| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
28 Jan 2003 : Column 836—continued
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall): We have 53 Members of Parliament.
Pete Wishart: I take that correction. With the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, there would be
three Liberal-Democrat members of the Committee. The minority parties have 23 members, but no place on the Committee. The House should put that iniquity right and make a strike for fair representation by minority parties on the Liaison Committee.We watched the Liaison Committee in action last week, when members had the opportunity—
Mr. McWilliam: I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. The chairmanship of the Select Committee is a matter for the Select Committee, when it is formed. Neither I nor the Committee of Selection know who the Committee might select.
Pete Wishart: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman makes that contention genuinely, but it is not much of a trade secret that the most likely Chair of the new Select Committee is the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed.
Mr. Salmond: The solution is obvious. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is in his place. All he has to do is intervene and say that he has no ambition to chair the Select Committee. The matter could be cleared up here and now.
Pete Wishart: I thank my hon. Friend. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed declines to give that categorical pledge. That does not surprise me.
The minority parties are increasingly being excluded from the Committees of the House. I gave the example of the lack of access to Select Committees, and the same applies to the Liaison Committee. We are also worried about the Joint Committees of both Houses. We believe that they will be used as a form of pre-legislative scrutiny. We are effectively debarred—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman was on track when he spoke about replacing one hon. Member with another. That is the proposal to which he should be speaking.
Pete Wishart: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point was that the minority parties seem to be excluded from the Committee structure of the House, and from the Joint Committees of both Houses. If we are excluded from pre-legislative scrutiny, that would be unacceptable. I hope that the House does not go down that road. The minority parties have to be involved in pre-legislative scrutiny. We need an assurance that we will not be left out.
The Leader of the House has given us warm words over the past few months. We have taken them at face value. He is aware of our concerns, and is trying to find solutions. In the previous two debates on this matter, I have said that I believe that the Leader of the House and the Government have been trying to find a solution. They have been constructive and we appreciate the
assistance and support that they have given the new arrangements for the minority parties. All aspects, other than access to Select Committees, have worked well.
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy): Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a lot of talk about modernisation, and that the proposal would be a good move in that respect?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) that we are not talking about modernisation of the House. He must confine his remarks to the amendment.
Pete Wishart: I am grateful again, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I conclude by acknowledging the assistance of Conservative Members, who believe that we have a reasonable case. I hope that we will be able to enlist their support for the amendment.
It is time to make progress. We want some results. We could start with hon. Members supporting the amendment.We are not asking for much—one place in a non-regional departmental Select Committee for each of the minority parties in the House. It is a reasonable request. I hope that the House supports it, and the amendment before it this evening.
7.39 pm
Andrew Mackinlay (Thurrock): The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) said that the amendment applies to a non-regional departmental Committee. That is so, but the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties are all guilty of not seeking representation in Northern Ireland, with the result that people from that region cannot join our parties. All hon. Members in those parties should reflect on the fact that we contribute to the disenfranchisement of people in Northern Ireland in that respect.
Is it really acceptable that such a major Committee, dealing with the portfolio of the Lord Chancellor's Department, should have no representation from Northern Ireland? Our Lord Chancellor also undertakes functions that historically belonged to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. He is currently in charge of the courts, the appointment of the judiciary and all other constitutional issues relating to Northern Ireland. That is another powerful argument for accepting the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon).
I hope that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will not take my remarks personally as I hold him in the highest regard.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell (Blyth Valley): But my hon. Friend will not vote for the right hon. Gentleman.
Andrew Mackinlay: No, I shall not vote for the right hon. Gentleman because, to his credit, he is now a member of one of the principal political parties. Indeed, the Liberal Democrat party has reached critical mass and is probably the most effective Opposition party in this place. In the past, the right hon. Gentleman could have referred to himself as a member of a minor party, and I am sure that he did so. He is not challenging me because it is on the record that he referred to himself in
that way. However, he is no longer a member of a minor party but of a substantial party, which could form the principal Opposition after the next general election.
Mr. David Laws (Yeovil): The hon. Gentleman says that the Liberal Democrats are a major party in Britain, so would it make more sense if a Member from a minority party swapped with someone from the Government or the Tory Benches, rather than with the only Liberal Democrat Member proposed as a member of the Committee?
Andrew Mackinlay: That is a good point and all the big parties should reflect on it. One of the strengths of the House of Commons is that there has always been a place for the minor voice—[Interruption.] Members may laugh, but the point is important. The office that you hold, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is charged with the protection of minorities. In a legislature of 659 Members, there is a powerful case for discriminating in favour of the smaller interest, whether geographical or political. That is one of the strengths of a democracy.
We go around the world telling new legislatures to build in safeguards and ratchets for minor interests. We should do the same in this case. I do not want to labour the point, but there is a powerful regional case to be made for Northern Ireland representation on the Committee.
Jim Sheridan: My hon. Friend makes a powerful argument that a representative from a Northern Ireland party should be a member of the Committee. Some of those parties hold this House in high esteem and want it to be retained, but is my hon. Friend arguing that Members from parties that do not value this place and want to undermine it should also be able to serve on the Committee?
Andrew Mackinlay: I am pleased that my hon. Friend made that point. Our mandate does not come from the constitution but from the folk who sent us here, so I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams)—the Sinn Fein Member—does not contribute to our debates. The good folk of his constituency sent him here. That is their right—they gave the mandate and they can take it away. As regards my hon. Friend's intervention, there are Members with whom I fundamentally disagree but they have been sent to this place with a mandate and they have a right to be heard
The overriding consideration is the regional dimension, so we have to recognise that we cannot have more members from the mainstream parties. It would be disingenuous of the three main political parties if we were not prepared in this case to support the nomination of the hon. Member for North Down.
7.44 pm
Peter Bottomley (Worthing, West): I shall not pay a lot of tributes to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). When I saw the amendment, I determined that I should vote for him rather than the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon), because, as I am a reasonably senior Member of the
House, I might have been at risk of becoming Chairman and it is not one of my ambitions to become a member of the Liaison Committee.The Government, or the Labour party, should have learned lessons from the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges in the last Parliament. When there was a vacancy, the Conservatives proposed that Martin Bell join the Committee. He had direct experience, was a one-term Member of Parliament and served with some distinction. It is also worth recognising that Select Committees seldom have contested votes that matter. There may be times when they want to make a point, and there may have been times in the previous Parliament when there were serious contested votes, but at present that is not likely to happen, and if it did, it is not likely to matter a great deal.
So the best advice that I would offer the House is to accept the motion unamended, but see whether the Labour party will consider following the precedent set by the Conservatives in the previous Parliament and whether it might put right a point that has been well made, which is that it would be suitable for Northern Ireland to have a member of the Committee. Perhaps we can meet the point without doing the slightly offensive thing of challenging the Committee of Selection, which does a pretty good job honourably and pretty effectively.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |