Committee of Selection (Hansard, 21 November 2002)

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)
Mr. Speaker has chosen the amendment in the name of Pete Wishart.

§ Chairman of the Committee of Selection (Mr. John McWilliam)
The Committee of Selection exists under the private business Standing Orders and not the public business Standing Orders. The principal function of the Committee was originally, and still is, to appoint members of private Committees. That is because, in previous times, private interests promoted much of the legislation that passed through the House. The canals and railways were built using private Bills, as were toll roads. I know of a bridge in Oxfordshire where one has to pay a toll of one old penny—I think that it is now 5p—to cross. That has been our principal role and it remains so today.
The motion seek to discharge the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) from the Committee of Selection and appoint in his place the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff). The change is consequent on a recent shadow Cabinet reshuffle in which the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings was made shadow Agriculture Minister. If anybody was in any doubt about that, they should have been present for the winding-up speeches in the previous debate. The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire then took his place as the Conservative party's pairing Whip.
I take this opportunity to thank the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings for the service that he gave the Committee and his good-natured contributions. I wish him well in his future role. To judge by his performance earlier, he needs no encouragement from me.
For many years, the Opposition pairing Whip had a seat on the Committee of Selection. His role is to propose the names of official Opposition Members to serve on Standing and Select Committees and, of course, private Bill Committees. The membership change is therefore essential to enable the Committee of Selection to carry out the work delegated to it by the House. Such changes in membership are not unusual. A similar change was made on 17 October 2001 when the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings replaced the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Cran). On 5 November 2001, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan) replaced my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck).

§ Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan)
The hon. Gentleman has described the duties and background of the Committee of Selection. Could it discharge its duties effectively if a member of the minority parties sat on it?

§ Mr. McWilliam
I shall deal with that later in my peroration. I intend to cover that specific point in the context of the amendment.
869 I thank hon. Members who served the Committee so well. Their service was greatly appreciated by my colleagues who remain members of the Committee. I congratulate the new members on their role. I look forward to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire joining us in due course.
The motion first appeared on the Order Paper on 15 October during unopposed private business immediately after Prayers. Hon. Members objected to it then and subsequently, resulting in today's debate. Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru Members were among those who objected. The debate may therefore provide a good opportunity to inform hon. Members about how the Committee of Selection deals with smaller parties.
As required by private business Standing Order No. 109, the Committee has only nine members, of whom six are Labour, two Conservative and one Liberal Democrat. The composition is in proportion to that of the House. There are currently 410 Labour Members, 163 Conservative Members, 53 Liberal Democrats, nine SNP or Plaid Cymru Members, six Ulster Unionists, five Democratic Unionist party Members, four Sinn Fein Members, three Social Democratic and Labour party Members and two independent Members, as well as the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers.
We take great care to ensure that we adhere to the proportions that I outlined. If we take 651 Members of the House as a base, 0.630 are Labour, 0.250 are Conservative and 0.120 are others. Hon. Members who care to work out how nine Members can represent 651 in those proportions will realise that it is difficult. We take the matter seriously: we work out the figures and round them up, which is when matters become interesting.
Enabling minority parties such as the SNP and Plaid Cymru to qualify for a seat would make for a large and unwieldy Committee, which would benefit neither its members nor the House. On a Committee of nine, such as the Committee of Selection, the composition is six Labour Members, two Conservative Members and a member of the largest minority party, the Liberal Democrats.
Until recently, the Liberal Democrats represented the smaller parties on the Committee of Selection. A problem arose last year, and the matter was raised through the usual channels. An agreement was made whereby Government Whips now represent the smaller parties. The new arrangement appears to have worked satisfactorily. At least, I have heard no complaints, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), who has known me for many years, would not feel diffident about picking up the telephone or dropping me a note. I encourage that. If any hon. Members have difficulties about the Committee of Selection, I would be happy to discuss its work with them.
The arrangement worked but it broke down and the replacement is satisfactory. Anxieties have been expressed about the representation of the smaller parties on the Liaison Committee. That Committee is not nominated by the Committee of Selection. Almost all the Committees appointed by the Committee of Selection are proposed using the formula that I have 870 described to ensure that their composition reflects as accurately as possible the balance of the parties in the House.
The few exceptions are special cases, such as the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, on which the smaller parties are over-represented—and correctly so. I often chair the Northern Ireland Grand Committee, and I take great pains to ensure that the parties whose members are based in Northern Ireland have some precendence for speaking, because they could otherwise be swamped. It is not only the Committee of Selection that does that; the Chairmen's Panel is also aware of such issues and we try our best to ensure that that happens.
I mentioned that the Committee of Selection was based on the private business Standing Orders. We still have an important role in selecting private Committees. We have had a change since the Committee of Selection was first set up. Obviously, the decision to add the setting up of Standing Committees and Select Committees to the Committee of Selection's tasks was a sensible one for the House to make. It saved setting up a totally different Committee and meant that the Committee's role continued.

§ Mr. Salmond
I know from previous experience that the hon. Gentleman is a very fair-minded man, but he is being less than fair to his Committee. There are 25 Members from minority parties in the House, and the membership of a number of Committees—including the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—has been expanded to allow a minority party to be represented. With his long experience of fairness, does he consider it an unreasonable objective that each minority party should sit on one departmental Select Committee, over and above the territorial Committees on which they obviously have to be represented?

§ Mr. McWilliam
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. In the case of the SNP, there is a Parliament in Edinburgh to which much of the work that the departmental Select Committees do down here has been devolved. Only the retained functions continue to be dealt with here. I would think it silly to have a member of the SNP on any Committee whose functions, as they affect Scotland, have been totally devolved.

§ Pete Wishart (North Tayside)
Following that logic, may I presume that the hon. Gentleman would have no problem if a minority party managed to secure membership of a non-territorial departmental Select Committee that examines the reserved powers?

§ Mr. McWilliam
I recall a period when the official Unionist party had a place on the Select Committee on Defence, which it lost because all its Members stood for re-election. I cannot remember the reason for that, although I am sure that it was a good one. When they resigned their seats, however, the place had to be reallocated, and it was allocated to the official Opposition. I think that I might have been one of the beneficiaries of that. Anyway, that is what happened.
To increase the representation of the SNP and Plaid Cymru, we would, as I have said, have to shove the membership of the Committee of Selection up to an 871 unwieldy number. On the principle that the hon. Gentleman raised, however, the Scottish Parliament has powers to enact private legislation. Indeed, it would be difficult to envisage an instance in which it would be appropriate for the Scottish promoter of a private Bill to promote it in this House rather than in the Scottish Parliament. I shall try to drag up an example instantly. If someone were proposing to do something on Ministry of Defence land, that would probably fall within the remit of this House, but I cannot think of anything else that would.
The Government of Wales Act 1998 provides for a different position. I had the privilege of chairing part of the deliberations on that legislation on the Floor of the House. I remind hon. Members that, although the Welsh Assembly does not deal with private legislation as such, it may promote it in this House. Although there are controls over that, somebody could petition the Welsh Assembly to promote a private Bill here, but the Assembly must vote to promote such a measure, with two thirds of Members in favour. Two thirds of Members do not need to be present, however.
I understand that discussions are taking place between the Wales Office and the Assembly on whether to amend that provision to provide more flexibility for the Assembly. I do not know how those discussions are proceeding—I am in no position to know—but I understand why Plaid Cymru Members and Welsh Members of other parties may want to make such a change.
Before I sit down, I must thank personally the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) for so ably stepping into the breach, which he did not have to fill, to look after the interests of the official Opposition while the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) was away doing other duties such as preparing for the debate earlier this evening. The right hon. Gentleman stepped in with his usual wit and charm—he is always a welcome and useful member of my Committee.
Having said that, I have probably banged on long enough. The basis of my objection to the amendment is simple and straightforward: if there were to be a member of the Committee of Selection from a minority party, I would argue that the Scottish National party is the least appropriate minority party to have one; were the Committee of Selection to be expanded to such a size as to enable the minority parties to be represented, I would argue that it was of such a size as to be unwieldy.

§ Pete Wishart
According to the hon. Gentleman's logic, that rule applies to SNP Members, but surely it should also apply to Scottish Labour Back Benchers, two of whom chair Select Committees?

§ Mr. McWilliam
It strikes me that the Department of Trade and Industry has some powers devolved and some not, so I would not worry too much about that.
If expanded to such a size, the Committee would become too unwieldy to work. As members of the Committee know, sometimes we have to meet because someone has got something wrong or some mechanism has got stuck. I must tell the House that I do not believe 872 in back-door deals. We do not always meet in a Committee Room, but we always have a quorum and we always have a Clerk present if we have to amend a proposal before it goes on the Order Paper so as to enable the decision to be taken cleanly and properly.
Having said that, I ask hon. Members to vote against the amendment and for the Government motion.

§ Pete Wishart (North Tayside)
I beg to move, To leave out "Mr Peter Luff" and insert "Pete Wishart".
We have nothing against the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), whom I am sure will prove to be a worthy and constructive member of the Committee of Selection. We have moved the amendment to draw attention to the plight of the minority parties. Our dispute has nothing to do with him, as he well knows, but everything to do with the treatment of the minority parties at the hands of the House.
If the House, in its wisdom, agrees to put me on the Committee of Selection, I pledge to be diligent. I will do all that I can to represent the interests not just of minority parties but of the Government and the official Opposition and to ensure that they both get all the Select Committee places that they feel entitled to or require.

§ Mr. McWilliam
I hope that the hon. Gentleman realises that the role that he has described is one that I take very much to heart—it is the role that I attempt to play and have always attempted to play on the Committee. I try to be as objective, fair, open and honest as I can and I try to make certain that everybody gets a fair deal.

§ Pete Wishart
I would not dare question the hon. Gentleman's integrity. I am sure he is absolutely right.
We tabled the amendment because we were almost at our wits' end. We wondered what more we had to do to convince the House that we in the minority parties want to be recognised as a significant constituency, and to play a constructive role in the House's business.
The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) described me as an SNP Member, but I also represent all the minority parties this evening. We work well together, as he was gracious enough to acknowledge, but ours is very much a business arrangement. Little unites us politically. At the end of the day, when a Division is called, we go into different Lobbies, and that is fine and dandy. On one matter, however, we overwhelmingly agree: we in the minority parties deserve better from the House.

§ Jim Sheridan (West Renfrewshire)
The hon. Gentleman said that he would act responsibly in representing the House. I find that astounding, given that he and the rest of his party work against the House's best interests, talk it down and indeed seek to get rid of it.

§ Pete Wishart
The hon. Gentleman is well aware of information collected by POLIS that shows how effectively Scottish Back Benchers contribute to 873 debate here. Invariably, SNP Members have topped any contributions by Labour Members. I will not be lectured by the hon. Gentleman.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I hope that we shall hear no more of this discussion, as it is well beyond the terms of the amendment.

§ Pete Wishart
Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The House must recognise that we in the minority parties are now 23-strong. Our membership is almost half that of the Liberal Democrats, but we have nothing like the same number of Select Committee places and nothing like the same influence in the House. The Liberal Democrats are on every Select Committee, while we are on only seven out of 46. The Liberal Democrats are a fair party that believes in proportionality. Let us see how proportional representation applies to these circumstances.
To be fair to the Liberal Democrats, it must be said that they are only looking after their own, within the rules and confines of the House. I know that it is different in the Committee of Selection, but the average Select Committee has 11 places. According to the rules, seven must be reserved for the Government, three for the official Opposition and one for the other minority parties, including the Liberal Democrats. Who can blame the Liberal Democrats for snaffling all the places for themselves? Why should they care about the other minority parties? Even when they were responsible for looking after the interests of the minority parties, they still took all the seats.
Something is not working here when a constituency of this size can be overlooked. If our membership is about half the size of that of the Liberal Democrats, we should be given about half the number of places that they currently have.

§ Mr. McWilliam
So who is to be cut in half?

§ Pete Wishart
I could suggest several candidates. I am looking in front of me, but I will not comment.
I pledge that I would be a diligent member of the Committee of Selection. In some respects, things have improved for the minority parties. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the new arrangement whereby the Government Whips represent the minority parties, and I must say that that has been a very satisfactory solution. We have access to the usual channels.

§ Anne Picking (East Lothian)
You said earlier that minority parties get together to discuss how you want to work, but that your pathways often diverge when it comes to political decisions. How can you possibly effectively—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady should use correct parliamentary language. When she says "you", she is addressing the Chair.

§ Anne Picking
I am sorry Mr. Deputy Speaker—I am not used to being on my feet. I do not get many opportunities to speak, because my party has such a large majority.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. If the hon. Lady makes regular applications to speak, she may find that she is more successful.

§ Anne Picking
Point taken, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
874 How can the hon. Gentleman represent the minority parties when they are not of the same ilk politically?

§ Pete Wishart
Perhaps the hon. Lady should make better use of her few opportunities to address this House than by asking such an innocuous question. As I tried to explain, our coming together is a business arrangement. We do not hide the fact that we take different political positions on certain issues. Such an arrangement allows us to progress the case of minority parties in this House.
Things have improved for the minority parties under the tutelage of the Government Whips, who look after our interests. We now have access to the usual channels, and we get quicker and improved access to the business of the House. We have managed to secure most of the places that we seek in Standing Committees and other such Committees. The Government have been generous—they have given us an allotted time to debate matters in the House, and for that we are grateful.
I seek this place on the Committee of Selection—I am ensuring that I say that several times—because in some respects things have got worse for the minority parties. Joint Committees of both Houses, which are increasingly used, are 24-strong. Even according to the crude arithmetic of this House, the minority parties should have a place on them. They look after crucial national issues such as Lords reform and communication, which is fundamental and essential to Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. We are overlooked in their membership, and the House should address that.
The hon. Member for Blaydon was generous enough to refer to the Liaison Committee, which has 32 members. Again according to the crude arithmetic of this House, we should have a place—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman used the word "generous", and I was extremely generous in allowing the Chairman of the Committee of Selection to deploy his arguments. However, we have gone rather wide of the amendment to which the hon. Gentleman is speaking.

§ Pete Wishart
I am grateful for that correction, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I mention the Liaison Committee because I do not want to be just a member of the Committee of Selection but to be its Chairman so that I can qualify for the Liaison Committee. That is a reasonable demand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because as you and hon. Members know, to be a member of the Liaison Committee one has to be a Chairman of a Select Committee. If that is the only mechanism to get a member of a minority party on to the Liaison Committee, make me the Chairman of the Committee of Selection. I am sure that the hon. Member for Blaydon would have no particular objection to that.
I believe that the Government understand and appreciate the plight of minority parties in this House, and we have heard some sympathetic noises from them. I meet representatives of the Government Whips Office weekly, and those meetings are useful and constructive. Government Whips do not deserve their fearsome reputation—they are a convivial bunch of chaps who are easy to do business with. The Leader of the House appreciates the plight of the minority parties. To judge 875 from his correspondence with me, and his responses to points raised in the House, he seems sympathetic to our cause. He says that he is looking for solutions, and I take that at face value. Nor do I want to exclude the Conservatives, who have been more than helpful in their new arrangement. I seek to be on the Committee of Selection so that I can build on such relationships with Front-Bench Members. It has also been useful to be told how we could perhaps create merry havoc in the House by continuing with this campaign.
I wish that I could extend this expression of good will to the Liberal Democrats, but, alas, that would be taking the spirit of generosity a bit too far. There is no truer saying than that you never know where you are with the Liberal Democrats—the pick-and-mix people of politics. They are responsible for looking after the minority parties, yet they took away the only non-territorial departmental Select Committee that SNP-Plaid Cymru had. Their stewardship of minority parties has been about as useful as a chocolate frying pan. I wish that the expressions of good will that we have detected from Government Front Benchers, the Leader of the House's office and Conservative Members could be translated into Select Committee places. We welcome the support, but we would rather have the places.

§ Mr. Bill Tynan (Hamilton, South)
Has the hon. Gentleman approached the Modernisation Committee on this matter, or has he simply taken this opportunity to further his career?

§ Pete Wishart
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his concern about my career. I am touched, but he makes a good point about the Modernisation Committee, which has two Liberal Democrat members. Why does it not have one Liberal, and one member from a minority party?
We are getting there, step by step. The House must recognise that it has obligations and should appear to be as representative as possible. That is why I am seeking this place on the Committee of Selection.

§ Jim Sheridan
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the House accepts his amendment, the incentive for minority parties to become majority parties will be removed?

§ Pete Wishart
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's concern about the possibility that my party could become a majority party in this House. I assure him that it has no ambition in that direction. The House will have to ensure at some point that minority parties with substantial constituencies are properly represented. Minorities should be over-represented, not overlooked.
I realise that the amendment is unlikely to be accepted, and I accept the arithmetic that shows that the minority parties in the House have only 23 Members. However, the SNP is the second party in Scotland, and the official Opposition there. The same is true of Plaid Cymru in Wales, and the hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) belongs to a party that, when Stormont sits, effectively forms the Government of Northern Ireland. I hope that that Assembly will sit again before too long.
876 Collectively, the minority parties represent 1.5 million people in the UK. For some time, I have wondered why it is not possible for me to be on the Committee of Selection. If I catch Mr. Speaker's eye, I can take part in the business of the House, participate in debates, ask questions and serve on Standing Committees. Why, then, are the minority parties under-represented on Select Committees when their members can play a full part in the House otherwise? We are told that we are too few in number, but why are we unable to gain access only to the departmental Select Committees?
I hope that this campaign will allow the House to understand more fully the position of the minority parties. The House depends on the good will of all parties to function. We believe that, if that good will is not shown to us, we have every right to withdraw our good will in return. Our campaign is to increase our influence in the House, but we are not asking for all that much. It is not unreasonable for each minority party to be given one place on a non-departmental Select Committee beyond their territory.

§ Anne Picking
Will the hon. Gentleman explain what he means when he says that his party will withdraw good will?

§ Pete Wishart
We do not want to come to the House time and again to put forward our case for increased representation here. I hope that the House is beginning to understand that we want to play a constructive part in the House's workings and institutions.

§ Mr. John Burnett (Torridge and West Devon)
We all hope that members of one of the minority parties will grace the House with their presence at the debate on next year's Finance Bill.

§ Pete Wishart
In that case, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support us if we put in a bid to serve on the Finance Bill Committee. All too often we put in bids to serve on Standing Committees, only to be knocked back. We put in bids to be involved in Select Committees and are knocked back.

§ Mr. Salmond
I recall an amendment to the Treasury Committee's membership when I was nominated to replace, admittedly, a Liberal Democrat Member. The hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) voted against me, presumably because he did not want me to scrutinise items such as the Budget and the Finance Bill.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. That was an interesting piece of parliamentary history, but has little to do with the amendment.

§ Pete Wishart
Even so, it is a point well made.
I shall conclude, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I think that I have tested your patience in trying to stay in order. What we are asking for is not unreasonable—we are asking for one place in a non-territorial departmental Select Committee. Give us a place on the Liaison Committee for goodness' sake—it is 32-strong. Surely a 877 place could be found for a member of the minority parties. I do not think that we are asking for much. I ask the House to give us our place.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind the House that I have been generous so far in my interpretation of the motion and the amendment. In the time remaining, however, I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members to stay strictly in order in debating the amendment.

§ Mr. Roy Beggs (East Antrim)
I will adhere strictly to your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let me say first that I have the highest admiration and respect for the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), and I congratulate the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) on the way in which he put his case.
I wish to register support for the principle that a place should be found on the Committee of Selection and other Committees so that the voice of a representative of the small minority parties can be heard. The small minority parties have met and are agreed that when given an opportunity to serve, we can, by agreement, put forward a representative. For that reason, I support the hon. Member for North Tayside and agree that he should be appointed to the Committee of Selection. At this time, he is the agreed representative of small minority parties in the House. On the basis of seeking greater inclusivity of Committee membership and in order to give Committee experience to small parties through agreed rotation of their representative, I hope that the House will seek to provide the opportunity to serve on the Committee of Selection and other Committees to the agreed representative of the small minority parties, at the earliest possible opportunity, if not tonight.
The hon. Member for North Tayside has played keyboard with Runrig; he has made music to the delight of many audiences for 15 years and is, I think, the only Member of the House to have appeared on "Top of the Pops". His inclusion on the Committee of Selection or any other Committee would no doubt bring harmony to this House. I believe that it would also increase the sense of worth and equal value of every Member and party represented in the House. I support the amendment.

§ Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)
Although the debate seems on the face of it to be about the specific issue of the replacement of one of my hon. Friends with another Member in the routine way that the Chairman of the Committee of Selection has described, it subsumes some bigger issues that have been touched on and to which I hope I will be allowed to refer, however briefly, because they are very important to the House. For that reason, I am very grateful to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) for allowing us to touch on these issues this evening. I hope that the Government will take this seriously and allow us collectively to consider the issues again. They are, no more and no less, the role of the minority parties at large in the House and its Committees and institutions. When I talk of minority parties, I refer not only to the Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru, the Ulster Unionists, the 878 Democratic Unionist party and the Social Democratic and Labour party but also to the Liberal Democrats, who are a minority party in the House.
If we consider the total minority party membership, it is about 80 Members in 659—or about 650 if we exclude you and your colleagues, Mr. Deputy Speaker—so there could be a case for saying that the minority parties generally should have proportionate representation on all Committees, including the Committee of Selection.

§ Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove)
Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that earlier this year the House voted on the Modernisation Committee proposals, which included reform of the operation of the Committee of Selection? Had that been accepted by the House, there would indeed have been a minority representative on the Committee and the problem would have been overcome. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he voted against that reform and for the entrenchment of the arrangements that he is criticising?

§ Mr. Forth
I am more than proud to vote against most of the rubbish that emanates from the Modernisation Committee, and hope to continue to do so.
The issue is wider than the Committee of Selection. My argument is a much more general and, if I may say so, generous one: we should treat the minority parties collectively, as I have described them, in an even-handed way. We could thus properly extend the hand of generosity and recognition to all the minority parties, not least on the Committee of Selection, as is being suggested.
This is a microcosm of the much wider debate that should take place, not, I hope, in the Modernisation Committee but in a much more sensible forum where we could achieve some generosity and common sense. I was interested that tribute was rightly paid to the current custodianship of the Government Whips Office—represented in this debate in such a distinguished way by the Government Deputy Chief Whip—for an abler and much fairer representation of the minority parties than the Liberal Democrats managed. I pay tribute to the Government for that.
The issue goes from the particular to the general. The particular issue is important, but I hope that Members of the minority parties will not press it to a vote, although they have correctly used it as a vehicle for this debate, which I welcome because it is important.

§ Pete Wishart
We do not want to divide the House this evening. We have made our case as we intended.

§ Mr. Forth
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his decency and generosity in saying that. As I said, he has properly used the matter as an opportunity for a debate, but he has generously said that he will not press it to a vote. He realises, as the Chairman of the Committee of Selection pointed out, that such changes of membership are routine. They occur from time to time in order to recognise the changes that take place in the ranks of the Government and the official Opposition, so from that point of view they are uncontroversial.
I hope, however, that following this debate, which has been conducted in a good-natured and constructive way, we shall have further opportunities to examine in a 879 broader sense the representation of the minority parties throughout the Committee structure, so that we can properly recognise the role played by all the minority parties, including of course the Liberal Democrats.

§ Andrew Bennett (Denton and Reddish)
Should we not also look at their attendance? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the minority parties took the Liberal place on the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, as the Liberal Member did not turn up for 12 months. Minority party attendance at that Committee is not especially good.

§ Mr. Forth
I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not think that it would be productive or proper to get into that point at this stage, although it may become a consideration in the future. If, for example, we were able to guarantee the minority parties collectively a place on each Committee, which is really what the hon. Member for North Tayside was asking for, we might find that they would respond by taking their attendance a bit more seriously. If the Liberal Democrats' representation were reduced, that might concentrate their minds a bit, which would help to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett).
We now have an opportunity to reconsider the role that all the minority parties play in the House and in Committees, and there is a case to be made for saying that if we took the minority parties together, and allocated the total of their 80 Members to Committees according to proportionality, we could come to a fair and proper conclusion. The debate has allowed us to look ahead. We have seen the generosity of spirit displayed by the hon. Member for North Tayside in saying that he has brought the matter to the attention of the House but he does not propose to divide the House, and I am grateful to him for that.
In closing, I express my gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) for, in his usual way, so ably helping and representing the official Opposition during this period of hiatus, which I hope will shortly come to an end as we conclude this debate. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to the suggestions made by minority party representatives and myself so that we can look forward to a more even-handed and fair distribution of representation than we have seen hitherto.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Ben Bradshaw)
I echo the comments made by the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), about this being a constructive, positive debate, and I hope that he will find my responses characteristically positive.
The motion before the House is routine and straightforward. It has been outlined by the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam). The change being sought comes as a consequence of the recent shadow Cabinet reshuffle in which the hon. Member for 880 South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) was made a shadow Agriculture Minister and the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) took his place as the Conservative pairing Whip. As has already been explained, for many years the official Opposition's pairing Whip has had a seat on the Committee of Selection. His role is to propose the names of official Opposition Members to serve on Standing and Select Committees. The membership change that we are debating is essential for the Committee to carry out its work as delegated to it by the House.
The Committee of Selection was established under private business Standing Order No. 109. It has, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon has already explained, nine members, of which six currently are Labour, two Conservative and one Liberal Democrat. That breakdown is proportionate to the political composition of the House. It has been pointed out that until recently the smaller parties were represented on the Committee by the Liberal Democrats, but that arrangement broke down last year.

§ Mr. Forth
Why?

§ Mr. Bradshaw
It is not for me to go into any grief between two minority parties, but the smaller parties are now represented by the Government. As we have heard, that arrangement seems to have worked satisfactorily, and I believe that the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) said from a sedentary position that it is much better.
The hon. Member for North Tayside, however, was slightly unfair about the Liberal Democrats' relationship with the rest of the minority parties. Far be it from me to come to the defence of the Liberal Democrats, but I understand that there are six examples of seats on Standing Committees being given up by the Liberal Democrats to the smaller minority parties. There also seems to be confusion about what constitutes a minority party, or at least a failure to be strict enough in our terminology.

§ Mr. Forth
No, no.

§ Mr. Bradshaw
The right hon. Gentleman may disagree, but in this debate the term "minority party" has been used by some to include the Liberal Democrats and by others to exclude them.

§ Mr. Salmond
I am interested in what the Minister means by "giving up" places. It has been said that if the minority parties, whose Members add up to almost half the number of Liberal Democrat Members, had half their number of Committee places, we would be more than satisfied. However, we have only a fraction of that at the moment. Does what the Minister said about giving up places mean that other Members in the House are given a place on a Committee only because someone has given it up? Is not there an entitlement?

§ Mr. Bradshaw
I am simply seeking to point out to the House that on six occasions, at the request of minority parties—largely, I have to say, at the request of the Scottish National party-the Liberal Democrats have given up places on Standing Committees.
881 Blocking this change in membership—the effect of the amendment—is helpful to no one, although I appreciate that Opposition Members have concerns about smaller party representation. Indeed, that concern is shared, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. He shares their desire to ensure that the matter is treated with fairness.
I appreciate the fact that the hon. Member for North Tayside was generous enough to acknowledge that matters had improved not only under this Government but under my right hon. Friend's stewardship. I was slightly sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman express veiled threats about what might happen in relation to co-operating with the business of the House if things did not improve even more quickly. I am sorry about that and hope that he will not feel the need to follow through with any of those threats.
I wish to quote from a letter that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House wrote in response to a letter that he received from the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) and for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) on 14 November. [Interruption.] I am sorry about my pronunciation; my Welsh is not great. My right hon. Friend said: When the House voted against an overall increase in the size of select committees last May"— as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell)— it turned down the opportunity to offer up to fifty additional colleagues places on select committees. I hope that the Committee of Selection will bear the needs of the minority parties in mind when considering members for new, or expanded, committees. I hope that the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon, has heard me repeat those words in the Chamber this evening.

§ Mr. McWilliam
May I reassure my hon. Friend that I was present to hear those words the first time, and they are always in my mind?

§ Mr. Bradshaw
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
I would have gone on to quote from the response by the Leader of the House to the queries from the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru on their grievances about representation on the Liaison Committee. However, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you ruled out of order the points that were made on that matter earlier in the debate, I would imagine that you would not be too pleased if I did so now.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
indicated assent.

§ Mr. Bradshaw
Very well, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In an earlier letter to the hon. Member for North Tayside back, I think, in September, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that he could only address his concerns when opportunities arose in the natural flow of business. That is our desire and intention. He went on to say that he hoped that the minority parties had found the Government helpful in Standing Committees, where we have helped to engineer extra places for the smaller parties. Of course an extra 882 Opposition day has been created for the smaller parties as well. My right hon. Friend concluded by saying that he remained alive to the hon. Gentleman's concerns.

§ Mr. Forth
The hon. Gentleman is trying to be positive and helpful, but I am a bit worried about the phrase "the natural flow of business". It strikes me that it implies that, whereas the Government will try to manoeuvre something here or there and perhaps make a little concession, they will make no positive effort seriously to consider the issue to find a more permanent solution. I hope that he is saying that he will go beyond the natural flow of business and try to do something proactive.

