| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Winterton: Indeed. That is why I have raised the issue. I have raised it in the Modernisation Committee, through correspondence with the Leader of the House and, for that matter, correspondence with the Whips, of both the Government and Opposition parties. The Leader of the House has taken the matter on board. Clearly, the House will have to take it into account in reaching a decision tonight.
I want to be positive in respect of the role that I play as Chairman of the Procedure Committee. The Committee is sympathetic to the Modernisation Committee's proposal as it provides more time for debates, which all hon. Members may attend. That is particularly pertinent as devolution will necessitate some changes in the way in which the House operates and conducts its business.
One of the problems that the Procedure Committee has had to consider in its inquiry on the procedural consequences of devolution has been the future of Grand Committees, which currently comprise a set of the House's Committees. As many hon. Members will be aware, before devolution, such Committees provided a mechanism whereby hon. Members representing parts of the United Kingdom with distinctive identities--Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland--could present their views. Now, the new devolved legislatures will themselves be able to make representations to the United Kingdom Government. Therefore--in my view, and that of my Committee--there is no need for such double representation.
None the less, devolution should not mean that there should be no debate at Westminster on matters relating to Scotland or Wales. My Committee and I believe that
many of the matters previously referred to Grand Committees--such as the implications of the Budget for Wales--will remain proper and desirable subjects for debate in the House. However, as our report states, the Procedure Committee was attracted to the principle
The increased opportunity for debate offered by Westminster Hall means that debates on matters relating to Scotland, Wales or--dare I add it--even England could be taken in a forum in which all hon. Members could participate, be it in the Commons Committee, in Westminster Hall, or the Chamber itself. Indeed, the Procedure Committee was so interested in the proposal that it rushed out its "Second Interim Report on the Procedural Consequences of Devolution", so that the House could have notice of its thinking before any early debate on the subject that we are now debating. Today, the Committee published its full report on the "Procedural Consequences of Devolution".
It is important that we should seize the opportunity offered by Westminster Hall if United Kingdom Members are to have the opportunity to learn from one another's experiences. I wonder how many Labour Members know that, currently, no English Member other than a Minister may participate in the Scottish Grand Committee, and that only five may join the Welsh Grand Committee. Those debates may, in principle, be read after the event, but I should be surprised if they had a wide circulation.
If devolution results in things being done better--as they may be--in Scotland and in Wales, all hon. Members should have the chance to hear about them and to discuss the Scottish or the Welsh experience. Similarly--as I am sure that you, Madam Speaker, will be aware--policies on reserved matters affecting the highlands may have similar effects on remote parts of England and of Wales. Hon. Members from all countries may have an interest in debating those matters.
The Procedure Committee recommended that
Mr. Winterton:
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He also plays an important part in the business of the Procedure Committee. I congratulate him on his regular attendance of the Committee, thereby enabling us to maintain a quorum.
I believe that the House will have to be very careful in taking the decision that it will take today. Some dramatic changes are proposed that may have an unfortunate effect on the integrity, sovereignty, role and authority of the House.
Like the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, I am concerned about the hemicycle. I would have much preferred a similar layout to this Chamber. The cost is estimated at £870,000. I think that it will be much more. It is likely to be close to £1 million. The example of the new parliamentary building across the road shows how contracts can overrun. I am concerned about our ability to find such a large sum at the drop of a hat. I remind the hon. Member for Burnley that the money is being brought forward from 2002-06, when the expenditure would otherwise have been incurred. We are finding a great deal of money to carry out the experiment. I hope that the Leader of the House will assure me that the amount spent during the experiment will be kept to a minimum. Only if the experiment is a success should we proceed with the full expenditure.
Mrs. Beckett:
I am not entirely sure what the hon. Gentleman is asking, but he knows the position. It is proposed that work on the Grand Committee Room that was scheduled should be brought forward. Any further expenditure should be kept to a minimum. He will remember that I asked about the need for the additional expenditure. The House authorities have undertaken to see whether it is possible to provide all the funds that would be required within the leeway for this year.
Mr. Winterton:
I thank the right hon. Lady for that clarification. I remember her raising the matter and I know that she shares my concern that in the experimental period the expenditure should be kept to a minimum, although we disagreed about the layout in the Grand Committee Room.
Mr. Keith Darvill (Upminster):
I am in favour of the motion. Since being elected to the House, I have had the privilege of sitting on the Procedure Committee, which has been very active. It is good to follow the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who chairs the Committee.
As well as the procedural consequences of devolution, the Procedure Committee has considered resource accounting and budgeting, which has not been mentioned so far. It is clear from the Committee's detailed examination of the issue that considerable additional information will be available to Select Committees to enable them to examine the finances of the Departments that they shadow.
We have already heard statistics on the number of Select Committee reports that are not considered. With the availability of that additional information, it is even more important that the reports are examined in the Chamber or in Westminster Hall. If not, the considerable work that is undertaken by hon. Members will seem wasted, as will the benefit of the close examination and scrutiny of the Executive that Select Committees provide.
I agree with most of the recommendations. The main benefit that will flow from a positive decision this evening is the additional time that will be made available to debate Select Committee reports. Paragraph 27 of the report says:
The British constitution is slow to change. The reform of the House of Lords has been agonisingly slow, and has taken the best part of this century. The evolution of Select Committees has moved at a faster pace. We are at a time of considerable change, with the procedural consequences of devolution and resource accounting and budgeting. Failing to allow Select Committee reports in particular to be examined as they should be means that we are not doing our constituents or ourselves any favours. I believe that not only Select Committees but Green Papers and other matters should be examined.
Mr. Bermingham:
Just to prove to the Liberal Democrats that I have read the report, I should point out that one of the problems is that people might say "Object" to Select Committee reports being debated in the new Chamber. It might be as well for the Government to take away that blockage. From experience, Select Committee reports and Green Papers are not debated, and will not be debated, if three people--or whatever the quorum is--simply say "Object".
"that Members from all parts of the United Kingdom should be able to participate in debates held in the United Kingdom Parliament."
I believe that continuation of Grand Committees would undermine that principle. We therefore propose making some savings--which I hope will enable hon. Members who sat on the Grand Committees to be available elsewhere.
"once devolved government is in place and for the period of the experiment with the sittings in Westminster Hall, the Grand Committees be suspended."
Mr. Clive Efford (Eltham):
Will the hon. Gentleman confirm, having participated in the Procedure Committee's discussions on the issue, that Committee members were concerned that no precedence should be given in the new Committee to debates that would previously have been held in Grand Committees, and that those debates should take their place alongside other debates in seeking to use the additional opportunity?
"we see Westminster Hall as a forum which will provide additional opportunities for select committees."
24 May 1999 : Column 118
Many hours are devoted to Select Committees by hon. Members. To debate only 10 per cent. of reports in any one year shows that the House is not functioning properly and not holding the Executive to account. This is not a new matter, as the Liaison Committee underlined the need for further examination of Select Committees in 1997. This theme has developed as the role of Select Committees has evolved.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |