---

Several hon. Members rose--

Mrs. Dunwoody: I have no intention of giving way. This is a serious debate.

I am extremely concerned that the Select Committee's work should be called into question in a narrow, party political way. We intend--it has been discussed with members of the Committee--to set a realistic timetable. I understand that the pre-legislative Committee on the Food Standards Bill set the precedent of giving a date by which it intended the legislation to return to the Floor of the House.

We have also made it clear that we shall publicise our desire for any evidence on the Bill very widely, and we are ready to examine the views of anyone who wishes to express any reservations about, or support for, the legislation. However, we have made it clear that we shall do that in a way that will enable us to follow the normal Select Committee procedure and, if need be, call before us members of organisations or companies who wish to give oral evidence.

That is the normal way in which a Select Committee proceeds. It is clear that this Bill arises from the detailed work done by the Transport Sub-Committee, and that, therefore, any similarity that exists between this Bill and our report can hardly be regarded as surprising. We have also said that, given that the Committee's report differs, in some instances, from the Bill, we undertake to look not only exhaustively but also rapidly at the legislation as well as ensuring that the House is not short-changed by the behaviour of any Select Committee member.

As a result of an arrangement between the usual channels, a Liberal Democrat Member will be present on the Committee. Under no circumstances do I accept any criticism of the suggested referral to the Select Committee. I trust that it will be clear to those who read the account of our debate and regard it with an unbiased eye that the Select Committee will neither accept nor, under any circumstance, promote the suggestion that we intend to behave with bias or under duress from members of Her Majesty's Government. My Select Committee and I have demonstrated time and again our independence and ability to look plainly at the evidence that is given to us. Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition do themselves no good by presenting their case as they have tonight.

11.15 pm

Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): Not for the first time, we have a storm in a tea cup that only the House of Commons could produce. I do not for a moment defend the way in which the Government have brought forward the motion, but I can at least give some direct report of what took place in the Select Committee on Modernisation, and of what was agreed by all parties that were represented in the Select Committee--including, of course, the Conservative party.

I respect the fact that the Conservatives on that Select Committee argued, as we all did, to try to reach a sensible conclusion on improving the way in which we handle the business of the House; but it is here in black and white--not just the paragraphs that have been referred to already,

19 Jul 1999 : Column 908

namely, 19, 20 and 21, which I do not intend to repeat, but paragraphs 22 and 23, which refer specifically to departmentally related Select Committees.

Even better than that, unusually for the House of Commons, the report produced a visual aid on the different ways in which we should handle the business of the House--some new, it is true, some that are not used enough, as the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) has said, and some that we use all too often, which are far too confrontational and which do not give us the opportunity to elicit some consensus.

The options are here. They include post-Second Reading referral; it was not only pre-Second Reading. There were, as I say, one, two, three, four, five, six different options. One is to refer to a Select Committee. That was agreed by the Conservatives on the Committee. The hon. Member for--I must remember--

Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield): Macclesfield.

Mr. Tyler: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is able to give voice to his support for the report. He will confirm that Conservatives on the Select Committee thought that it was worth developing the different options. That is what we are doing this evening. Under its usual arrangements, the House is agreeing by what means we will address the issue.

This evening, anyone would think that Select Committees were a weaker version--

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tyler: No. We want to get on with the business.

Anyone would think that Select Committees were less effective at examining the issues. I do not think that that is the experience. All hon. Members know that Select Committees, because they can draw on the expertise of people from outside Parliament, can be far more effective at scrutinising what the Government can do than the normal, aggressive Standing Committee procedure.

It is here in black and white, I repeat. I respect the Select Committee of which the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) is the Chair. I respect its work and I am fully confident that, if it finds that there are great holes in the legislation--

Mr. Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tyler: I will not.

Conservatives served on the Modernisation Committee. Anyone would think that the crowd in here had no confidence in their own members on that Committee. I have confidence in them, and I have confidence that, if the Select Committee finds that there are major faults in the legislation, it will have to come back to the House and report on those faults.

One thing is important; I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley). Ifthe Select Committee proposes major changes, the Government will have to give an undertaking to hold the Second Reading debate again. I see no problem with that. However, it is clear that, if progress is made between now and Prorogation, it will be possible for the Government

19 Jul 1999 : Column 909

to table a motion for the continuance of the debate, post-Second Reading, in a Standing Committee in the new Session.

The options are here. They are very carefully designed to give the House maximum flexibility to be more effective in its primary job of scrutinising what the Government are doing.

If the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) had taken the trouble not just to read the report properly, but to listen to his colleagues who were on the Modernisation Committee, he would recognise that there were real advantages in the procedure, not least for the Opposition; that is the key point. The document is all about holding the Government to account. We will have the opportunity to do so. I suggest that we get on with it.

11.20 pm

Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar): I have no idea why the House is so tetchy. It is only 11.20 pm--one would think it was the early hours of the morning--and we are discussing matters of substance. I firmly support the Select Committee system, and also endorse the concept of a pre-legislation review; but any such review must be thorough, and there must be a clear understanding of the ground rules.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) declined to give way to me when I wanted to clarify this point. Commenting on the use of Select Committees after Second Reading, the report said:

"They would almost certainly have to be ad hoc Committees, since the inevitable time constraints would make consideration by the departmentally-related Committees virtually impossible."

That is what we have. We have a time constraint--a deadline--imposed by the Government, which makes effective scrutiny virtually impossible.

Mr. Pickles: I agree. Indeed, I feel that even more brutal language could be used. We have a guillotinehere. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) would not give way to me when I wanted her to give Parliament some idea of the time scale on which she would be operating. She said that she would advertise widely for people who might wish to give evidence to the Select Committee, and rightly so. No doubt she will have to appoint experts; no doubt those experts will have to be interviewed, shortlisted and so forth. I have had the honour to participate in such processes with the hon. Lady, and I know that they take time.

Until my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) began to probe the Government this evening about the process--very skilfully--I had assumed that the Select Committee had issued a self-denying ordinance. I assumed that it had said, "The rest of you can go away on your holidays; we will stay here in the Palace of Westminster, and work through August, September, October and November."

Mrs. Teresa Gorman (Billericay): What?

Mr. Pickles: The Committee has some very distinguished members, including my hon. Friend, who is clearly enthusiastic about that prospect.

19 Jul 1999 : Column 910

Curiously enough, the Select Committee will start its deliberations almost two years to the day after it began to take evidence for the last report. I have a copy here. It sets out the evidence that was taken, in sections. The Committee's deliberations began on 29 October, and ended on 4 March. We need to understand how that process is to be truncated.

The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) is right. Select Committees have an advantage over Standing Committees, in that they can take evidence. If they did not, what would be the point of sending a Bill to Select Committee? There would be no point in sending it to any body, unless something extra could be added. What would be the point of sending it to an ad hoc Committee, a mini-Committee, perhaps almost a hybrid Committee--a cross between a Select Committee and a Standing Committee--which would merely go through the process of a debate between members?

---