| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hain: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not think that there is anything between the right hon. Gentleman and me.
Mr. Hain: Well if there is, it is this. The House asked the SSRB to consider the matter and it has done so
independently of any Government or House influence. It is proper for us to consider whether we agree with its recommendation. If we were to disagree, we would be left in a vacuum.
Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There cannot be a debate on a point of order, and I have not forgotten the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), who is hoping to resume his speech at some point. The House has the choice of whether or not to approve the motion. If it does not approve the motion, it is the end of the motion. Of course, it would be possible for another motion to be brought forward but whether such a motion would come forward is not a matter for the Chair.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst for making his point of order. I have great respect for his abilities and great affection for him because he is a considerable parliamentarian. However, I am something of a pragmatist. If we feel a bite on a measure that I support, we should reel that fish in. The motion would be a move in the right direction by giving additional recognition to those who play a vital part in the running of the House and its ability to scrutinise legislation and hold the Government of the day to account. Although I am still considering the suggestion made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall, it would be a little churlish of me to vote against a measure of which in principle I am in favour. I merely regret the fact that the House of Commons is not able to do precisely what the SSRB suggested by saying that the final decision on which Committees to include should be determined by Members of the House.
Many people who have not served on, or taken an interest in, the Procedure Committee might fail to appreciate some of its duties and responsibilities. In recent times, especially since the Labour Government came to office in 1997, the House has faced matters relating to devolution. Devolution has a substantial impact on how the House deals with things. Many matters that we dealt with before are now delegated to the Parliament in Scotland, the Assembly in Wales and, when it sits again, the Assembly in Northern Ireland. Need I remind hon. Members that the House is increasingly affected by matters relating to the European Union? Again, the Procedure Committee, which the SSRB wrongly considered to be domestic and inward looking, has responsibilities that are very much outward looking, into all parts of the UK and the ever-enlarging EU. We have a duty to ensure that the procedures of the House enable Members of the House properly to scrutinise legislation and to comment on issues that have an impact on the people whom we all represent in our respective constituencies.
The Leader and Deputy Leader of the House increasingly understand that fact. I appreciate the close working relationship that has existed for a number of years between the Modernisation Committee since it was set up and the Procedure Committee.
Mr. Alan Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the use of the term "such as" in the SSRB's report shows that it regards the list not as carved in stone, but as something that could be amended by the House? As it is a relatively short time until the next review, perhaps the best way forward is to make a further submission to it and the Leader of the House for the review that is due next Easter.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman, who deals with Liaison Committee matters extremely effectively and positively and who has been a Minister of the Crown—he was also a shadow Minister; I remember him performing from the Opposition Benches on many occasions—is helpful. If the Liaison Committee, which he chairs, makes further representations to the Leader of the House, and if the Minister responding to the debate gives us some encouragement, as the Leader of the House has done, my voting for the motion will be a positive stand.
I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), who was also a Minister, misunderstood the point made articulately and appropriately by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). He did not say there is a taboo on accepting a position with a Government if someone is or wishes to be a Chairman of a Select Committee. His point was that if they were elected a Chairman, that appointment would be for the length of a Parliament and should be accepted on that basis. The question is whether they should, for reasons purely of ambition, give up that chairmanship if they get enticed by a ministerial job. The hon. Gentleman is right. We need to establish the tradition in a code of practice so that an individual who accepts the chairmanship of a Select Committee automatically knows that he is unable to accept a ministerial appointment during that Parliament. Chairmen should take the job on in that knowledge.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon, who has done an extremely good job as Chairman of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, should recognise that we need people with knowledge, experience and commitment to serve as Chairmen of Select Committees. Without them, the Committees will not do their job properly. It was a great day for parliamentary democracy and the ability of the House to hold the Government to account when the departmental Select Committees were established in 1979–80 as a result of the St. John-Stevas recommendations.
I look forward to working closely with the Leader of the House, not only as a colleague on the Modernisation Committee, but also in my capacity as Chairman of the Procedure Committee. I want the House to be more meaningful. The Leader of the House, the Chairman of the Liaison Committee and the right hon. Member for Livingston, when he chaired the Modernisation Committee, are right: giving an alternative career structure to Members who are committed to Parliament is a move in the right direction. It is important that we understand the situation properly and that those Committees and Committee Chairmen who do a good job should be fully recognised.
My final point relates to the Chairmen's Panel, which is, of course, relevant to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Those hon. Members who act as Standing Committee Chairmen or as Chairmen in Westminster Hall, our complementary Chamber, do an unsung job. It takes them away from high-profile political activity. It frequently prevents them from speaking in debates on the Floor of the main Chamber. It also prevents them from participating in high-profile political activity in other parts of the Palace.
I hope that in due course the Leader of the House suggests to the SSRB, perhaps after a debate in the House, that they both consider the remuneration of members of the Chairmen's Panel. I have been involved in such work voluntarily for 18 years. I enjoy it. It gives me a buzz to be involved in the detailed scrutiny of important legislation. Although Mr. Deputy Speaker cannot participate in the debate, as the senior member of the Chairmen's Panel I can say that it is getting more and more difficult to get people to come forward to do the job. Without those people, the House could not operate. Let the House never forget that.
3.27 pm
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire): It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), who said that he was in the last quarter of his parliamentary career. It is in the nature of one's job as a Member of Parliament that one is never absolutely certain which quartile one is in.
My hon. Friend touched on two frustrations that have been a constant theme of our debate. The first was the lack of an explicit link between the recommendations that we are considering and the Modernisation Committee's recommendations on a nomination committee. The fact that there is not a link was referred to by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) who, in view of that absence, is not minded to support the proposals. The solution is for the Deputy Leader of the House to say something about the Government's intentions regarding those proposals, the vote on which was narrowly lost. We have heard about the background to the Division, and the fact that a number of Members who, if they had reflected on what they were about to do, might have acted differently. It would be helpful if the Deputy Leader of the House would say in his winding-up speech that he is minded to give the House another opportunity to reflect on the Modernisation Committee's recommendations.
Another frustration that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield and others have touched on concerns the Committees specified in the proposals. My view is that it is unrealistic of the SSRB to decide which Committees should have paid Chairmen and which should not, as that is a matter for the House to resolve. It would be helpful if the Deputy Leader of the House could tell us how he plans to respond to the feeling that has run right through our debate that, for understandable reasons, the SSRB may not have got it quite right. We have been unable to amend the motion, but the feeling in the House is that we would like to revisit this soon. The Deputy Leader of the House has a
responsibility to address both those concerns, which have run right through our debate this afternoon.The Government motion approves my Committee's sixth report, and specifically endorses the two principles that we set out in paragraph 16. I shall speak briefly about the report, then make some even briefer remarks about the broader issues.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |