The second element of the motion relates to the Chair of the Committee, and I have already indicated why I believe that it introduces a beneficial change. The Government believe that it would not be appropriate for a Member from the governing party, or parties, to be nominated for the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, because that might give rise to the Government’s appearing to seek to influence a key position in the House in an improper way. Having an Opposition Member chairing the Backbench Business Committee headlines the Committee’s independence not only from the business managers—of whom I am one, on behalf of the Government—but the influence of the Government party generally. My right hon. Friend the Member for
12 Mar 2012 : Column 43
Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) stood for the post of Chair in 2010, when the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) was elected, and his wisdom and experience have subsequently been deployed in his service as Chair of the Administration Committee. However, conventions evolve over time, and we think the time is now right to recognise that the Chair should be held by an Opposition Member.
At the same time, we are taking the opportunity to remedy an anomaly in the Standing Order that was identified by my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) and referred to by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire during the debate on 15 June 2010—namely, that at present no Member can be nominated for the Chair unless he or she belongs to a party with at least 11 Members of this House. I acknowledged on that occasion that my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman had identified a possible defect in the Standing Order that needed to be considered, and I am pleased to move this motion to remedy it—[ Interruption ]—despite the protestations of the hon. Gentleman who, it seems, is never satisfied. We propose to replace it with a provision that requires cross-party support of comparable strength but allows Members from minority parties to stand for Chair of the Committee.
Finally, the motion makes provision for hon. Members from parties not represented on the Backbench Business Committee to participate in its work. The motion allows the Committee to invite an hon. Member who does not belong to a party represented on it to participate in its proceedings, including deliberative sessions, but not to vote. It would be for the Committee to decide whether to invite one hon. Member for a Session or a shorter period or to invite different hon. Members to different meetings. [ Interruption. ] The Government believe that this effectively addresses minority party concerns—although clearly, according to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, it does not—in a manner consistent with the principle that the composition of the Committee should reflect the party composition of the House. The hon. Gentleman protests from a sedentary position that it does not reflect it because he wants full membership of the Committee, but that is not the way in which this House has determined its membership of Select Committees, whereby such membership reflects the composition of the House as a whole. It seems to me that that principle of proportionality is something that the House would wish to maintain, because otherwise it becomes open to the House to distort the composition of the House as represented in the membership of its Select Committees, and I am not sure that the Backbench Business Committee should be separate from that consideration.
We made it clear in our response to the Procedure Committee, which was published last month, that we do not agree with the proposal for full membership for a minority party Member. Our proposal allows for the participation of hon. Members from different parties, as and when the Backbench Business Committee considers it appropriate, whereas the amendments would provide for only a single hon. Member to participate. That is why we oppose the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire and others.
12 Mar 2012 : Column 44
The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) would apply the principle of whole-House elections to the election of a minority party Member. That is instructive about the conduct of this whole debate. Were the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire and the amendments to them tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley successful, the larger parties in the House would determine not only which Member from the minority parties would appear on the Committee, but which party would be represented. That would put the larger parties in the inappropriate position of deciding whether it should be a Member from the Democratic Unionist party, the Scottish National party or Plaid Cymru who was selected for the position. That amply demonstrates what is wrong with the current system of elections.
In conclusion, the motion will change the elections for the membership of the Backbench Business Committee and how Members participate in its work in a way that enables the Committee to continue to work effectively. It will make those changes at the right time—in fact, the only possible time—before the membership is settled in the next Session. The motion will facilitate the Committee’s effective operation in the future and I commend it to the House.
4.46 pm
Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab): It is appropriate that I start my comments, which I promise will be brief, by drawing attention to the success of the Backbench Business Committee so far. That needs to be put on the record. A wide range of topics has been introduced to the House via this mechanism, some of them as a result of the e-petitions process, with which we are now all familiar. Of course, one particular subject was not allowed to be debated in the Chamber, and the reasons for that are well known.
There have been 39 days of Back-Bench debate in the Chamber and 16 in Westminster Hall. The impact has been considerable and has outweighed the number of days that have been allocated. There have been challenging debates on a range of issues and there have been six votes, including two on Afghanistan, one on contaminated blood, one on the regulation of financial advisers and one on accountability to the House. All those are important topics that would not have been debated or voted on if we had not had the Backbench Business Committee. The House would therefore not have been able to express its view.
One of the two most memorable debates was last year’s debate on wild animals in circuses. The decision of the House, without a vote, was that wild animals should be banned in circuses. The view of the Opposition is that the wild animals in circuses may die of old age before they are banned if the Government have their way.
Perhaps the biggest and most profound debate was on the Hillsborough disaster, which was held in the House last autumn. I was proud to take part in that debate, and in my view, it showed the House at its finest. It was a moving debate that consolidated the growing view that the Hillsborough disaster requires open and transparent examination, especially in relation to the records that are given over to the inquiry, and that no stone should be left unturned in revealing the truth
12 Mar 2012 : Column 45
of what happened on that day. The House played an important part in confirming the view of the establishment, if one wants to call it that, on that point.
The Backbench Business Committee is clearly a useful new mechanism for strengthening the effective scrutiny of Government by the Commons. We support the motion because it follows the example set by the new arrangements for Select Committee membership, which were hard fought for. Those arrangements determine that the membership of Select Committees should be decided by elections involving all Members of the House. The new Select Committee procedure, which will apply to the Backbench Business Committee if the motion is passed, gives Back Benchers on both sides of the House the opportunity to determine their own representation on Committees. Equally importantly, it allows them to do so without interference by any other party.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP): The hon. Lady says that the motion will give parties on both sides of the House the ability to select their Committee members without interference by anybody else. In fact, it will give three parties in the House the ability to select their members. It ignores the representatives of the other six parties. The Social Democratic and Labour party, Plaid Cymru, the Scottish National party, the Alliance party, the Green party and the Democratic Unionist party will have no ability to select members. Does she not think that she should have thought the matter through a little more carefully, or is this just about the Labour party Whips controlling their Members, in the same way as it is about the Tory Back Benchers being controlled by their Whips?
Angela Smith: Perish the thought. I would argue, actually, that the motion gives minority party Members more right to representation on the Backbench Business Committee.
Mr Nuttall: Does the hon. Lady agree that there would be a problem if the motion were accepted, in that two elections would take place, one among Government Members and one among Opposition Members? The rules provide that two female Members have to be elected to the Committee. How would that work in practice? How would it be determined who the two female Members should be?
Angela Smith: It is a minimum of two women, and the Opposition have plenty of very good women who would put their names forward. In my view, women on the Labour Benches are equally likely to be represented on the Committee as our male colleagues, if not more so.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): Will the hon. Lady give way?
Angela Smith: Very briefly, but then I must make progress, because I want to give Back-Bench Members time to make their contributions.
Mr Bone: As I understand it, the Government’s proposal will do away with the gender balance on the Committee. Does the hon. Lady support that?
12 Mar 2012 : Column 46
Angela Smith: The Opposition will have a quota to provide gender balance on the Committee, because we are committed to equality when it comes to gender representation in the House. We are proud of the fact that we follow that principle.
The motion will also abolish the prohibition on members of minority parties standing for the position of Chair of the Committee, which is an important improvement. That is provided, of course, that they are not members of any governing coalition, which is an equally important improvement.
A Procedure Committee inquiry on the Backbench Business Committee is ongoing. We seek assurances that there will be an opportunity at the appropriate time for the House to take a view on any recommendations arising from that report, with adequate time provided. I believe that the Government have already conceded that point to some extent, but I should like to hear more about it when the Minister concludes the debate.
We cannot support the amendments, because they are incompatible with the Select Committee membership arrangements that are already in place.
I shall conclude now, because I wish to give Back-Bench Members adequate time to contribute.
Mr Speaker: Order. It is clear that several Members wish to speak, and we have, I think, only 53 minutes for them to do so. There is no formal time limit on Back-Bench speeches at this stage, but a certain self-denying ordinance would be widely appreciated.
4.53 pm
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con): I rise to speak against the motion, largely in sadness and regret, because I will have to criticise those on the Government Front Bench, particularly the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House. I could do that in 10 seconds, because as we have already heard, Government and Opposition Front Benchers support the motion on the Backbench Business Committee, so we could almost say, “When the two Front Benches agree, it’s a clearly a stitch-up and can't be right for the House”—and sit down.
This attempt to alter Standing Orders on the Backbench Business Committee to suit the Executive is absolutely outrageous. It is an attempt by the Executive to ignore Parliament and to impose their will on the House. What is particularly shocking is that they are trying to interfere with business that is exclusively Back-Bench business. Such business has no relevance whatever to the Government.
The Government’s actions fly in the face of the House of Commons Reform Committee report, “Rebuilding the House”, HC1117, which proposed what are known throughout the House as the Wright reforms. Those reforms were designed to restore trust in Parliament and to reduce the power of the Executive. They were the very reforms that the Leader of the House and the Deputy Leader of the House supported so vigorously when they were in opposition. I am sad to say that it has taken less than two years for the Government to do a U-turn and go back to the bad old days of the Executive trying to tell Parliament what to do. There have been several signs over the past few months that the Government
12 Mar 2012 : Column 47
are adopting the policy of always knowing right and of assuming that Parliament is there only to rubber-stamp their decisions. This motion is the clearest and most obvious breach of their commitment to put Parliament first.
One of the most shocking and shameful aspects of the debate is its timing. The Leader of the House put the motion on the Order Paper without any consultation with the Backbench Business Committee. Even more significantly, he did so only hours after the Committee met, so that it could not formally consider the issue. He has also tabled the debate and vote prior to tomorrow’s Committee meeting. He has deliberately slighted the Committee, which meets weekly, by putting the motion on the Order Paper hours after last Tuesday’s meeting and before tomorrow’s meeting.
What is even more reprehensible is that the Committee is reviewing its operation so that it can report to the House and provide evidence to the Procedure Committee’s inquiry. The Government’s timing is the most disgraceful discourtesy to the Backbench Business Committee. The Leader of the House is saying to the Committee: “I want to sneak this through before your Committee can formally protest.” That is devious, undemocratic and a disgrace to the Government.
I shall now turn to the crux of the matter—this is why the motion should be defeated. The Procedure Committee, chaired so ably by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), who is in his place, announced on 21 February 2012 that it was launching a review of the operation of the Backbench Business Committee in accordance with a previous motion agreed by the House of Commons. The review was
“in particular to inquire into…issues relating to the membership of the Committee…the amount of time available to the Committee and the way in which the Government allocates that time…the powers of the Committee, and the process by which the Committee determines the matters to be debated in backbench time.”
The closing date for submissions was Thursday 8 March. Let us dwell on that for a moment. Thursday 8 March was two days after the Government tabled their motion and decided what the House would do. At best, that was a shoddy attempt by the Government to ignore a Select Committee; at worst, it was an attempt by the Government to interfere with a Select Committee, which could give rise to a number of issues for the Minister, possibly including a breach of the ministerial code and referral to the Standards and Privileges Committee. The Government might think that they can ignore the will of Parliament, but this is a different Parliament from previous ones. This Parliament is willing to stand up to an all-powerful Executive.
As the House is aware, Members were requested to send representations to the Procedure Committee by last Thursday. The first three things they were asked to consider were:
“The composition of the Committee and the process for electing its members; whether the Chair of the Committee should be reserved for an opposition Member; whether a place on the Committee should be reserved for the minority parties.”
The top three issues, then, that we were asked to consider and report on to the Procedure Committee by last Thursday are exactly the three issues that the Government are trying to shoot through Parliament today.
12 Mar 2012 : Column 48
The Executive have decided, without waiting for the Procedure Committee report, that Committee members will be elected by party groups and that the Chair of the Committee will be an Opposition Member, and they have completely fudged the issue of the minority parties. The Government have predetermined the Procedure Committee’s inquiry before it has had time to collate the written evidence, take oral evidence and consider its report.
Mr Baron: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s explanation—that they had to push this through prior to an election—runs rather shallow given that, unlike for other Committees of the House, elections are every Session, so these proposals could quite easily have been postponed for a year until the next elections?
Mr Bone: Of course that is the case. These elections will determine the Backbench Business Committee not for the term of the Parliament but for a year. If the Procedure Committee happened to report after the next elections and there was a change to procedure, the elections afterwards could be run on the new system. There was absolutely no need to prejudge the Select Committee report, apart from the fact that it might have resolved matters differently from what the Government wanted.
Mr Knight: May I place it on the record that the Procedure Committee will in no way feel inhibited by what is determined today? Does my hon. Friend agree that what the House decides today it can later decide to undo or amend?
Mr Bone: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s comments. Nobody who knows him will think that this sort of ploy could possibly affect what his Committee does.
I turn to one of the most appalling aspects of today—the whipping on the Conservative Benches. There is no question but that this is House business, and there is no question but that it is Back-Bench business. By convention, such votes should not carry a Whip; they should be free votes. There is no way that the Executive should try to instruct the House how to organise Back-Bench business affairs, but Conservative Members were told last week that we would be on a three-line Whip to vote for this outrageous motion. After protests, the Whips Office reduced it to a one-line Whip. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) laughs, and of course he knows why the Whips Office did that: to keep Back Benchers away from the House. I have received a very nice text from a Member saying, “I’m out working in my constituency. Aren’t the xxx Whips very devious?” That is very true.
After our protests, then, the Whips Office reduced the vote to a one-line Whip, but that is not a genuine free vote, because Members here will still be instructed how to vote. This is wrong, should not be happening and flies in the face of the coalition Government’s pledge to restore trust in Parliament. Even worse, I understand that Ministers and Parliamentary Private Secretaries are on a three-line Whip to vote through this despicable motion. The very people who should have no interest in Back-Bench business are the ones who are being told to vote for the changes. I am more than happy to take an intervention from the Leader of the
12 Mar 2012 : Column 49
House if that is not the case.
[
Interruption.
]
I see he does not want to intervene. This really is going back to the bad old days.
Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con): Is my hon. Friend aware that some years ago, in an extremely important book called “The Commons In Transition”, a former Clerk of the House said that the root of all the trouble with Standing Orders and whipping was collusion between the two Front Benches in the 1880s in order to take control of Standing Orders away from the Speaker? In those days it was the Speaker who determined these questions, which preserved the integrity of the House.
Mr Bone: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, but I think you would admonish me if I went down that route, Mr Speaker, as it is a little wide of today’s debate, although I must say that it has much merit.
Mr Bone: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I turn to the amendments in my name and five of the seven other members of the Backbench Business Committee, including the Chairman. The purpose of amendments (d), (e) and (f) is to leave out the Government’s proposed changes to the election of Backbench Business Committee members. The Government are proposing that future members of the Committee will be elected by party group. There are two distinct disadvantages to that proposal. The first—I suggest that this is the reason for it—is that it will give the Government, as well as the shadow Government, greater influence in deciding who is elected to the Backbench Business Committee. Through their Whips Offices, they will try to engineer more pliable Members to be elected to the Committee. I believe that this will make the Committee much more divided on party lines. In all the time that the current Committee has met, there has been only one vote, and that did not divide it along party lines. The Government’s proposal will reduce the likelihood that independent parliamentarians will be elected to the Committee.
Secondly, the authority that members of the Committee hold is greatly enhanced by their being chosen by the whole House. Their mandate comes from Back Benchers of all political persuasions, not by a narrow party group. The Wright Committee was clear on that issue, saying in paragraph 180 of its report on page 54:
“We therefore recommend that a Backbench Business Committee be created. It should be comprised of between seven and nine members elected by secret ballot of the House as a whole”.
So there we have it: the Wright report recommends that individual members of the Committee should be elected by the whole House, not by party groups. That is what the House agreed when setting up the Backbench Business Committee—the House agreed with the Wright Committee. Now the Government want to change Standing Orders while a Select Committee is looking into the matter, and against the wishes of the Wright Committee and an earlier decision of the House.
In conclusion, I therefore wish to press my amendments, and if they are not accepted by the Government, I will seek your leave to divide the House, Mr Speaker. I will also be supporting the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel). I would urge Members both to support the amendments and to vote against the motion.
12 Mar 2012 : Column 50
Mr Speaker: Order. Several Members are seeking to catch my eye, so I give notice to the House that after the next speaker whom I intend to call—the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee—I will impose a time limit of four minutes on Back-Bench contributions, because I am keen to facilitate as many Back Benchers as possible. However, that will not apply to the next speech.
5.8 pm
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab): I will keep my comments brief, in order that Back Benchers are given a bit more time.
I am deeply disappointed that the Government have tabled this motion without consulting either the Procedure Committee or the Backbench Business Committee. It goes absolutely against the spirit of the sort of relationship that has grown up between the Backbench Business Committee and the Government. The fact that motions affecting the Backbench Business Committee’s operation have been tabled while the Procedure Committee is still looking at that matter in detail and asking people far and wide, inside the House and beyond, for their ideas means that today’s debate cannot be as informed as it should be. Furthermore, to allocate one and a half hours for such a debate is laughable. Members are being asked to make decisions on matters that require much more information.
The Backbench Business Committee will produce its report either this week or next week. The Procedure Committee could work much more quickly on its review of the operation of the Backbench Business Committee if it needed to, and could report very quickly on it. If the Government were willing to withdraw the motion, I am certain that we would benefit from a debate informed by the end-of-term report from the Backbench Business Committee and by the Procedure Committee’s report, well before the end of the Session and timed to coincide with the elections to the Backbench Business Committee. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government are willing to consider withdrawing the motion and having a debate on these matters on another day? I am sure that the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight) and I would work very quickly to produce our Committees’ reports in order to facilitate such a debate.
The amendments tabled in my name deal with the minority parties. This matter has been a running sore to the Backbench Business Committee. We are, by accident, a Committee of Members from England. We have three members from the east midlands region, and we are an entirely English Committee. We could be far more representative not only of Back Benchers but of the country as a whole if the minority parties were more actively involved.
Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD): As a Member from Wales, I endorse what the hon. Lady has just said. She will be aware that the leading characters from Wales came to her to put their case for a St David’s day debate, and I am happy to report that the English members of the Committee yielded to that request, but it took two years to achieve that. The point that she makes about geographic spread is an important one.
12 Mar 2012 : Column 51
Natascha Engel: Indeed. Such representation would give added flavour to the Backbench Business Committee.
Pete Wishart: It is more than that; the Committee must be for Back Benchers of the whole House, not just those of the Government parties and the Labour Opposition. There are five other political parties in the House; surely they should be represented if it is to be a Back-Bench Committee of the whole House.
Natascha Engel: That goes to the heart of the amendments. The minority parties are Back Benchers. They can never really be Front Benchers. It is very unlikely that we will ever see a member of one of the minority parties at the Dispatch Box.
Using the principle of proportionality is also wrong. The Committee has four members from the Conservative party, one from the Liberal Democrats and two from the Labour party, plus the Chair, who has a casting vote. An additional member from one of the minority parties would not automatically lose the Government their majority—certainly not during a coalition Government, and I see no reason why we should not consider expanding the number of members of the Committee if there were not a coalition.
The Backbench Business Committee is different from other Select Committees, in that it represents all Back Benchers of the House. At the moment, however, we do that very poorly by not having representation from the minority parties. The Procedure Committee’s report of October 2011 recommended that these changes be made, and that an additional place on the Backbench Business Committee be created in order that the minority parties be given representation. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire has just made the point that, after the Procedure Committee had reported, we could table motions to amend what had been decided today. That is sort of true, but only the Government are able to table motions that affect the Backbench Business Committee. Quite rightly, we as a Backbench Business Committee cannot table motions that affect our own operation. What the right hon. Gentleman says is rather difficult unless it is within the Government’s agreement that the motions are tabled. That worries me. That brings me back to asking why the Government cannot simply wait until the Procedure Committee has produced its report and the Backbench Business Committee has told the House about its experiences in the one and a half years of its existence.
Let me briefly support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) that deals with the issue of the whole House participating in the elections. This goes back to the point that the Backbench Business Committee is somewhat different from other Select Committees, in that it represents all Back Benchers. Therefore, the whole House should have a say in who it wants on the Backbench Business Committee.
Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con): The hon. Lady and I both served on the Wright Committee, and I am sure that she remembers, as I do, that it was very much that Committee’s deliberate intention to achieve a cultural change in the House of Commons. Part of that was precisely the issue of the Backbench Business Committee being elected by and representing the whole House, not individual parties.
12 Mar 2012 : Column 52
Natascha Engel: That is absolutely right. We should not throw away that important principle today. I am worried by the fact that the Government have tabled these motions. There has been inadequate time to look at them and inadequate time to explore all the different consequences arising from them. We are dealing with something that is not broken, so I do not understand why the Government want to fix it.
Mr Leigh: Apparently, some people in the Government think that under the current arrangements the Labour party can gang up to ensure that so-called troublemakers are on this Committee. Is that not to politicise the whole issue? The fact is that members of the Committee are independent. They are not troublemakers; they are independent-minded people. We should keep party politics out of this.
Natascha Engel: That goes back to my point that the Backbench Business Committee is not broken. We do not vote on party lines and the discussions we have are not on party lines. Its members are independent-minded. They are members of different political parties, but the wider issue is about how we best represent Back Benchers as a whole. We currently have a spread on the Committee, with every type of Back Bencher in today’s Parliament represented.
I urge Members to vote for the amendment that includes the minority parties as full voting members. We do not want them to be there only as a result of some kind of patronage of the Chair which allows them to attend and listen to the Committee’s words of wisdom. We want them to have full membership and full voting rights. I also urge support for the amendment tabled to allow the entire House to vote on who should represent Back Benchers on the Backbench Business Committee.
Mr Speaker: Order. A four-minute limit applies, but I remind Members that they are not obliged to speak right up to that limit.
5.17 pm
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con): I find the proposals in the Government’s motion to be very unfortunate, as they are bringing party politics into this place when dealing with Back-Bench business matters. That is, as I say, most unfortunate—and, more importantly, it will be viewed as unfortunate by people outside this place, too.
I suggest that a key aspect of the reassertion of Parliament was the formation of the Backbench Business Committee, which has proved—neither the Government nor Opposition Front-Bench Members have been able to suggest otherwise—to be an excellent method of holding the Executive to account, ensuring that matters of importance are debated here, at times against the wishes of the Government. I have heard no evidence from anybody that the Backbench Business Committee is not working well.
I have my own reasons to be grateful to the Backbench Business Committee. The full-day debate that I led on Iran on 20 February was the first time that the subject had been debated for many years. Whatever the views across the House, it was a good day for parliamentarians.
12 Mar 2012 : Column 53
It was a packed debate; we ran out of time; we heard many excellent contributions, including from former Foreign and Defence Secretaries. It was deemed by everyone who participated in the debate to be well worth while. At the time, the Government opposed it; they opposed even the wording of the motion, as we saw.
It is therefore very regrettable that the Government have pre-empted the findings of the Procedure Committee’s inquiry into the operation of the Backbench Business Committee by producing their own recommendations today. The response from those on the Front Bench that they had to do it now, because if they did not it would be too late for the election, is complete and utter nonsense. The elections come round every Session: they come round every year. There is no real reason why the Government’s suggestions could not have waited until the Procedure Committee had presented its recommendations, and perhaps they could then have influenced the elections next year.
I am afraid that, whatever my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House may say from the Dispatch Box, the justification does not stack up. There can be no doubt that implementation of the Government’s proposals would result in a weakening of the Committee. It would take power away from the Back Benches and Parliament and hand it back to the Executive, and that cannot be right. This is all about control.
Finally, let me say something about the question of who selects the Chairman and Committee members. Surely all those who are selected as members of the Committee would have far more authority if they were elected by the whole House, rather than by party groups. That would enable the Committee to perform its role even better, with greater justification and, I would suggest, with greater credibility and integrity as well.
5.20 pm
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): You will recall, Mr Speaker, the sense of disappointment, outrage and anger two years ago, when we first learned of the membership of the Backbench Business Committee. We had been excluded, as though we did not exist. We were not entitled to a place on the Committee. That would not have been so important had it been just another Select Committee of the House—we expect to be excluded from those, because that is what the arithmetic does—but for us to be excluded from the Backbench Business Committee, a Committee of Members acting for other Members, was absolutely and utterly ridiculous.
When we complained, we were reassured. I was told, “Don’t worry, Pete, it will be fine. As soon as we have the first opportunity to review this, we will put it right and ensure that it is fixed. We will have a place for you on the Committee.” And what did we get? Observer status. This is not the United Nations; this is the House of Commons, one of the Houses of Parliament. We do not do observer status in this place. What a ridiculous and utterly fatuous notion! We demand a place on this Committee.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Pete Wishart: I am sorry; I do not have enough time.
I could stand for the position of Chair of the Committee, but I have as much chance of becoming its Chair as the Deputy Leader of the House has of becoming the SNP
12 Mar 2012 : Column 54
Member for Somerton and Frome. There is no chance whatsoever of a member of one of the minority parties being allowed—
Mr Heath: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Pete Wishart: I will give way briefly to the Deputy Leader of the House.
Mr Heath: If it is of such little consequence that the hon. Gentleman could stand for the position of Chair, why on earth did he make such a song and dance about it two years ago?
Pete Wishart: What we were making such a song and dance about was membership of the Committee. I should be delighted to be able to stand for the position of Chair of the Committee as a member of the Committee, but for me to be able to stand for that position without having a place on the Committee is utterly and absolutely ridiculous.
We in the minority parties will have to have a think about this. We cannot have a Backbench Business Committee of some of the House; it must be a Backbench Business Committee of the whole House. We decided that we would involve ourselves with the Committee over the last two years, despite our great disappointment about what happened. We were reassured by the Chair, who has been fantastic with the minority parties, and who has been able to work with us to ensure that we could at least secure some of our debates. However, we will now have to take a good long look at our relationship with the Committee. I suggest to other members of the smaller parties that we should be saying, “If you, the House, do not want us, why on earth should we have anything to do with you?” If this is to be a Back-Bench Committee consisting exclusively of members of the Government parties and the Labour Opposition, why should we have anything to do with it at all?
We must ensure that the Backbench Business Committee is a Committee of the whole House. The present arrangements are nonsense, the idea of observer status is absurd, and I appeal to the House to back the amendments and ensure that we have equality in the House. There are five other political parties here. There is more than just a Labour Opposition; there are other members, there are other parties, and we must ensure that we are properly represented in the House. The Wright Committee has been a disaster for the smaller parties. We have effectively been turfed out of Select Committees, and now the same is happening with other Committees in the House.
I urge Members to back the amendments. I urge them to ensure that there is justice for the smaller parties, and to ensure that we have a Backbench Business Committee that represents the whole House.
5.24 pm
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): I am a glutton for punishment, because as well as being a member of the Regulatory Reform Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, I serve on the Backbench Business Committee and the Procedure Committee, so I follow the deliberations on these matters through the entire process.
12 Mar 2012 : Column 55
I agree with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) that the BBC should be a Committee of, as it were, the whole House. The Member who communicates with the minority parties should be a full Committee member and be elected by the whole House. I drafted a couple of technical amendments that would have ensured that the election for Committee members of the minority parties would have been the same as the election for those of the other parties, so that all are elected by the whole House. One reason for suggesting that is that not all political issues are party political.
Essentially, the Government and Opposition Front-Bench teams are trying to shift the balance of power back towards the Executive. Let us consider the elections at the start of this Session. I was uncontested as the Liberal Democrat representative, and the four Conservatives were also uncontested. There were three candidates to be the two Labour representatives, but there have not been any by-elections since. We could therefore argue that the proposal under discussion may not make any difference. In practice, however, it is still moving away from the recommendations of the Wright report, which state that Parliament should operate as a Parliament, and not do everything divided along party lines. We need representatives from the parties to make sure that systems of communication are in place and that Members know that there is somebody they can talk to.
Dr McCrea: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge the following fact: every other region of the United Kingdom can be represented—there can be a member from Wales, a member from England, a member from Scotland—but none of the three major parties have representatives from Northern Ireland? Who will speak with authority for the people of Northern Ireland?
John Hemming: That is why I think it is important to have somebody from the minority parties elected by the whole House as a full member of the Committee. There has been one vote on one issue, and the rest of the decisions have, in effect, been made by consensus. In a House business committee, there would, obviously, have to be a Government majority. In this case, however, there is clearly no need to add an extra Member of the Government parties when adding a full Member communicating with the minority parties.
My point is that the idea of having a BBC representing the Back Benchers of the whole House and elected by the whole House has worked very well and should not be changed.
5.26 pm
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): I think the Leader of the House has, in general, been an excellent Leader of the House; since he took up his post after the general election, he has, broadly speaking, done a good job, as has the Deputy Leader of the House. I therefore feel sorry that today is not a day when we are able to praise the Leader of the House, as I think the proposals he has come up with are ill considered and ill timed. I think that he has let himself down, to be honest.
I say that because we are now coming to the end of a two-year Session. This will, I believe, be the longest parliamentary Session since 1643. That has given additional
12 Mar 2012 : Column 56
power to the Government, as they have been able to keep on having a go at getting legislation through in the other place. That is why we are still having a row about the health service Bill. If we had not had a two-year Session, many of its elements would have been ditched long ago—and likewise in respect of many other pieces of proposed legislation.
The Backbench Business Committee has been a genuine success, however. As has been said, the timing of this proposal is wrong because the Procedure Committee has not yet completed its business. The proposal is therefore a bit of an affront to it. Also, the Government had plenty of time to organise for today. They could have set about this process months ago, because we always knew that another set of elections was going to be held at the end of the second year. We could have started this process six months ago rather than recently.
I also point out to the Leader of the House that the coalition agreement says that there will be a House business committee by the third year, which starts in a few weeks’ time. We therefore should, in fact, be debating the House business committee tonight, not the Government trying to seize a bit of power in relation to the BBC.
The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) go to the heart of what it is to be a Member of Parliament. Every single one of us can be partisan. I can be extremely partisan on occasion. [Interruption.] Indeed, other hon. Members can be partisan, too. That is not wrong, as we were all elected on party tickets. My constituents in the Rhondda do not vote for me because I am a lovely, decent chap. [Interruption.] I think I have carried the House on that. They vote for me because they want a Labour Government and a Labour person to be elected.
Of course, that partisan element of how we do our business and the way we tussle in the Chamber is part of making sure that the Government do a better job. I have no problem with being partisan, but we also have to rise above being partisan on occasion. We have sometimes let ourselves down on that and it is where the Leader of the House is doing so on this matter. It was a sadness that Robin Cook never managed to get some of these things through previous whipping organisations when we were in government, but it was a delight when people who were standing for election by the whole House—the Chairs—were lobbying all Members of the House; they actually wanted a mandate and wanted to understand what all the Members of the House thought. Surely that is why it is better that the members of the Backbench Business Committee should be elected by the whole House, not just by their individual parties.
I launched my “save the backbench three” campaign last Friday because of a concern. The Committee has done a good job, having given us the best debates this year, whereas the Government have given us some pretty poor debates during the past year and for the past few months they have given us hardly anything to do at all. I fear that next year’s business will be a waste of time, unless we keep the “backbench three”.
Mr Speaker: Order. Five Members are seeking to contribute and I would like to accommodate them all. I do not know that I shall succeed, but brevity is of the essence.
12 Mar 2012 : Column 57
5.30 pm
Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con): It is a good thing that Chief Whips are not required to speak in these debates. We have heard some full tributes to the work of the Backbench Business Committee from the Deputy Leader of the House and his shadow, and I would be very surprised if the Government Chief Whip would be able to utter the same words of praise and thanksgiving for the work of the Backbench Business Committee, because the Committee has been an utter pain for the Government Whips Office. It is no good the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) nodding her head, because the Committee has been bringing to the Floor of the House issues that very often neither Front-Bench team wanted brought here—they wanted to suppress them. That has been the great strength of this Committee.
If the coalition Government have a problem with who was elected to the Backbench Business Committee or how it was elected, they have nobody to blame but themselves, because some posts went uncontested. That shows a remarkable lack of assiduousness, given how the Whips Offices usually try to influence such elections. We should have no doubt that this operation today is an exercise designed to reduce the accountability and responsiveness of the Committee.
Let us briefly consider the detail of the motion. Most important is the proposal that the regularity of elections will reduced: they will be held once per Parliament. If this motion goes through, the election in the new Session will be the last this Parliament—
Mr Jenkin: I beg my hon. Friend’s pardon if I misunderstood things, and I stand corrected.
The motion is also determined to reduce the way in which the membership of the Committee reflects the views of the whole House, on the basis of the spurious idea that parties voting for Members of other parties have a malign intent. The Chair is to be chosen from the Opposition, but that will reduce the Chair’s authority. The great authority that the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) has is that she was elected as much by the votes of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats as by the votes of the Labour party. She was not a choice predetermined by the Standing Orders of this House and it was not a predetermined choice that she was chosen from her party.
For all those reasons, we should want to defend the existing system, not least because the Wright Committee intended the election of the Backbench Business Committee and its Chair to be carried out on a different basis from the elections to the other Select Committees. The Deputy Leader of the House keeps saying that he has given a reason for needing to pre-empt the findings of the Procedure Committee. He may have given a “reason”, but it is an excuse and a motive; it is not a justification for pre-empting the findings of the Procedure Committee.
I wish to conclude by making a brief point. Those of us from the previous Parliament who went through—how shall I describe it?—the purifying fire of the expenses debacle came out of it determined that things should change in this House, that politics should change and that at least some of what happens in this House should
12 Mar 2012 : Column 58
be taken out of the ghetto of the Westminster political parties talking to themselves. Are we now seeing this House reverting to type? Are we seeing the vested interests beginning to reassert themselves? I urge this House to be ever more vigilant to make sure that that does not occur and ever more vigilant because we are seeing today how determined the forces of darkness in politics can be.
5.34 pm
Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): This debate is about power and those on the Front Benches are misguided in thinking that it will enhance ministerial power to seek to influence the way in which Back-Bench business is conducted against the interests of all the Back Benchers who have turned up and spoken in today’s debate. It is wrong of those on the two Front Benches to impose a Whip on Ministers and shadow Ministers—[ Interruption. ] I accept, then, that there is no such Whip on shadow Ministers, but we will see. We will study the Division results with great interest to see the view that shadow Ministers take. It is wrong for Front Benchers to seek to stop Back Benchers continuing with their arrangements in a timely way.
I share a common cause with my Front Benchers as I happen to think, as they seem to, that Ministers do not have enough power. I think that there is a danger that under any Government we could have Ministers in office but not in power, but the reason is not our powerful Backbench Business Committee and the fact that it makes them come to this House to discuss things that they do not wish to discuss. If Ministers do that well, it enhances their stature. The reason is that too many decisions are taken by the European Union, overridden by the European Court of Human Rights or taken by independent quangos. We have the Environment Agency, the Bank of England and United Kingdom Financial Investments; Ministers are very limited in what they can do. I would happily make common cause with those on my Front Bench in getting Ministers more power and think that many of my colleagues would take the same view. We would be cheering them if they came to this House and said that Ministers needed more power to settle our borders, sort out the problems with prisoners, deal with taxation or money supply and so on. We want it to be accountable power, however, which is why we want Ministers to have more power but think that they should come to the House of Commons to answer for how they exercise it.
Ministers should get real. They are in danger of being in office but not in power because they will not take the accountable power they need to improve our country and to make the necessary changes. Their problem is not the Backbench Business Committee; their problem lies elsewhere. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench to wake up and smell the coffee, as the phrase goes these days, and to understand that people want a strong, proud and independent Parliament and that people want their Ministers to come here to talk about the difficult issues on any day. They want Ministers to talk about the issue that they do not want to talk about today, because that is what matters and that is what is topical. A strong and confident Government can debate anything at any time about their conduct, their views and their policies and the more we make them debate it, the stronger their case should be. I want the Opposition to challenge them, I want the Backbench
12 Mar 2012 : Column 59
Business Committee to challenge them and, above all, I want the decisions that matter for our country to be made here by accountable Ministers.
5.38 pm
Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con): There is absolutely no clamour from Back Benchers for any change in the method of election to the Backbench Business Committee. Let us be clear about that. I pray in evidence paragraph 59 of the fifth report of the Procedure Committee of this Session, which states:
“We have received no adverse comments on the arrangements for the elections to the Backbench Business Committee but there are two issues which have been raised in evidence to us which we now consider.”
One related to the representation of the minority parties and the Procedure Committee suggested adding a member to the Backbench Business Committee,
“to be elected by the whole House.”
The second issue was a rather technical matter relating to by-elections. There was no suggestion that the whole Committee and the nature of its members’ election should be changed.
I submit as evidence Standing Order 152(1), which states:
“Select committees shall be appointed to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the principal government departments as set out in paragraph (2)”.
Paragraph (2) then lists 19 Departments; obviously, the Backbench Business Committee is not on that list. The Government have suggested today that the changes in the motion are needed to bring the Backbench Business Committee into line with other Select Committees. Incidentally, however, they also seek to differentiate the Committee from Select Committees when it comes to the length of membership. I understand why some Members might be confused about this. The Backbench Business Committee is and should be regarded as a Committee of the House and should be treated differently from Select Committees. On that basis, elections to it should be by the whole House and I urge Members to support the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone).
5.40 pm
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con): This has been a passionate debate and I agreed with much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) had to say. Perhaps they gave their case a little less credit by resorting to elements of hyperbole—indeed, there were hints of hysteria coming from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) —but I agree fundamentally with what they said. This Executive, like every other Executive and—this is even sadder to see—like the shadow Executive, have an unhealthy tendency to meddle in matters that are best left to Parliament. That should rightly be resisted and it is through the Backbench Business Committee that we try our best to resist.
Unlike any other Member who has spoken, perhaps, I think the motion is more of a curate’s egg. I believe that the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee should be an Opposition Member. As has been pointed
12 Mar 2012 : Column 60
out, in the initial election, my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst), who is a very good friend of mine and a distinguished parliamentarian, was pitted against the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire. I thought it would be very unhealthy for that role, particularly initially, to be in the hands of a former Deputy Speaker of 13 years’ standing who was therefore very much part of the establishment, so I voted with my head rather than my heart. Like every other Member who has spoken I have been extremely pleased with the outcome and I pay great tribute to the wonderful work that the hon. Lady does in chairing the Committee.
Let me pick up on the contribution of the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire. The Leader of the House would do well to recognise that every single party in the House of Commons is a minority party, and I think it is quite wrong that we are prescribing the rights of the minority parties. The suggestion in amendment (a), which I think would have come through with the Procedure Committee, that there should be a special member for all the minority parties, is something we should follow.
I also believe there are very good reasons why the Backbench Business Committee should have some anonymity rules, as has been suggested by Ministers, for the election of its members, because it is by its nature an anonymous Committee: it is a Back-Bench Committee looking at Back-Bench business. I say that as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, which, alongside the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges, has different election arrangements. Those anomalies are open to a certain amount of criticism but are, none the less, rightly tolerated. If we do not adopt that approach, we run the risk of having approved party candidates rather than those who have the broadest party support. I shall be supporting amendments (a) and (d). There are elements of the motion with which I agree, but I regret the way in which it has led to the rancour we have seen in the past hour or so in this debate.
5.43 pm
Mr Richard Shepherd (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con): I recall that the Leader of the House was one of the most eloquent advocates of Dr Tony Wright’s proposed reforms in this area. I also remember a famous conference speech in which he said that we would not resort to guillotines in the manner that had happened in the past. I also remember that when I was a student, the constitutional writers of the time used to discuss and describe the role and function of the Leader of the House. Fifty years ago they would argue that it was the most important role in the management of the House of Commons. The Leader of the House brought the views of the House to the Government and would try and influence them in the interests of the House and in the interests of the Government. It is a divided position; it is not an easy one. Yet here we see on the Order Paper, in the name of the Leader of the House, a motion that clearly has not been the result of any form of consultation, but has come from the very bowels of Government to assert their own primacy yet again.
The debate is about the Backbench Business Committee. This is Back-Bench business, in a sense, yet we know the apparatus, as has been described by many Conservative
12 Mar 2012 : Column 61
Members, through which the motion has come about. It is not to the credit of the Leader of the House that his name is the first of the proposers.
The reforms have not been bad. They have been rather successful, and maybe it is their success that arouses fear. After all, we had a debate on a referendum. That is something that no Government—Labour or the present Government—would have tabled. We were able to discuss matters on which debate had been denied to Members for a very long time. I support much of the work of the Backbench Business Committee. It is essential that it carries on in future. I have always supported—
5.46 pm
One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the Deputy Speaker put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Order, 7 March ).
Amendment proposed:(d), leave out paragraph (1). —(Mr Bone).
The House divided:
Ayes 105, Noes 186.
[5.46 pm
AYES
Ali, Rushanara
Anderson, Mr David
Bacon, Mr Richard
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Baron, Mr John
Barron, rh Mr Kevin
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Berger, Luciana
Binley, Mr Brian
Blunkett, rh Mr David
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brady, Mr Graham
Brake, rh Tom
Brennan, Kevin
Bryant, Chris
Buck, Ms Karen
Buckland, Mr Robert
Byles, Dan
Cable, rh Vince
Carswell, Mr Douglas
Cash, Mr William
Cooper, Rosie
Cryer, John
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Davies, Philip
Davis, rh Mr David
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Dorries, Nadine
Efford, Clive
Evans, Chris
Farron, Tim
Field, rh Mr Frank
Field, Mark
Gardiner, Barry
George, Andrew
Glass, Pat
Goggins, rh Paul
Goldsmith, Zac
Gray, Mr James
Halfon, Robert
Hemming, John
Hopkins, Kelvin
Horwood, Martin
Hosie, Stewart
Jackson, Mr Stewart
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Jones, Mr Kevan
Lammy, rh Mr David
Leigh, Mr Edward
Lewis, Dr Julian
Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn
MacShane, rh Mr Denis
Mactaggart, Fiona
McCartney, Jason
McCartney, Karl
McCrea, Dr William
McIntosh, Miss Anne
Meacher, rh Mr Michael
Miller, Andrew
Mills, Nigel
Mitchell, Austin
Morris, Grahame M.
(Easington)
Mulholland, Greg
Nuttall, Mr David
Offord, Mr Matthew
Ottaway, Richard
Percy, Andrew
Pugh, John
Qureshi, Yasmin
Raynsford, rh Mr Nick
Reckless, Mark
Redwood, rh Mr John
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Reynolds, Jonathan
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Rosindell, Andrew
Ruffley, Mr David
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Shepherd, Mr Richard
Simpson, David
Smith, Sir Robert
Stewart, Bob
Streeter, Mr Gary
Stringer, Graham
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Stuart, Mr Graham
Swales, Ian
Timms, rh Stephen
Tomlinson, Justin
Turner, Mr Andrew
Twigg, Stephen
Tyrie, Mr Andrew
Weir, Mr Mike
Wheeler, Heather
Whiteford, Dr Eilidh
Williams, Hywel
Williams, Mr Mark
Williamson, Chris
Winnick, Mr David
Wishart, Pete
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wright, David
Tellers for the Ayes:
Mr Peter Bone and
Natascha Engel
NOES
Adams, Nigel
Aldous, Peter
Alexander, rh Danny
Allen, Mr Graham
Andrew, Stuart
Arbuthnot, rh Mr James
Baker, Norman
Barclay, Stephen
Barwell, Gavin
Bebb, Guto
Bellingham, Mr Henry
Berry, Jake
Bingham, Andrew
Birtwistle, Gordon
Blackman, Bob
Boles, Nick
Bottomley, Sir Peter
Bradley, Karen
Bray, Angie
Brennan, Kevin
Bridgen, Andrew
Bruce, Fiona
Burns, rh Mr Simon
Burrowes, Mr David
Burstow, Paul
Burt, Lorely
Cable, rh Vince
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carmichael, Neil
Chishti, Rehman
Clark, rh Greg
Clarke, rh Mr Tom
Clegg, rh Mr Nick
Collins, Damian
Colvile, Oliver
Crabb, Stephen
Davey, rh Mr Edward
Davies, Glyn
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Docherty, Thomas
Duddridge, James
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eagle, Maria
Ellis, Michael
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Elphicke, Charlie
Esterson, Bill
Evans, Graham
Evennett, Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Featherstone, Lynne
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Foster, rh Mr Don
Francois, rh Mr Mark
Freeman, George
Garnier, Mr Edward
Gauke, Mr David
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Glen, John
Glindon, Mrs Mary
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Graham, Richard
Grayling, rh Chris
Green, Damian
Greening, rh Justine
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic
Griffiths, Andrew
Hames, Duncan
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, Matthew
Hands, Greg
Harper, Mr Mark
Harris, Rebecca
Hart, Simon
Harvey, Nick
Hayes, Mr John
Heald, Oliver
Heath, Mr David
Herbert, rh Nick
Hinds, Damian
Howell, John
Hughes, rh Simon
Huppert, Dr Julian
Hurd, Mr Nick
James, Margot
Javid, Sajid
Johnson, Gareth
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, Mr David
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kirby, Simon
Knight, rh Mr Greg
Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Lamb, Norman
Lancaster, Mark
Lee, Jessica
Lee, Dr Phillip
Letwin, rh Mr Oliver
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lilley, rh Mr Peter
Lloyd, Tony
Lord, Jonathan
Loughton, Tim
Luff, Peter
Macleod, Mary
Malhotra, Seema
Maude, rh Mr Francis
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
Meale, Sir Alan
Miller, Maria
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew
Moore, rh Michael
Morgan, Nicky
Morris, David
Morris, James
Mosley, Stephen
Munn, Meg
Munt, Tessa
Murrison, Dr Andrew
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Newton, Sarah
O'Brien, Mr Stephen
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Paice, rh Mr James
Parish, Neil
Penning, Mike
Penrose, John
Perry, Claire
Phillips, Stephen
Pickles, rh Mr Eric
Pincher, Christopher
Pritchard, Mark
Randall, rh Mr John
Riordan, Mrs Linda
Robathan, rh Mr Andrew
Rogerson, Dan
Russell, Sir Bob
Rutley, David
Sandys, Laura
Selous, Andrew
Shapps, rh Grant
Sharma, Alok
Simmonds, Mark
Simpson, Mr Keith
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Smith, Angela
Smith, Miss Chloe
Smith, Julian
Soubry, Anna
Spellar, rh Mr John
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline
Stephenson, Andrew
Stewart, Iain
Stride, Mel
Stunell, Andrew
Sturdy, Julian
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Swinson, Jo
Swire, rh Mr Hugo
Syms, Mr Robert
Teather, Sarah
Timpson, Mr Edward
Vaizey, Mr Edward
Vara, Mr Shailesh
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walker, Mr Robin
Wallace, Mr Ben
Walter, Mr Robert
Watkinson, Angela
Watts, Mr Dave
Webb, Steve
Wharton, James
White, Chris
Whittaker, Craig
Whittingdale, Mr John
Wiggin, Bill
Williams, Roger
Williamson, Gavin
Wilson, Mr Rob
Wright, Jeremy
Wright, Simon
Young, rh Sir George
Tellers for the Noes:
Mark Hunter and
Mr Philip Dunne
Question accordingly negatived.
12 Mar 2012 : Column 62
12 Mar 2012 : Column 63
Amendment proposed:(a), at end of paragraph (1), after ‘choose’, insert:
‘; and that the members of those parties who would not otherwise be represented on the Committee, or of no party, should choose one Member to represent them on the Committee by a secret ballot of those Members’.—(Natascha Engel.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House divided:
Ayes 101, Noes 166.
[6.00 pm
AYES
Anderson, Mr David
Bacon, Mr Richard
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Baron, Mr John
Barron, rh Mr Kevin
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Berger, Luciana
Blunkett, rh Mr David
Bone, Mr Peter
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brady, Mr Graham
Brennan, Kevin
Bridgen, Andrew
Bryant, Chris
Carswell, Mr Douglas
Cash, Mr William
Chapman, Mrs Jenny
Clark, Katy
Clwyd, rh Ann
Cooper, Rosie
Cryer, John
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Davies, Philip
Davis, rh Mr David
Efford, Clive
Engel, Natascha
Esterson, Bill
Farron, Tim
Field, rh Mr Frank
Field, Mark
Gardiner, Barry
George, Andrew
Glass, Pat
Goggins, rh Paul
Goldsmith, Zac
Gray, Mr James
Green, Kate
Halfon, Robert
Hamilton, Mr David
Hemming, John
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon
Hopkins, Kelvin
Horwood, Martin
Hosie, Stewart
Hughes, rh Simon
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Jones, Mr Kevan
Lammy, rh Mr David
Lewis, Dr Julian
Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn
MacShane, rh Mr Denis
Malhotra, Seema
McCartney, Karl
McCrea, Dr William
Meacher, rh Mr Michael
Meale, Sir Alan
Miller, Andrew
Mills, Nigel
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Morris, Grahame M.
(Easington)
Mulholland, Greg
Munn, Meg
Munt, Tessa
Nuttall, Mr David
Offord, Mr Matthew
Onwurah, Chi
Ottaway, Richard
Percy, Andrew
Pritchard, Mark
Reckless, Mark
Redwood, rh Mr John
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Rosindell, Andrew
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Shepherd, Mr Richard
Simpson, David
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Slaughter, Mr Andy
Smith, rh Mr Andrew
Smith, Nick
Smith, Sir Robert
Straw, rh Mr Jack
Streeter, Mr Gary
Stringer, Graham
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Swales, Ian
Turner, Mr Andrew
Twigg, Stephen
Tyrie, Mr Andrew
Weir, Mr Mike
Wheeler, Heather
Whitehead, Dr Alan
Whittingdale, Mr John
Williams, Hywel
Williams, Mr Mark
Williams, Roger
Winnick, Mr David
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wright, David
Tellers for the Ayes:
Pete Wishart and
Dr Eilidh Whiteford
NOES
Adams, Nigel
Aldous, Peter
Ali, Rushanara
Allen, Mr Graham
Andrew, Stuart
Baker, Norman
Baldry, Tony
Barclay, Stephen
Barwell, Gavin
Bebb, Guto
Bellingham, Mr Henry
Berry, Jake
Betts, Mr Clive
Birtwistle, Gordon
Blackman, Bob
Boles, Nick
Bottomley, Sir Peter
Bradley, Karen
Bray, Angie
Bruce, Fiona
Buckland, Mr Robert
Burns, rh Mr Simon
Burrowes, Mr David
Burstow, Paul
Burt, Lorely
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carmichael, Neil
Chishti, Rehman
Clark, rh Greg
Collins, Damian
Colvile, Oliver
Crabb, Stephen
Creagh, Mary
Davey, rh Mr Edward
Davies, Glyn
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Docherty, Thomas
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Duddridge, James
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Dunne, Mr Philip
Eagle, Ms Angela
Ellis, Michael
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Elphicke, Charlie
Evans, Graham
Evennett, Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Featherstone, Lynne
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Francois, rh Mr Mark
Freeman, George
Garnier, Mr Edward
Gauke, Mr David
Gibb, Mr Nick
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Glen, John
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Graham, Richard
Grayling, rh Chris
Green, Damian
Greening, rh Justine
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic
Hames, Duncan
Hammond, Stephen
Hancock, Matthew
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harper, Mr Mark
Harris, Rebecca
Harvey, Nick
Hayes, Mr John
Heald, Oliver
Heath, Mr David
Herbert, rh Nick
Hinds, Damian
Howell, John
James, Margot
Javid, Sajid
Johnson, Gareth
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, Mr David
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kirby, Simon
Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Lamb, Norman
Lancaster, Mark
Lee, Jessica
Lee, Dr Phillip
Leslie, Chris
Letwin, rh Mr Oliver
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lord, Jonathan
Loughton, Tim
Luff, Peter
Macleod, Mary
Maude, rh Mr Francis
McCartney, Jason
McIntosh, Miss Anne
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
Miller, Maria
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew
Moore, rh Michael
Morgan, Nicky
Morris, David
Morris, James
Mosley, Stephen
Mundell, rh David
Murrison, Dr Andrew
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Newton, Sarah
O'Brien, Mr Stephen
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Paice, rh Mr James
Parish, Neil
Penning, Mike
Perry, Claire
Phillips, Stephen
Pickles, rh Mr Eric
Pincher, Christopher
Pugh, John
Randall, rh Mr John
Reynolds, Jonathan
Robathan, rh Mr Andrew
Rogerson, Dan
Russell, Sir Bob
Rutley, David
Selous, Andrew
Shapps, rh Grant
Sharma, Alok
Simmonds, Mark
Simpson, Mr Keith
Smith, Angela
Smith, Miss Chloe
Smith, Julian
Soubry, Anna
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline
Stephenson, Andrew
Stewart, Bob
Stewart, Iain
Stride, Mel
Stuart, Mr Graham
Stunell, Andrew
Sturdy, Julian
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Swinson, Jo
Swire, rh Mr Hugo
Syms, Mr Robert
Teather, Sarah
Timpson, Mr Edward
Tomlinson, Justin
Vaizey, Mr Edward
Vara, Mr Shailesh
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walker, Mr Robin
Wallace, Mr Ben
Walter, Mr Robert
Watkinson, Angela
Webb, Steve
Whittaker, Craig
Wiggin, Bill
Williamson, Gavin
Wright, Jeremy
Wright, Simon
Young, rh Sir George
Tellers for the Noes:
Mark Hunter and
Greg Hands
Question accordingly negatived.
12 Mar 2012 : Column 64
12 Mar 2012 : Column 65
The House divided:
Ayes 203, Noes 82.
[6.13 pm
AYES
Abrahams, Debbie
Adams, Nigel
Afriyie, Adam
Aldous, Peter
Allen, Mr Graham
Andrew, Stuart
Ashworth, Jonathan
Baker, Norman
Baldry, Tony
Barclay, Stephen
Barwell, Gavin
Bebb, Guto
Bellingham, Mr Henry
Benn, rh Hilary
Berger, Luciana
Berry, Jake
Birtwistle, Gordon
Blackman, Bob
Blears, rh Hazel
Blenkinsop, Tom
Blomfield, Paul
Blunkett, rh Mr David
Boles, Nick
Bottomley, Sir Peter
Bradley, Karen
Bray, Angie
Brennan, Kevin
Brown, Mr Russell
Bruce, Fiona
Burns, rh Mr Simon
Burrowes, Mr David
Burstow, Paul
Burt, Lorely
Campbell, Mr Alan
Carmichael, rh Mr Alistair
Carmichael, Neil
Chishti, Rehman
Clark, rh Greg
Collins, Damian
Colvile, Oliver
Crabb, Stephen
Cunningham, Alex
Dakin, Nic
Davey, rh Mr Edward
David, Mr Wayne
Davies, Glyn
Denham, rh Mr John
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan
Docherty, Thomas
Duddridge, James
Duncan Smith, rh Mr Iain
Dunne, Mr Philip
Eagle, Ms Angela
Eagle, Maria
Ellis, Michael
Ellwood, Mr Tobias
Elphicke, Charlie
Evans, Graham
Evennett, Mr David
Fabricant, Michael
Featherstone, Lynne
Fitzpatrick, Jim
Fovargue, Yvonne
Francois, rh Mr Mark
Freeman, George
Garnier, Mr Edward
Gauke, Mr David
Gillan, rh Mrs Cheryl
Glen, John
Glindon, Mrs Mary
Goodwill, Mr Robert
Graham, Richard
Grayling, rh Chris
Green, Damian
Greening, rh Justine
Greenwood, Lilian
Grieve, rh Mr Dominic
Hames, Duncan
Hamilton, Mr David
Hammond, Stephen
Hanson, rh Mr David
Harper, Mr Mark
Harris, Rebecca
Hayes, Mr John
Heald, Oliver
Heath, Mr David
Hendrick, Mark
Herbert, rh Nick
Hilling, Julie
Hinds, Damian
Hodgson, Mrs Sharon
Howell, John
Hughes, rh Simon
Irranca-Davies, Huw
James, Margot
Javid, Sajid
Johnson, Diana
Johnson, Gareth
Johnson, Joseph
Jones, Andrew
Jones, Mr David
Jones, Graham
Kawczynski, Daniel
Kirby, Simon
Lamb, Norman
Lancaster, Mark
Lee, Jessica
Lee, Dr Phillip
Letwin, rh Mr Oliver
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian
Lord, Jonathan
Loughton, Tim
Luff, Peter
Macleod, Mary
Maude, rh Mr Francis
McCartney, Jason
McKechin, Ann
McLoughlin, rh Mr Patrick
Meale, Sir Alan
Menzies, Mark
Michael, rh Alun
Miliband, rh David
Miller, Maria
Mitchell, rh Mr Andrew
Morden, Jessica
Morgan, Nicky
Morris, David
Mosley, Stephen
Mundell, rh David
Munn, Meg
Munt, Tessa
Murray, Ian
Murrison, Dr Andrew
Neill, Robert
Newmark, Mr Brooks
Newton, Sarah
O'Brien, Mr Stephen
Ollerenshaw, Eric
Owen, Albert
Paice, rh Mr James
Parish, Neil
Penning, Mike
Percy, Andrew
Perry, Claire
Phillips, Stephen
Pickles, rh Mr Eric
Pincher, Christopher
Randall, rh Mr John
Rees-Mogg, Jacob
Riordan, Mrs Linda
Robathan, rh Mr Andrew
Rogerson, Dan
Roy, Lindsay
Russell, Sir Bob
Rutley, David
Selous, Andrew
Shapps, rh Grant
Sharma, Alok
Sheerman, Mr Barry
Simmonds, Mark
Simpson, Mr Keith
Smith, Angela
Smith, Miss Chloe
Smith, Julian
Smith, Owen
Soames, rh Nicholas
Soubry, Anna
Spellar, rh Mr John
Spelman, rh Mrs Caroline
Stephenson, Andrew
Stewart, Bob
Stewart, Iain
Stride, Mel
Stringer, Graham
Stunell, Andrew
Sturdy, Julian
Swales, Ian
Swayne, rh Mr Desmond
Swinson, Jo
Syms, Mr Robert
Tami, Mark
Teather, Sarah
Timms, rh Stephen
Timpson, Mr Edward
Tomlinson, Justin
Vaizey, Mr Edward
Vara, Mr Shailesh
Villiers, rh Mrs Theresa
Walker, Mr Robin
Wallace, Mr Ben
Walter, Mr Robert
Watkinson, Angela
Watts, Mr Dave
Webb, Steve
Whittaker, Craig
Wiggin, Bill
Williams, Roger
Williamson, Gavin
Wilson, Mr Rob
Winterton, rh Ms Rosie
Wright, Jeremy
Wright, Simon
Young, rh Sir George
Tellers for the Ayes:
Greg Hands and
Mark Hunter
NOES
Anderson, Mr David
Bacon, Mr Richard
Bailey, Mr Adrian
Baron, Mr John
Barron, rh Mr Kevin
Beith, rh Sir Alan
Bradshaw, rh Mr Ben
Brady, Mr Graham
Brennan, Kevin
Bridgen, Andrew
Bryant, Chris
Buckland, Mr Robert
Carswell, Mr Douglas
Cash, Mr William
Chapman, Mrs Jenny
Cooper, Rosie
Cryer, John
Cunningham, Mr Jim
Davies, Philip
Davis, rh Mr David
Donohoe, Mr Brian H.
Efford, Clive
Esterson, Bill
Field, rh Mr Frank
Gardiner, Barry
George, Andrew
Glass, Pat
Goggins, rh Paul
Goldsmith, Zac
Gray, Mr James
Green, Kate
Halfon, Robert
Hemming, John
Hopkins, Kelvin
Hosie, Stewart
Jenkin, Mr Bernard
Jones, Mr Kevan
Lewis, Dr Julian
Llwyd, rh Mr Elfyn
MacShane, rh Mr Denis
Malhotra, Seema
McCartney, Karl
McCrea, Dr William
McIntosh, Miss Anne
Meacher, rh Mr Michael
Mills, Nigel
Moon, Mrs Madeleine
Morris, Grahame M.
(Easington)
Mulholland, Greg
Nuttall, Mr David
Offord, Mr Matthew
Onwurah, Chi
Ottaway, Richard
Pugh, John
Reckless, Mark
Redwood, rh Mr John
Reynolds, Jonathan
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey
Rosindell, Andrew
Sanders, Mr Adrian
Sharma, Mr Virendra
Shepherd, Mr Richard
Simpson, David
Skinner, Mr Dennis
Smith, rh Mr Andrew
Smith, Nick
Smith, Sir Robert
Straw, rh Mr Jack
Stuart, Ms Gisela
Stuart, Mr Graham
Turner, Mr Andrew
Twigg, Stephen
Tyrie, Mr Andrew
Weir, Mr Mike
Wheeler, Heather
Whiteford, Dr Eilidh
Whittingdale, Mr John
Williams, Hywel
Williamson, Chris
Wishart, Pete
Wollaston, Dr Sarah
Wright, David
Tellers for the Noes:
Mr Peter Bone and
Natascha Engel
Question accordingly agreed to.
12 Mar 2012 : Column 66
12 Mar 2012 : Column 67
12 Mar 2012 : Column 68
That—
(1) this House endorses the principle that parties should elect members of the Backbench Business Committee each Session and thereafter when a vacancy arises in a secret ballot of all Members of that party by whichever transparent and democratic method they choose.
(2) Standing Order No. 122D (Election of Backbench Business Committee) shall be amended as follows—
(a) line 7, at end, insert—
‘(ba) No Member may be a candidate for the chair of the committee if that Member’s party is represented in Her Majesty’s Government.’;
(b) in line 12, leave out from second ‘of’ to end of line 14 and insert ‘a party represented in Her Majesty’s Government and no fewer than ten shall be members of a party not so represented or of no party’;
(c) line 28, leave out paragraph (2);
(d) line 64, leave out sub-paragraph (b); and
(e) in the Title, after the word ‘of’, insert ‘chair of’.
(3) Standing Order No. 152J (Backbench Business Committee) shall be amended as follows—
(a) line 7, leave out paragraph (3) and insert—
‘(3) The chair of the committee shall continue as chair for the remainder of the Session in which that person is elected as chair unless the chair is declared vacant by the Speaker under the provisions of Standing Order No. 122C (Resignation or removal of chairs of select committees) as applied by paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 122D (Election of 25 Backbench Business Committee).’;
(b) in line 12, leave out ‘and members’;
(c) line 21, at end, insert—
‘(6A) The Committee shall have power to invite Members of the House who are not members of the Committee and who are of a party not represented on the Committee or of no party to attend its meetings and, at the discretion of the chair, take part in its proceedings, but—
(a) no more than one Member may be so invited to attend in respect of the same meeting;
(b) a Member so invited shall not move any motion or amendment to any motion, vote or be counted in the quorum.’.
12 Mar 2012 : Column 69
Committee on Standards and Committee of Privileges
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): With the permission of the House, we will deal with motions 2, 3 and 4 together. I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendments to motion 2 in the names of Sir Alan Meale, Sir Paul Beresford and Natascha Engel. The amendments will be debated with the main motion and the questions necessary to dispose of the motion will be put at the end of the debate. We have approximately 45 minutes.
6.27 pm
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir George Young): I beg to move, motion 2
That—
(1) The following new Standing Order be made, to have effect from the date specified in paragraph (6) of this order—
‘Committee on Standards
(1) There shall be a select committee, called the Committee on Standards—
(a) to oversee the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards; to examine the arrangements proposed by the Commissioner for the compilation, maintenance and accessibility of the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and any other registers of interest established by the House; to review from time to time the form and content of those registers; and to consider any specific complaints made in relation to the registering or declaring of interests referred to it by the Commissioner; and
(b) to consider any matter relating to the conduct of Members, including specific complaints in relation to alleged breaches in any code of conduct to which the House has agreed and which have been drawn to the committee’s attention by the Commissioner; and to recommend any modifications to such code of conduct as may from time to time appear to be necessary.
(2) The committee shall consist of ten Members, and at least two and no more than three lay members.
(3) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.
(4) The committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of no more than seven Members, and at least two lay members, and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters referred to the committee.
(5) Lay members may take part in proceedings of the committee and of any sub-committee to which they are appointed and may ask questions of witnesses, but lay members may not move any motion or any amendment to any motion or draft report, and may not vote.
(6) The quorum of the committee shall be five members who are Members of this House, and the quorum of any sub-committee shall be three members who are Members of this House.
(7) The committee and any sub-committee may not proceed to business unless at least one lay member is present.
(8) The committee and any sub-committee shall have power—
(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House and to adjourn from place to place;
(b) subject to the provisions of paragraph (9) of this order, to report from time to time;
(c) to appoint legal advisers, and to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee’s order of reference.
(9) Any lay member present at a meeting at which a report has been agreed shall have the right to submit a paper setting out that lay member’s opinion on the report. The Committee shall not
12 Mar 2012 : Column 70
consider a motion that the Chair make a report to the House until it has ascertained whether any lay member present wishes to submit such a paper; and any such paper shall be appended to the report in question before it is made to the House.
(10) The committee shall have power to order the attendance of any Member before the committee or any sub-committee and to require that specific documents or records in the possession of a Member relating to its inquiries, or to the inquiries of a sub-committee or of the Commissioner, be laid before the committee or any sub-committee.
(11) The committee, or any sub-committee, shall have power to refer to unreported evidence of the former Committees on Standards and Privileges and to any documents circulated to any such committee.
(12) The committee shall have power to refuse to allow proceedings to which the public are admitted to be broadcast.
(13) The Attorney General, the Advocate General and the Solicitor General, being Members of the House, may attend the committee or any subcommittee, may take part in deliberations, may receive committee or subcommittee papers and may give such other assistance to the committee or sub-committee as may be appropriate, but shall not vote or make any motion or move any amendment or be counted in the quorum.’
(2) The following new Standing Order be made—
‘Lay members of the Committee on Standards: appointment, etc.
(1) Lay members shall be appointed to the Committee on Standards by a resolution of the House on a motion made under the provisions of this order and shall remain as lay members in accordance with the provisions of this order.
(2) No person may be first appointed as a lay member if that person is or has been a Member of this House or a Member of the House of Lords; and any person so appointed shall cease to be a lay member upon becoming a Member of this House or of the House of Lords.
(3) No person may be appointed as a lay member unless that person has been selected on the basis of a fair and open competition.
(4) A person appointed as a lay member may resign as a lay member by giving notice to the House of Commons Commission.
(5) A person appointed as a lay member shall be dismissed from that position only following a resolution of the House, after the House of Commons Commission has reported that it is satisfied that the person should cease to be a lay member; and any such report shall include a statement of the Commission’s reasons for its conclusion.
(6) Subject to the provisions of paragraphs (2), (4) and (5) of this order, a person appointed as a lay member shall continue as a lay member for the remainder of the Parliament in which that person was first appointed.
(7) A person first appointed as a lay member who has been a lay member for the remainder of one Parliament may be re-appointed by a resolution of the House in the subsequent Parliament, and the provisions of paragraph (3) of this order shall not apply to any such re-appointment. The period of re-appointment shall be specified in the resolution of the House for reappointment and shall not exceed two years from the dissolution of the Parliament in which the person was first appointed as a lay member, and a resolution under this paragraph shall cease to have effect on the dissolution of the Parliament in which the resolution of the House for reappointment was made.
(8) No person may be re-appointed as a lay member other than in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (7) of this order.
(9) No motion may be made under the provisions of this order unless—
(a) notice of the motion has been given at least two sitting days previously, and
(b) the motion is made on behalf of the House of Commons Commission by a Member of the Commission.
(10) The Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on motions made under the provisions of this order not later than one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
12 Mar 2012 : Column 71
(11) Business to which this order applies may be proceeded with at any hour, though opposed.’
(3) The following new Standing Order be made, to have effect from the date specified in paragraph (6) of this order—
‘Committee of Privileges
(1) There shall be a select committee, called the Committee of Privileges, to consider specific matters relating to privileges referred to it by the House.
(2) The committee shall consist of ten Members, of whom five shall be a quorum.
(3) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.
(4) The committee shall have power to appoint sub-committees consisting of no more than seven Members, of whom three shall be a quorum, and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters referred to the committee.
(5) The committee and any sub-committee shall have power—
(a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place and to report from time to time;
(b) to appoint legal advisers, and to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee’s order of reference.
(6) The committee shall have power to order the attendance of any Member before the committee and to require that specific documents or records in the possession of a Member relating to its inquiries be laid before the committee or any sub-committee.
(7) The committee shall have power to refer to unreported evidence of the former Committees on Standards and Privileges and to any documents circulated to any such committee.
(8) The committee shall have power to refuse to allow proceedings to which the public are admitted to be broadcast.
(9) The Attorney General, the Advocate General and the Solicitor General, being Members of the House, may attend the committee, may take part in deliberations, may receive committee papers and may give such other assistance to the committee as may be appropriate, but shall not vote or make any motion or move any amendment or be counted in the quorum.’
(4) From the date specified in paragraph (6) of this order—
(a) Standing Order No. 121 (Nomination of select committees) shall be amended, in line 12, by leaving out ‘the Committee on Standards and Privileges’ and inserting ‘the Committee of Privileges, the Committee on Standards’;
(b) Standing Order No. 149 (Committee on Standards and Privileges) shall be repealed;
(c) in Standing Order No. 150 (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards), in each place where the words ‘Committee on Standards and Privileges’ occur, there shall be substituted the words ‘Committee on Standards’.
(5) From the date specified in paragraph (6) of this order, the Order of the House of 19 July 2010 (Liaison Committee (Membership)) shall be amended by leaving out ‘Standards and Privileges’ and inserting, at the appropriate place in alphabetical order, ‘Privileges’ and ‘Standards’.
(6) The date specified for the purposes of paragraphs (1) and (3) to (5) of this order is the first sitting day of the first month after the month in which the House agrees a resolution under Standing Order (Lay members of the Committee on Standards: appointment, etc.) appointing two or three lay members of the Committee on Standards.
Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, we shall discuss amendments (b), (c) and (a) to motion 2, and motions 3 and 4 on pay for Chairs of Select Committees.
Sir George Young:
On 2 December 2010, the House agreed, without Division, to a motion agreeing with the principle set out in the twelfth report of the Committee
12 Mar 2012 : Column 72
on Standards in Public Life that lay members should sit on the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges. The House invited the Select Committee on Procedure to bring forward proposals to implement that.
The Procedure Committee published its proposals in its sixth report of the current Session, which was published on 7 November last year. The Government, and I am sure the whole House, are very grateful to that Committee for its work. The motion draws extensively on the work of the Procedure Committee, and follows consultation with that Committee, the Standards and Privileges Committee and others. I am pleased to say that the Procedure Committee has written to confirm that it broadly accepts the approach that we propose to take, and the support of the Standards and Privileges Committee is apparent from the welcome decision of the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) to add his name to the motion.
Before turning to the provisions of the motions, I will remind the House briefly of the background to the proposals. I need hardly remind Members that the expenses scandal rocked public faith in the House to its foundations. One part of that crisis lay in the House’s approach to disciplining Members, which, as the Committee on Standards in Public Life observed, did not command full public confidence. As Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee at the time when the Committee on Standards in Public Life inquired into these matters, I said that the then Standards and Privileges Committee:
“would be very happy to consider having outside members sitting on the Standards and Privileges Committee…particularly to assist us in coming to judgments where people may feel at the moment we are possibly too lenient.”
The Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended in November 2009 that
“there should be at least two lay Members who have never been Parliamentarians on the Standards and Privileges Committee”,
“should be chosen through the official public appointments process and formally approved by the House”.
The House endorsed that recommendation after its debate on 2 December 2010. I will not attempt to summarise all that was said on that day, but the most powerful case was made by the right hon. Member for Rother Valley. He said:
“Lay members provide the public with reassurance that the Committees are not cosy gentlemen’s clubs, where deals are stitched up and scandals are hushed up. They can also bring valuable outside experience and expertise with them.”—[Official Report, 2 December 2010; Vol. 519, c. 999.]
He referred to the lay members of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliament Standards Authority. As a member of that committee, I can assure the House that the contribution of lay members is invaluable.
I have already referred to the specific recommendation of the Committee on Standards in Public Life that lay members should never have been parliamentarians. That is reflected in the motion, which also mirrors the statutory definition of lay members used for the Speaker’s Committee on IPSA.
