Some people might still be entitled to incapacity benefit, but that is no more generous than statutory sick pay. Others will get income support, which is even less than SSP.

There is considerable variation. Taking all the factors together, however, it has been calculated that 12 million people--at least half of those in employment--do not receive full pay during the first 28 weeks of sickness and will, therefore, be at risk under the Bill. They will be worse off.

This remains a scheme that cuts the amount of cash available for the victims of violent crime. The Government have admitted that £700 million is being cut from the cash available during the next five years. That amounts to a theft of £700 million by the Government from the victims who have been damaged most by the nastiest and most brutal of crimes. That is a 40 per cent. drop in expenditure for the Government and many victims will suffer as a result. The Government have made victims pay for their failure to stem the rise of violent crime. Instead of cutting violent crime, the Government have cut the help available to the victims.

I perceive from the Minister's response that our amendment would not have succeeded in doing what we had hoped, which was to ensure that the Government could not undermine the operation of the scheme without an affirmative resolution from this House.

Despite the improvements that the legislation makes in the processes and the introduction of a tariff, money for the victims of violent crime will still be cut by £700 million in the next five years. I have some satisfaction, therefore, at our success in persuading the Government to introduce more satisfactory procedures and make the operation of the scheme subject to the parliamentary ombudsman, but I nevertheless regret that the Bill will be detrimental to the victims of crime and the victims of the most violent crimes in particular. That should be at the forefront of our minds as we reach this final stage in the Bill's passage through the Houses of Parliament.

Lords amendment agreed to .

Lords amendments Nos. 9 to 13 agreed to .

Column 751

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Insurance

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.), That the draft Insurance Brokers (Registration) Act 1977 (Amendment) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 16th October, be approved.-- [Mr. Knapman.]

Question agreed to.

International Immunities and Privileges

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.), That the draft Vienna Document 1994 (Privileges and Immunities) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 16th October, be approved.-- [Mr. Knapman.]

Question agreed to.

Northern Ireland

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.), That the draft Financial Provisions (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 17th October, be approved.-- [Mr. Knapman.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

Reform of the Rice Regime

That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 9532/95, and 9379/95, relating to the reform of the rice regime; and supports the Government's efforts to ensure that the proposals when adopted will encourage the competitiveness of rice growing and milling in the European Union after the Uruguay Round, that high quality supplies will reach consumers at reasonable prices and that the regime will be capable of effective enforcement.-- [Mr. Knapman.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

Social Action Programme 1995-97 and Promotion of Employment

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 6827/95, the Commission's Medium Term Social Action Programme 1995-97; endorses the Government's view that European Community social policy should focus on helping to tackle unemployment, creating the conditions which encourage the creation of new jobs, and on improving the competitiveness of Community businesses, and should avoid further unnecessary legislation; takes note of European Community Document No. 5663/95, relating to the Employment Conclusions of the Essen European Council; and welcomes the fact that the Heads of Government of the European Community have recognised at successive European Councils the importance of tackling the high levels of structural unemployment in the Community.-- [Mr. Knapman.]

Question agreed to.

Column 752

Select Committees[ Relevant document: The Fourth Special Report of the Employment Committee, Session 1994-95, on the proposed changes to Standing Order No. 130 (H.C. 826). ]

4.32 pm

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,

That Standing Order No. 130 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended--

(1) with effect from the beginning of the next Session-- (a) by inserting the following item after item 10 in the Table in paragraph (2):

"Public Service/Office of Public Service (but excluding the drafting of bills by the Parliamentary Counsel Office)/11/3"; (b) in item 14 in the said Table, after the word `Industry' in column 2, by inserting the words `(but excluding the Office of Science and Technology)';

(c) in item 16 in the said Table, by leaving out the words "and Civil Service" in column 1 and, in column 2, the words from "Treasury" in line 65 to "Board" in line 69; and

(d) in paragraph (3) by leaving out the words `and Civil Service'; and

(2) with effect from Friday 1st March--

(a) by leaving out items 3 and 4 in the Table in paragraph (2) and inserting the following item:

"Education and Employment/Department for Education and Employment/13/4"; and

(b) in paragraph (3) by inserting at the beginning the words "The Education and Employment Committee,".

