Having chaired the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill during two of its last three incarnations, I would like to urge that a similar procedure be used on other Bills. Broadly, this would allow a Bill to be committed to a special committee which would take evidence in public in a manner similar to a Select Committee before performing the standing committee function of detailed, clause by clause consideration of the Bill.

  1. The purpose of a Select Committee stage of the Bill is to:

(a)   Inform Members of the Committee of the purpose of the Bill.


(b)   Allow Ministers and draftsmen to be questioned about the detail of the Bill.


(c)   Give outside bodies a chance to put their case directly and discuss the Bill.


(d)   Inform the general public.


(e)   Allow the Select Committee to put matters on record by means of a Special Report.

  2. It is therefore very important that the special committee have the power to report, and I would urge that the Government should have a requirement to reply. For matters included in the Bill the reply could be made orally during later stages of the Bill's passage; for other matters, a speedy written response may be more appropriate. Either way, the Committee's Report should inform the House's further consideration of the Bill.

  3. The special committee should have power to travel. The Armed Forces Bill Committee found it very useful to discuss, formally and informally, the Bill's provisions with those directly affected by it - Service personnel. Similarly, it was helpful to take evidence from interested parties on the clause relating to the future of Greenwich Hospital on location at Greenwich. The special committee should also have power to meet as frequently as it wishes. The best idea might be for the House to give the special committee a time limit by which it must report, and for the committee then to decide its own detailed programme and timetable.

  4. In my experience it is particularly helpful if the individual Members serving on a special committee have detailed knowledge of the work of the Department sponsoring the Bill. In an ideal world the relevant departmental select committee could provide the membership of a special committee considering the Bill but, in practice, the burden of work involved would severely restrict the Select Committee's other activities. My recommendation is therefore that departmental Select Committees be expanded from 11 to, say, 17. The departmental Select Committee would continue to meet weekly. A special committee dealing with each Bill should be drawn mainly from the relevant Select Committee. A special committee might comprise seven or nine members, of whom say, four or five would come from the Select Committee. The other members of the special committee would be the Departmental Minister plus his PPS, an Opposition spokesman, plus two or three other members who are not members of the Select Committee. This constitution would allow two or three special committees to sit simultaneously on Bills relating to one Department without overwhelming the Select Committee.

  5. I further recommend that the special committee should be kept alive until the Bill receives its third reading (or perhaps until the Bill receives Royal Assent).

  6. The Chairman of the special committee would be a member of the select committee. There may be merit in Select Committees having two vice-chairmen - one from each major party - who would normally chair special committees, or could substitute for each other during the special committee stage. In view of the extra burden of work that this would place upon select committees, I would see a strong case for the Chairman and vice-Chairman receiving an additional allowance, as they do in some other countries.

  7. This type of scrutiny may not be appropriate for all bills. Where there is a strong party political element, party discipline may prevent any improvements suggested by the public consultation exercise being included in the bill. This procedure may work best for bills where opinion is divided across party lines or where there is no strong Government view. (The Wild Mammals (Hunting with Dogs) Bill may be an example this Session.) Alternatively, appropriate parts of larger bills could be referred to a special committee, in much the same way as the Finance Bill is split between a standing committee and the Committee of the Whole House.

  8. These proposals would, of course, involve a very substantial change in the legislative process and I am convinced that it would enable Bills to be more thoroughly scrutinised. Similarly, outside bodies would feel a sense of involvement if the special committee chooses to take evidence from them. There is no doubt that the people of Greenwich and those interested in the future of Greenwich Hospital felt a sense of satisfaction that the Armed Forces Bill Committee travelled to Greenwich to take evidence. Many interested parties would also benefit from having their views published with the special committee's report.

  9. This proposal would involve a significant re-balancing of authority between the executive and the legislature and I think it would help to promote public confidence in the manner in which Members of Parliament fulfil their duties.

30 June 1997