---

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it may be helpful if I speak to one or two matters at this stage. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Cranborne for raising this matter. It is an issue of great importance which lies at the heart of the sovereignty of this House of Parliament. It is an issue which, I must admit, I missed. I received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, in the middle of last week informing me that he was to undertake an investigation of this House. I replied almost immediately pledging the co-operation of the official Opposition in any inquiry that he makes.

My noble friend has raised a far more important issue; namely, how it is that the noble Lord, Lord Neill, is conducting the inquiry without reference to this House. Has the noble Baroness the Leader of the House had discussions with either the Clerk of the Parliaments or the Chairman of Committees in order to ensure that the proper procedures have been followed? I have it in mind that when the issue was raised previously it was dealt with by another Member of this House, the distinguished noble and learned Lord, Lord Griffiths, who set up his inquiry on the advice of the Procedure Committee, which was approved by this House. The report was ultimately approved by the House and was put into effect.

13 Mar 2000 : Column 1286

I should also like to take up the matter of the Written Question. I understand that there is an article in today's Independent. I failed to see it; however, I did catch the tail-end of a news report on the radio this morning. I am sure that the Government had nothing to do with it. I suspect that this slipped out of the committee of inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, rather than this House. Is a written statement really the best way to proceed on this matter? Would it not have been much better for the noble Baroness the Leader of the House to come to the House to make an oral Statement so that it could be discussed and debated?

This provides me with an opportunity to ask the noble Baroness for a debate before this matter goes much further--or at least for the matter to be referred to the Chairman of Committees, who would no doubt decide which was the best committee to discuss the issue.

Will the noble Baroness also confirm--she may not know the answer now--that my noble friend Lord Cranborne is right in saying that, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Neill, reports on, it will be up to this House to decide how best to proceed?

The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the points that they have raised. Like them, I was surprised by what I heard on the BBC this morning. I have not read the article in the Independent to which the noble Lord referred. I understand that it was indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Neill, at a much earlier stage in his proceedings that he was planning to examine the arrangements in this House in much the same way as he had done in relation to another place. At that stage, it was agreed that the understanding was that that was appropriate.

Like the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, I received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord Neill, indicating that this was the next stage of his inquiry into the affairs of Parliament. I replied, indicating the Government's ready acquiescence in such an inquiry. The practices that the noble Lord suggests should be followed are ones which we on these Benches have for some time encouraged Members of this House to follow voluntarily.

At that stage I also suggested, in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Neill, that it was obviously appropriate--and I am sure that he had already done so--to consult the noble Lord and other Members of this House about proceeding with this matter. If some more formal procedure should be undertaken based on precedent, as the noble Viscount, Lord Cranborne, has indicated, I am willing to look into that and to take the matter further in any way that is appropriate. The activities of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, and his committee are completely independent of the Government. I thought that he had made the appropriate consultative arrangements with other leading Members of this House as he did with me. As I say, if the noble Viscount says that on the basis of precedent some other proceedings should be followed,

13 Mar 2000 : Column 1287

I am extremely willing to look into that and to discuss it with both the noble Lord, Lord Neill, and other leading Members of the House.

Lord Elton: My Lords, as one who ought to know more about this than I do, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness to remind us whence spring the powers of the noble Lord, Lord Neill, to investigate this House. Assuming that they have been granted by this House already, it seems that the difficulty is a small one. If they have not, surely it is not appropriate for the noble Lord, Lord Neill, to approach either the Government or the Opposition; it is the House as a whole that has to be approached. That can be done only by one of the committees nominated for the purpose or by a Statement and debate in the House.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, my informal understanding is that the noble Lord's original proposition is correct. If on consultation with the House authorities I am proved wrong, I shall of course make sure that that procedure is followed, as I indicated in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report

3.14 p.m.

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 25) be agreed to.--(The Chairman of Committees.)

Following is the report referred to:

1. Freedom of information: applicability to the House of Lords

Parliament is included in the list of public bodies covered by the Freedom of Information Bill. The Bill would enable the authorised officer of each House to refuse to disclose information either on the ground of parliamentary privilege or prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs. In the House of Lords the authorised officer is the Clerk of the Parliaments. In the case of other public bodies, the Bill provides that a dissatisfied applicant for information can appeal to the Information Commissioner. But there will be no such appeal in the case of Parliament. In the interests of equity the Committee recommends that the House should have a mechanism to consider whether a refusal by the Clerk of the Parliaments to disclose information is reasonable.

The Committee recommends that in cases where the Clerk of the Parliaments is minded to refuse to disclose information on the ground of parliamentary privilege or prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs he should ask applicants whether they accept his decision or whether they wish him to reconsider. If he is asked to reconsider, he should refer the matter to a panel of members of the House for advice. The panel should consist of 5 persons, chaired by a Lord of Appeal or a retired Lord of Appeal. The other members should include a representative from each of the parties and the Crossbenches. The panel should have the assistance of the Information Commissioner.

2. Scrutiny of amendments at committee and report stage

The Committee considered how major new amendments tabled at report stage could be scrutinised properly, given the restrictions on debate at that stage. The Committee reminds the House that whole Bills or certain clauses or schedules may be recommitted to

13 Mar 2000 : Column 1288

a Committee of the whole House at any time between committee and third reading. Recommitment allows the House to give further detailed consideration to a Bill or certain parts of it without the limitations that apply on report and at third reading. In addition the Committee recommends that, in order to improve the scrutiny of legislation, the House should whenever possible have the benefit of a further report from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, if appropriate, on any significant amendments containing delegated powers tabled to a Bill after the committee's initial report.

3. Starred Questions

The Committee agreed that the Clerk of the Parliaments should inform the House at the beginning of Question Time when he knows that a Starred Question on the Order Paper is not to be asked.

4. Revision of the Companion to the Standing Orders

The Committee was informed that a comprehensive revision of the Companion to the Standing Orders was being undertaken. The Committee recommends that for the convenience of members the new edition should be in two volumes. Volume 1 should be an essential practical guide to conduct and procedure in the Chamber; volume 2 would contain more technical information. Both volumes would carry the same authority. The Committee will appoint a small sub-committee to undertake detailed examination of the revised text.

Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, I have a brief query. Paragraph 1 of the report contains the reference:

"in cases where the Clerk of the Parliaments is minded to refuse to disclose information on the ground of parliamentary privilege or prejudice".

In a long and undistinguished life in public service I have managed all these years, as has everyone else, without the phrase, "is minded". What does it actually mean? Surely there is a phrase in common usage which can be employed instead. Otherwise, we are just falling into the spin doctors' trap.

Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the Select Committee report informs the House that Parliament is included in the list of public bodies covered by the Freedom of Information Bill. I am not aware that the Bill in its final form has come before this House. I should very much like to examine the Freedom of Information Bill before I am prepared to consider the proposition that is reproduced at paragraph 1 of the report. The paragraph states that,

"The Bill would enable the authorised officer of each House to refuse to disclose information either on the ground of parliamentary privilege or prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs".

I venture to draw your Lordships' attention to the last part of the sentence referring to the "effective" conduct of public affairs. Public affairs can be conducted very effectively but not necessarily properly. I should have thought that it would have been far better to have inserted the words, "proper conduct of public affairs".

The second part of the paragraph states that,

"The Committee recommends that in cases where the Clerk of the Parliaments is minded to refuse to disclose information on the ground of parliamentary privilege or prejudice to the effective conduct of public affairs, he should ask applicants whether they accept his decision or whether they wish him to reconsider".

13 Mar 2000 : Column 1289

I give way to no noble Lord in this House in my very great respect for the Clerk of the Parliaments, who is of enormous assistance to everyone and whose reputation, and indeed strength, is well known to us all. I should have thought, on the whole, that before we commit ourselves to approving the report of the Select Committee on Procedure, we might also refer the matter to the Committee for Privileges. The privilege of this House to receive information of one kind or another is a vital issue.

We are presently witnessing--as I have attempted to show on a number of occasions and hope to be spared to do so on a few more occasions--the progressive erosion of parliamentary powers from outside the United Kingdom. I therefore suggest that we return the report to the Select Committee on Procedure, together with as polite an indication as possible--copied to the Clerk of the Parliaments--that we should prefer this matter to be considered after detailed consideration has been given to the Freedom of Information Bill.

---