Rt Hon Eric Forth MP (further submission
M 32)
The Committee Stage of Commons Parliamentary
consideration of a bill is intended (or should be) to allow Members
of Parliament to scrutinise, and where necessary, amend the Bill.
It should be a parliamentary, not a governmental,
process—and should, therefore, be determined by legislative,
not executive, considerations. It is essential, therefore, that
proper opportunity exists for the members fully to scrutinise
the details of bills—unconstrained by arbitrary governmentally
determined timetables.
This is equally important for legitimate outside
interests—who need time to prepare and submit facts and
draft amendments for committee members to consider.
It is essential, therefore, that the practice
of government imposing timetables on committee deliberations before
they have even commenced is ended—in order that committees
may decide how much time they require adequately to scrutinise
bills.
The difficulty with having select committees
perform the work of standing committees is that select committee
members are largely self selecting "volunteers"—who
have both knowledge but also interest in the policy area—which
may not provide the most effective, disinterested scrutiny.
Furthermore, there would inevitably arise a
conflict between the work of legislative scrutiny and departmental
fact finding and inquiry.
The problem with so called "first reading
committees" is how it is decided whether this truncated procedure
is appropriate. In other words, who determines whether there is
"no appreciable difference between the principle of the bill.
. .and its detail."
There appears to be no reason, other than the
convenience of the government and Members of Parliament, why the
House should not revert to the procedures in effect pre 1997,
when standing committees were able to determine their own consideration.
January 2006
| 
