Examination of Witnesses (Quesstions 120
- 123)
THURSDAY 10 FEBRUARY 2000
MR JOHN
SPELLAR MP, MR
JASON BETTELEY,
BRIGADIER ANDREW
RITCHIE CBE, COMMODORE
DAVID HUMPHREY,
AIR COMMODORE
RICK CHARLES
AND MR
DAVID WOODHEAD
120. The Government had said often that non-contentious
bills, before they are drafted, they can be tried out on a committee
beforehand. Then any changes that need to be made, in some ways
it removes potential hassle if an important committee, albeit
the Committee for Home Affairs or whatever, has a chance to go
right through the bill, to interview in a format like this, and
some of the difficulties can be ironed out when the bill is introduced
because it has had genuine Parliamentary consultation. As you
know from your long experience, the Standing Committee stage is
one of the more superfluous activities for Government backbenchers
and often Opposition backbenchers.
(Mr Spellar) That is probably right, Chairman, and,
as you identified right at the beginning, the relative paucity
of Armed Forces legislation that goes through probably meant that
both yourselves and ourselves were not immediately up to speed
on that.
121. Absolutely. We put our hands up.
(Mr Spellar) I think we both do. I think we will both
mutually plead guilty and go for a summary justice system on that
conviction. But we have pleaded guilty, so—
122. Whilst two hours of talking about abstract
legal concepts will ensure that I will not put myself as a formidable
witness to serve on the Standing Committee, I fear Mr Blunt's
enthusiasm has been roused and his arguments have been honed to
perfection—or will have been by the time he will bore the
pants off you if you take the task for yourself—or you might
shunt it lower down the line to a professional psychiatrist who—
(Mr Spellar)—might be well placed to deal with
Mr Blunt!
123.—who might be well clued-up to run
his first bill as a Minister. The last question. Looking through
the House of Lords Official Report, a lot of technical amendments
were introduced, a vast number. Were there any substantive amendments
accepted?
(Mr Spellar) I think the main amendment was the reduction
from 21 days to 14 days. That was to take account of the representations
made in the House of Lords from a number of areas, and one that
we believe was then consistent with maintaining compliance but
also with responding to those feelings. That is the main change
in the House of Lords. Others were very much technical drafting
amendments, as far as I can see.
Chairman: Thank you all very much for
coming.
| 
