| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Forth: I am, as ever, grateful to the Minister. He has been patient with us. May I press him on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge?
Can the Minister tell us categorically whether he is saying that only when a member of the Committee resigns will the provisions of paragraph 2(2)(b) come into effect, or whether he is saying that it is possible--he may say that it is unlikely, but it is possible--under paragraph 2(2)(b) for another person to be appointed by the Speaker as a member of the Committee in the place of someone, thus displacing the original member?
That is an important point. It is one thing to say that a member of the Committee may resign and be replaced; we all understand that. It is a very different thing to say that there is the possibility of someone arbitrarily--no, I withdraw that--after consideration being appointed, and thus displacing someone who does not want to be displaced. Can the Minister clarify that?
Mr. Tipping:
It is absolutely clear that the Speaker holds the reins in the matter. Apart from the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Minister for Local Government who gain access to the Committee by virtue of their posts, as is the case with the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the other members are appointed by the Speaker. The Speaker will make an appointment only if there is a vacancy. With that clarification, I hope that the schedule will be agreed to.
The Chairman:
The hon. Gentleman may certainly address the Committee, but the Minister has sat down.
Mr. Stunell:
We are exploring an interesting point. The Minister moved the debate forward when he said that the Speaker would appoint a replacement only when there had been a resignation. That seemed to be the assurance that right hon. and hon. Members sought. Would that be the case, however, in the immediate aftermath of a general
For the avoidance of doubt, can the Minister satisfy me that, in the event of a general election, there would be an opportunity to restructure the Committee in accordance with the new shape of the House?
Mr. Tipping:
Sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 2 makes it clear that a member of the Committee is a member for the lifetime of the Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Sir George Young:
I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 2, line 36, leave out 'chairman of the'.
Amendment No. 20 is even more important, against the background of the debates of the past hour. We have tried and, sadly, failed to inject a greater element of impartiality into the composition of the Speaker's Committee than is set out in the Bill.
People can be appointed as commissioners with the agreement of the Chairman of the Speaker's Committee. We established in the previous debate that the Chairman of the Speaker's Committee could be, for example, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs who, for as long as I can remember, has always been a member of the governing party.
The amendment would change the wording from
We must remember that the object of a Speaker's Committee is to create an element of neutrality and impartiality for the electoral commission, so that it comes not under a Government Department, but under a Committee of the House. If that is the objective, it is important that when the Speaker's Committee exercises its functions, it does so in a way that is broad-based, neutral and impartial, rather than as currently set out.
The powers with which clause 3 deals are set out in clause 1, which states:
I shall not speak at length, as I hope that the Minister will recognise the force of the argument. It would be a bad start to the life of the commission if, for example, there were disagreement within the Speaker's Committee, or a majority in the Speaker's Committee that was opposed to the motion for the address appointing commissioners, and the Chairman none the less gave his assent. The chairman of the commission could be appointed in the same way.
I was surprised to see the Bill drafted as it is. I hope that the Minister is sympathetic to the argument and will tell us that the amendment has the Government's approval.
Mr. Maclean:
I share my right hon. Friend's view. It seems appropriate that if we are aiming at a semblance of balance in the Speaker's Committee and at impartiality in the entire structure, the Speaker's Committee as a whole should be responsible for making the decision. The agreement of the whole Speaker's Committee, and not just of the Chairman, should be obtained.
One assumes that the Chairman of the Speaker's Committee, being a right hon. or hon. Member, would not ask for such a motion to be made if the Committee were opposed to it. One assumes that he or she would have a majority in the Committee before proceeding with the motion for such an address. However, the Bill does not provide for that. It would be possible, when members of the Committee were not in agreement, for the Chairman to proceed with the motion for an address. The Government may claim that that is highly far fetched and improbable; if so, why cannot the provision simply read
Mr. Mike O'Brien:
The Bill requires the agreement of the Chairman of the Speaker's Committee before a motion is made for an address to appoint electoral commissioners. Amendment No. 20 would require the agreement of the whole Committee.
The arrangements for which the Bill provides are modelled on equivalent provisions for the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Section 1(1) of the National Audit Act 1983, which was passed under a Conservative Government, requires the agreement of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee before a motion for an address to appoint the Comptroller and Auditor General is made. That system works well and without a great deal of controversy. There is therefore no reason to depart from that approach in the Bill.
I expect that the Chairman of the Speaker's Committee would wish to consult his colleagues on the Committee before giving his consent to an appointment. In view of all the safeguards that we have incorporated in the measure, including the requirement to consult the leader of each of the main parties, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) stretches a point in insisting that all members of the Speaker's Committee should give their consent. I was not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman wanted to provide for the consent of the majority of the Committee and for the Committee to divide, or for the Committee to try to work towards a consensus and rely on the Chairman's view.
It would be undesirable for all nine members of the Committee to be able to exercise a veto over an appointment and thereby hold the process to ransom. There should be a broad consensus for each appointment, but demanding total unanimity on every appointment is a recipe for gridlock. The Bill provides for a tried and tested approach, which has worked well for the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General. There is no reason for it not to work for the electoral commissioners. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Sir George Young:
I am grateful to the Minister for providing the genealogy of the form of words in the Bill. However, the circumstances in the Bill are different from those in the Act that the Minister cited. We are considering sensitive appointments in a political arena. The appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General is not in the same league as that of the chairman of the Electoral Commission. I do not seek unanimity; I do not understand how the Minister read that into the amendment. The amendment would provide simply for
"with the agreement of the chairman of the Speaker's Committee"
to
"with the agreement of the Speaker's Committee".
As the Bill is drafted, the Chairman of the Speaker's Committee could agree on what was proposed and every other member of the Committee could disagree, but the assent could go forward none the less.
"The Electoral Commission shall be appointed by Her Majesty (in accordance with section 3)"
and
"Her Majesty shall (in accordance with section 3) appoint one of the Electoral Commissioners to be the chairman of the Commission."
14 Feb 2000 : Column 674
Those are important powers, on which the Speaker's Committee rightly has a say. I contend that the objectives of the Speaker's Committee cannot be discharged unless we amend clause 3(2)(a) to secure the agreement not just of the Chairman, but of the Speaker's Committee as a whole. That is the purpose of the amendment.
"with the agreement of the Speaker's Committee"?
Such agreement would be signified by the Chairman, but there is no good reason for nominating the Chairman rather than the whole Committee. If the Government accepted the amendment, it would give a further impression that they were inclusive, as they like to claim they are; that the process was impartial; and that all members of the Committee had been consulted before the motion for the address was made.
"the agreement of the Speaker's Committee",
which means a majority of the Speaker's Committee.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |