| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
28 Jan 2003 : Column 833—continued
Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight): The hon. Gentleman said earlier that the Committee deals with a Department that does not operate in all parts of the United Kingdom. I was waiting for him to explain why that observation was relevant to the debate. Will he now do that?
Mr. McWilliam: Yes. Scotland is part of the United Kingdom that the Department does not represent. I therefore subtract from the figures that I gave earlier the Scottish National party entitlement of four and conduct some redistribution. However, that would not result in another party receiving a different number.
Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman is pursuing that point, he will have to subtract all the Labour Members from Scotland and redo his calculations. The amendment proposes the nomination of a member of the Committee from Northern Ireland, so why is the point relevant?
Mr. McWilliam: Even if I subtracted the Labour Members, it would not change the ratio by anything that would allow an extra member from Northern Ireland. In fact, as I have said, the Ulster Unionists are over-represented in their total membership of Select Committees.
I do not want to detain the House any longer. It has been done fairly; it has been done clearly; and it has been done openly.
David Burnside (South Antrim) rose—
Mr. McWilliam: I have been overly generous in giving way, but I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is from Northern Ireland.
David Burnside: I read Quintin Hogg's "The Dilemma of Democracy" when I was at school. He warned of the threat of an elective dictatorship. In the short time since I entered the House, it has surely been right to have over-representation of minority parties, whether Unionist, nationalist or whatever, to try to bring the Executive to account. Since the Committee legally covers the Union of England and Northern Ireland—there might not be much left in the future—it would be—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman bring his intervention to a close?
David Burnside: My hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) should be on the Committee.
Mr. McWilliam: I caution the hon. Gentleman about using his source as an authority on the Committee that
we are selecting tonight, since that source was the reason why it is only now, after 20-odd years, that we are appointing a Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department. The hon. Gentleman's source, the former Lord Hailsham, insisted that if the new Select Committee system was to go forward in 1979 he would vote for it only as long as it did not cover his Department. Therefore, it seems to me that the hon. Gentleman's source is tainted.We have gone on long enough. It is obvious that we want to get on with this. We have waited 20-odd years for a Committee that should have been set up 20-odd years ago.
I commend the nominations to the House.
7.27 pm
Pete Wishart (North Tayside): I beg to move, To leave out "Mr. A. J. Beith" and insert "Lady Hermon".
I begin by assuring the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that there is nothing personal in this. Our amendment is purely political, moved in order to address the continuing exclusion of the minority parties from the vast majority of Select Committees.
We particularly enjoy these debates. They are always quite convivial and are always quite entertaining. I particularly liked the bravura performance of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) last night on the establishment of the Committee under consideration. Such debates also allow us to draw attention to the wonderful world of Select Committees.
We have had a number of debates about Select Committees in the past year, most of them very much to the dissatisfaction of the minority parties. I particularly recall the debate on modernisation, in which we tabled what we thought was a very reasonable and sensible amendment, suggesting that one place should be set aside for the minority parties in each departmental Select Committee. We thought that that was reasonable and fair. We argued for the amendment and divided the House on it. We were overwhelmingly and comprehensively drubbed in the vote. We admit that and we expected it. We accepted that that was the will of the House.
However, we returned with an even more reasonable suggestion: that each of the minority parties should have one representative on one departmental Select Committee over and above their nation or region of interest. I do not think that it is possible to be fairer and more reasonable than that. I am disappointed that we have made no progress on what is not an outrageous demand.
What also disappoints us is that it seems to be only the Select Committees that deny this access. We are able to participate in all the other institutions of the House. We can participate in debates if we are fortunate enough to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. We are involved in question sessions and we participate in questions on statements. But for some reason, Select Committees are impervious to change. They remain out of bounds to the minority parties. Surely it is time for that to change.
We have tried patiently and consistently to put the case that Select Committees must reflect not just the crude arithmetic that seems to be bandied back and forth in these debates, but the political reality of a multi-party House in a multi-party United Kingdom.
Mr. McWilliam: I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but will he reflect on the situation before 1997? The Government had a majority of one on Select Committees because of the ratios. We are trying to deal with a situation in which Governments may not always have such a huge majority. Therefore, under his proposal and in a situation such as that before 1997, the Government of the day would not have a majority at all. That would cause a problem for the Select Committees.
Pete Wishart: I find the hon. Gentleman's intervention incredible. Surely, in these circumstances—the Government have a massive majority—we have an excellent opportunity to involve the minority parties in the functions of the House and there is nothing to be lost in allowing us to participate in Select Committees. Sometimes, we have to remind many Members that there are more than just the three main establishment parties in the United Kingdom, and they would find that out if they ventured across the borders of Scotland or Wales.
Jim Sheridan (West Renfrewshire): For the sake of clarity, when the hon. Gentleman talks of minority parties, is he including another minority party—Sinn Fein?
Pete Wishart: I serve as a joint Whip for two minority parties when we deal with the Government, but we are talking about minority parties including the Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru, the Democratic Unionists and the Ulster Unionists. That does not include Sinn Fein.
Mr. Salmond: And the Social Democratic and Labour party.
Pete Wishart: Yes, and the SDLP.
I agree with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) that minorities should be over-represented. That is entirely right and it is how we achieve equality in such situations. We must over-represent the minority parties in the House to reflect the political reality of the UK. On this Bench sit Members from the SNP, which is the second party in Scotland. Our party is the principal Opposition in the Scottish Parliament and it may soon form the Government of Scotland.
Here also sit Members from Plaid Cymru, which is the second party in Wales and the principal Opposition in Wales. It will soon form the Administration in Cardiff. Behind us we have the hon. Member for South Antrim (David Burnside) and behind Labour Members sit Members from the SDLP. When Stormont sits, members of those two parties effectively form the Government of Northern Ireland. Surely departmental Select Committees should reflect and acknowledge that reality.
The proposal to establish the Committee was made, but when the nominations for membership were made—lo and behold and surprise, surprise—there was nobody
there from the minority parties. That is what we expected, and there was as much chance of a minority party being represented on the Committee as there is of me being made Lord Chancellor, heaven forbid.
Pete Wishart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion—who knows?
Mr. McWilliam: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that he cannot be Lord Chancellor because he is a Scot. The Lord Chancellor is a Scot.
Pete Wishart: I am not in the business of ruling myself out of any particular task, but perhaps Lord Chancellor may be a job beyond me.
Our amendment would replace the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed with the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). The House must agree that one could not find a more appropriate and suitable candidate for the Committee than the hon. Lady. A more gentle and fragrant alternative to the gruff and bellicose voices of Ulster, which we usually hear from hon. Members who sit behind us, could not be found. Indeed, she has already impressed the House with her polite yet tenacious approach in debate and in Committee. She is also something of an authority in legal matters, which one would think an advantage in the Committee.
Before taking a seat in the House, the hon. Lady spent 10 years as a lecturer in European, international and constitutional law at Queen's university. Surely such specialised knowledge and experience would increase the influence and status of Select Committees, inside and outside the House. She is an asset who should be employed in the Committee. Indeed, she should have been one of the first ports of call when the Committee was being established.
The hon. Lady is a suitable choice, and we would hope that she becomes Chairman of the Committee. It is no great surprise or secret that that chairmanship is intended for the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. I have spent too long in the usual channels and the Whips Office not to know that that is the case, but we are offering the House a choice—a proper election, not an election made behind closed doors in the Whips Offices where there is the whiff of smoke and a carve up between the Whips. We want the decision to be taken here on the Floor of the House. We are extending the franchise to Members here, who have a choice as to who will be Chairman of the new Committee—the hon. Member for North Down or the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. I hope that they exercise that choice and support our recommendation that the Chairman should be the hon. Member for North Down.
If the amendment is successful, if we manage to get the hon. Member for North Down on to the Committee and into the Chair—I realise that that is a lot of "ifs"—the minority parties would have their first-ever member on the Liaison Committee. Of the 34 members of that Committee, the Liberal Democrats, with 47 Members of Parliament, already have two—
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |