| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's constructive speech. Can he tell me whether he took part in the debate on the nominations committee and supported the recommendations put forward by the then Leader of the House on behalf of the Modernisation Committee?
Mr. Salmond: I think that I was here and that I supported the recommendations. I seem to remember that I discussed the representation of minority parties—I am about to do so again—and mentioned some of the more unseemly activities that were alluded to by the hon. Member for Pendle. I have not checked the record—I may have been elsewhere on vital business—but I think that I was here, contributed to the debate and voted.
Mr. Tyler: The hon. Gentleman is in the clear.
Mr. Salmond: The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is innocent, OK.
That brings me rather neatly to the second point, which is that there remains a huge suspicion of patronage. It would be extremely unwise to reinforce that, even with a relatively modest payment—the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire even objected that it is not enough—before clearing up the suggestion that it is an additional reward to those who can be depended upon not to be too truculent in the great manner of previous Select Committee Chairmen such as the hon. Member for Macclesfield. We do not want to
reinforce the suggestion that such positions are yet another bauble to be traded in the parliamentary atmosphere.My final point is the subject of my amendments, which unfortunately were not selected. Will the Deputy Leader of the House accept that it is high time that he and his boss acted to prevent the shabby practice of excluding minority parties from their fair share of Select Committee places and a proportional share of Select Committee chairmanships? The proposal is that 25 Chairmen should be paid. More than one in 25 Members of this House belong to a minority party, so minority parties should have a Select Committee Chair. Those parties are happy to agree among themselves who that should be. Forgetting payment for a moment, that could also give a Member from one of the minority parties a place on the Liaison Committee. At the moment, the minority parties are prevented from having an opportunity to question the Prime Minister in his regular appearances before that Committee.
It is ridiculous that almost a year after the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) accepted in the debate on 28 January this year that there was an imbalance and an injustice—as was reinforced in the debate on 14 May—the Leader of the House has not moved to redress that imbalance. It is not good enough for him to say, "That is a matter that has been considered by the Selection Committee." If we can move with such alacrity on this controversial proposal for payment of Select Committee Chairmen, surely he will want to move with even greater alacrity to correct an unfairness that was identified and accepted by his predecessor and by the right hon. Member for Livingston.
I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House can give the minority parties some reassurance that the situation whereby we are under-represented by three Select Committee places and do not have a Select Committee Chairman will be addressed and put to rights.
I can speak from the experience of being Leader of the Opposition in the Scots Parliament. I was in a position of some authority for some minority party Members—namely the three independent Members in the Scots Parliament in 1999. Although the three Members—one Green, one Independent and one Socialist—were not entitled proportionately to membership of Committees, the late Donald Dewar and I agreed that the Parliament would regard itself as reduced unless minorities were given the right of expression. The sin is much greater in this place, where the minority parties are statistically entitled to more places and a chairmanship, yet continue to be denied them. No action is being taken to redress that injustice. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will deal with that.
I have listened to the shadow Leader of the House in many debates. I finally agreed with something he said today—his point of order was absolutely correct. However, every time the Modernisation Committee presented a proposal on, for example, votes, procedures, timings of sittings—he was right about the latter—he greeted them as if they represented the end of parliamentary democracy.
Mr. Salmond: I believed that it had ended some time ago in this place, but that is beside the point.
The right hon. Gentleman warmly greeted the proposal that we are considering, although there is no consensus about it because it means that some Members of Parliament will receive more money. Yet suddenly the shadow Leader of the House decided that one specific proposal would not mean the end of parliamentary democracy, and might be a good thing, despite his reservations. I begin to wonder whether some pressure has been applied to him. Perhaps the Tory Whips have got at him in the way that Labour Whips got at Labour Members in order to defeat genuinely modernist proposals.
If the House of Commons votes to pay some of its Members more money, we had better have good reasons for our choice of Members and be able to demonstrate that the system is equitable and balanced. That is not the case, and unless there is a dramatic change of direction, the minority parties will vote against the motions.
3.52 pm
Mr. David Cameron (Witney): At the outset, I acknowledge that I have arrived in the House only recently and therefore have less experience than many who have spoken. Indeed, I worked out that I have approximately only a twentieth of the experience of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams). However, there is no harm in a new look at Select Committees, their job and whether Chairmen should be paid.
I became a member of the Modernisation Committee only recently and therefore did not participate in its report on Select Committees. However, when I was hiding from various groups of arm-twisters yesterday, I took the time to read that excellent report in full. I stress the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to the effect that the proposals are free-vote territory for Conservative Members. I assure the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) that no arm-twisting has occurred. We have a sort of double free vote because of our position, with a new leader in the offing but not here yet. It is like the Prague spring—we are allowed to say exactly what we think. Such movements are often subsequently crushed with bloody force.
Mr. Salmond: I accept that the Conservative parliamentary party does not need arm-twisting to vote for extra money.
Mr. Cameron: I was about to say something polite about the hon. Gentleman, but I shall have to reconsider that.
Our debate has been short but excellent. My view is clear: the payment of Select Committee Chairmen is justified on two grounds. The first ground is their work. I appreciate the point of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) that all hon. Members do all sorts of work. However, the Select Committees play a key role in scrutiny. They were set up in 1979 by Lord St. John of Fawsley, and they have now grown into their role and do a brilliant job.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), has been given rather a hard time in the debate today. I served with him on the
Home Affairs Committee and I would like to put on record what an excellent job he did as its Chairman. No one could accuse him of being a Government stooge.The work of the Chairmen of Select Committees includes the preparation of the Chairman's draft report, helping to sift the evidence, the setting of agendas, the arranging of meetings and working with the Clerks. Crucially, what has changed recently is the level of pre-legislative scrutiny. I was complaining yesterday to the Leader of the House that we sometimes have to scrutinise a Bill before it has even been published. I pay tribute to the Government, because they have tried to move ahead with pre-legislative scrutiny. At one stage, however, the Home Affairs Committee was scrutinising three or four Bills at the same time. There is a lot of extra work involved.
More importantly, the second ground for paying Select Committee Chairmen is the alternative career path. Obviously, Conservative Members could all be pursuing alternative career paths soon, depending on what happens. I really believe in the point about the alternative career path. If we want the House to have more independence and to do its job of scrutiny well, we need to encourage a parliamentary path as well as a governmental one.
I welcome the Senior Salaries Review Body report. It tries to distinguish between what it calls outward-facing and inward-facing Committees. I am not sure that that is entirely consistent. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) made a good point when he said that the report states that the House should decide these matters. On the other hand, page 3 of the report states:
- "Our analysis leads us to the view that the roles and responsibilities of departmental and other scrutiny committees are entirely different in kind from those of the 'domestic' committees, or from other committees with a focus purely on the internal workings of the House of Commons itself."
I felt that the judgment of the SSRB report on the level of pay looked about right. I rather disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) on this. The report says that we should examine the equivalent of a Parliamentary Under-Secretary and adjust the calculation bearing in mind the amount of time that they work, which I think is reasonable. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, we should see that as a first step. I mean we as individuals, because of course we have a totally free vote on this issue.
I would like to respond to one or two of the points raised in the debate. I have sympathy with what the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan said about the minority parties. In sheer numerical terms, it is difficult to argue against his point about allowing the minority parties greater representation on Select Committees. I was interested that he mentioned membership of the Liaison Committee in his amendment, which was not selected. I have often seen him ask questions of the Prime Minister,
and now the Liaison Committee questions the Prime Minister. It would be an excellent idea to co-opt him on to that Committee. I can see merit in that idea.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |