WELSH AFFAIRS

HC Deb 15 January 1980 vol 976 cc1581-601 10.22 pm

Mr. Philip Holland (Carlton)

I beg to move, That Mr. Alan Williams be discharged from the Committee on Welsh Affairs. This motion was first tabled on Wednesday 12 December, along with another motion to discharge my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) from the Energy Committee.

The two motions were tabled to implement a firm undertaking given by me in the debate on Monday 26 November, and directly arise from an oversight of the Committee of Selection in failing, in these two cases only, to observe the ground rules unanimously agreed by the Committee at its meeting on 4 July 1979.

I first remind the House that on 19 November, in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), I disclosed that the Committee does not propose to nominate for the departmental Select Committees members of the Government, Parliamentary Private Secretaries, and regular Opposition Front Bench spokesmen.

A week later, on 26 November, when the House debated the Committee of Selection's nominations for the membership of all the departmental Select Committees, I pointed out that the House had placed responsibility for selection on the Committee, without imposing any conditions or criteria to be observed. In short, the House expected the Committee of Selection to make its own ground rules, and the Committee, in agreeing on certain exclusions, has exercised the total discretion that the House willed.

In moving the resolutions on 26 November, I drew the attention of the House to two mistakes we had made in the lists of names proposed, and I gave a clear and unequivocal undertaking to correct those mistakes at the earliest opportunity if the House would approve the motions before it as they stood. I said: We shall of course correct our mistakes at the earliest opportunity if the House approves these motions."—[Official Report, 26 November 1979, Vol. 974, c. 1032.] That undertaking was accepted wholly without comment or any dissenting voice in the debate that followed. The House voted in favour of the nominations put forward in the clear understanding and knowledge that two names required to be changed at an early date because they were in the exclusion categories unanimously agreed by the Committee and announced to the House on two separate occasions.

The House may wonder how two errors could have arisen in the first place. In the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East, he had been appointed as a Parliamentary Private Secretary after we had selected him for the Select Committee on Energy but before we tabled the motions. Unfortunately, we had missed the announcement of his appointment, and we apologise to him for the inconvenience caused by our error.

In the case of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), I suspect—although this is speculation—that the source of the error is to be found, perhaps, in the statement of the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison), when he said: However, on this occasion, with this great democracy that has arrived, there have been so many fingers in the pie, and so many people requesting others to serve on a committee, that there has been confusion."—[Official Report, 26 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 1060.] In neither case, however, can we excuse the oversight of our Committee in not changing the names before tabling the original motions. We apologise to my hon. Friend, to the right hon. Gentleman and to the House for the resulting inconvenience.

The right hon. Member for Swansea, West has questioned whether we are acting constitutionally. There can be nothing unconstitutional in any of the actions that we have taken so far in the Committee of Selection.

Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)

The hon. Gentleman has been very gracious in his comments. If he will reread the letter, he will see that I have not challenged whether the Committee was acting constitutionally. I asked about the constitutional basis for including Opposition Front Benchers with Ministers.

Mr. Holland

I hope to be able to reassure the right hon. Gentleman in a moment or two as to the basis of our decisions, although I have already pointed out that we were acting clearly within our remit, given to us by the House, to have complete discretion in what ground rules we wished to lay. But, in my view, if I were to fail now to seek to implement the clear undertaking that I gave to the House before the House voted on the motions on 26 November, I should be guilty of impropriety, if not of anything more.

The right hon. Member for Swansea, West, in an interview he gave to the South Wales Evening Post on Friday, 14 December, and in a letter that he wrote to me on 7 January—he issued it to the national press, so it is proper for me to talk about it—raised a number of objections to being discharged from the Select Committee.

The report in the South Wales Evening Post states that I have ruled that no Front Bench spokesman may be a member of one of the Select Committees. The truth is that the Committee itself ruled this, without division or dissension, and I am merely the spokesman for the Committee. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that.

The general tenor of the right hon. Gentleman's complaint on 14 December, according to the article, seemed to be that the move to discharge him from the Select Committee at that time—he may have changed his mind since then—was part of a Tory plot to remove a Welsh Member capable of scrutinising the Department adequately. I emphasise that the decision to exclude Front Bench spokesmen and to table this motion were both taken by the Committee of Selection and unanimously agreed by the Committee of Selection.

The right hon. Gentleman accused me of discourtesy on two counts. The first was that I had merely informed him of the Committee's decision without attempting to justify it. It is no part of my remit to justify the unanimous decisions of the Committee of Selection. It is for the House to decide whether it will accept them. The second was that I was not prepared to discuss the matter with him. From that I take it that there is an implication that I could negotiate with him on a solution. I am not, of course, empowered to debate with anyone who is not a member of the Committee of Selection a clear instruction given to me by the Committee unanimously at one of its regular meetings.

In his letter to me, the right hon. Gentleman deprecated what he described as an arbitrary decree of the Committee. There is nothing arbitrary about a Select Committee reaching a unanimous agreement about a recommendation which then has to be approved by the whole House. There can be nothing arbitrary about that; the time scale is too long.

The right hon. Gentleman also suggested that it was within the competence of the political party only to decide which of its members may or not be members of a Select Committee. The point that the right hon. Gentleman made was that it would be correct if his own Front Bench told him that he could not be a member of a Select Committee but not correct for our Committee to do so.

Sir Raymond Gower (Barry)

I wonder whether, for the better information of the public who may not understand, as hon. Members do, the composition of the Committee of Selection, it might be as well to get on record for the benefit of the press the fact that the Committee of Selection is an all-party Committee.

Mr. Holland

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As the House knows, the Committee of Selection consists of nine members—five from the Government Benches and four from the Opposition Benches. When I speak of a unanimous decision, I speak of members of both parties agreeing unanimously.

On the question of who should decide whether a Front Bench spokesman should be a member of a Select Committee, I believe that it is solely within the competence of the Committee of Selection—in default of any specific instruction from the House as a whole—to make such a decision in relation to the recommendations it places before the House. I remind the House that the Committee of Selection makes its recommendations to the House. It is the House that decides whether those recommendations are acceptable.

The right hon. Gentleman reminded me in his letter that the Committee of Selection is a House of Commons Committee. We are indeed well aware of that and we are intent on defending our independence from outside pressures—pressures that have certainly increased since our function has been expanded to include Select Committees.

We happen to believe that the House expects us to take a firm and independent line in carrying out a task that is at times nowadays arduous and nearly always thankless. If we are correct in this belief, we have the right to be supported by the House. If, on the other hand, the House wishes the Committee of Selection to be instructed—or intimidated—by either the Government Front Bench or the Opposition Front Bench, the House must say so.

10.33 pm

Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West)

I would normally have gone to the Back Benches to make my contribution but since I am being indicted for being on the Front Bench I might as well have something to lean on while we conduct our debate.

Hon. Gentlemen and I have discussed this matter over the weeks and I accept that in most instances this is not a personal issue. Many hon. Gentlemen have come to me individually to stress that there is no personal element in this. I accept that we are seeing this as a House of Commons issue, and that, consequently, we are seeing it differently.

The fact is that on three occasions there has been an attempt to have me removed from this Committee. It is not my wish—

Mr. Philip Holland

I know that technically it is possible to say that there have been three occasions. In fact the same motion is tabled and periodically brought forward to be moved formally if the House so wills it. If the House does not will it, as the right hon. Gentleman knows full well, objections can be raised and it cannot be moved formally. The reason for doing this on a number of occasions before it is brought for debate is to give both sides of the House time to consider and to give the right hon. Gentleman time to consider whether he wishes to press the matter to a debate. That is the reason for moving it two or three times formally before bringing it to debate.

Mr. Williams

I am not particularly worried whether, technically, it is a single motion or whether it is a series of motions. It would be hard to convince my three colleagues—[Interruption]. If hon. Gentlemen will allow us, we are trying to have a sensible discussion of an issue that is important, not in personal, but in House of Commons terms. As the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) will confirm, I said in a brief discussion that if a constitutional argument could be put to me explaining why, as an Opposition Front Bencher, I should not be on a Select Committee there would be no need to move a motion to have me removed from the Committee. I would ask that I should be removed from that Committee. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will confirm that.

The hon. Member for Carlton said that the issue was approved by the House of Commons. That is not strictly true. I do not suggest that the hon. Member is deliberately misleading the House but he is not accurate. A debate took place which I did not attend. The hon. Member referred to that in a letter which he sent to me yesterday. I did not attend the debate because the purpose of the motion was to make me a member of the Committee. No one told me that there was anything wrong with my being a member of the Committee and I did not bother to attend the debate to express a contrary view.

This issue has nothing to do with individuals. I shall be glad to accept whatever the House decides tonight. We are dealing with the method by which the Executive is controlled by the Legislature. That is always important to the House of Commons. When the motion was before the House at the end of last year most hon. Members thought that it was a straightforward method of approving the list of names selected by the Committee.

I am not interested in recrimination. The hon. Member for Carlton suggested that the Committee might have altered the list of names. However, it is difficult to understand the decision that was taken when the House met unaware of the qualifications that the hon. Member intended to explain in his contribution. Hon. Members were not warned that an issue of constitutional significance was to be raised.

Mr. Philip Holland

I am sure that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) reads the Official Report. The week before the debate took place the exclusions were detailed in a written answer. It was reasonable to expect that the exclusions would be raised in debate.

Mr. Williams

Since 1967, when I first went on to the Front Bench, I have had to answer questions. I remember one or two occasions when answers given one week were outdated several weeks later. The motion proposed by the hon. Member and his Committee did not incorporate the basic principle contained in the answer. When the House met it did not understand that a point of precedent was to be established.

I know that I shall be defeated tonight and that the issue will be dead after this evening. However, a principle is involved. Tory Members must remember that because of the democratic process they will be in Opposition at some time and that they will want to be effective. It is important when taking a decision about the Executive and the Legislature not to lose sight of the basic objectives of motions. The basic objective of setting up Select Committees was to improve the situation for us all.

I was a Minister of State in two Departments throughout the Labour Party's last period in office. I have never been called to give evidence before a Select Committee. It is easy for Ministers to escape the scrutiny of the House. I supported the idea of a Select Committee and I still do. Such Committees are a useful addition in the armament of the House against the Executive. The aim should be to make the most effective check possible. The issue revolves round the choice of members of Committees, which are one of the major checks on the Executive.

We are all aware of the inaccuracies of Question Time. It has its purpose, and its dramatic and theatrical value. Occasionally a Minister falls flat on his face, but most of the time any Minister with any degree of confidence can fumble his way through the hour and the few questions that he faces. Select Committees offer us the possibility of detailed scrutiny of Ministers and the Executive, which is something that I should have thought most of us would welcome. Most hon. Members, other than the Minister appearing at any given time, would want to see that process working as effectively as possible.

I fully appreciate the logic of saying that a Minister should not be on a Select Committee. One can accept that there is no sense in the Executive interrogating the Executive, particularly when there is collective responsibility which neutralises any value there might be in a Minister's specialist knowledge.

Similarly, I can see the point of excluding Parliamentary Private Secretaries. They have a non-constitutional relationship with the Executive and a split loyalty. But they have an extra loyalty in relation to the Executive. What I do not understand—and this is something no one has explained—is why a member of the Opposition Front Bench should not be able to scrutinise the Executive. There is a major difference in the constitutional position of a Minister, a Minister's PPS and somebody sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. Who has the greatest vested interest in interrogating the Executive as efficiently as possible, if it is not the Opposition Front Bench, whichever party happens to be in office?

Mr. Michael English (Nottingham, West)

There is an ancient tradition in the House that a PPS should not speak upon subjects relating to the Department in which he is a PPS. I should have thought that the same principle might apply to Select Committees. This is not to question whether any particular political party has taken the view that its own PPSs should not sit on any Select Committee. I am talking in terms of the House as a whole. For example, it would be quite inappropriate for the PPS to the Foreign Secretary to sit on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, though I see no reason why he should not siton the Treasury and Civil Service Committee.

Mr. Williams

I fully accept the logic of that argument. On the other hand, I would point out that it has been the practice under various Governments for PPSs to be sacrificed for voting sins often relating to Departments other than their own. So there is a presumption that there is a loyalty not just to the individual Department but to the Executive.

It is a matter for the House to decide, but I would have no objection to PPSs sitting on Committees other than those covering their own Department. It would not be a matter of grave concern. The tragedy is that the Committee of Selection has never explained to the House—even tonight, when it knew I would be bound to ask the question, because I had already put the question in letters to the Committee—the reason for these decisions.

I am not asking for a reason in relation to myself. The decision concerning me is a valid one. I am a Front Bencher and, per se, I am not allowed to be on Committees. But the question that the House should be asking has not been answered. Why should not Opposition Front Benchers be allowed to serve on Committees?

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Woolwich, West)

The right hon. Gentleman, as he said, is speaking from the Opposition Front Bench. If he remained on the Select Committee, presumably he would still remain on the Opposition Front Bench. But would he be speaking for or asking questions on behalf of the Labour Party as an Opposition Front Bencher on the Select Committee? Does he have the support of his Front Bench colleagues for what he is saying tonight?

Mr. Williams

I should be asking questions on the same basis as any other hon. Member on the Select Committee. One comes to this House to ask questions as an individual. I can ask those questions from the Front Bench. I see no difficulty in asking questions in a Front Bench role. We have the paradoxical situation—it is not an investigatory committee—that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who has not replied to my communication, no doubt because he has far more important matters to concern him—

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas)

I have.

Mr. Williams

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has seen his reply to me. Unfortunately, I have not. But the right hon. Gentleman, as a member of the Executive, is the chairman of a Select Committee. I accept that there are reasons why it makes sense in that instance, but it is a fact.

Mr. English

I am sorry to intervene twice. In the light of what my right hon. Friend said, may I ask whether he would have given up the privileges of being on the Front Bench? For example—a small example—he is given statements before other Members of the House are allowed to read them. Would he have refused them?

Mr. Williams

No, of course not. I do not see any conflict of interest there. There is no difficulty. If, in my Front Bench role, I am expected to follow and question a statement made by the Government and I am given prior notice of half an hour—or an hour if the Minister is feeling excessively generous—I do not see that it impinges on my role, or that of any Front Bench speaker, in Select Committee.

Mr. Barry Henderson (Fife, East)

Is it not the case that Opposition Front Bench spokesmen have privileges of questioning the Executive—privileges which are not available to other hon. Members—and that therein lies the difference?

Mr. Williams

No. The interesting feature is that the members of a Select Committee have privileges not allowed to Front Benchers. Members of a Select Committee will be allowed sidelined documents which will not be available to Front Benchers.

I accept that hon. Members on both sides are trying to make constructive points to answer the question that I have put. But is not that in a way—not an indictment; I do not want to use so strong a word—a minor criticism of the Committee of Selection in that hon. Members are sitting scratching their heads and asking why this should be so? No one has yet brought forward an argument to the contrary.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Williams

I shall do so, but perhaps I may complete the odd sentence now and then before an interjection. I am happy for hon. Gentlemen to filibuster into the night.

Mr. Bottomley

On this point.

Mr. Williams

All right.

Mr. Bottomley

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman, as no doubt I would remind him if I were a member of a subject Select Committee and he was an answering Minister, that he has not answered my second question? As he is speaking from the Front Bench and is a Front Bench spokesman for the Labour Party, is he putting forward views which have the support of his Front Bench colleagues?

Mr. Williams

I am arguing a point of view which I, as an individual, have not discussed with my Front Bench colleagues. I am trying to put forward a coherent argument and I am trying to develop it in so far as I may be permitted by the House. I am doing so without hostility and I am trying to be constructive. I am trying to deal with points which I think are of importance to the House, recognising that I am doomed to be defeated because the Government have kept their votes here tonight.

Mr. John Gorst (Hendon, North)

I endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley). There is the assumption that a speech made from the Opposition Dispatch Box carries the weight of the Opposition. Therefore, what the right hon. Gentleman is saying would be more appropriate if he were speaking from the Back Benches.

Mr. Williams

The hon. Gentleman may prevaricate about where I speak from, but that is not fundamental to the main issue.

The role of the Committee of Selection is to work within guidelines which enable it to produce the most effective Committee—I am not talking about myself—to further the role of the Legislature vis-à-vis the Executive. It may be that the guidelines within which it is working internally enable it to do that, However, no one has yet explained them. We still do not know why the decision has been reached.

The sequence of events has some importance. Those who have been closely involved in these matters know that I never sought membership of the Select Committee. I never sought the chairmanship. I expected the hon. Member for Carlton to be the Chairman until it was decided to allocate a certain number of chairmanships to the Opposition. Even then, it did not occur to me that anyone would suggest that I hold the chairmanship. I think that those in the Welsh Conservative Group who know the background will accept that I did not ask for the chairmanship. It is not something that I value as a great personal prize and which I am reluctant to lose. I realise that it will be lost tonight.

Sir Raymond Gower

The right hon. Gentleman has posed one main question, namely, "Why is it objectionable for an hon. Member to sit on a Select Committee and at the same time to be an Opposition spokesman?" Does he agree on reflection that it could be deemed objectionable that the same person should be conducting the rather partisan opposition to the Executive of an Opposition Front Bench spokesman and carrying out a different sort of interrogation of the Executive from that which a Select Committee performs?

Mr. Williams

I intend to deal with that later. I shall try not to be too long. Hon. Members have been interjecting and it is not my fault that I have been speaking at such great length. I rose as soon as I could and I shall resume my seat as soon as I can. This is the only occasion on which I shall be allowed to present my case.

As I have said, I did not seek chairmanship of the Committee. I did not seek membership of the Committee. Until November I was aware of only one challenge to my membership of the Committee. It came from a senior Conservative Member—I shall not mention names or constituencies. He approached me and told me that there was concern among certain Welsh Conservative Back Benchers, and that if I dared to make a robust speech in replying to the debate in the Welsh Grand Committee on the Welsh economy they would withdraw their support from my chairmanship of the Committee.

Mr. Michael Brotherton(Louth): rose—

Mr. Williams

I shall give way in a moment. That was a challenge to my chairmanship, not to my membership. At that stage no one had questioned whether I was to be a member. When the hon. Member for Carlton quotes the Western Mail, or the South Wales Echo, he will understand that in the context of this issue—I have never told him about it and I never referred to it in my letter—it is valuable for the House to know precisely what happened. It was because of the event to which I have referred that I began to suspect what might have been going on behind the scenes, not necessarily in the Committee but in certain other areas involving certain Welsh Conservative Back Benchers.

Mr. Philip Holland

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the first that I knew of that was when I received part of a newspaper that was sent to me by a relative who lives in South Wales—not by any hon. Member? The only other information that I received is as he has just detailed. Nobody else disclosed that to me—no member of the Committee of Selection. The judgment of the Committee and the decision that was taken was in no way influenced by that sort of information.

Mr. Williams

I accept that. I am trying to explain my comment. The first warning that I had that anything was wrong was not from the hon. Gentleman or from the Committee but from a rather discreet, sidled, contribution by a Conservative Member who represents a Welsh constituency. That may have been a private enterprise venture on his own part. Nevertheless, that was the first time that I was alerted to any difficulties. Indeed, that shows why it might have been helpful to have a certain degree of discussion—at least, I should have been informed of what was happening. I did not know and it was difficult to find out what was going on.

As the hon. Gentleman will recollect, I then approached him in the Members' Lobby. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will interject if I unfairly describe in any way the development of the discussion. I asked him why I was to be excluded and I was told that it was because a decision had been taken in the Committee of Selection. I asked—asking is not a sin in the House of Commons and never has been—why I was to be removed, because his answer did not tell me that. The hon. Gentleman said that the Committee had taken its decision, which was final, to which I said that, in that case, it was even more important for an understanding of the reasons for that decision.

It is strange that the House is setting up Committees to stop arbitrary decision- making on behalf of the Executive and yet a point of precedent can be established without the House understanding why—even if the precedent is sound. When I pressed the hon. Gentleman further he said that a decision had been taken to exclude Ministers, Parliamentary Private Secretaries and Shadow spokesmen. I then said—as I said in my earlier interjection—that I could understand that in the case of Ministers and Parliamentary Private Secretaries but I did not see the constitutional basis for the Committee's decison in relation to Shadow Ministers. No explanation was offered and no explanation has been forthcoming for this date. I told the hon. Gentleman then—I hope that he did not take offence—that I would fight the decision. That is what I am doing now. I recognise that I am losing, as well.

Mr. Keith Best (Anglesey)

The right hon. Gentleman perpetually asks for justification of the decision. He seems to be alone in his misunderstanding. It seems to me that my right hon. and hon. Friends clearly understand the principle that is at stake. He said that he has not discussed the matter with his right hon. and hon. Friends and has not had the benefit of their advice, but does he not foresee a conflict of interests of any nature between a member of a Select Committee and an Opposition Front Bench spokesman? If, as I sincerely hope, he does perceive some form of conflict, which way would he turn? The question was posed earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland). With great respect, the right hon. Gentleman has not answered that question. If the right hon. Gentleman perceived a conflict of interests, would he turn to his right hon. and hon. Friends?—he has already accepted the principle of collective responsibility—or would he ally himself with the Select Committee on which he serves?

Mr. Williams

The hon. Gentleman will discover that I shall deal with that point later when I explain why we are debating this issue.

No explanation was given to me on that occasion, no explanation was given in the letter that I received yesterday, and no explanation has been given to the House tonight. If a Front Bench role necessitates exclusion from a Committee's Front Bench, I shall expect to see a mass of Liberal resignations in the hands of the Committee of Selection tomorrow. As I said in my letter, every Liberal Member carries at least one Front Bench baton in his brief case.

Although my hon. Friends will not like these words, it is absurd that the nationalists are not included in the Welsh Committee. The Committee of Selection decides the allocation between parties, not the Opposition. When nationalists serve on Committees they have, in their own party terms, Front Bench roles. If it is embarrassing for a Labour Front Bench spokesman to have that role, why is it not embarrassing for a Liberal to have such a role? What is the difference? There has been a singular lack of explanation from Conservative Members about that "difference".

The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was courteous enough to endeavour to explain that there could be a problem of committing the official Opposition in one's role as Chairman. However, that is a problem for the Opposition, not for the House of Commons. As long as the Opposition are willing to take that risk, there will be a pitfall that may cause great jubilation to Conservative Members as they watch to see whether anyone treads on a banana skin. It is not really an issue for the Committee of Selection, nor for the House of Commons. It is of internal concern to the Opposition of the day.

Mr. English

My right hon. Friend has just made a point better than any could have done. Does he not concede that the position of Chairman of a Select Committee may not be a matter wholly for the Opposition?

Mr. Williams

I am not sure what my hon. Friend's point is. We are not here to discuss chairmanship as that has nothing to do with the Committee of Selection.

Mr. Peter Bottomley

I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had raised that point himself.

Mr. Williams

I did, but I did not do so in order to discuss whether I should be Chairman. It is a matter of whether I should be on the Committee, and of whether a Front Bench spokesman should be on the Committee. It is for individual Committees to select their Chairmen. The letter that I received made that point very fairly, and I think that it is accepted by the Select Committee.

It has been mentioned that it would be difficult for me, as a Front Bench spokesman, to be impartial. The hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) also made that point in a pleasant way. Who, with the exception of Mr. Speaker and Mr. Deputy Speaker—upon whom we often put great strain—is impartial? Nobody is impartial. Surely most of us are sufficiently intelligent and capable enough to differentiate between an analytical role and performing a value judgment based upon that analysis.

It is what any Minister has to do. A Minister who does not analyse the problem soundly before making a political interpretation will inevitably get into difficulties. Therefore, the question of impartiality is a non-issue. In this House it is impossible from the Front or Back Benches to find someone who would be technically impartial.

If it came to a set of recommendations from the Committee with which the Chairman or the Opposition Front Bench spokesman—and let us assume that he is not the Chairman—did not agree, in what way is he in a different position from any other hon. Member who disagrees with the findings of the Committee? He still has the same freedom to express his minority view and have it recorded.

Mr. Geraint Howells (Cardigan)

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that he is an official Opposition spokesman. I am the Liberal spokesman on Welsh affairs and agriculture. There is a vast difference between the right hon. Gentleman, who is now seeking to defend himself, and other hon. Members.

Mr. Williams

The hon. Gentleman does himself a grave injustice. As far as the Liberal Party is concerned, he is a Front Bench spokesman of the Liberal Party. I am a Front Bench spokesman of the Labour Party. However, this does not affect the basic issue of partiality or impartiality.

I shall no longer be on the Committee when this debate comes to an end, but the House must ask itself an important question, regardless of individuals, in order to avoid the very situation that we are in tonight. Is the House sure that it is a sound House of Commons decision to determine that in no circumstances whatsoever can any Front Bench spokesman be on a Select Committee? After tonight, this will be quoted as the precedent established by the House in support of the Committee of Selection's view. That is why in my letter to the hon. Member for Carlton I said that, regardless of whether I am on the Committee or whether I am Chairman, it would be a worthwhile duty to the House to separate the issue of the individual from the principle. The House should decide on the principle as a principle instead of doing so accidentally, in deciding on the individual.

I recognise that I shall go from this Committee, but it would be valuable to the House if tonight my name was removed from the Committee and we did not treat it as a precedent for all future occasions, binding on the House—because that is how it will be interpreted by the Committee of Selection.

If the hon. Gentleman will give an assurance—which will not help me—that a set of guidelines will be brought before the House so that such issues of principle, and not issues concerning individuals, can be decided in the House in full knowledge of all the ramifications, I shall be happy and the dispute will have been worth while. The hon. Gentleman is shaking his head, so tonight we shall drift into a decision of precedent without most hon. Members ever being aware of what the issue is. All that appears on the Order Paper is: That Mr. Alan Williams be discharged from the Committee on Welsh Affairs. The vast majority of our colleagues, who have a great many matters to think about in the House, are not aware that by voting or not voting tonight they are setting a precedent for the future for all Select Committees.

I say to my hon. Friends that I am not asking anyone to go into the Division Lobby on my behalf. I intend that the House shall divide but I am not asking anyone to go into the Division Lobby in support of my membership of the Committee. Indeed, I hope that none of my colleagues will go into the Division Lobby. Tellers will be provided so that there can be a Division. It is important that the House should realise that a point of principle is involved. It is a far wider issue than one affecting any individual Member of the House. Many hon. Members will disagree with me. But this decision should have been taken in full awareness of all the considerations and with the whole House knowing the real issue before the House tonight rather than thinking that it was a simple matter of whether A or B stays, or does not stay, on a particular Committee.

11.11 pm

Sir Raymond Gower (Barry)

I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments. The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) may feel, on reflection, that there is nothing personal about this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Holland) has given, with admirable clarity, the reasons for the decision taken by his Committee. As members of the Select Committee, we have found this matter highly embarrassing. We have not been able to proceed with the business of the Committee. The election of a Chairman has had to be deferred.

We welcomed the membership of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West when he was first selected. A large majority of the membership on both sides of the Committee probably felt that he would be a very good Chairman of the Committee. But we were in the hands of the Committee of Selection. It would have been absurd for us select a Chairman who was not going to be a member of the Committee. When the reasons were first given, I must confess that I felt a degree of sympathy for the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman. But the more I thought, the more I saw the inconsistency of a Front Bencher and more partisan interrogator of the Executive being at the same time a member of a Committee that would conduct a different kind of interrogation of the Executive.

I am sure that members of our Committee had no feelings against the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, we were predisposed in his favour. One of the reasons for delaying the selection of a Chairman was the possibility that the right hon. Gentleman might decide to resign his Front Bench position and remain on the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman could have taken one course or the other. He has, understandably, decided that he would like to maintain both positions. The decision of the Committee of Selection makes that impossible.

I am sorry that this has happened. It has been highly embarrassing. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has not seen fit to withdraw his suggestion, made at some stage, that this was some kind of plan by certain unknown Conservative Members against him personally. That is absurd. I can give the assurance, from my knowledge of my colleagues on the Committee, that this is not the case. I hope that he will withdraw the suggestion before the debate concludes. I give him this opportunity.

11.14 pm

Mr. Harry Lamborn (Peckham)

I should like to make clear, as a member of the Committee of Selection from the Labour side of the House, that the decision taken, as the Chairman has made clear, was the decision of the Committee as a whole. It was taken and conveyed to the House in answer to a question be-

fore the Committee got down to the job of appointing the members of the Committee. Indeed, one Front Bench spokesman withdrew as a spokesman because he preferred to serve as a member of a Select Committee.

When there were five or six applicants for each place on some Select Committees a number of criteria had to be established. They were made clear to the House and hon. Members had the opportunity to make a decision on them. One thing that emerged as a result of the competition for places was that no member of the Committee of Selection would have dared to appoint himself to any of the Select Committees.

We are in difficulty over the criteria because they were announced publicly in a written answer, but I believe that the decision of the Committee of Selection was correct, and I shall support it if there is a Division.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 0.

Division No. 136	AYES	[11.16 pm
Alexander, Richard	Gower, Sir Raymond	Pawsey, James
Ancram, Michael	Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)	Penhaligon, David
Aspinwall, Jack	Grist, Ian	Pollock, Alexander
Beith, A. J.	Heddle, John	Proctor, K. Harvey
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	Henderson, Barry	Rathbone, Tim
Benyon, Thomas (Abingdon)	Hicks, Robert	Renton, Tim
Berry, Hon Anthony	Holland, Philip (Carlton)	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Best, Keith	Hooson, Tom	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Bevan, David Gilroy	Howells, Geraint	Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Blackburn, John	Hunt, David (Wirral)	St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon Norman
Bottomley, Peter (Woolwich West)	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Boyson, Dr Rhodes	Jopling, Rt Hon Michael	Sims, Roger
Bright, Graham	Kershaw, Anthony	Speller, Tony
Brinton, Tim	Kitson, Sir Timothy	Sproat, Iain
Brooke, Hon Peter	Knox, David	Squire, Robin
Brotherton, Michael	Lamborn, Harry	Steel, Rt Hon David
Brown, Ronald W. (Hackney S)	Lawrence, Ivan	Stevens, Martin
Cadbury, Jocelyn	Le Merchant, Spencer	Stewart, John (East Renfrewshire)
Canavan, Dennis	Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Stradling Thomas, J.
Carlisle, John (Luton West)	Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)	Tebbit, Norman
Chapman, Sydney	Lyell, Nicholas	Thompson, Donald
Clark, Sir William (Croydon South)	Macfarlane, Neil	Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	MacGregor, John	Viggers, Peter
Clegg, Sir Walter	McNair-Wilson, Michael (Newbury)	Waddington, David
Colvin, Michael	Major, John	Wakeham, John
Corrie, John	Marlow, Tony	Waldegrave, Hon William
Costain, A. P.	Mather, Carol	Walker, Bill (Perth & E Perthshire)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Mawhinney, Dr Brian	Waller, Gary
Dover, Denshore	Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Ward, John
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward	Mellor, David	Watson, John
Dunn, Robert (Dartford)	Meyer, Sir Anthony	Wheeler, John
Durant, Tony	Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove & Redditch)	Wickenden, Keith
Dykes, Hugh	Mills, Iain (Meriden)	Williams, Delwyn (Montgomery)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (Pembroke)	Moate, Roger	Wilson, Gordon(Dundee East)
Faith, Mrs Sheila	Morgan, Geraint	Winterton, Nicholas
Fisher, Sir Nigel	Morrison, Hon Peter (City of Chester)	Wolfson, Mark
Fletcher, Alexander (Edinburgh N)	Murphy, Christopher	Younger, Rt Hon George
Fox Marcus	Neale, Gerrard
Fraser, Peter (South Angus)	Page, John (Harrow West)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Garel-Jones, Tristan	Page, Rt Hon Sir R. Graham	Mr. Robert Boscawen and
Goodlad, Alastair	Parris, Matthew	Mr. John Cope.
Gorst, John	Patten, John (Oxford)

NOES

NIL

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mr. Ray Powell and

Dr. Roger Thomas

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ordered, That Mr. Alan Williams be discharged from the Committee on Welsh Affairs.