Amendment (b), tabled by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Sir Alan Meale), runs contrary to the letter and, more importantly, the spirit of the Kelly recommendations. I invite him to consider whether it would really enhance the credibility of the House’s
12 Mar 2012 : Column 73
disciplinary procedures to appoint as a lay member a former hon. Member who left the House in 2005. I fear that that might be portrayed not as a fresh start but as a return to the bad old days, and of course public perception is part of the issue that we are seeking to address. I urge him not to move his amendment and invite the House to reject it if it comes to a vote.
Of course, there is a difference between agreement in principle that a change should take place and agreement on how it will operate in practice. A number of significant issues have been raised about lay membership of a Select Committee, and I will explain briefly how those issues have been tackled in the motions.
The first issue, identified by the Procedure Committee, was that although there had been no suggestion that lay members were appropriate for the consideration of privilege matters, there was no straightforward way to exclude them from such business within the structure of a single Committee. The solution proposed by that Committee, which the main motion today incorporates, was to create two separate Committees, one on standards and one on privileges. That is actually a reversion to the position that existed until 1995.
As the Procedure Committee recommended, provision has been made in motions 3 and 4 for the Chair of the Committee on Standards to inherit the pay now received by the Chair of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The Government have also made it clear in their response that the Chair of the Committee on Standards, like that of the current Committee, should be drawn from the Opposition Benches. In accordance with the current arrangements, that does not need to be set out in Standing Orders.
Our intention today is not to change the composition of the Committees. The two Committees may have a common membership, and they may choose to elect the same Chair. Even if that is not the case, the Committee of Privileges is likely to meet less often and will be able to consider only matters referred to it. In those circumstances, and following the precedent of the Committee on Members’ Expenses, pay for the Chair of the Committee of Privileges is unlikely to be appropriate.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): I wholeheartedly support what the Leader of the House is doing in separating the two Committees, which is long overdue. Will the process remain that a matter of privilege is raised through the Speaker and then in a three-minute speech, before going to the Privileges Committee? Will that Committee also be able to consider any draft legislation on privilege that the Leader of the House publishes? I believe he told me earlier this year that he would publish draft legislation before Easter.
Sir George Young: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the explanatory memorandum, he will see that the terms of reference of the new Committee of Privileges will be the same as those of the relevant part of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. There will be no change to the process by which a matter is referred to the Committee, or to its remit. The position will remain that it can consider only things that the House refers to it and that are within its terms of reference.
Chris Bryant:
I am grateful. The other bit of the process that has always worked well thus far is that whenever the Committee on Standards and Privileges
12 Mar 2012 : Column 74
has produced a report, Government time has been provided to debate it. Will that be true of both Committees in future?
Sir George Young: Again, the hon. Gentleman anticipates something that I may say a little later, but if he looks at paragraph 176 of the Wright Committee’s report, he will see what is deemed Back-Bench business and what is deemed business that the Government should schedule. It states:
“Backbenchers should schedule backbench business. Ministers should give up their role in the scheduling of any business except that which is exclusively Ministerial business, comprising Ministerial-sponsored legislation and associated motions, substantive non-legislative motions required in support of their policies and Ministerial statements”.
It may help the hon. Gentleman if I say that the Government will ensure that there is adequate time to debate on the Floor of the House any matter referred to the House by the Committee on Standards or the Committee of Privileges. I suspect that there will be a dialogue with the Backbench Business Committee to ensure that time is available at the appropriate moment.
Amendment (c), tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), would set down in Standing Orders a requirement that the membership of the two new Committees should always be the same. The Procedure Committee examined the case for a requirement of identical membership in paragraph 63 of its report, and concluded that the case had not been made. I recognise that there is a case for an element of shared membership, and possibly even for identical membership, but the Government, like the Procedure Committee, do not support the notion that there should be an inflexible provision to that effect in Standing Orders. With that assurance, I hope he will not move his amendment. In splitting the Standards and Privileges Committee, the Government do not intend to revisit the decisions taken at the beginning of this Session on appropriate Committee membership.
The second issue that has been raised about lay members is their status. The Committee on Standards and Privileges has stated that
“if the proposed external members of the Standards and Privileges Committee are to carry credibility, they need to have full voting rights.”
The Procedure Committee considered the matter carefully and in great detail, and it invited the House to study with care the arguments for and against full voting rights. As the Government made clear in our response, we have carefully considered the arguments about whether lay members should have full voting rights. We have concluded that it would not be appropriate to grant such rights in the first instance, in view of the authoritative evidence given to the Procedure Committee that it would create a risk that lay members’ participation would not have the protection of parliamentary privilege.
Lay members will be able to participate fully in evidence taking and informal consideration of draft reports. In addition, there will be two specific protections for their position. The first is the requirement that any written opinion of a lay member present at the relevant meeting on a report agreed by the Committee must be published as part of its report. The second is that the Committee cannot conduct any business unless at least one lay member is present.
12 Mar 2012 : Column 75
A decision to proceed on that basis will provide a guarantee of the effective participation of lay members in the decision-making processes of the Committee, and can be taken without prejudice to subsequent consideration of full voting rights. The Government will consider the case for legislation that would place beyond doubt the position of a Committee on Standards including lay members with full voting rights, as part of our work on preparing the forthcoming draft parliamentary privilege Bill and the accompanying Green Paper.
The third and final issue that has been raised about lay members was voiced in the debate in December 2010 and echoed in the Procedure Committee’s report. It relates to the selection of lay members and control over how they subsequently carry out their work. The motion proposes to entrust that matter to the House of Commons Commission, which would also take responsibility for a motion for dismissal in the unlikely eventuality that it should prove necessary. I believe that the Commission, chaired by the Speaker, is the best way to ensure that there is a fair and open process that leads to the House being asked to appoint only excellent candidates.
I know that some concern has been expressed about the term of office of lay members. The Procedure Committee recommended single five-year terms. However, it also acknowledged uncertainty about appointments straddling two Parliaments. The motion therefore provides for appointments for the remainder of one Parliament and reappointments for a period of up to two years in a new Parliament. Although I understand the advantages of a single term, the Government remain to be convinced that it is appropriate for lay members to be appointed for a period that, by definition, lasts longer than the appointment of hon. Members. There will be a very strong presumption indeed that lay members will be reappointed for a further term at the start of the subsequent Parliament. If they were not, the Committee on Standards would find it difficult to operate. I offer my commitment that the Government will assist in such a process.
Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con): I accept that there is a general demand for lay members, but I am sceptical as to how independent-minded they will be—I have in mind the less-than-independent IPSA as a guideline. I will not detain the Leader of the House on that.
There is a more detailed issue: cost. If lay members are involved in the Committee on Standards, especially lay members with a legal background, surely any Member of the House before it will demand expensive legal representation. Will the cost of that representation be met by the Committee, or will an individual Member be expected to meet it through his own resources?
Sir George Young:
There are no changes to the resources available to hon. Members who appear before the Standards Committee. We are suggesting a per diem remuneration for independent members—£300, I believe, which is parallel to what independent members of SCIPSA are paid. In putting lay members on the Standards Committee, we are not making any other changes to how the Committee operates. As I said earlier in answer to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the
12 Mar 2012 : Column 76
memorandum says that all the basic rules for the two separate Committees remain unchanged apart from the addition of lay members.
Mark Field: There might be no desire to change the Committee’s procedure, but I suspect that there will be a different approach outside, particularly among the media. There will be much more scrutiny of a Committee that has lay members, particularly if they are high-profile legal figures. What protection will there be for MPs who find themselves subject to an investigation under the new regime, so that they have what they consider to be essential legal advice, which might come extremely expensively?
Sir George Young: My answer now is the same one I gave to my hon. Friend a moment ago: there is no change in the resources available to hon. Members. Currently, some decide to take legal advice and pay for it out of their own pocket; others simply represent themselves. We are not proposing changes to the way in which Members interface with the Committee, but seeking to ensure that the Committee’s decisions have greater credibility in the outside world by adding lay members to it. That is the only change that we propose to make.
Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con): Following on from the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field), who said that high-powered legal figures might be appointed, I would be very concerned if judges were appointed to the panel as lay members, because that would be against the separation of powers. Will the Leader of the House give an indication as to whether judges would be appropriate?
Sir George Young: We are trying to get lay members. Whether a judge is a “lay member” is an interesting question. Speaking off the cuff, I do not think we propose to exclude any particular profession. Whether a high-powered judge would want to put his name forward to the House of Commons Commission for this interesting post I am not sure, but it will be a matter for the Commission to consider the candidates that come forward. Some might have a legal background. I am not quite sure that it would be appropriate to appoint a serving judge as a lay member, but somebody with a legal background might not be wholly disqualified.
May I move on to safer territory, namely amendment (a), which was tabled by the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee? The amendment would exclude business arising on a report from the Committee on Standards from the definition of Back-Bench business. It would thus prevent the Backbench Business Committee ever scheduling business arising from the work of one Select Committee and return exclusive control over that business to the Government, which is contrary to the spirit of the Wright recommendations—I read paragraph 176 a few moments ago.
The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) envisages that the establishment of a Committee on Standards to accommodate lay members should be an occasion to reopen the settlement reached in 2010 on the scope and calculation of Back-Bench business. Although there may be a dialogue on that matter in due course, I do not think this is the right forum in which to
12 Mar 2012 : Column 77
consider it. It could certainly be considered in the review currently being conducted by the Procedure Committee. I would invite the hon. Lady not to move her amendment. If she does, I urge the House to oppose it if it is pressed to a Division.
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab): I put my name down to speak in the debate, but my point is such a small one that I can make it in an intervention. The issue is not whether reports from the Committee on Standards are defined as Back-Bench business, but time. Thirty-five days a Session are allocated to Back-Benchers, but that is limited, and time for debates on such reports will be scooped out of Back-Bench time in an unpredictable way. If the Leader of the House confirms that any time taken by debates on those reports is in addition to the 35 days, I will be more than happy not to move the amendment.
Sir George Young: The overall settlement of 35 days included an allowance for standards and privileges matters. As I have said, what the Government are left with does not include such business. The amendment is an ingenious shop-steward bid—if I may say to the hon. Lady—for extra time. If a matter comes before the House from the Standards Committee, or indeed from the Privileges Committee, there will be a debate in the House on that matter at the right time, whoever provides the allocation. That is the assurance that the House wants, and we can have a dialogue offline, as it were, on how that is accounted for in the annual tally between the Backbench Business Committee and the Government.
Chris Bryant: But actually, that is not quite how the process works now, is it? First, privilege issues, as opposed to standards issues, must go through the Speaker, who then forcibly makes time available, normally on the next day, and therefore always in Government time. The Leader of the House obviously thinks that he has made some improvements on Wright today, but perhaps another improvement he could make is to guarantee that time to debate privilege matters will come out of Government time.
Sir George Young: There is a distinction between a debate when a matter is referred to the Privileges Committee, which is normally relatively short, and a debate on a report from the Privileges Committee or the Standards Committee when they have concluded their consideration, but I accept what the hon. Gentleman says: if the Speaker decrees that a matter should be debated, it is debated. In response to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire, I said that it is important that the House debates such reports once we have them. The business managers and the Backbench Business Committee can have a dialogue on whether the time comes out of the Committee’s quota, which, I should say in passing, we have generously exceeded in the current Session—we have gone way over 35 days to somewhere near 50 days.
Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab): The Leader of the House will be aware that we have had only a single “defence of the realm” debate this Session. The time for that debate was eaten into because the Backbench Business Committee had to find time for a European debate ahead of it. Does he not see that there is a real danger that such important debates will be curtailed if he does not guarantee the time?
12 Mar 2012 : Column 78
Sir George Young: This risks becoming a general debate on the role of the Backbench Business Committee and whether the time allocated to it is generous enough. I have sought to address the proposition put by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire. My case is that the putting of lay members on the Standards Committee is not an opportunity to revisit the balance of time between the Government and the Backbench Business Committee. My assertion is that that is best done in the context of the review of the Committee currently being undertaken by the Procedure Committee. When we have that review, we will be in a better position to take that dialogue forward. In the meantime, I give an assurance that any report that comes from the Standards Committee will be debated promptly.
To conclude, I believe the motion provides an effective and appropriate means of giving effect to the principle agreed by the House on 2 December 2010. It represents one more step to ensure that public confidence in the conduct of hon. Members is maintained and strengthened, and I commend it to the House.
6.48 pm
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab): The Opposition support the principle that lay members should sit on a newly constituted Committee on Standards. We also understand and support the pragmatic solution of splitting the current Committee in two to avoid the complications and uncertainty that could arise if non-MPs were to sit on the Privileges Committee.
When the issue was first considered at the end of last year, we did not seek to divide the House on the approach suggested. Although it is not directly analogous because all MPs are elected—and therefore ultimately accountable to their constituents—the principle of appointing lay members to a standards Committee is widely adopted in other areas of public life. For example, both the Bar Council and the General Medical Council have lay members.
On the other hand, the Press Complaints Commission also has lay members, and given the mess that it now finds itself in, perhaps we should take this opportunity to remind ourselves that lay membership of any committee is not in itself a complete answer to the challenges of upholding the standards of conduct and behaviour expected of any particular group of people, be they lawyers, doctors, MPs or—dare I say it—journalists. Undoubtedly, however, the presence of lay members should reassure the public that the Standards Committee is not some kind of cosy stitch-up but is there to deliver a rigorous and robust process that is fair to all and therefore credible. That is obviously in the public interest.
I congratulate the Procedure Committee on its work on this issue since the House’s resolution last year and on bringing this change about. I note, however, that the Government have ignored the Committee’s recommendation to give the House a further opportunity to vote on the principle of lay membership. Although the Opposition are in favour of the principle, it is noticeable that in evidence to the Procedure Committee a number of Members raised concerns about the appointment of lay members. Those Members included, from the Government Benches, the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) and the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin).
12 Mar 2012 : Column 79
In its report, the Procedure Committee states that
“it is right to register our concern at the level of unease felt by many Members about the House’s decision of 2 December. It may well be that, having considered the examination of the practical and privilege implications as set out in our report, the House may wish to reconsider its view of the principle of adding lay members to the Committee on Standards and Privileges.”
Will the Leader of the House explain why the Government have chosen not to tackle this unease head-on and do as the Procedure Committee suggested? Perhaps it is because of the decision to split the current Committee, but I would like to hear the Government’s explanation for their decision not to have a further vote on the principle itself.
We support the appointment of lay members to the Standards Committee. The Procedure Committee has found that the appointment of lay members is not completely without precedent—it cites a 1933 committee on the future government of India. I must say, however, that that is a rather particular example and not one likely to be replicated any time soon. It must not be assumed that simply appointing lay members to the Standards Committee will do the trick. It is clearly not a panacea.
Moreover, how lay members should take part in Committee proceedings needs to be clearly defined. This the Procedure Committee has done. It has recommended that Members of the House make up the majority of the new Standards Committee—after all, it will be a Committee of the House—and the proposals outlined in the proposed new Standing Orders, which adopt the recommendations of the Procedure Committee, suggest appointing at least two but no more than three lay members. That strikes a sensible balance.
We also agree with the proposed powers of lay members as outlined in the motion. The Standards Committee will be a Committee of the House, and the Members of Parliament who serve on it will be able to do so first and foremost because they successfully stood for election. Therefore, they are ultimately accountable to their constituents for their actions, as are all of us, and following the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, they submit themselves to that judgment every five years. Lay members of the Committee will not be elected but will be appointed, and they will not have to justify their actions at the ballot box.
The Procedure Committee therefore had to consider how that difference could best be accommodated in the day-to-day workings of the Committee. It considered two options: whether members of the Committee should have full voting rights or whether they should be appointed with more limited rights. In its impressive survey of the history of Committees of the House and the operation of committees in Parliaments around the Commonwealth, the Procedure Committee came across few examples of lay members voting. In its survey of the Commonwealth, only the New South Wales Legislative Assembly had given lay members of a Committee voting rights. But that practice, confined to one Committee in New South Wales, has now ceased.
To give lay members voting rights would also raise difficult questions of privilege, as the Leader of the House pointed out. He also pointed out that the Procedure Committee outlined the issues, as set out in the evidence of the parliamentary Clerk to the Procedure Committee.
12 Mar 2012 : Column 80
For those reasons, like the Government, we support the second option, which would mean that lay members could fully participate in the Committee by questioning witnesses but could not vote.
The proposed new Standing Orders require the Committee to publish any paper from a lay member setting out that lay member’s opinion on the report. We recognise that a balance has to be struck if lay members of the Committee are not to have voting rights. Nevertheless, we recognise the concerns raised by some Members, including the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, about the publication of dissenting reports. I note that the right for a lay member to publish a dissenting report was described in the Government’s weekend spin on our proceedings today as a “golden share”, which is a nicer name for a veto. Perhaps the Leader of the House could let us know in more detail how he sees that power working.
Amendment (b) suggests that ex-Members should be eligible for selection as lay members after only five years out of the House. That seems like a way of ensuring that lay members are not quite lay members and runs the risk of undermining the credibility that the reforms will bring about. Amendment (c) suggests that the membership of the soon-to-be-separated Standards and Privileges Committee should be the same. That runs the risk of undermining the separation, and we believe that the membership of these important Committees could easily be different and certainly should not be made the same by changing the Standing Orders.
I do not want to spend too much time intruding on the debate between the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee and the Leader of the House, but her amendment raises an extremely important issue about the number of days allocated to her Committee. That is one of those issues that will rumble on. Suffice it to say that I have considerable sympathy with what she says.
We support the other proposals in the proposed new Standing Orders. They are a welcome advance designed to improve public confidence, but they are not a panacea. The PCC, for example, had lay members, and that did not make the body effective or ensure that the organisation retained public confidence. Public confidence in Parliament, as the Leader of the House said, was significantly damaged by the expenses scandal. The appointment of lay members will not in itself restore that confidence, but it is one of many steps taken since then to repair the damage done.
I have been a Member of the House for 20 years, and I believe that, overwhelmingly, Members are committed to public service, strive to serve their constituents and seek at all times to uphold the Nolan principles.
Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con): The hon. Lady mentioned the Nolan principles. I am a member of that committee, in its latest guise, and I wonder whether she agrees that over the years the Committee on Standards in Public Life has done some useful work in scoping out the code of conduct and the work of the commissioner as a fully independent investigator, for example, and of course in proposing lay membership.
Ms Angela Eagle:
I am more than happy to agree with the interjection that the hon. Gentleman made just as I was about to finish my remarks. The Nolan committee clearly has a lot to be proud of for how it has developed
12 Mar 2012 : Column 81
the code of conduct—we will have a debate on that later. It has done a great deal to codify and put in good order the standards that should be expected of every single Member of the House.
As I was just about to say, the Opposition support the proposed new Standing Orders and will not seek to divide the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Order. I inform the House that there are 18 minutes left before the debate expires. I think I saw four Members standing. I do not want to set a time limit, so I hope that each Member will make a brief contribution, enabling all four to participate.
6.58 pm
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con): I shall be antipodeanly succinct; I shall be minutes.
I merely want to thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. There has been discussion in the Standards and Privileges Committee, and between the Committee and him, following which some positive changes have been made. In particular, we mentioned whether the lay members may, or have to, produce a report. The reason behind my amendment (c)—this was picked up and covered by the Leader of the House—is that there is a logic and a bureaucratic advantage to having the same Members on each Committee. However, as was said by the Leader of the House—and, to my amusement, by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle)—there is also the opportunity, if required and if appropriate, for that to be altered. For that reason, I shall not press my amendment.
7 pm
Sir Alan Meale (Mansfield) (Lab): I commend the work of the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee and its members for the excellent work that they do on our behalf. We know that their work is arduous and at times difficult. Let me state at the outset that it is my intention not to challenge but to improve the proposed Standing Orders.
If accepted, my amendment (b) would in no way undermine the Committee’s excellent work. As many in the Chamber will realise, I and another Member, who sits on the Government Benches, act as co-opted representatives of the retired Members association, a body that was established to represent the interests of retired Members, of whom there are hundreds, many very elderly indeed. When these Standing Orders are approved, they will undoubtedly affect ex-Members of Parliament, or at the very least are likely to affect them. For instance, the proposed Standing Orders would quite rightly deal with the register and any reviews of it. That could be of interest to ex-Members, not least ex-Ministers, given the role they play after leaving office. The Standing Orders will also allow papers and records to be sent for that are more than likely to involve ex-Members and their time in this place.
Importantly, my amendment does not ask for someone from the ranks of ex-Members to be appointed as a lay member; indeed, I fully accept the principle of free and open competition involved in any such appointment.
12 Mar 2012 : Column 82
However, I feel strongly that ex-Members should not be excluded from the process, although I accept the need for a certain period of time to elapse. That is why I propose that any ex-Member would have had to have left Parliament a minimum of five years previously—it would probably be longer than that—before being even considered as a lay member. They could not be a Member in this place or the House of Lords, and if they became a Member at any time during their lay membership, that would mean their ceasing to be a lay member.
I was interested to hear what the Leader of House said about those who left this place in 2005. Like the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), I think we need to cut this debate short, but I have to say that ex-Members of Parliament, like current Members, are not pariahs. They are not the unclean or the unwashed; they are people who have given many, many years of loyal public service in this place. Most of the people who retired at the last two elections—indeed, the vast majority—were guilty of no impropriety and left with no challenge whatever to their characters. This is an important matter: these changes to standards will affect ex-Members, and it is really quite wrong to introduce Standing Orders just so that we can be clear about the public and press perception of those Standings Orders in future. Those ex-Members have the right to be represented.
I accept what the Leader of the House said about this probably not being the right time to pursue such an amendment. For that reason, I will not press my amendment to a vote. However, I say this to the Leader of the House: in future years this issue will have to be dealt with, because we cannot have a situation where hundreds of ex-Members—indeed, there might be thousands by that time—are affected by Standing Orders that they are not able to challenge or play any part in whatever.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo): Lorely Burt?
Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD): I just want to speak briefly to the amendment standing in my name on the revised code of conduct—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is speaking to the wrong group of amendments. I have her down to speak in the next debate; that is why I hesitated when I called her.
7.4 pm
Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab): I welcome this motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House; indeed, as Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee, I appended my name to it. As he said, the Committee has long called for lay members, and I personally have no doubt that having them will be of worth.
The House has accepted that principle. Indeed, in the debate back in December, I said that for a number of years I had been a lay member of the General Medical Council and that I felt that I had brought some experience to the table—albeit not experience of clinical decision making, but experience that doctors and others could
12 Mar 2012 : Column 83
consider in sitting in judgment on their fellow professionals and in assessing whether their decisions were the right ones.
In an ideal world, the Committee would have liked lay members to have had full voting rights and single, non-renewable terms to guard their independence, very much as the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has. He has five years and that is it; there is no reappointment. As a consequence, there is no way that he might be looking for any preferment for a second term, from this House or anybody within it. However, we are not in an ideal world. There are significant constitutional barriers and uncertainties about giving lay members full voting rights, and the Leader of the House has made the Government’s position on fixed terms clear. However, this motion still represents a significant step towards ensuring that the House’s disciplinary processes are fair and seen to be fair, and that we benefit from outside experience and expertise. I welcome the change to Standing Orders wholeheartedly.
As for the other matters that have been discussed—how the Committee will be split up, the timing, the membership of both Committees, and everything else—these are matters for the House. However, what we are doing is the right thing for the House to do and embodies the right principle for us to be establishing, so that people outside this place can have confidence that when we sit in judgment over our peers, people are not looking after the interests of fellow professionals—if that is indeed what we are—but passing right and proper judgment on someone who may have breached the rules.
7.7 pm
Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab): I rise briefly to say that I shall not press my amendment (a), simply because I do not want to detain the House further on Back-Bench business when we are discussing important matters of standards and privileges. However, I will pursue the matter through the Procedure Committee —the Chairman is in the Chamber and will have heard my intervention in this debate—as long as the Leader of the House does not think that the matter rests here, because it does not.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I call Lorely Burt.
Lorely Burt: Regarding the amendment standing in my name and that of others on the revised code of conduct—
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not on the code of conduct yet; we are on the motions relating to the pay for Chairs of Select Committees and amendments to Standing Orders about standards and privileges. The code of conduct is the next business, and I will definitely call the hon. Lady at the right time—unless she wants to speak in this debate.
Lorely Burt indicated dissent.