| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5.40 pm
Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne): It is clear that my right hon. Friend intends to be a reforming Leader of the House, following in the footsteps of Dick Crossman and Norman St. John-Stevas. The best time to undertake reform is in the early years of a Parliament and I am pleased that she is doing so.
I wish to make one point about our practice of calling hon. Members by their constituencies rather than by their names. I have always been proud to be the Member of Parliament for Ashton-under-Lyne. It is my constituency and I am here not because I am myself, but because I represent the people of my constituency. It would be a retrograde step if we were to abandon that practice.
The House is now a more full-time House than it has been in the past. One example is that, when I arrive in the morning, at 9 o'clock or sometimes earlier, many more hon. Members are around. Incidentally, the Vote Office is closed until 9.30 am, and we should change that so that it is open earlier for Members' convenience.
The main burden of today's debate is the scrutiny of legislation. We must remember that Standing Committees are really ad hoc committees and their members do not necessarily have any relevant expertise. They are brought together to scrutinise some legislation without necessarily having much of a background in the subject. Of course, some members will have some background knowledge, but the advantage of the involvement of a Select Committee is that its members do have a background in the subject.
The big problem with the way in which Standing Committees currently operate is that it involves the silent being hectored by the voluble. Members of the Standing Committee from the governing party do nothing, although they may be very able and well equipped to contribute. It is a major scandal that our legislation on important issues is dealt with in that way, but that has happened because the Opposition's principal weapon is the power of delay. The best example of the use of that power that I can recall was by Iain Macleod in 1967, when we introduced a Standing Committee to scrutinise the Finance Bill. Before that, Finance Bills were always taken on the Floor of the House. The then Leader of the House, Dick Crossman, suggested that the Finance Bill be taken in Committee, but that was wildly resented by the Opposition. Iain Macleod, the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, spent one and half days in Committee Room 10 talking about the temperature of the Room. That was very effective, because it brought about the realisation that the Opposition had rights. As a result, a sensible and effective compromise was reached, whereby the Opposition could choose matters for debate on the Floor of the House and other matters could be taken in Committee.
The problem now is that the Opposition's power of delay has been eroded, through the increased use of the guillotine. The Whips have also tended to use their power
to ensure that dissentient voices are not heard so frequently in Standing Committees. As a result, Standing Committees no longer resemble the bodies that existed in the past. I well recall the Rooker-Wise amendment, because I was the Financial Secretary to the Treasury at the time. The two Members of Parliament after whom the amendment was named could not be shut up, and when I heard that they were to be members of the Standing Committee I went straight to the Chief Whip and said that that would cost us £500 million. The actual cost was £1 billion, but those two hon. Members were right. However, that situation is not likely to happen often.
Another problem is that senior Ministers do not attend Standing Committees as they used to in the past. The Chancellor of the Exchequer used to handle the Finance Bill. Now it is not even the second Minister who attends, but the third Minister. If a senior Minister is present and has to go through the night, he or she tends to be more convinced by the Opposition's arguments. Now, the third Minister may complain about being kept all night, but the Secretary of State in charge gets up in the morning and waves the objections aside. That is understandable, because he or she wants the legislation to go through.
I have come to the conclusion, much to the disgust of many of my right hon. Friends, that the hopes of compromises in Committee have had their day. The Opposition can no longer use the power of delay in the same way, so we should now ensure that legislation is sensibly examined. On several occasions, legislation has fallen seriously below an acceptable standard, and that has happened when a Government have been sure that their actions were right and the Opposition--having only a truncated power of delay--fail to make any changes to it.
As a result, I now believe that timetabling is essential. Timetabling can be to the advantage of the Opposition, as well as the Government, because there must be a trade-off. The Government get their business through and the Opposition get time. That was the obvious trade-off in the past. In the past, the system was informal, but we must make it a little more formal, because the Opposition have the right to put their view and to be heard. I believe that timetabling will be the crucial issue affecting legislation. The most important date in the timetable is that for the Report stage, because a timetable is not so necessary after that.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is right to say that we need the confidence to undertake experiments. Not every aspect of the modernisation process will be right first time, but if we allow for some variation we can find ways to make more permanent changes. That is the way to proceed.
I wish to deal with one or two particular aspects of the very useful Select Committee report. Paragraph 37 talks about Acts being written in clear language, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred rightly to explanatory notes. The net could be more widely used, but a major problem is how the notes will be looked at by lawyers and others implementing the Acts and considering the intentions of Parliament.
I have particular personal experience of that because, 20-odd years ago, I introduced the benefits-in-kind legislation, under which people were to be charged income tax on the benefits that they received during their work. We went right through several nights running and I--with a small team in those days--tried to explain why
the measure was essential. To my surprise, many years later a procedure was introduced whereby what I said became a part of the intentions of the Government and was used to interpret the Act. I had to look at what I had said at 3 o'clock in the morning in the hope that it made sense. Luckily, it did. I am not sure how fortuitous that was.
Clearly, Ministers replying now try--as they should--to expound the principles behind an amendment or other measure, but they should try also to achieve some compromise wherever possible. If they have to bear it in mind that what they say will be interpreted in this way as part of the Act, they will be more constrained. I am uneasy about the fact that the explanatory notes--which are not intended to be a part of the Act--could be shown to give an understanding of what was behind Parliament's intentions. This was never considered 20 years ago, but is now part of the fabric of our legal system.
Paragraph 97 of the Modernisation Committee's report suggests that the Chairman could be given new powers to limit the length of speeches. Clearly, that would apply only when a filibuster was under way. In my experience of Standing Committees, that is much of the time. A greater problem is that, in a Committee, one can speak more than once. That is justifiable, because the point of a Committee is that, after listening to colleagues and to Opposition Members, one may find something that, perhaps, one had not thought of before. How will the Chairman be certain that a filibuster is taking place? Our colleagues are ingenious; they do not read out the telephone directory, as they know that the Chairman would not allow it.
The report referred to Select Committees meeting during the recess, and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred to the importance of Select Committees. Select Committees have met during the recess--one of the great things we saw was the enthusiasm for Select Committees, which I wholly admire. We need to improve their work. When I gave evidence to the Nolan committee, I found that, when I arrived there at 9 o'clock in the morning, the minutes of the previous day's meeting were available. When we have a Select Committee, we receive the minutes three weeks later. I know that special arrangements can be made to have them within 24 hours, but even that is not good enough. I spoke to Lord Nolan and those involved in his committee to see how they achieved that. I shall visit my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to discuss this--I do not expect an answer now.
What happens in Select Committees is important--frequently more important than occasions on the Floor of the House--and we need to get their proceedings involved in the parliamentary process. Hon. Members must come here with evidence from Committees and integrate it into a consideration of the political problems of the day. Many members of a Select Committee--Chairmen included--are asked to comment on the previous day's proceedings. They must be careful because, although they have privilege in the Committee, they do not when they appear on radio or television or are reported in the newspapers. They may not be sure exactly what was said, unless they have the minutes.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |