| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be far more logical if the Bill--the Select Committee having previously had its say and the Bill having received Second Reading--were now to go to a Standing Committee? Of course, there is no time for a Standing Committee, so the Government are trying to rush the Bill through the House and get around our procedures by means of an obscure and unheard of mechanism.
Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Why is the Bill being treated in this way?
Mr. Michael Clapham (Barnsley, West and Penistone): It is called innovation.
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman says that it is innovation, but parliamentary procedure should not be made up on the hoof to suit the Government's political convenience. That may be what modernisation in its fullest sense is about, but the hon. Gentleman's party and his Government are displaying a certain contempt for the way in which we do things in the House. If a draft Bill were being sent to the Select Committee, we would be following procedure that has at least been considered by the Modernisation Committee, if not overtly approved
by the House, but this method of proceeding is unprecedented, has not been discussed and is simply for the convenience of those on the Treasury Bench.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish): Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the report that recommended the setting up of departmental Select Committees in 1979 also recommended pre-legislative scrutiny and that this very procedure was suggested as one of the ways forward that far back? The fact that the previous Government did not dare to use it does not invalidate it.
Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman knows that there are Conservative Members on the Modernisation Committee and that they have shared in the deliberations on pre-legislative scrutiny. This Bill is no longer pre-legislative; it has begun the legislative process. Under such circumstances, it should be referred to a Standing Committee. If the hon. Gentleman is saying, "Oh, isn't it a shame that we didn't consider this Bill before, so that it could be sent to and dealt with by the Select Committee in good time before Second Reading", I would agree with him. However, his Government have spent more than two years fiddling around with railways policy instead of producing the policy in which we thought the Labour party believed when it was elected.
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): What did the Tories do?
Mr. Jenkin: We produced a policy for the railways which doubled rail investment. The right hon. Gentleman had 18 years in opposition to think of a railways policy. He changed it at the last minute and has been left in this mess.
The Minister for Transport talked about trying to reflect the will of the House, but this procedure is about the frustration of the will of the Secretary of State, who failed--[Interruption.] I know that the right hon. Gentleman does not want me to proceed because he finds it embarrassing. He failed in his first Session to secure any transport legislation. He failed in the second Session to get any transport legislation, except for the provisions in the Greater London Authority Bill. This motion is a last resort to try to salvage his battered reputation as a result of failing to secure any space in the legislative programme until next year.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will return to the terms of the committal motion, and perhaps not be goaded into going beyond them.
Mr. Jenkin:
I fully accept your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I hope that you agree that it is fair that, when considering such a novel procedure, we should be able to discuss what motives might lie behind the Government's tabling of this motion.
Sir Teddy Taylor (Rochford and Southend, East):
Apart from the issues that my hon. Friend is discussing, does he agree that it is insulting to the independence of
Mr. Deputy Speaker:
Order. That is too long an intervention.
Mr. Jenkin:
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who alighted on some significant points. Will the Select Committee, for example, have the proper time to do a proper job of scrutinising this extensive Bill? Moreover, the Select Committee has already taken evidence on the Bill's provisions, so that any future work will simply duplicate what it has already done. Conversely, I have learned in my conversations with the companies involved in running the railways that they have strong views on the Bill's provisions, which contain some surprises. The companies will want to raise some significant issues.
To do a proper job, the Select Committee would have to take detailed evidence on the Bill, clause by clause, from each of the parties from which it has already taken evidence. If the Committee were not to do so, it would be questionable whether it could address all the issues raised in clause 17--which the Secretary of State claims provides powers to force companies to make investment--or the complicated issue of allowable returns on investment.
The Bill raises some very complicated issues, and I very much doubt whether, in the time available, the Committee would be able to address them. Moreover, would the Select Committee's consideration of the Bill constitute real scrutiny? Given that the Committee has already expressed a view on the Bill's provisions, it is no longer independent in that respect, but has a pre-determined view of the matter--[Hon. Members: "Oh?"]
Forgive me if I invite the Secretary of State to comment on that issue. Would he be happy to refer his precious strategic Railways Bill to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee if he were not confident that it would emerge with a glowing recommendation that everything is all right?
Mr. Prescott:
I am quite prepared to recognise the independence of the Select Committee--which is composed of hon. Members from both sides of the House--and to leave the Bill to its good judgment. Regardless, most of the powers mentioned by the hon. Gentleman already exist in legislation that was passed by the previous Administration.
Mr. Jenkin:
As I have already asked the right hon. Gentleman, what is the point of passing a Bill with no new powers? None the less, I think that the Bill contains new powers, such as to compel investment and to make the gift of franchises--[Interruption.] If the Bill contains no new powers, why on earth is the Secretary of State wasting the House's time on debating it? If he has all the powers he needs to run the railways, why does he need
Mr. David Maclean (Penrith and The Border):
Surely there is another crucial point: referring the Bill to the same Select Committee, with the same membership, that considered it in its pre-legislative form would deprive all the other hon. Members hoping to serve in Standing Committee of a chance properly to consider the legislation. It is another example of Government dictatorship, and does not demonstrate much of the inclusive society that we hear about.
Mr. Jenkin:
My right hon. Friend hits on the real point. If the Government want genuine debate and scrutiny, they should send the Bill to a Standing Committee, so that, even if we do not finish scrutinising the Bill before the Session ends, there will be proper debate on it. Conversely, we can more or less tell what will happen to the Bill in the Select Committee, as it has a pre-determined view on the Bill's provisions. We already know what with what provisions the Committee agrees or disagrees.
The traditional way of dealing with this type of business is to send it to a Standing Committee. Without the formal cross-examination of Ministers by Opposition spokesmen, we shall not be able to expose the Bill's flaws.
Mr. Clive Soley (Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush):
Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he and other Conservative Members now seem to be against the procedure, whereas his colleagues on the Modernisation Committee gave it such enthusiastic support?
Mr. Jenkin:
We oppose it for two reasons. First, if such consideration were part of a Bill's orderly progress through the House, we should have considered it much more favourably. However, the procedure being proposed is but a patchwork job to try to save the Secretary of State's reputation. I could even talk the right hon. Gentleman through the various events that led him to this particular sorry pass.
Secondly, the Modernisation Committee was considering pre-legislative scrutiny. It did not envisage that a Bill that had already received a Second Reading should pass to a Select Committee. The Committee report refers to
"committal of appropriate bills to a Special Standing Committee . . . or committal of appropriate bills to ad hoc Select Committees; or splitting a bill on committal between the floor of the House and a Standing Committee".
That is paragraph 95. At no point is it suggested that,after Second Reading, the Bill should go to a Select Committee. This is a novel way of proceeding.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |