| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8.13 pm
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire): Like the Leader of the House, we are grateful to Lord Neill and to his committee for their deliberations and conclusions. The right hon. Lady moved the motion in a non-confrontational mode; I shall respond in similar mode--I hope as briefly and quickly as she did.
The view of my party on the proposal is that, while the assistance offered is slightly less than what was recommended by the Neill committee and has been slow in arriving, it is all that we are going to get from the Administration. On that basis, I will support the recommendation. It is certainly preferable to the alternative.
The Neill committee concluded that the funds were inadequate for the purpose for which they were originally intended. Therefore, for the past two years, the Opposition have been surviving without the resources to which the Neill committee felt that we were entitled. However, those on the Opposition Front Bench have made bricks without straw. In the past 10 days, the Government have not had everything their own way. I pay tribute to the Back Benchers who are present, who are here presumably out of altruism because there is nothing in the motion for them, but who have been effective in harrying the Government. Of course, all Opposition parties owe a debt of gratitude to the Library, whose professionalism informs so many debates in the Chamber.
It cannot be right, with government becoming ever more complex and with power drifting away from Parliament to the Executive, for Opposition parties to be
under-resourced, particularly when, as the Neill committee identifies, the Government have increased substantially, from taxpayers' money, the resources that they receive for their own special advisers.
The Neill committee identifies the figures. The Government spent £3.6 million on special advisers in the first year of the current Parliament; we received under £1 million. That has now risen to £3.9 million. The increase in special advisers happened virtually overnight, whereas the comparable increase in our own special advisers is having to wait two years.
It would be churlish to criticise the Government for what is happening. I think that the House is anxious to make good progress. A healthy democracy depends on a well-briefed, well-resourced Opposition. That is good for government as well. Our democracy will not be quite as healthy as Lord Neill prescribed, but it is a very good start.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping):
I beg to move,
I am pleased to move a short, practical and time-limited motion. It has been brought to the House following a request from my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). He has the unique distinction of being the first Member to chair a concurrent meeting of four Select Committees. The four--Foreign Affairs, Trade and Industry, Defence and International Development--are considering the first annual report on strategic export controls, which was published by the Government last year.
Each of the four Committees has a quorum of three and a membership of 11--12 in the case of the Foreign Affairs Committee. When they meet, at least three members from each Committee must be present--a total of 12--if they are to take evidence. The absence of one member debars his colleagues from the same Committee from asking questions of witnesses. Not unnaturally, it has not always been possible to get all 12 members together at the same time.
The Chairman suggested a temporary amendment to the Standing Orders to provide, in those circumstances, for the quorum to be two from each Committee, making a total of eight. That is for the process only of evidence taking and deliberating. If the Committees decide to produce a report, it will still need to be agreed by each Committee in turn, while fully quorate.
The Select Committees have combined in an innovative way and have come across an unforeseen difficulty. It is an issue that may become increasingly common as Select Committees pursue cross-departmental concerns. The House may need to consider the matter again at a future stage.
Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire):
Yet again this evening, I find myself in agreement with Ministers. The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office made the case clearly and cogently. It is one with which we are entirely happy to concur.
I make two brief points. First, Select Committees are always at their best if they are rather more than quorate. I hope that the motion will not be taken as any encouragement for Members to stay away. Secondly, it behoves us all to look carefully at the structure and
timetabling of Committees in the House to make it easier for Members to fulfil both their Committee commitments and their responsibilities in the Chamber.
Mr. Ted Rowlands (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney):
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office for moving the motion. The motion arises from an extraordinarily unique situation in which we are trying to develop a joint Committee--comprising four Select Committees, which is in itself a pretty formidable exercise--to inquire into the annual report on strategic export controls.
We have already met, and I believe that the position will be fully protected, so that every member of every Committee will be entitled to attend. When the joint Committee's reports are prepared, the whole Committees will be able to participate.
We feel that, in dealing with the nitty-gritty of the Committee's work, a quorum of three members per Committee would be not only onerous, but difficult for us in dealing with our business from one minute to the next. The motion contains a very modest request on an experimental matter, and I think that the House should support it and give the arrangement a chance to work.
The joint Committee is the first one in which four Select Committees have been combined in this way. It will be very interesting to see how the Committee proceeds, especially as we shall have to proceed by consensus. We shall have to wait to see how well we do in that.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome):
There is a consensus on the issue on both sides of the House. I concur entirely with the comments of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), who is my Chairman on the joint Committee on strategic arms exports. I also note that, if this were a sitting of the Foreign Affairs Committee, we would be quorate.
However, there is a real difficulty in the way in which the quadripartite Committee has been established--which is not to say that Liberal Democrat Members do not welcome its establishment or are not determined to make it work. The sad fact is that the House's Standing Orders do not make it easy for joint Committees to operate. I suggest to the Minister, in commending the motion to the House, that that matter should perhaps be considered, either in the Modernisation Committee or elsewhere, so that we might establish an apparatus enabling an ad hoc joint Committee--as this one is--to work effectively.
8.16 pm
That, for the remainder of the present Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select Committees related to government departments) shall have effect subject to the following modification in line 48, at the end to add--
'(4A) Notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |