HC Deb 02 December 1987 vol 123 cc1039-73 10.16 pm
Sir Marcus Fox (Shipley)

I beg to move, That Mr. Tim Boswell, Mr. John Carlisle, Mr. David Curry, Mr. Martyn Jones, Mr. Calum A. Macdonald, Mr. Seamus Mallon, Mr. Paul Marland, Mr. Eric Martlew, Mr. Elliot Morley, Mr. Jerry Wiggin and Mrs. Ann Winterton be members of the Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Speaker

I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) and the amendment to the motion on the Defence Committee— That Mr. John Cartwright, Mr. Churchill, Mr. Dick Douglas, Mr. John Evans, Mr. Bruce George, Sir Barney Hayhoe, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Michael Mates, Mr. Jonathan Sayeed, Mr. Neil Thorne and Mr. John Wilkinson be members of the Defence Committee— in the name of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross). It may be helpful to the House if I say that the debate will last for one and a half hours. It is a broad debate on Select Committees. At the end of one and a half hours I shall put the Question on the amendments that I have selected and the motions.

Sir Marcus Fox

There is a saying that there is nothing new in the world; it has all happened before. Let me tell new Members of the House that, when the Select Committees were first set up in 1979, 22 weeks elapsed before they sat. In 1983, after the general election, 26 weeks went by. In 1987, there has been an interval of 24 weeks. I suppose that one of the penalties of holding a general election in the summer is that the long summer recess intervenes and stretches the period out. If we ignore that, there is an average delay of some three months.

When we consider that Select Committees are set up for the whole Parliament—for some four and a half years— it is not surprising that there should be so much interest in the subject. Perhaps, as I hope, that denotes an acceptance that the Committees do an excellent job. The interest that is created is shown by the number of hon. Members applying to be members of the Committees, which increases every time that we have the task of setting them up.

Mr. Michael Martin (Glasgow, Springburn)

Will the hon. Gentleman explain why there is nothing on the Order Paper about the Scottish Select Committee? He has mentioned the time that it takes to set up the Committees. If there is no mention of the Scottish Select Committee and its make-up tonight, that means that the process will take longer, and the Committee will have less time to consider important matters that are crucial to Scotland and the Scottish people.

Sir Marcus Fox

I believe that the hon. Gentleman would have been one of the first to complain if the Scottish Select Committee had been included with the 13 Committees on the Order Paper. He would not have considered that a debate lasting one and a half hours would have been sufficient for Scottish Members to express their concern at the reduction in the number of hon. Members on that Committee, and on a number of other issues that have come up in the meantime.

I assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that as soon as we can resolve the present impasse — indeed, if we cannot—you, Mr. Speaker, will be informed, and there will be a debate so that the whole House can decide the issue.

Mr. Robert McCrindle (Brentwood and Ongar)

Has my hon. Friend noticed that the total number of names appearing for membership of the Home Affairs and Transport Select Committees is 10, whereas for all the others 11 names appear? Can he explain that discrepancy, and will he emphasise that it is not due to a lack of volunteers? I volunteered to be a member of the Transport Select Committee, but I have searched in vain for my name.

Sir Marcus Fox

May I reassure my hon. Friend that there is still hope for him? The reason those two vacancies were left is simply that out of a distribution of 83 places for Conservatives, 50 for Labour Members and 10 for the minor parties overall for the 13 Committees, the total numbers appointed are 81 Conservatives, leaving two vacancies; 52 Labour Members, which means that they have two extra; and eight instead of 10 members of the minor parties. We have left the two vacancies in the hope that our reasonableness will encourage those in the minor parties who are not satisfied with our appointments on Defence and Agriculture to take the places on Transport and Home Affairs on the basis that it is impossible to guarantee anyone's first choice. If that applies to the two major parties, it surely must be right for the minor parties.

Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food vote covers the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland? Therefore, the Agriculture Committee is very important to Northern Ireland Members. Northern Ireland had two Members on the Committee in the last Parliament. This time no Unionist has been selected, although a Member of the SDLP is to be on the Committee.

Sir Marcus Fox

The hon. Gentleman is right. The extra place last time came by courtesy of the Labour party which was prepared to give up a place to a minor party. That was not the case this time. I am sorry that there is nothing further we can do in that situation.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray)

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in the appointment of Committees which apply to Scotland or Wales there should be a different definition as there is for Grand Committees? Would it not be more appropriate if he were to take account of the voting patterns of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland when appointing the various Committees?

Sir Marcus Fox

I refer the hon. Lady to the debate which took place when the Select Committees were set up. The Committee of Selection was commissioned to take account of the balance in the United Kingdom and not to consider individual parts of the United Kingdom.

My position as Chairman of the Committee of Selection is unique in that I am popular and unpopular at the same time. It is important to realise that on Standing Committees, Statutory Instruments Committees and private Bill Committees our authority is clear. We have the power to appoint Members to those Committees. Some volunteers write in, there is an element of conscription and there is also work sharing. There are invisible Members who seek to avoid Committees, but I see it as part of the work of the Committee of Selection to make sure that the work is shared as fairly as possible. The nomination of the Committees that I have just described is not subject to the scrutiny of or amendment by the House. In other words, the Committee of Selection has the final say.

Rev. Martin Smyth (Belfast, South)

The hon. Member said that the Committee was under an obligation to take cognisance of the United Kingdom writs. Does he recognise that two hon. Members dropped off from 80 per cent. is much less than two dropped off from 17 per cent.?

Sir Marcus Fox

The system is not quite as the hon. Gentleman described it. The Clerks, who are infallible, have a slide rule and we mark up or down to two decimal places, depending on whether it is above or below 5. We cannot go any further than that. I am sorry to disabuse the hon. Member.

Rev. Martin Smyth

The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood my point. He said that 80 seats were allocated to the Conservatives, leaving two to be filled, whereas two Northern Ireland Members have been left out of the four or five seats which would be allocated to them.

Sir Marcus Fox

It is a complicated question. The minority parties have 44 Members, ranging from one to 17, and four parties have three Members—the Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru, the Democratic Unionists and the Social Democratic Labour party. Each party has been allocated 0.68 of a place. If we work that out, those four minority parties have only three places between them. For the life of me, I cannot extend that beyond three places between the four parties of equal strength. I have tried to illustrate that we are prepared to leave a place on the Committees to allow one person from each of those parties to have a place.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

In the last Parliament it was a little difficult, to say the least, to set up these sloppy consensus Select Committees so that they could gallivant around the world, running out of money after nine months. The thing that intrigues me is how the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) has managed on this occasion to decide what to do with the SDP, since it has a provisional and an official wing of the party. How has he managed to allocate places between the two warring factions?

Sir Marcus Fox

I do not know much about sloppiness and travelling around the world, but I have had enough trouble with the existing minority parties without pursuing it any further. I move on to the 14 departmental committees.

Rev. William McCrea (Mid-Ulster)

As the hon. Member has told the House of his difficulty because of the number of minority parties, many of them having three Members, could he tell the House how he came to select only the SDLP Member out of the Ulster Members to sit on the very important Agriculture Committee?

Sir Marcus Fox

If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will explain in a little detail the secret machinations that go on when the Select Committee meets every Wednesday. Hon. Members must remember that the House has given the Select Committee far fewer powers than the Standing Committees and other Committees I have described. We do not nominate; we recommend. It is for the House tonight to debate and amend the motions, if it thinks fit, and we will go along with that.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that before 1979 members of Select Committees were nominated by the House on a motion tabled by a Government Whip, after consultation with other political parties and interested Members; in other words—a phrase he loves—through the usual channels. I know that that is anathema to my hon. Friend. The Public Accounts Committee and House of Commons (Services) Committee members are still nominated in that way, as he well knows, but he must draw a distinction between those Committees and the Committees for which the Committee of Selection has responsibility. My hon. Friend is in danger of shooting the wrong fox.

I shall describe how the Committee works. Select Committees are a nightmare. The members are volunteers. Without any doubt, there is a surplus of possible members. It is impossible to give people their first choice. Many excellent colleagues are listed on the Order Paper. There may be more brilliant ones who have not been successful this time. We have to strike a balance between acknowledging the experience of certain hon. Members and giving other colleagues an opportunity to serve. That is not easy. I discuss such matters and take advice— some is asked for and some is freely given. I have been known to consult the Whips. To my knowledge, they are not outcasts in this place. When we make our recommendations, the choice rests absolutely with my four colleagues and myself. We represent the Government party on the Committee and we take full responsibility for our nominations. No criterion has ever been given to us, either by the House or by the Procedure Committee. lt would be of assistance if it did guide us—it is always free to do so.

In November 1979, my predecessor, Sir Philip Holland said, as recorded in "Erskine May"—that the Committee enjoyed full discretion and was under no obligation to consult, to take advice or to indicate any criteria of choice. It followed, therefore, that the Committee was procedurally free to choose whom it liked on whatever basis it thought applicable, subject to the eventual verdict of the House as a whole.

In practice, we follow three broad principles. First, the Government shall have a majority on each Select Committee. Secondly the overall number of members from each party nominated to the Select Committees should reflect the parties' balance in the House as a whole. Thirdly, no Minister, Whip, parliamentary private secretary or principal Opposition spokesman should be nominated. The second criterion gives us the most difficulty.

The figures worked out, as I have said, to two decimal places. I have dealt with the four minor parties which have three places on the Committees. We cannot give people their first choice.

By convention, members of the two main parties on the Committee decide which names shall go forward on behalf of their party. The names are put before the whole Committee for its approval. There are eight other parties with from one to 17 members. The minor parties negotiate among themselves who shall receive nominations. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) represents the Liberal party's interests. He is a remarkable man. It is no wonder that, when Liberal Members cannot agree, he asks the Committee to take a decision. It is not easy to do so, but, in good faith, we must decide between the two or three names that are put to us. Again, it is subject to the decision of the whole House.

I gather that the debate may range wider than I have mentioned. It may include the chairmanship of Committees. The Committee of Selection has never concerned itself with deciding who shall be chairmen. It is no part of our duty to do so. Committee members would take exception if anyone other than themselves were to take on that responsibility.

Mr. Peter Fry (Wellingborough)

Although, with the utmost good faith, I accept my hon. Friend's statement that the Committee of Selection does not interfere, surely he will not suggest that there is no interference by the two Whips' Offices in the selection of chairmen. That is an established fact, and it has been so since 1979.

Sir Marcus Fox

My hon. Friend obviously did not listen very carefully to what I said. I said that the Committee of Selection takes no part in deciding who shall be Chairman. I cannot be answerable for what happens outside our Committee.

I believe that the hon. Members listed on the Order Paper will do extremely well the valuable work that we give them and I recommend them to the House.

10.35 pm
Mr. William Ross (Londonderry, East)

I wish to speak to my amendments to the Defence Committee motion, to leave out "Mr. John Cartwright" and after "Mr. John McWilliam" to insert "Mr. Ken Maginnis".

The long explanation that we have had has drawn all hon. Members' attention to the difficulty of achieving a fair balance of the various parties and the differing opinions represented in the House. However, in spite of the difficulties, it is absolutely vital that we get it right. The Ulster Unionist party does not worry at all if minor parties with only three hon. Members each get one place on the Committees. However, we have nine hon. Members and we seem only to be getting one place as well. That does not seem to be a very fair distribution.

The Chairman of the Committee of Selection drew attention to the long period that had to pass after the general election in 1983, and again this year, before we could reach this stage. It is only right that we should take time to consider who should sit on the Committees. The Committee of Selection must have got it very nearly right because all the amendments before us seek to change only two of the names. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. Would hon. Members kindly not carry on conversations. It is difficult to hear.

Mr. Ross

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the Committee of Selection got it very nearly right, I do not see why it should not prove itself to be totally infallible and get it 100 per cent. right next time round.

The Select Committees on Agriculture, on Defence, on Foreign Affairs, and on the Treasury and Civil Service all relate to Departments that directly exercise functions in Northern Ireland. The Department of Health and Social Security has a function that is almost direct because we have the concept of parity in social security payments and so on, and we are happy to have one member of our party on that Committee.

We have been told this evening that there are two spare places on the Transport and Home Affairs Committees, which do not have any direct application to Northern Ireland. It does not seem wise for an Ulster Unionist, or any Northern Ireland hon. Member, to be asked to serve on those Committees. The Army, on the other hand, is very active in Northern Ireland. It has a role there in defending the United Kingdom frontier. In Northern Ireland we have a modern type of guerilla war — a terrorist war. We have among us a man who has a tremendous amount of experience of these matters. We think that there is a real need for a voice from someone who has served in an active capacity in the part-time security forces in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) is far better fitted to put that point of view in the Select Committee on Defence.

Mr. Michael Mates (Hampshire, East)

I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) and he is absolutely right. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis)—I told him what I intended to say and I do so with difficulty and diffidence — was a member of the Defence Committee during the previous Parliament and he was an active, conscientious and good member. However, the hon. Member for Londonderry, East must acknowledge that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone left that Committee and that Committee was without a member for 11 months. The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) returned to that Committee—he had been put off it so that the House could meet the needs expressed by the Official Unionist party. How does the hon. Member for Londonderry, East square his desire for his hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone to be a member of that Committee—again given that he left that Committee unmanned for 11 months because of the decision of the Official Ulster Unionist party—with the fact that it did not want to take part in the proceedings of the House? Do those two arguments match up?

Mr. Ross

It may appear a strange concept to the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), but the members of the Official Unionist party act on principle. At the last election, when we all stood in Northern Ireland for certain principles, we made it plain that we intended to return to the House. We had a mandate from our electors to do so. We have been back here since we won our seats and we intend to stay here.

My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone served the Committee faithfully—as did the hon. Member for Hampshire, East. My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone has an expertise in defence that is not shared by any other Member of this House. I believe that he is the man who is best fitted to put the Northern Ireland point of view in that Committee. He has not only served with the Ulster Defence Regiment, but he was also a member of the Territorial, Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Association. As the House is aware, my hon. Friend's interests are not confined to the UDR because he takes a deep and responsible interest in the regular Army.

I believe that my hon. and gallant Friend is the best qualified person for membership of the Committee and I trust that the House will support us if there is a vote tonight.

10.42 pm
Rev. William McCrea (Mid-Ulster)

I wish to speak to my amendment to leave out "Mr. Martyn Jones" and the amendment that seeks, after "Mr. Elliot Morley", to insert "the Reverend Ian Paisley".

I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox), the proposer on behalf of the Committee of Selection. The proposer clearly stated that Her Majesty's official Opposition already have two extra proposed Committee members. Therefore I believe that the House can correct that tonight and ensure that the Opposition has only one extra person. That can be done if the House allows my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. I. Paisley) to take one of those two places. It is not enough for the hon. Member for Shipley to say that the official Opposition have more than they should and not to take the opportunity to correct that imbalance.

I believe that it is important that the Committees represent the democratic voice of the whole of the population of the United Kingdom. I listened with interest when the hon. Member for Shipley said that the Committees are selected on the basis of representing the whole of the United Kingdom and not particular parts of that kingdom.

I do not believe that Northern Ireland has proper and appropriate representation within the Committee structure. Under the present proposals the Social Democratic and Labour party has three Members in the House and has one member on the Agriculture Committee; the Official Unionist party has nine Members in the House and one member on a Committee, while the Ulster Democratic Unionist party has three Members in the House, but has no member on any Committee. It is interesting to suggest that there are two places left for the Ulster Members, ensuring that they were places that had no particular relevance to or particular impact on the lives of the people whom we represent in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen (Wolverhampton, South-West)

Does the position that the Committee of Selection has taken against the Ulster Unionists and their allies arise simply because they withdrew over the Anglo-Irish Agreement? Many hon. Members on the Government side of the House would like to know whether that is the case. We would understand and sympathise if that were the position.

Rev. William McCrea

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I cannot and do not desire to attribute the reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North was removed from the Agriculture Committee. But I genuinely have my suspicions as to why that was done. It is interesting to note that the SDLP has been chosen for the Agriculture Committee and that no representative of the Unionists has been chosen. The House must ask why that is so and answer the question as to whether it is justified.

Before the last election there were two seats on the Agriculture Committee and they were allocated to two Unionist Members. What the Committee of Selection has now done is to remove both the representatives of the Unionist family and replace them by one member of the SDLP. When we consider the election results, we find that the SDLP represents 154,000 people while the Unionists represent 394,000. Yet the SDLP Member was chosen in preference. And if I have understood correctly what has been said here tonight, the Committee of Selection deliberately chose the SDLP Member rather than one representing the majority community in Northern Ireland.

I would, therefore, ask the House to reconsider this matter. I believe that I can ask the House to do so because of the experience that my hon. Friend has in agriculture. I say without apology that my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North has wide experience because he acted as the chairman of the Agriculture Committee in the Northern Ireland Assembly and was commended by all the people of Northern Ireland for his ability as the voice of the agricultural community. Yet those who are proposing membership of the Committee have deliberately acted against all this in choosing an SDLP Member.

We are simply asking for fair play. We believe that it must be remembered that agriculture is the largest single employer in the whole of Northern Ireland. It is the largest industry in Northern Ireland.

It is not enough to say that the official Opposition have more than enough representatives. Perhaps I could point out that of this Committee six members are Conservatives —and it is right that the Government party should have a majority on the Committee — four members are Labour and one is from the Social Democratic and Labour party. So six are Conservatives and five are Labour. Surely it is appropriate that one of those Labour members should step aside and that the House ensures that the voice of the agricultural community in Northern Ireland is represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North, taking the place of the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Jones).

10.48 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham)

Since the beginning of this Parliament, I have been aware of the widespread eagerness among hon. Members to see the departmental Select Committees set up. I congratulate the members of the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee on the fact that their Committee has already been able to start work. There are just two general points that I should like to make in a short contribution to this debate, before the House decides on the Select Committee motions before us.

First, I think that the whole House appreciates the difficult task performed by the Committee of Selection. Following the recommendations made by the Select Committee on Procedure in 1977–78, the Committee was charged with the nomination of departmental Select Committees in the terms set out in Standing Order No. 104.

It can be an invidious duty to be asked to make judgments as to which of our fellow Members should be nominated to each departmental Select Committee. It is a tribute to the way in which the Committee of Selection carries out its work and produces nominations generally acceptable to the House, that only two alterations have been proposed to the nominations that have been put forward to be considered in today's debate.

I have listened with great attention to the arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. W. McCrea) on the composition of the Agriculture Select Committee, and by the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) about the Defence Select Committee. I believe, however, that the Committee of Selection's work gives it an overall view which enables it to give due weight to the minority parties in the departmental Select Committee system as a whole. For that reason I shall support its recommendations tonight.

My second point relates more generally to Select Committees. As I said at business questions last Thursday, the independence of Select Committees is, of course, something which I value highly. I believe the whole House does. Our present arrangements ensure that membership of the Committees is a matter for the House as a whole and I am sure that it is the right way for these matters to be decided. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has expressed some concern about the role of the Whips in the allocation between parties of the chairmanships of Select Committees. I hope that it will be helpful to the House—and reassuring to my hon. Friend—if I address this point.

Ultimately, it is for the Select Committees themselves to elect their own Chairmen. I hope that no hon. Member will dissent from that. In accordance with the conventions of the House, each Committee broadly respresents the composition of the Chamber. Thus, each has a majority of its members from the party in government, and it is reasonable to suppose that if each Committee considers in isolation the election of its Chairman, it will elect a member of that party.

There seem to me to be two substantial disadvantages in all the Select Committee Chairmen being from the majority party. First, I do not believe that this arrangement would recognise the rights of Opposition parties in a way which best reflects the traditions of the House, particularly in the context of Committees which are rightly proud of their all-party nature. Secondly, I do not think that the House itself would welcome arrangements which might seem to give the Government's views such sway over a Select Committee fiercely independent of the Government.

It is those disadvantages in all Select Committee Chairmen being from the majority party which cause me to believe that discussions through the usual channels about the basis on which the chairmanships might be allocated, provides a useful framework within which individual Select Committees elect their Chairmen.

Mr. Fry

I notice with great interest that my right hon. Friend said that it was up to the individual members of the Committee to select their Chairman. The problem is that my right hon. Friend is suggesting a procedure that has never been brought before the House for it to decide on. I for one would be happy if we had a formal arrangement on which the House had agreed, but I and some of my hon. Friends object to a sreies of arrangements about which we do not know and which are fixed between the two Whips' Offices. If the matter were made open and the House agreed, I for one would entirely accept what my right hon. Friend says.

Mr. Wakeham

My hon. Friend makes a serious point. I understand what he says and I hope that nothing that I have said suggests that I expect a Select Committee to do other than to choose its Chairman as it thinks best. However, the system by which there are discussions through the usual channels gives Committee members some understanding of the overall basis upon which they should then make their judgment. That is all that I am saying. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says many things to keep us going for quite a long time.

The allocation through the usual channels provides a useful framework within which individual Select Committees elect their Chairmen. It means that they do so in the knowledge that there have been negotiations to find an arrangement for allocation which would be generally acceptable on both sides of the Chamber and take proper account of the rights of the Opposition as well as the majority party.

Finally, although some hon. Members may find it inappropriate to talk in terms of party about Select Committees, I would make this point: it is by setting up these Committees on the basis of arrangements which are broadly acceptable to—

Mr. William McKelvey (Kilmarnock and Loudoun)

Scottish Members have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox). It seems that there is an impasse facing the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, and I should like to know whether it will be overcome before the Christmas recess?

Mr. Wakeham

That is a matter for the Committee of Selection and not for me. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) has said, the Committee of Selection has had a problem in resolving the matter. I hope that it will be able to do so and bring its proposals before the House. I undertake that there will be a debate in the House to settle any matters—

Mr. Dennis Canavan (Falkirk, West)

When?

Mr. Wakeham

As soon as I receive a report from the Committee of Selection. This is something that we can discuss through the usual channels. There will be no great difficulty in arranging a debate before Christmas as we have not yet announced the date when the recess will begin.

Mr. John Home Robertson (East Lothian)

It is the Government who face a problem with the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, not the Committee of Selection. It seems that the Conservative party must have a majority on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, but it was unsuccessful at the general election in getting a sufficient number of Conservative Members elected in Scotland to achieve such a majority. I understand that two Scottish Conservative Back Benchers have refused to serve on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. This is a problem for the House, for the Government and for the Leader of the House himself. Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will find ways of resolving the problem, so that a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs can monitor the work of the Scottish Office within weeks rather than months?

Mr. Wakeham

As soon as the Committee of Selection completes its work, or tells the House that it cannot do so, I shall arrange for a debate as soon as practicable to enable the House to decide the issue. That will be done through the usual channels. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) has raised matters that are being considered by the Committee of Selection and it would be inappropriate for me to say what the Committee should or could do in dealing with the problem with which it is confronted.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing

Does the Committee of Selection have any sway over Conservative Members who refuse to serve on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?

Mr. Wakeham

The Committee has to abide by the Standing Orders of the House, and I am quite sure that that is what it will do.

In setting up Select Committees on the basis of arrangements that are broadly acceptable to, and give proper recognition to, both sides of the House, we shall best enable them to carry out their work in the objective and non-partisan way that we have come to expect from them.

Judging from the amendments, there is considerable interest in the structure of the departmental Select Committee system and the arrangements for the Committees' election. I shall consider carefully any comments on these matters which may be made in the debate. Our decision will be directed to the membership of the Select Committees. Unless we decide not to set up the Committees—I do not believe that to be the will of the House — our choice is a simple and relatively limited one. Either we accept the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster on the Select Committee on Agriculture and those in the name of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East on the Select Committee on Defence, or we accept the Committee of Selection's original nominations. As I said earlier, I shall support the motions in the name of the Chairman of the Committee of Selection.

11 pm

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)

Everyone's view of Select Committees is coloured by their own experiences. It might be helpful if I explained one of the experiences that I had on the Select Committee on the Environment that has rather coloured my view of the Committees. On one occasion I was ruled out of order for asking what was described as "a political question". This appeared to be an effort to keep politics out of Parliament.

The Committee at that time was chaired by Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann, who later demonstrated the consistency of his commitment to keeping politics out of Parliament by joining the SDP. He then went even farther when he fought a by-election and achieved the double by keeping himself out of Parliament as well. Therefore, I have a slightly jaundiced view of the doings of Select Committees and occasionally I have sympathy for the views on the matter of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner).

We are considering the proposed membership of 12 Select Committees. As my hon. Friends from Scotland have already said, it ought to be 13 Select Committees. This has nothing at all to do with bad luck. The reason that we are not considering the 13th Select Committee is the incompetence of the Government and their inability to influence even their own Scottish Back Benchers.

It is ridiculous for the Leader of the House to blame the Committee of Selection for the fact that the Government cannot manage to turn up five hon. Members to serve on that Committee. It would be unsatisfactory if the House were asked to approve the membership of 12 Select Committees and to leave one out. However, it is uniquely unsatisfactory when the one that is left out is the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. That is because the Ministers at the Scottish Office are an unrepresentative rump of Scottish Tories whose colleagues and policies were overwhelmingly and rightly rejected by the people of Scotland at the general election.

It has never been more necessary for the Select Committee to scrutinise the doings and wrongdoings of the Scottish Office and its agencies. The membership of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is not before us, because the Tories did so badly in Scotland at the general election. As a result, half the Scottish Tories are Ministers. They have to be, because that is the number needed to fill the Scottish Office. I do not know what can be said about the remainder. Some of them could be described as isolated eccentrics and we understand from rumour and from the newspapers that some of them are unwilling to serve on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.

Those hon. Members are clearly willing to speak up for the people of Scotland—or for the people in those bits of Scotland that they purport to represent. Much worse, they are trying to stop Scottish Labour Members speaking up for the people of Scotland, and they are seeking to stifle criticism of the Government's policies.

Mr. McKelvey

My hon. Friend may have observed that there are not only no Scottish Front-Bench Conservatives, but no Scottish Back-Bench Conservatives in the House to discuss an issue that is very dear to Scotland.

Mr. Dobson

Clearly, from the sort of behaviour that my hon. Friend points out, the Scottish Tories are heading for no representation in Scotland. What has been done is quite unacceptable. It is up to the Government and not a matter for the Committee of Selection—which is but a pawn, or a collection of pawns, in this matter—to put the Government's house in order. If the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is not established before Christmas or immediately on our return after the recess, there can be no question of any further discussion through the usual channels or any other helpful arrangements or agreements with the Opposition. It will be an affront to the Scottish people and to Labour Members. There will be no further co-operation until that Committee is established.

As to the establishment of Committees, it might be worth reminding the House that we are considering 12 memberships, but it was originally proposed that there should be a Select Committee to shadow the Law Officers and the Lord Chancellor's Department. I understand that it was turned down because Lord Hailsham—who was the last but one Lord Chancellor — did not like it. I hope that the Government will give favourable consideration to the setting up of that Select Committee. Further, in view of what is happening to science and technology in Britain, it might be as well to consider the re-establishment of a Science and Technology Committee.

As the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) said, there have been delays in sorting out the membership of Select Committees, and there are suggestions on the Order Paper that it should be done in different ways. I should point out to some of the most cynical of my hon. Friends that there are advantages in Whips having some say on the membership of Select Committees. Their involvement gives new Members a better chance of obtaining places on Select Committees than most other procedures, and Whips can also bring about a fairer spread between regions and interest groups.

I must tell some of my hon. Friends that their suggestions with regard to other methods of choosing the members of Committees seem to be based on a misplaced supposition about the state of politics in Britain. Everyone seems to be obsessed with some misled French analysis of the British constitution of the 18th century. In political theory, the House controls the Government. As we all know, providing they have a decent majority, the Government control the House, which is a reversal of the procedure. By accepting the involvement of Whips, and by trying to come to some agreement between the two main parties, we are biting the bullet and doing the sensible thing.

At some time in the past, queries were raised about the appropriateness of what were understood to be Labour party nominations to the Defence Committee. There were suggestions that officials of the Ministry of Defence objected to the prospect of some Labour Members with particular views serving on those Select Committees. If those stories are true, those civil servants should look at their constitutional theory. They account to Members of Parliament; Members of Parliament do not account to civil servants, whoever they are or whatever Department they serve. If they are concerned about security, as they claim to be, they should look at the history of treachery in Britain. They need not look to the ranks of the Labour party for people who have betrayed their country. If they analyse those people who have been found out and found guilty of treachery they will discover that, generally, they were ex-public school, ex-Oxbridge people of apparently impeccable establishment credentials. I hope that we shall hear no more about that matter.

Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North)

With regard to treachery, is it not a fact that under the 18B regulations, which locked Moseley up from 1939 onwards as a threat to the security of this island, the only Member of Parliament who was detained during the war years was a Captain Ramsay, who was very much a Tory Member of Parliament?

Mr. Dobson

The only creditable matter that I can think of in that arrangement is that apparently the security services managed to rumble him at the time.

There is reference on the Order Paper to the freedom of action of members of Committees. In theory, the members of the Committees, and the Committees themselves, have a great deal of freedom of action. If those hon. Members wish to exercise that, and if they feel that they are being thwarted by the Government or the Civil Service, they could carry the House with them if they came to the House and asked for the additional powers to get people before them and to see all the papers involved.

That point brings me back to the Defence Committee. Some people seem to think that the Westland affair displayed one of the glories of the Select Committee system. Certain members of the Defence Committee did stalwart work during the Westland affair trying to discover the facts that were being hidden from the public. Basically, the Government and the head of the Civil Service treated the Defence Committee with utter contempt. Had that happened in the United States, had a Republican President of the United States allowed the United States Administration to treat a committee of Congress with the same contempt, even Barry Goldwater would have moved for the impeachment of that President.

It is idle for us to pretend that our Select Committees have in practice the powers, status or authority of the congressional committees in the United States. I hope, therefore, that the new Committee members will join those members of Committees who have tried to exercise their muscle in the past and, if there is trouble or obstruction from the Government or the Civil Service when a Select Committee tries to get at the truth, I hope that the Government Back Benchers who make up the majority in these matters will support the Select Committees and not cravenly support the Government or anyone else obstructing the Select Committees. If that does not happen, I believe that the Select Committees will eventually fall into disrepute.

A lot of hard work has been done by Select Committee members and much useful information has been gained and released. However, the Government have taken scarcely a blind bit of notice of anything that any of the Select Committees have said. In those circumstances, we must regard the Select Committee system as on trial. Besides scrutinising the Government and keeping an eye on them, the House must scrutinise the Select Committees to ensure that they are discharging their functions.

Mr. Dick Douglas (Dunfermline, West)

I know that my hon. Friend is being his usual charitable self. However, will he rephrase his comments? Would it be more a propos not to ask the House to scrutinise the Select Committees, but to ask the House to pay more attention to the Committee's reports and so use the reports more constructively.

Mr. Dobson

I fully accept the view that my hon. Friend has expressed. He did such stalwart work in difficult circumstances — long service in hard stations — on the Defence Committee. It is difficult for hon. Members to make much use of Select Committee reports if they never come before the House. The House must take the Select Committees more seriously if they are to discharge the functions for which they were established.

In commending the unamended memberships to my right hon. and hon. Friends, I do so on the basis that we need better and more vigorous performances from the Select Committees, and, above all, we need the backing of hon. Members on both sides of the House to give the Select Committees the muscle to do the job that they were established to do.

Mr. McKelvey

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for me at the end of the debate to divide the House on the membership of each of the Select Committees as listed if I feel that there has been no adequate response to the question of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? Would it be in order for me to divide the House on each of the Committees?

Mr. Speaker

Yes.

Mr. McKelvey

rose—

Mr. Speaker

I said that that would be in order.

11.14 pm
Mr. Terence L. Higgins (Worthing)

To say that the appointment of the Select Committees that we are debating is long overdue would be a masterly understatement. Therefore, I hope that the House will come to a clear-cut decision in favour of their establishment today. However, having said that, one must recognise that there have been considerable difficulties in the setting-up of those Committees. No one who has listened to the debate or to the opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox), the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, can doubt that these are complex matters and that a great many individual and group interests are involved.

Nonetheless, it is surely absurd that we have had to wait six months before we have reached the stage where we are likely to reach a decision on these matters. Even if this Parliament goes its full term, we shall have lost about one tenth of the entire Parliament without the Committees being able to do their job of scrutinising the Executive and making sure that the Departments for which they are responsible are properly monitored.

Therefore it is tremendously important that we should ensure that we do not for a third time run into the same problem as we recognise has happened on this occasion and as happened in 1983. It is not as if these problems were not foreseen in the previous Parliament. I remind the House of the first report of the Liaison Committee in April 1985 which referred to this very matter and stated: The House met after the last general election on 15th June 1983. The select committees, since they had continued to exist under Standing Orders, only needed to be nominated before they could start work. It can be appreciated that, with so many new Members in the House, it took a little time to decide on suitable names. But we feel that the delay, which continued until the House nominated the departmental committees on 9th and 14th December, was excessive. However, we find ourselves in precisely the same position as in 1983. The Liaison Committee also recommended: Standing Orders should be amended so that a suitable time-limit is imposed to ensure that committees are nominated soon after any general election. As my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Committee of Selection pointed out, it is perfectly true that there was a recess between the date of the election and tonight, and obviously that causes some problems. Nonetheless, it is a delay of six months. Had we managed, as the Liaison Committee recommended that we should, to set up the Committees in the recess, although the House was not sitting, the Clerks and members of those Committees could have been working through the summer recess. The House had allocated resources to those Committees so that they could do their work. It is generally agreed that that work is extremely valuable and the number of hon. Members in the Chamber this evening shows the extent to which the House regards the matter as important.

In replying to the Liaison Committee's report, the Government pointed out that the matter was, far from being exclusively in the Government's hands; and, especially after a General Election, a considerable time may have to elapse before it is known, for example, whether particular Opposition Members will be available to serve. That is one of the problems that we have been facing. However, surely it should not be necessary for the delay on that point to lead to the kind of delay that we experienced both in 1983 and now.

I considered whether there are other possible solutions to this problem. The Public Accounts Commission, for example, runs over from one Parliament to another. It was re-established as soon as we returned after the election, with those hon. Members who still remained Members of the House. Of course, we cannot do that with the Select Committee structure because, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has pointed out, the Committees have a Government majority and if the parties were to change places at election time, we should end up with a rump of Committees, which, until they were reconstituted, would probably, since the old system had a majority of Government Members, have a majority of Opposition Members.

However, the solution is not necessarily to be found on those lines. I believe that the only answer is to set a deadline because that is the only way in which we shall ensure that we do not waste an enormous amount of time. Clearly, that should be done in terms of sitting days, rather than on an absolute number of days because there may be the problem of the recess, as has been mentioned.

I am anxious that we should proceed without further delay, so I shall not delay the House for more than a moment longer.

Mr. Mates

I have listened carefully to my right hon. Friend, who is echoing the plea of our hon. Friend the Chairman of the Committee on Selection that he needs more help to resolve the dilemmas facing him. Could we not all ask that this be referred to the Procedure Committee so that a ruling could be given and the House could take a vote on how we should proceed at the beginning of the next Parliament?

Mr. Higgins

I understand my hon. Friend's point, but it is a matter which has previously been considered by the Liaison Committee, which is probably a more appropriate body to consider this issue, as it deals with general problems affecting the co-ordination of Select Committees. The House will undoubtedly wish to consider my hon. Friend's suggestion, but we have already had a specific recommendation from that Committee and I hope that the Government Front Bench will be prepared to reconsider their original reply. That is the only way that we can avoid this situation arising on yet another occasion, to the detriment of the House.

Both in 1979 and 1983 a considerable number of Committees had Opposition Chairmen. That is of great importance if the system is indeed to appear to be an all-party system, representing the House of Commons as a whole. I understand my right hon. Friend's point and I certainly agree that this is important. However, I have one fear on this score. This Government under successive Leaders of the House, all of whom have supported the Select Committee system enthusiastically, have gone along with the all-party approach. We should consider whether, to avoid the participation of the usual channels and to ensure that this advantage is preserved for the future, some more clearly established convention should be made that a certain number of Select Committee Chairmanships go to Opposition Members in the same way that the convention exists, for example, with the Public Accounts Committee.

I hope that we can reach a rapid conclusion on this matter so that the Select Committees can get on with the work which all hon. Members agree is of great value.

11.22 pm
Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North)

I rise to add my anxiety and anger to that which the House has already heard about the Government's failure to establish the Scottish Affairs Select Committee.

Our argument is not with the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) who, I am prepared to accept, has gone about the matter with integrity and good purpose. Our complaint is entirely with the Government and their dealings with their own Scottish representatives. I can sympathise with the hon. Gentleman who may in the past have dealt with various forms of intransigence but who, I am sure, has never dealt with such crass mediocrity as he finds in that curious quintet of Scottish Back-Bench Tory Members.

The Government's failure to allow, or to insist on, the establishment of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee is astonishing for four reasons. First, whether hon. Members like it or not, there is a distinctive Scottish complexion to the make-up of politics and the division of parties. If the Tory party is determined simply to ignore that division and dismiss that different complexion, it is building up problems and difficulties far beyond anything that can be imagined at present.

The second reason is that the Scottish Office, uniquely among the Departments covered by the Select Committee, has a vast range of interests to represent, and thus to scrutinise. Why on earth we can have 12 Committees set up to cover specific Departments, but cannot have a 13th Committee to deal with a Department that covers everything from sport to agriculture, education and health in Scotland, may be comprehensible to Conservative Members, but will certainly not be comprehensible to the people of Scotland. They will see it as exonerating yet again their judgment as the general election — a judgment upon the crassness and ignorance of the Tory party in that country.

Mr. George Robertson (Hamilton)

While he is on this line of argument, would my hon. Friend care to reflect that the lack of attention of Scottish Conservative Members to the issue under consideration tonight is no more aptly illustrated than by the fact that not a single one of them has bothered to come to the Chamber for this vitally important debate? Does that not underline their lack of concern for the Scottish people and their interests?

Mr. Wilson

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) for drawing attention to a fact of which the Scottish people are increasingly aware that not only the ministerial but the Back-Bench Scottish Conservatives are inept, useless, seldom here and more likely to be trawled from the liquid dungeons of the House than to be found here at a time such as this?

Those of us who have been here for only a few months have already become used to the tartan comedy shows of the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn), swaying in the non-existent breeze as he talks incomprehensible nonsense to the House. We have grown accustomed to the hon. Member for Tayside (Mr. Walker) turning up occasionally in his kilt to inform the House and his Front Bench that he is so idle that he will not even participate in the basic functions of the Scottish Select Committee. We have grown used to the five-man comedy turn of Scottish Back-Benchers. However, the message that goes out again from the House is that they serve no interests except their own tiny, parochial, selfish interests. That is what will make the five turn into three, and the three turn into dust, at the next general election.

The third reason for my belief that the Committee should be set up is that, whatever may be said about other Select Committees, there is no denying that the Scottish Select Committee has done useful work during its career. We often hear boasts from Conservative Members about the work of Locate in Scotland. Let no hon. Member be in any doubt that Locate in Scotland would not exist, far less be doing good and useful work for the Scottish economy, had its development been left to the Conservatives. Let no one doubt that it is because of the work of the Scottish Select Committee that Locate in Scotland exists today.

Mr. Douglas

We are taking a good deal of time on this issue. I think that the procedure would be facilitated if we could have an assurance from the Leader of the House —perhaps he will seek to intervene on my hon. Friend's remarks—that the Scottish Select Committee will be a major priority for him, and that, given the work of the Selection Committee, he will try to expedite the matter before the Christmas recess.

Mr. Wakeham

May I make the position clear as I understand it? I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox), the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, that he hopes to finish his deliberations and to make the appropriate report to the House on the views of his Committee on the Scottish Select Committee. When that is done I undertake to arrange as soon as practicable a debate upon it.

Mr. Wilson

I value that undertaking, but before I sit down I will ask for a time scale.