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I have to announce that Madam Speaker has selected amendment (c), which should be moved at the conclusion of the debate.

Mr. Newton: In moving this motion, I initiate another exciting House of Commons occasion, although I hope not as exciting as the one in which we all took part yesterday.

The motion seeks to adjust the Select Committee structure of the House to match the changes in the machinery of government which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced in July. I was anxious to get these matters resolved quickly because, as the House appreciates, I very much value the work of Select Committees and I wanted to make sure that we had a clear new structure in place before the start of the new Session.

What I propose follows the principle, which is now well established, of one Committee for each major Department, which the House last reaffirmed in June 1992 when it agreed to discontinue the Energy Committee and to set up a new Select Committee to monitor the Department of National Heritage and the Office of Science and Technology.

It might help the House if I digress briefly to make it clear that there has never been any intention on the part of the Government of doing away, as some feared, with the Science and Technology Committee. The Office of Science and Technology still exists in the same form as before the reorganisation; all that has happened to it is that it has migrated from one parent Department to another. The Science and Technology Committee will continue to oversee its activities at its new location.

Column 753

I propose that the changes that I am putting forward to the Select Committee structure should be brought into effect in two stages. The first instalment, which is to take effect next week with the new Session, recognises the expanded role of the Office of Public Service under my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The OPS is now responsible not only for the civil service and the citizens charter but for competitiveness and the deregulation initiative. Those important areas of policy should now, we propose, be scrutinised by a new Public Service Committee, which is established by virtue of paragraph (1)(a) of the motion.

Other Committees, not least the Treasury and Civil Service Committee and the Trade and Industry Committee, obviously have an interest in the competitiveness agenda, but I am sure that the well-tried machinery of the Liaison Committee, so ably presided over by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Sir T. Higgins), will prevent any overlapping of Committee activity. I should emphasise that the role of the Deregulation Committee, which we established under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, in scrutinising individual deregulation orders as they come forward is not affected by this proposal.

As a consequence of that change, paragraph (l)(c) of the motion renames the Treasury and Civil Service Committee more simply and precisely as the Treasury Committee and amends its remit so as to remove the references to the responsibilities taken over by the new Public Service Committee. Under paragraph (l)(d), the Treasury Committee will keep the power to appoint a Sub-Committee, but clearly any such Sub-Committee could no longer deal with civil service issues.

Paragraph (l)(b) makes it clear that the remit of the Trade and Industry Committee does not include the Office of Science and Technology, which, as I have said, will continue to be monitored by the Science and Technology Committee.

The second instalment of the changes I propose is to come into operation on 1 March 1996. We propose in paragraph (2)(a) to take account of the disappearance of a separate Employment Department by establishing a new Committee with 13 members, to monitor the full range of functions of the new Department for Education and Employment, which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister created to reduce the divisions between academic and vocational education and to strengthen further the links between employers and the educational world of schools, colleges and universities.

Under paragraph (2)(b) of the motion, the new Education and Employment Committee will have the power to appoint a Sub-Committee if it so wishes. The creation of that new Committee, in line with what I must describe as the House's settled policy of matching Committees to Departments, necessarily means that the existing separate Committees on education and on employment need to be wound up, but I propose that that should not happen for nearly four months. The intention is to allow the existing Committees a reasonable period in which to complete the work that they have already started, which I hope they will be able to do. The Employment Committee has expressed concern about the prospects for the unfinished inquiries that it has under way at the moment. The proposal that the Committee should continue until 1 March 1996 seeks to respond to that concern.

Column 754

Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West): Will the Leader of the House give way?

Mr. Newton: I will give way, but I had understood that the hon. and learned Gentleman intended to make a speech. If an intervention can substitute for a speech, I would wish to co-operate with him.

Mr. Janner: That is not a basis on which I would wish to ask the Minister any question that I have.

Next Section

Home Page