| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Amos: My Lords, on the discussions that my right honourable friend had with the Sudanese Government, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right in saying that he pressed the need to abide by the ceasefire agreement and to rein in the militias and ensure full humanitarian access. My understanding is that he received a positive response from the Sudanese Government, but we must wait and see what happens on the implementation of that.
We are in discussions on the wider point of Security Council resolutions, but I am unable to say what the scope of any resolution might be when it comes to the point of being passed.
Age-Related Payments Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time
Business of the House: Debates this Day
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debates on the Motions in the names of the Baroness Chalker of Wallasey and the Earl of Northesk set down for today shall each be limited to two and a half hours.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Liaison: Select Committee Report
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move that the first report from the Liaison Select Committee be agreed to.
In moving the Motion, I should like to say a few words about the timing of the proposed Select Committee on the review of the BBC charter. The Liaison Committee was aware of the need for a timely intervention in the consultation process on the BBC charter renewal, but was also concerned that the committee should not duplicate work undertaken by other bodies. We therefore considered that the best starting point and the basis of the committee's call for evidence should be the Green Paper, which is expected to be published early in 2005.
9 Jun 2004 : Column 269
The Liaison Committee was also mindful of the recent expansion in committee activity and the implications of this for both members and staff. That is set out clearly in paragraph 9 of the report. The Liaison Committee therefore also recommended that the committee on the BBC charter renewal should wait until the committee on the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill had finished its work and resources had become available.
Moved, That the first report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
Proposal for a Select Committee on the review of the BBC Charter
1. The committee has considered a proposal put forward by Baroness Howe of Idlicote that an ad hoc Select Committee be established on the review of the BBC Charter. Papers in support of the proposal are printed at Appendix 1. The Committee also heard Baroness Howe of Idlicote (who was accompanied by Lord Lipsey, Lord McNally and Lord Fowler) in support of her proposal.
2. The purpose of the committee would be to provide a means whereby the expertise existing in the House could be deployed in the discussions surrounding the review process. The committee would be able to have regard to the reports of other review bodies, and to hear the views of other interested parties. The supporters of the proposal would like the committee to be established in October, before publication of the expected Green Paper, with a view to reporting before publication of the White Paper.
3. The committee is sympathetic to this proposal. Many in the House have expertise in broadcasting and communications. Moreover the subject matter is currently important, the proposed committee's remit well defined, and a report would be likely to add value to the debate. So far as concerns timing, we understand that the Green Paper is likely to be published early in 2005. In our view it would not be sensible for a committee on this subject to be appointed before then. We are also reluctant to see further expansion of committee activity at this time and consider it preferable if this committee were not to be established until after the Select Committee on the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill [HL] had reported. So far as the proposed committee's remit is concerned, we also express the view that so far as possible it should seek to draw on the work of other review bodies.
4. We therefore recommend that an ad hoc Select Committee be established to consider the review of the BBC Charter early in 2005 after publication of the Green Paper and the conclusion of the work of the Assisted Dying committee; and that the committee should so far as possible draw on the work of other review bodies.
5. The committee has considered a proposal put forward by the Earl of Sandwich and Lord Blaker that a sessional Select Committee be established on international affairs. A letter setting out the proposal is printed at Appendix 2. The Committee also heard the Earl of Sandwich and Lord Blaker in support of their proposal.
6. The purpose of such a committee would be to provide a forum in which all aspects of foreign affairs, including aid, could be discussed. In particular, these might include issues which lay outside the remit of the European Union. The House, they consider, contains many Members with expertise in foreign affairs and the field of scrutiny is sufficiently wide to be able to accommodate committees in both Houses without likelihood of overlap. The supporters of the proposal would like the committee to be established sometime after the next general election.
7. The committee has considered the question of whether or not to establish such a committee on two previous occasions, in 1999 and 2000. We then recommended that the committee should not be appointed on the grounds that its remit would overlap with the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee. We remain of
- that view. The work of such a committee would also overlap into the work of the European Union Committee. For these reasons we do not recommend this proposal to the House.
8. Both proposals for Select Committees came to us with lists of signatories in support—150 in the case of Baroness Howe's proposal and 42 in the case of the Earl of Sandwich's proposal. While it is useful for the Liaison Committee to be aware of cross party support, we do not find that the increasingly common practice of appending long lists of supporters' names helpful and hope very much that the practice will cease.