§ Mr. Bradshaw
With all respect, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove has said, the Government had a good go at this—at least my right hon. Friend did—back in May, and we failed, not least because some Members, such as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), voted against the proposals. However, we intend to take the issue seriously. During the flow of business, positions arise on Committees and new Select Committees even come into existence, so there will be plenty of opportunities not for me—it is not my role—but for the Chairman of the Committee of Selection to take such things into consideration.

§ Mr. Stunell
Do I take it that the implication of the Minister's last remarks is that the Government intend to bring those proposals back to the House? That would be very much welcomed by me, and, I would have thought, by Members from the minority nationalist parties and Northern Ireland.

§ Mr. Bradshaw
I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but it is not realistic to imagine that the Government would bring those proposals back so soon after they were defeated in such a way. I am sure that that is a great disappointment, not just to him but to many other Members who voted for those sensible proposals.
More recently, on 17 October, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for North Tayside, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House repeated again that he was very much aware of the grievance of the minority parties on the question of appointments to Committees. He pointed out that there had been a lot of correspondence on the matter on several occasions, and that he would continue to look into a solution, adding: There will be plenty of procedural opportunities for him to make his point."—[Official Report, 17 October 2002; Vol. 390, c. 475.] That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman is doing this evening, as he made clear in his speech—it was not primarily about his unrealistic aim to get a place on the Committee of Selection, let alone the chairmanship of it, but to make the point that the minority or smaller parties were under-represented generally on Committees.
If I may, I would like to disabuse the House of the idea that the smaller parties are suffering some terrible injustice. If one looks at the figures, one sees that the breakdown in relation to Members from small parties on 883 public business Standing Order Committees, plus modernisation and House of Lords reform Committees, is as follows: Liberal Democrats, 33, official Unionists, five, Plaid Cymru, three, Scottish national party, two, Social Democratic and Labour party, one, Democratic Unionist party, one, and Independent, one. That is a total of 46. If that number were broken down with strict proportionality, the total would be 45. The number of Liberal Democrats would be 31, so one could argue that the Liberal Democrats are currently over-represented by two. There would be three official Unionists, so they are also currently over-represented by two. The Democratic Unionist party would have three members, so it is currently under-represented by two. The Scottish national party would have three, so, under strict proportionality, it is under-represented by one. Plaid Cymru would have two, so it is over-represented by one. The Social Democratic and Labour party would have two, so it is under-represented by one, and Independents would have one, which is supposed to be strictly proportional, although there is only one Independent Member, so, strictly speaking, the Independents would be eligible for only half a place.

§ Mr. Salmond
The Minister should understand that those figures take into account the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, on which, clearly, all the Northern Irish parties must be represented. He should not therefore use that argument to distort figures elsewhere. Is he also aware that those figures include the Catering Committee, which was not our first choice in terms of Committee places?

§ Mr. Bradshaw
I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has that view of the Catering Committee—

§ Andrew Bennett
That illustrates that not all the Committees are exciting to sit on. Can the Minister give us not only the numbers on each of the Committees, but figures on the attendance on each of them?

§ Mr. Bradshaw
I am afraid that I do not have the numbers on each of the Committees to hand. If my hon.
884 Friend will allow me, I am happy to write to him with a breakdown of all the figures. I shall try my best to obtain figures for attendance, too, which I am sure many Members would find extremely interesting. He is absolutely right to suggest that if parties want positions on important or sexy Committees, they should also be willing to do the work on the duller, less glamorous Committees, many of which are just as important to the workings of the House and in terms of the scrutiny that they provide for Government.
Before the intervention from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, I was trying to make the point that, under strict proportionality, the smaller parties are not hard done by. If anything, they are slightly over-represented on the breadth of Committees that sit in the House. That does not mean to say, as I made clear, that the Government are not sensitive to the points that have been made repeatedly this evening, which I am sure have been heard by my hon. Friend who chairs the Committee of Selection.
Having said that, I hope that the hon. Member for North Tayside will not press his amendment to a vote, which he has indicated that he does not intend to do. I commend the motion to the House. If the amendment is pressed to a vote, I hope that the House will reject it.

§ Pete Wishart
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.