To finish the point about the valuable work that has been done by the Scottish Select Committee, there are many hundreds of Ministry of Defence jobs in Glasgow that would not be there had it not been for the work of the Scottish Select Committee. Many areas of Government have been subject to valuable scrutiny by that Committee.

Fourthly, the nonsense is that there are dozens of hon. Members ready and willing to serve on it. The reason that it will not be set up is the attachment of the Government to extremely complicated arithmetic. They have only five Back Benchers. At least two of them are so numb and thick in stating that they will not serve on the Committee—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker.

Order. Hon. Members should try to keep the temperature down.

Mr. Wilson

We hear a great deal from the Government side about the virtues of not yielding to blackmail. The astonishing fact is that the two hon. Members who represent Perthshire have succeeded in holding the House to blackmail. That is why we do not have this Committee. Many hon. Members are willing to serve on it and there is much work to be done. I ask for an undertaking—

Mr. Jerry Wiggin (Weston-super-Mare)

rose—

Mr. Wilson

I am not giving way. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that we have only 14 minutes more.

Mr. Wiggin

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have had a deliberate personal attack on two of my hon. Friends. Can we have an assurance from the hon. Member for Cunningham, North (Mr. Wilson) that he informed them in advance, in accordance with the custom of the House?

Mr. Speaker.

That is a custom which the hon. Gentleman, who is a new Member, may not know about. It is a convention that if an hon. Member is to be attacked in the House, he is forewarned.

Mr. Wilson

rose—

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Mr. Wilson

Mr. Speaker, I deeply regret that the two hon. Members are not here to hear themselves being attacked. I withdraw with pleasure.

There is a need for the Scottish Select Committee and there are hon. Members willing to serve on it. The Government should set up the Committee or be answerable to the people of Scotland.

11.32 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (Macclesfield)

I contribute to the debate more out of sadness than anger. I was looking just now on the Order Paper for the composition of the Scottish Select Committee. It was not there. Yet virtually three quarters of the speeches and interventions in this short debate have been directed to something that does not appear on the Order Paper. I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that to have a debate of merely one hour and a half on a matter that is of deep concern to the House is inadequate and an abuse of Back Benchers.

I listened with great interest to the excellent speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). If the Front Bench had listened to what he said, a great deal of what has happened in recent months would not be repeated, to the advantage of the House.

If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House expects me to believe for one moment that the usual channels on this occasion have not exerted abnormal influence over the composition of Select Committees, I am afraid he misunderstands me. I do not go along with what he said.

I am aware, from information that has come to me, that the Committee of Selection, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox), does not consider every application put to it by hon. Members, because the Labour party presents a list of those Members it wants nominated to the Select Committees. Therefore, the integrity and independence of the Select Committees are clearly in doubt and have been undermined and debased by the activities of the usual channels of the House. As a Member of the House, I follow the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing. I have served uninterrupted for 13 years on the Select Committee for Social Services. In that time, under the leadership of the redoubtable lady, Ms. Renee Short, we had unanimous Committee reports. We did not need to have the usual channels to dictate to us a balance. The Select Committees can do for themselves what, sadly, the Chamber so often fails to do to establish common ground and find unity in the interests of the people.

Mr. McKelvey

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Winterton

I will not give way. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), has a Scottish constituency and has had more than a fair run in the debate.

As an evergreen, long-serving Back Bencher—and I consider that I will continue to be a long-serving Back Bencher — I believe entirely and totally in the Select Committee system. It is one way in which genuine Back Benchers can exercise some influence, albeit no power, over the Executive and Government. To my mind, it is a tragedy that the usual channels have sought to influence the Committees as to who should be their Chairmen, before the Committees have even met.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Winterton

I am sorry, but there is very little time and I wish to get one or two things on record.

It is important that Committees have the integrity and independence to elect their own chairmen. For my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to say that the usual channels are merely giving guidance to those Committees is absolute rubbish, and he knows it. I say to the Front Bench that, for the Conservative party never to have taken control by way of the Chair of the Select Committee for Social Services shows how disdainful so many quarters of the Conservative party are of social services. It is the biggest spending Department of State, £45 billion, and not once in 20 years have we taken the Chair of that Committee. I believe that the chairmanship was offered to the Conservative party on this occasion, but that it was declined because the party was not prepared to trade off another Committee. I think that that is a great shame.[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker

Order. I ask the House to give the hon. Gentleman a fair hearing. I am finding it difficult to hear down here.

Mr. Winterton

For the Back Benchers of the House — you, Mr. Speaker, safeguard their interests — the Select Committees are the only way in which they can positively and constructively help the country and guide and monitor the Government. I believe in Select Committees and I say to both Front Benches of the House,"If you genuinely are concerned"—

Mrs. Audrey Wise (Preston)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Winterton

I do not intend to give way to the hon. Lady. No doubt she will have ample opportunity to display her talents on the Select Committee.

I plead with the House to safeguard the integrity and independence of the Social Services Select Committee and all other Select Committees of the House. One day, the Government may be on the Opposition Benches. [Interruption.]

Mrs. Wise

rose—

Mr. Speaker

Order. Is the hon. Lady raising a point of order, or was she unable to speak in the debate?

Mrs. Wise

I believe that it is a point of order, Mr. Speaker. First, is it in order for the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) to seek to interfere in the representation of Labour Members by tabling motions naming Labour Members? Secondly, in view of the advice given to one of my hon. Friends about communicating with colleagues in the House, is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to name other hon. Members on the Order Paper without consultation or information being given to them?

Mr. Speaker

It was perfectly in order for the hon. Gentleman to put down his amendment. The hon. Lady should know that it was not selected for Division.

Mr. Winterton

I believe that in everything that I have done about the re-establishment of Select Committees I have adhered to the procedures, rules, regulations and precedents of the House. I intend to continue to do so. Not only do I value the Select Committee system as a way in which I and many of my colleagues can play a positive, constructive part in the House, but in addition I believe in the democratic procedures of the House.

11.41 pm
Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North)

The creation of departmental Select Committees was one of the greatest constitutional steps forward this century. However, at this point in our history, the departmental Select Committees need the support of all hon. Members if they are to progress any further. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) pointed out, they are now at something of a crossroads. If they are left to their own devices, to the patronage of the Whips or to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, they may decline into misuse and abuse. If they are supported and reinvigorated, they may find a real role in the House in defending and extending our democracy.

The reason that we have had such long delay in 1987 is pretty much the same as that in 1983: the Executive— the Government—do not wish to see strong, effective departmental Select Committees. In 1983, the reason that was put forward was that the shadow Cabinet had not completed its elections. There was no reason why shadow Cabinet elections should delay the nomination of Select Committees. If vacancies had arisen, they could have been filled in the normal way. When individuals have been promoted, and thus have vacated their seats, new elections for nominations would take place. In 1987, the excuses that were put forward related to rows over chairmanship — which had more to do with petty jealousies than with the constitutional significance of Select Committees — and the role of the Select Committee on Defence. That is clearly a far more serious matter. It is bad enough having people in one's own party telling one who one must have on a Select Committee, but it is intolerable for people in the Ministries or Departments that are to be supervised or monitored to tell one who should be on such Committees, and the House should not put up with it.

The only way forward is for hon. Members to take control of Select Committees. I have asked the Leader of the House to consider a series of proposals and to re-establish the Select Committee on Procedure, so that it may then consider such proposals and come back to the Floor of the House with proposals for improvement. One such proposal is the direct election of members to Select Committees, with each hon. Member having one vote for a member of each Select Committee. With one vote per hon. Member, there would be no question of a slate of 10 or 12 getting elected. Indeed, a broad cross-section of hon. Members would be represented.[Interruption]

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman has two minutes more and there is a great deal of noise. I would ask hon. Members to listen and not to carry on private conversations.

Mr. Allen

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If each Member had one vote for each Select Committee place, a broad cross-section of hon. Members would be elected. We could have a system whereby each member elected would need to get at least 50 votes.

Another essential reform is that the Select Committees, by Standing Order of the House, should be established by a given date specified in the Standing Orders. In addition, the Select Committees' powers need to be re-examined—notably we need a power for Bills to be referred to a Select Committee after Second Reading for a period of six or eight weeks so that the Select Committee, as of right, can take evidence and interview witnesses before a Bill proceeds—

It being one and a half hours after the motion was entered upon,MR. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the order of the House [27 November], to put the Question on any amendment selected by him which was then moved and then to put successively the Question on the motion relating to Agriculture and any Questions necessary to dispose of the motions in the name of Sir Marcus Fox relating to Defence, Education, Science and Arts, Employment, Energy, Environment, Foreign Affairs, Home Affairs, Social Services, Trade and Industry, Transport and Welsh Affairs, which were then made, and of any amendments thereto which had been selected by him and which were then moved.

Amendment proposed, to leave out 'Mr. Martyn Jones.'.—[Rev. William McCrea.]

Question put,That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 34, Noes 172.

Division No. 93] [11.46 pm
AYES
Alton, David Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Ashdown, Paddy Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Beggs, Roy Paisley, Rev Ian
Beith, A. J. Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon) Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Budgen, Nicholas Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Cran, James Stanbrook, Ivor
Fearn, Ronald Steel, Rt Hon David
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) Stevens, Lewis
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn) Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Howells, Geraint Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark) Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)
Janman, Timothy Wallace, James
Kennedy, Charles Winterton, Mrs Ann
Kilfedder, James Winterton, Nicholas
Maclennan, Robert
Maginnis, Ken Tellers for the Ayes:
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l & Bute) Rev. William McCrea and Mr. Clifford Forsythe.
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
NOES
Abbott, Ms Diane Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Allen, Graham Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham) Clay, Bob
Ashton, Joe Clelland, David
Baldry, Tony Cohen, Harry
Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE) Conway, Derek
Batiste, Spencer Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony Corbyn, Jeremy
Benn, Rt Hon Tony Crowther, Stan
Bermingham, Gerald Cryer, Bob
Bevan, David Gilroy Cummings, J.
Boscawen, Hon Robert Cunliffe, Lawrence
Boswell, Tim Cunningham, Dr John
Boyes, Roland Currie, Mrs Edwina
Bradley, Keith Darling, Alastair
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard Dewar, Donald
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E) Dixon, Don
Buchan, Norman Dobson, Frank
Buckley, George Doran, Frank
Butcher, John Dorrell, Stephen
Campbell-Savours, D. N. Douglas, Dick
Canavan, Dennis Dover, Den
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) Duffy, A. E. P.
Cartwright, John Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) Durant, Tony
Eastham, Ken Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Emery, Sir Peter Meale, Alan
Evans, John (St Helens N) Michael, Alun
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray) Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Forman, Nigel Miller, Hal
Foster, Derek Mills. Iain
Fox, Sir Marcus Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Fyfe, Mrs Maria Morgan, Rhodri
Galloway, George Morley, Elliott
Garel-Jones, Tristan Murphy, Paul
George, Bruce Nellist, Dave
Golding, Mrs Llin Neubert, Michael
Goodhart, Sir Philip O'Neill, Martin
Gordon, Ms Mildred Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW) Page, Richard
Greenway, John (Rydale) Pendry, Tom
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) Pike, Peter
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Grocott, Bruce Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Hayes, Jerry Prescott, John
Haynes, Frank Primarolo, Ms Dawn
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE) Quin, Ms Joyce
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. Raffan, Keith
Hinchliffe, David Rhodes James, Robert
Home Robertson, John Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A) Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford) Rossi, Sir Hugh
Hoyle, Doug Rowe, Andrew
Hughes, John (Coventry NE) Rowlands, Ted
Hume, John Ryder, Richard
Hunt, David (Wirral W) Salmond, Alex
Illsley, Eric Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Ingram, Adam Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) Skinner, Dennis
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W) Squire, Robin
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Lawrence, Ivan Stott, Roger
Leadbitter, Ted Strang, Gavin
Leighton, Ron Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Lewis, Terry Thurnham, Peter
Lightbown, David Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant) Vaz, Keith
McAllion, John Waddington, Rt Hon David
McCartney, Ian Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Macdonald, Calum Wall, Pat
McFall, John Waller, Gary
McGrady, E. K. Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
McKay, Allen (Penistone) Wareing, Robert N.
McKelvey, William Warren, Kenneth
Maclean, David Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)
McLeish, Henry Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)
McNamara, Kevin Wheeler, John
McWilliam, John Widdecombe, Miss Ann
Madden, Max Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)
Mahon, Mrs Alice Wilson, Brian
Mallon, Seamus Wise, Mrs Audrey
Marshall, David (Shettleston) Worthington, Anthony
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Young, David (Bolton SE)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Martlew, Eric Tellers for the Noes:
Mates, Michael Sir Michael Shaw and Sir John Stradling Thomas.
Maxton, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

    c1061
  1. AGRICULTURE 43 words
    2. cc1062-4
  2. DEFENCE 1,596 words, 2 divisions
    3. cc1064-6
  3. EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND ARTS 704 words, 1 division
    4. cc1066-7
  4. EMPLOYMENT 666 words, 1 division
    5. cc1067-8
  5. ENERGY 634 words, 1 division
    6. cc1068-9
  6. ENVIRONMENT 70 words
    7. cc1069-70
  7. FOREIGN AFFAIRS 145 words
    8. cc1070-1
  8. HOME AFFAIRS 1,160 words, 2 divisions
    9. cc1071-3
  9. SOCIAL SERVICES 193 words
    10. c1073
  10. TRADE AND INDUSTRY 601 words, 1 division
    11. c1073
  11. TRANSPORT 594 words, 1 division
    12. c1073
  12. WELSH AFFAIRS 600 words, 1 division
Forward to