9. In the course of our discussions on the proposals for additional Select Committees, we have reflected on the expansion of committee activity in recent years. Thus in 1999–2000 the House had Select Committees on the European Union (with six sub-committees), on Science and Technology (with two sub-committees) and one ad hoc committee. By the current session, the following additional committees had been set up: the Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Economic Affairs Committee and its sub-committee on the Finance Bill, and the additional sub-committee of the European Union Committee. In addition, at any one time one pre-legislative committee is now served by this House. Members of the House also sit on the Joint Committee on Human Rights. A Committee Office of 29 staff in 1999–2000 now has 46 staff. We are also all too aware of the pressure that this expansion has placed on "peer resource". While not wishing to exclude the possibility of establishing additional Select Committees where a compelling case can be made, we are unlikely in the foreseeable future to agree to an increase in overall committee activity.
APPENDIX 1: MEMORANDUM FROM BARONESS HOWE OF IDLICOTE AND OTHERS ON THE CASE FOR A LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE ON BBC CHARTER REVIEW
It is acknowledged that the pre-legislative scrutiny committee chaired by Lord Puttnam on the Communications Bill carried out a thorough and constructive piece of work. That committee was immeasurably strengthened by the expertise and experience which was added to it by peers with wide experience of the communications industries.
The Puttnam Committee always envisaged that BBC Charter Review would be seen as a natural continuation of the re-shaping of communications undertaken by the establishment of Ofcom and the bringing into being of the Communications Act. It was also assumed that a mechanism would be found to continue to make use of the experience and expertise in the Upper House as Charter Review progressed. At the moment there are exercises being conducted on Charter Review by the DCMS Committee of the House of Commons, by Ofcom, and by Lord Burns on behalf of the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Various political parties have said they have formed their own study groups.
In the circumstances it is, at the very least, a missed opportunity not to provide the mechanism which an ad hoc Select Committee could provide to make use of expertise existing in the Upper House on broadcasting matters to provide a suitable platform for these and other interested parties to explain their positions and priorities. The Committee could work to a specific time-table to provide maximum assistance to Charter Review. For example, if established before the summer recess it could invite written submissions immediately, start taking oral evidence when the House returns in September and have a report ready by early spring of 2005.
Without such a Lords committee parliamentary scrutiny of the Review process will be heavily weighted to activity in the House of Commons and, in particular, to the work of the DCMS Select Committee. Valuable though that work will be, it will be seen to provide unbalanced scrutiny of the process when compared with that undertaken for the Communications Act. It would seem extraordinary if the Lords were to remain silent on issues where the full range of its experience and objectivity are especially appropriate.
Thank you for your letter of 27th January concerning the proposed select committee on communications. I have now had the opportunity to discuss your reply with a wide cross-section of peers, and this letter is written on their behalf, with their names and signatures shown below.
A great deal has changed since the Liaison Committee decision, which we believe justifies an early meeting to decide upon a more focused proposal.
It is our view that there is an immediate need for an ad hoc committee to be established to take evidence and report to the House on the issues surrounding the review of the BBC Charter, which as you know must be completed by 2006. Such a timetable makes it especially urgent for such a committee to start its work immediately if it is to make any meaningful input into the charter review. The House of Lords has many members with uniquely wide experience of broadcasting matters and the formation of a special committee of the House would enable this issue of such vital public concern to be investigated thoroughly, adding to the public debate for which the Government has called.
I would be grateful if you could call a meeting of your committee to discuss the specific proposal as a matter of urgency. I should like at that meeting to take advantage of your kind invitation and attend with a small number of like-minded colleagues to state our case.
Four years ago we, along with about 20 other peers, proposed to the Liaison Committee that we should have an International Affairs Committee of this House. There is a wealth of experience of international affairs in the House which could be channelled more effectively through a new committee sometime in the future without trespassing on the various EU Committees—say after the next election.
— We need a forum other than the EU committees in which all aspects of foreign affairs—including development aid—can be debated
— There are longer-term, less obvious topical issues not all of which are being taken up by the Commons or the Lords EU committees. Current examples might be: China, Nepal, security in Afghanistan, islands and smaller states, intervention in failed states/humanitarian catastrophes, conflict resolution in Africa, the UN Security Council and so on.
— There is the perspective of non EU-related developing countries which often receive less attention.
The Liaison Committee rejected it last time on the grounds that there would be overlap with the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee, but we don't think this is really good enough. This House in any case is here to look again at government policies and decisions made in another place.
However, as we see it, the new committee would complement and not in any way revise reports of Commons committees and would take care to avoid any overlap.
The attached list of about 40 peers combines those who supported the idea last time with others who have joined since.
We very much hope you will give this idea full consideration at your next meeting on May 10th and we would both be willing to attend to present the arguments and answer questions.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |