| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
5 pm
Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham): I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt). This is not, of course, another forum to debate the Bill as a whole, with which we are profoundly happy, but we have been trying, as have the Conservatives, both here and in the other place, to increase the precision of the Bill and to improve parliamentary scrutiny. The proposal is a small gesture in that direction, which we very much welcome.
I want to pose a few issues of substance relating to the Bill, to inquire about the circumstances in which these affirmative procedures might be used. What changes in context might lead to fresh action having to be taken in relation to the industry? First, under the existing arrangements, the Government have made a loan of £650 million to the industry, and it is assumed that that will be repaid out of the surplus over operating costs following the restructuring that has now been agreed. Can the Minister indicate the progress of that repayment, and when the Government expect it to be completed, under the assumptions that I presume they are making in relation to the prices operating in the market? Clearly, if the assumptions are not right, the Government may have to return with fresh legislative changes under the procedures that we are discussing. A progress report would indicate the soundness of the assumptions under which the legislation is operating.
Secondly, one of the other key uncertainties hanging around the Bill, which may result at some point in us having to revisit it through this procedure or some other, relates to the approval that must be given by the European Commission. I understand that that is a prolonged process. There are objections from the other producers, as the Minister knows. Can he indicate when the procedure is due to be completed, as I understand that it could take as long as 18 months?
Thirdly, another of the key uncertainties underlying the Bill, which affects the whole operating economics of the industry and, therefore, the circumstances under
which we may need to revisit it with changes, concerns the excess capacity that operates in the industry. There has been a lot of uncertainty—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is now abusing the confines of the debate. A very thin thread connects those matters to the Lords amendment that we are discussing. He would be advised not to develop those points further.
Dr. Cable: My questions were posed in good faith and in the belief that they were fully within the remit of the debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was never suggesting that the hon. Gentleman was acting in bad faith. I am merely trying to keep the House in order.
Dr. Cable: Of course, I fully accept that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I reiterate simply that we welcome the procedural changes, and I do not think that there will be any further question of a Division on the Bill. I fully accept the spirit of the Conservative spokesman's comments, however.
Mr. Timms: The hon. Gentleman has indicated that he would like a little further information, and perhaps we can deal with the matter through an exchange of correspondence. Good progress is being made, however, particularly on the loan. As he will know, British Energy's Canadian assets were successfully disposed of recently, and, of course, part of the loan was to enable that operation to continue successfully. He need not have any concerns on any of those matters, therefore, although the amendments are not connected with the points that he raised.
Mr. Blunt: The Minister referred in his opening remarks to the fact that these amendments were tabled by Conservative Members, but that we simply did not have time to consider them in Committee because of the time allocated for the Bill. Does he think that that is a satisfactory state of affairs? What should be done to ensure that that does not happen again and that we do not have to rely on another place to put right what we have simply failed to achieve?
Mr. Timms: Anyone considering the scrutiny that the Bill has received in its parliamentary process in this House and the other place will reach the conclusion that it has been very thoroughly scrutinised and that we have been able to make significant changes that have improved matters. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends need to examine how they manage their contributions in Committee to ensure that there is adequate time for scrutiny of important issues. Large amounts of time were applied to matters of little importance and, as a result, significant issues were left. I commend the amendment to the House.
Lords amendment No. 3 agreed to.
Modernisation of the House of Commons
Motion made, and Question proposed,
- That Mr Robin Cook and Lorna Fitzsimons be discharged from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons and Dr John Reid and Caroline Flint be added.—[Mr. Caplin.]
5.6 pm
Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst): There has been a depressing pattern to these motions of late. Sadly, under new management, the Government appear to be following the same practice. I hope that, at some point, the new Leader of the House will assure us that the practice will cease. However, I suppose that we have to give him a little time to run himself in before he realises what is going on.
The motion looks routine—some might say almost bland—but it contains some potentially rather controversial elements. The House would want to pause a moment to consider whether we want to go ahead with the motion in its present form, given its implications.
The motion deals with the so-called Modernisation Committee, which is a Select Committee of the House. I have never concealed my views on modernisation. The so-called modernisation process has been a wicked and evil development that has systematically diminished the power of the House of Commons effectively to hold the Government to account. That is my view of what has come to be called modernisation. Debates and votes have been eliminated and the ridiculous deferred Division system has been introduced. Worst of all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) pointed out in the previous debate, the systematic, routine and vicious timetabling of Bills in Standing Committees has led to most legislation not being properly scrutinised by the House.
The Committee has radically changed the relationship between the House and the Government over the past six years or so; anyone returning to the House after an absence would find it unrecognisable. All the proposals emanating from the so-called Modernisation Committee have been to the detriment of the House of Commons as a legislature. Therefore, we are entitled carefully to consider proposals, such as the one before us, that change the membership of the Committee.
The first issue that arises, self-evidently, is that, following the departure of the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who had been its Chairman and President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons, we now rightly confront the anomaly of the phenomenon of a Select Committee being chaired by a senior member of the Government. In other words, a member of the Executive is chairing a Committee that is supposed to decide what the relationship should be between the Executive and the House.
It is arguably wrong not only for a senior member of the Government to chair a Select Committee, but for the Modernisation Committee, of all Committees, given the role it has played in altering the relationship between the House and the Government, to be chaired by a member of the Government in whose interests it could be to diminish the role of the House and enhance that of the Executive. The House has taken that for granted all too readily during the five or six years in which the revolting Committee has been in existence.
The apparently innocuous motion provides us with the opportunity to examine directly whether the House is satisfied with the fact that having just got rid of the previous President of the Council as the Chairman of the Committee—although he got rid of himself, strictly speaking—it is invited to appoint a new one. I shall address the chairmanship in a moment, although only in passing because you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will tell me that even an attempt to explore that issue is not strictly relevant, which I accept. The motion invites us to add the new President of the Council, who is a senior member of the Executive, to the membership of the Committee. That is why the House should pause and decide whether it should endorse the motion.
I wondered whether my colleagues and I should table amendments to the motion to change the membership of the Committee. I hesitated and decided against that for a proper reason: until now, we have always honoured the undertaking that neither side of the House interferes with the right of the other to nominate Committee members. I want to honour that proper relationship. However, we could reject the motion and compel the Government to suggest different names. If the House did that, it would have decided that it was entirely inappropriate for the President of the Council to be a member of the Modernisation Committee for the reasons that I have outlined.
The situation is worse that that. The motion proposes that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) should take the place of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mrs. Fitzsimons) on the Committee. What is the significance of that? The significance is where the hon. Member for Don Valley is sitting, because she is sitting loyally and supportively behind the President of the Council, and I understand that she has the honour to be his Parliamentary Private Secretary.
That poses a further dilemma, because we are invited to commit not only the folly of adding the President of the Council to the Committee but the double folly of allowing his Parliamentary Private Secretary to serve on it with him. How can we be sure of the impartiality and integrity of the Committee if members and pseudo-members of the Government serve on it? How can we expect the Committee to examine the relationship between the House and the Government in a proper, impartial and balanced way if at least two of its members are members—albeit one of them marginally—of the Government? [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) wish to intervene? I shall give him the chance to say something; I invite him to put something on the record.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |